Is all magic bad?

[Redzeppelin]

I haven't claimed that theories are synonymous with facts - I said, quite clearly, that theories are based upon what is known - i.e. facts. The theory of evolution is a great example - it fits the known facts.

I didn't say you "claimed" anything - I was just clarifiying that theories do not possess the same "solidity" as facts; either way, just because theories are "based upon what is known" doesn't make them legitimate - hence the term "theory." I could just as easily argue all manner of absurd conclusions from "what is known." The theory that the earth is flat is based upon observation - what was, at that time, "known."

Evolution only "fits the facts" in so much that it's the only plausible way to explain reality outside of God - but even then, it (and I speak here specifically of abiogenesis) requires a leap of faith equal to any that I as a Christian am asked to make.

Please don't be making things up.

I always do my best to avoid being fictional when I'm posting here. I'll assume you're doing the same.

No, sorry. We've tried to discuss points like this before and I'm quite sure you actually have no idea how science actually works, so I'll state this once only:

Science is about observation - no prior opinion or position is necessary. Science has no need to consider the spiritual component (should such a thing exist) as it is not something which is physically demonstable. Science can only consider that which is.

Your condescension about my knowledge of science is tiring and irrelevant. What I am very clear on is the reasoning chain, and how we move from evidence to inference and from there to conclusion. Not all facts "speak for themselves" - plenty of evidence can only "speak" through being interpreted - and interpretation involves the application of a tool that is not always objective. The atheist and the creationist can look at the exact same "evidence" and arrive at two different conclusions based upon their world view. If you don't understand that, then there are some areas of basic critical thinking that you don't understand.

Your dismissal of my point doesn't make it go away; it just makes clear that you don't want to deal with it. Only children can approach something with a relative "blank slate" - but even that is highly influenced by a number of factors. Nobody grows up in an intellectual/philosophical vacuum: all are exposed to different ways of viewing the world. Atheists take the position that - having dismissed the possibility of a spiritual component to reality - that their view is "objective." It's not - it's based on a rejection of one possibility (one they view as highly improbable). What's so objective about that?

As far as individuals go, that is usually the case, however I repeat that it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Science does not ask what is believable, it asks what is.

It asks "what is" but must often resort to some sort of interpretive tool in order to answer that question. Intelligent design scientists are no less "scientific" or educated than their atheist peers - they simply choose a different foundation from which to view the evidence.

[Jozanny]

I am not sure that all ritual is bad, or wrong. Humans seem to need rituals as a kind of process. They can make us feel better, or they can prey on our susceptibility of outside agencies or forces at work. I think of funerals. The living seem to need them, to offer ourselves a process, a journey, in relation to death being a part of life.

I, like Atheist, am a non-believer, but that does not mean I am an absolute materialist. I do not think everything about matter, particles, waves, strings, and forces like gravity can be explained, simply because the human brain is not designed for such an absolute understanding.

One theory about the universe, in plain English, as I understand it, is that it dies out and renews itself about every 150 trillion years--as a scientific explanation, it is nearly as stupifying as anything religious worldviews offer.

My point: There are limits, and probably always will be, whether or not, or how we play out as a species. So if I indulge in modern totems, or other such behavior, if it makes me feel better, or I get lucky--this in itself isn't so bad, as long as it does not morph into doctrine, dogma, or something otherwise vicious--like zombie creation, for instance.

[The Atheist]

Atheists take the position that - having dismissed the possibility of a spiritual component to reality - that their view is "objective." It's not - it's based on a rejection of one possibility (one they view as highly improbable). What's so objective about that?

I'm only answering this one piece as it encapsulates all the reasons why I won't be answering you again.

Your statement is wrong in every respect. In formal debating terms, what you have done is created a strawman - by using a description of atheists which suits your agenda but which has no basis in reality. Atheism doesn't work like that and I suspect you actually know that as the subject has been discussed many times.

Normal transmission may now be resumed...

One theory about the universe, in plain English, as I understand it, is that it dies out and renews itself about every 150 trillion years--as a scientific explanation, it is nearly as stupifying as anything religious worldviews offer.

I don't know whether that hypothesis is right, but science is often more stupefying than fiction.

Never mind the magic behind the fact that the universe exists, take life itself: that trillions of mindless atoms forming molecules and replicating themselves creates thinking, sentient beings. That's as much magic as I need to see in the process.

Douglas Adams said it well: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

Theories grow of what is experimentally proven, not of what is "known". And as such, they form the best explanatory model at the present point. As such, they are merely elaborated forms of "opinions" on why something acts the way it acts, as there are no final facts in science.
Citing my father (PhD Chemistry).

That's merely a semantic argument. Certainly, the possibility exists that the laws of physics will change tomorrow, but until that happens, I'm comfortable not spending time considering it and stick with "known".

I have not claimed that logic openly points to that, please do not eisegese my posts. "Logical possibility" differs from "logical necessity", remember formal logical from high school?

I certainly don't remember it from high school! In pure logic, sure, that possibility must exist, but when the equivalent is not looking for a needle in a haystack, but a single photon inside an entire galaxy, I tend to ignore it.

Not one exists, or not one you did or you encountered?

As advised in PM - none that exist or have existed to date and that if a study genuinely shows a non-pyhsical phenomenon that does exist, I'm confident that I will know about it very early on.

http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html
Maaagic

Great link!

Again, that's a perfect example of what I was saying to Jozanny about religion having no mortgage on weirdness. So much in quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive the mind really does boggle.

Roll on that CERN collider. Unless, of course, it makes the universe blow up - although it'd be a pity that nobody was around to get the irony if it did.

[aabbcc]

That's merely a semantic argument.

Figured.
All summed up, it seems that we basically agree, only use different terminology.

[wilbur lim]

Magic is a imaginative thing.I do not concur that it exists.Well,probably the Bible cites that,so it maybe 50% genuine.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm only answering this one piece as it encapsulates all the reasons why I won't be answering you again.

How gracious. Shall I consider this withdrawal a strategic retreat?

Your statement is wrong in every respect. In formal debating terms, what you have done is created a strawman - by using a description of atheists which suits your agenda but which has no basis in reality. Atheism doesn't work like that and I suspect you actually know that as the subject has been discussed many times.

I know what a strawman is, thanks. Atheists, pagans, and Christians alike use them on occasion. I'd appreciate it if you'd condescend to explain to me how atheism is different than I've presented. All philosophical positions require a foundation - and the possibility of God and a spiritual world are options for explaining reality that the atheist chooses to not incorporate into his world-view. Just because science cannot explain the spiritual aspect of reality does not mean it doesn't exist - it means that science is unable to measure/comprehend it. If you've got something more compelling than that, let's hear it (rather than your running away from debate yet again).

[The Atheist]

How gracious. Shall I consider this withdrawal a strategic retreat?

No, you should consider it the experience of half a century of discussion and debate enabling me to differentiate between people who have a mind which is able to recognise and take in new information and those with inflexible doctrine installed.

Just because science cannot explain the spiritual aspect of reality does not mean it doesn't exist - it means that science is unable to measure/comprehend it.

Classic! You immediately do the same thing again - thanks for that. Another strawman. Nobody has made the claim you're setting fire to - as usual.

If you've got something more compelling than that, let's hear it (rather than your running away from debate yet again).

No, Redzeppelin. I am not "running away" as you so succinctly choose to put it. I have never run away from anything in my life and I'm not about to start now.

I have children your age and have long since learned when it's time to let people alone with their misconceptions. That's all. Please enjoy your debate with yourself. Seems to me that that's what you're after, so I'll leave you to it.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Such posts will be deleted without further notice.

[Redzeppelin]

No, you should consider it the experience of half a century of discussion and debate enabling me to differentiate between people who have a mind which is able to recognise and take in new information and those with inflexible doctrine installed.



Classic! You immediately do the same thing again - thanks for that. Another strawman. Nobody has made the claim you're setting fire to - as usual.



No, Redzeppelin. I am not "running away" as you so succinctly choose to put it. I have never run away from anything in my life and I'm not about to start now.

I have children your age and have long since learned when it's time to let people alone with their misconceptions. That's all. Please enjoy your debate with yourself. Seems to me that that's what you're after, so I'll leave you to it.

Fine. I'll let it go. You strike me as an extremely knowledgeable person who has thought long and hard about your system of belief. I am interested in discussing the differences in what we believe, but have generally found that rather than answer my arguments, you simply dismiss them and respond to me as if I am fully ignorant. I will assume that trying to pursue a discussion with you will be fruitless - which is too bad. Honestly, I don't think you've given me a fair chance, but rather simply dismissed me as some brain-washed zombie (an incorrect simplification of my position and a charge that is equally applicable to atheists who dogmatically reject Christian arguments because they're "Christian" rather than explain what's wrong with them).

But you've made it clear that seeking a discussion with you is pointless, and I shall honor that.

Thanks anyway...

[Judas130]

Unfortunately, that's not quite how the world works and you are simply describing self-delusion.

the idea was, originally, that what you see in the placebo effect can be translated to magic. (An example of the placebo effect was when scientists tricked runners into thinking that they were drinking oxygenated water thus making them perform better. In reality, the runners were drinking regular tap water. When they ran they even performed better because they thought what they were drinking would enhance their performance. <--taken from wikipedia)

If someone thinks they're getting better on a placebo, and actually do, as they believe they will, then it shows that the mind can be a powerful tool in harming or helping the body. If you apply this to magic, like I said, if the doubt nestles in, you may, but not definitely, start making mistakes subconsciously.

Im pondering here, not stating fact. it sometimes happens, and because it doesn't always work, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be a discarded thought. As JBI said, It is really, whether or not such beliefs are really harmful to a) society, and b) the individual. Now, if you dont believe in magic, then when you hear that someone has cursed you or something similar, you wouldn't think on it and probably mock it as you might picture some poor soul sitting in their home 'wasting' their time on nothing. Though, to them, its meaningful, and is not a waste of their time. Much like praying is to so many people, its a real thing to them as they put their hopes and dreams and trust in these prayers. However, prayers are usually for good...they are no harm to society. Yet magic is not always for good. But if magic does not exist then it is not a problem because it cant therefore hurt anybody. Meaning, these practitioners of magic needed be worried about. Yet, if magic has a placebo effect on the victim (usually after being told of the curse) then can this spell harm?

Yet i still feel there is a lot that is yet not understood about the forces that bond us to nature.

[The Atheist]

Yet, if magic has a placebo effect on the victim (usually after being told of the curse) then can this spell harm?

Yes, it could. It would be interesting to see if the effects are the same as bullying. There are plenty of examples of kids killing themselves due to cyber-bullying. Anytime someone wishes another person harm, some damage is done.

[Jozanny]

Can we try to have a tighter definition of what we mean by *magic*? I do not think, even in resurgent African animism, that these spiritual leaders would call their rituals magic. Their rituals certainly may desire to evoke supernatural effect, but I am uncomfortable with the term in the sense of *trick*. I recently saw a Supernatural Science episode which examined the Haitian belief in the creation of zombies--and while a medical doctor was able to show that person A was not the son of mother B who had lost her child, belief in the voodoo ability to create the undead seems to have a significant cultural function on the island which deserves respect, in my view, for the social need it answers on this poverty stricken island.

I think we need a better definition of what we mean.

[The Atheist]

Can we try to have a tighter definition of what we mean by *magic*?

I'd just class it as anything without a material explanation.




.

[Jozanny]

I'd just class it as anything without a material explanation.

Well, my discomfort is misplaced according to AH4--which I guess I should say is American Heritage 4th edition--remarkable how I tend to forget this board is nearly international:

NOUN: 1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural. 2a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature. b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.

I am not sure how to frame my discontent--it isn't so much about belief--but to what degree disparagement contends with cultural empathy, if you follow me here.

Christians seem to think they have the moral perogative on the stairway to heaven, and I think they need to go one better on issuing apologies and debating reparations for the ethnic minorities whom they repressed, killed, and forced into conversion--which brings us back to the hypocrisy issue.

I sense, when LitNet theists want to challenge the atheists here who are willing to debate them back, the whole thing becomes about benevolence and a *loving* deity, whom they rush to exempt from the human cruelty practiced in its name.

Now, I might cut them some slack on Christianity and late Rome, because there we have an empire on its last legs--but I am less charitable about the price of colonialism and the use of *ministry* to justify it and salve the European conscience.

[Judas130]

Yes, it could. It would be interesting to see if the effects are the same as bullying. There are plenty of examples of kids killing themselves due to cyber-bullying. Anytime someone wishes another person harm, some damage is done.

That's an interesting idea! For the purpose of this thread though, i'd like to see that idea carried out somehow, and then we can answer this thread. Though the outcome can never be 100% anyway, it can happen, yet not always. Not all people are phased by bullying fr example. So i'd say it might be safe to suggest magic as bad if it effects a person in the ways we suggested.