Is all magic bad?

[Vittoria666]

everything that i refer to says magic is bad and that all magic is directed to satan... as a candel magic practitioner, i have never cast a candel to hurt people or to make one desire me as it is my personal rule and the rules of this magic for say that one may believe in whatever god they like but candel magic is for one's own benefits.

what do ya'll thik

[patrickbeverley]

The Bible says yes, it is all bad: "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead." (Deuteronomy 18:10-11)

But I'm not a believer in the Bible or in candle magic, so I say, "Do what you like".

Just don't pray to Eris (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/19.php).

[El Viejo]

everything that i refer to says magic is bad and that all magic is directed to satan... as a candel magic practitioner, i have never cast a candel to hurt people or to make one desire me as it is my personal rule and the rules of this magic for say that one may believe in whatever god they like but candel magic is for one's own benefits.

what do ya'll thik

I think there's as much varied opinion on this as on anything else that can't be measured. There are prominent Christians who regularly consult astrologers, and others who read cards, cast candles, and throw salt over their shoulders. I see little difference between prayer, chanting, and other forms of incantation. The mechanics might differ, but it's still an appeal to the invisible to make things go our way. We all have our magic feather clutched safely in our trunk.

But to split one or two hairs, the Bible is pretty clear that we should seek our answers and results from God, and not anything or anyone else. He is jealous, after all. Moses gave The Law and Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer, and those, strictly speaking, are the boundaries. Within is safety, without is peril and perhaps hell.

If you believe in such things.

[Charles Darnay]

Diverging from the "because the Bible says so" answer and focusing on what is good or bad - magic is not all bad. It is corruptive, like anything else in the world, but it has the power to do good. In my opinion, the same theories that you can apply to magic - candel magic, alchemy, anything dealing with the occult - you can apply to science. Chemicals are used to heal people: which (more so a few centuries ago) some Bible enthusiasts frowned upon for it was not the way of God. And yet, science has also been used to destroy people.

So in short....no

[Redzeppelin]

"Magic" is a vague term - what are we talking about here? Card tricks? Illusions? Or actual power - which we might term "witchcraft" or "sorcery"?

The first two are harmless - the last two are the ones the Bible prohibits. This type of "magic" - the pursuit of actual power that is beyond natural ability - is prohibited by the Bible because it is essentially the attempt to do what only God may do - create, destroy, bend the laws of physics or time. Entertaining kids at a party is one thing - attempting to harness power that is only God's prerogative is completely another.

Like many things, there is a continuum within magic - starting with the harmless illusions and ending with full-blown Satanic power. Where that line is may be a subject of debate, but it is there.

[El Viejo]

Like many things, there is a continuum within magic - starting with the harmless illusions and ending with full-blown Satanic power. Where that line is may be a subject of debate, but it is there.

Speaking of debating the position of lines, remember the story of the priest, the non-denominational minister, and the Rabbi debating the position of the line at which life begins?

The priest says 'we believe life begins at conception.'
The minister says 'we believe life begins with a baby's first breath.'
The Rabbi says 'we believe life begins when the kids move away and the dog dies.'

It could be argued that the line is right before the harmless illusions. All things are lawful, but not all are expedient, and Christians are instructed to avoid even the appearance of evil, to avoid being a stumbling block to the weak. Magic of the parlor trick variety or the 'full-blown Satanic' variety as practiced by Mike Warnke (or the kind he claimed to have practiced, the big fake) are sometimes indistinguishable to babes in the faith.

But if you chuck belief in the supernatural on all counts, magic is just entertainment and exhortations about it one way or the other are a distraction. Real 'satanic' power is not stuff from Harry, Carrie, or the Exorcist. It's what occurs whenever a soldier, police officer, civic leader, boss, parent, spouse, teacher, minister, or someone who is merely physically stronger abuses those over whom they have power. And as soon as we are aware of such abuse we instantly become allied with the problem or the solution, depending on what we do next.

[Equality72521]

This question definately depends upon who you ask, becasue there are hard core bible huggers who will shun you and what not but then most don't care.

There is bad magick that could only be cast by a person, but generally they're foolish and they're the, like, 5 in a million that give a bad name to practicing magick.

My personal beliefe, as a former practicioner of magick myself, as long as you practice innocent magick that is benefical, in a positive way, to yourself and others around you, then it's perfectly okay. But it comes down to how you feel and what you feel is right, not what others think is right. Remember that.

[Redzeppelin]

This question definately depends upon who you ask, becasue there are hard core bible huggers who will shun you and what not but then most don't care.

"Bible huggers" - is that supposed to be some term of respect to those of us who believe in God? Is that supposed to predispose me (a "Bible hugger") to consider your argument? Or is it more likely to make me hostile because you're being disrespectful and dismissive?


My personal beliefe, as a practicioner of magick myself, as long as you practice innocent magick that is benefical, in a positive way, to yourself and others around you, then it's perfectly okay. But it comes down to how you feel and what you feel is right, not what others think is right. Remember that.

The intention of the magic, and the source of its power are what makes it good or bad. Not "feelings" - feelings are not reality; they are things that are capricious, changeable, and subject to things beyond our control.

[Dark Muse]

Well as a Pagan I do not see any bad in magick and I do not much care what the bibile has to say about it.

Anything can be used for good or bad, but magic intself is not bad, but rather it is the intent behind the magic and the person using it.

Magick is just a tool like any other tool that can be used for my purposes.

Though I do not belive in allegeed "black magick" becasue the magick itself is nither good nor bad, it is all about the person using it. Magick is just energy and energy is neutral.

Being that I do not belive in Satan and the tradition I follow has been around longer then Christianity has, than of course I do not belive that magick comes from Satan, but rather I think it comes from all life. To me magick is just the drawing and manipulation of energy and energy can be found in the very air. Most magick involves drawing from Nature and the Earth.

[Judas130]

everything that i refer to says magic is bad and that all magic is directed to satan... as a candel magic practitioner, i have never cast a candel to hurt people or to make one desire me as it is my personal rule and the rules of this magic for say that one may believe in whatever god they like but candel magic is for one's own benefits.

what do ya'll thik

i read the first few words you had to say there and thats rubbish, magic does not, originally, have anything to do with Satan. Sounds like you heard some good ol' church propaganda. ;)

magic has its downsides, a lot of things about magic can be described as poking your head through a gateway blindfolded, knowing not what lies ahead. but 'all magic' does not direct to Satan. Even magic cast with the intent to harm.




Being that I do not belive in Satan and the tradition I follow has been around longer then Christianity has...

keep in mind, Satan is a lot older than Christianity also, he is a pagan deity too.

[blazeofglory]

Necromancy, magic, witchcraft, conjuration are some unscientific, unempirical notions of things. I do not subscribe to such things as they degrade, disgrace human beings to their fall.

In history or in some books of literalness we have read plenty of stories related to necromancy, for instance, we Dr. Faustus who was a good doctor and could do something to help human beings in a humanitarian way, but taking to a world of magic or conjuration he damaged himself and many others. He destroyed himself to an extent that he created a history of debaucheries or decadence of the human soul.

Man came across so many times such cases and there were temptations, too many temptations and man at times exceeding conquering them and at times got routed.

Therefore, dear friend do not try to repeat the history of necromancy and magic and we must collectively object them.

There are many tales of tortures, falls, degradation of human beings and now we do not want such black spots of history, the history of magic and necromancy in human life. Let us live without these things and create a world, a peaceful and beautiful world for posterity without airs of necromancy and magic.

[The Atheist]

Necromancy, magic, witchcraft, conjuration are some unscientific, unempirical notions of things. I do not subscribe to such things as they degrade, disgrace human beings to their fall.

No - they just don't exist and never have.

The only magic you'll ever see is that performed by stage magicians and is illusory.

[blazeofglory]

No - they just don't exist and never have.

The only magic you'll ever see is that performed by stage magicians and is illusory.

We do not know whether they really exist or not and we can draw conclusions just because science can not prove and there are many things science can not prove, and besides what we call sciences today can be deemed falsehoods tomorrow.

Do not turn to science and do not infer it, with opinionated notions.

Magic exists, and so does its evil effects, and you can understand it once you uncloak yourself, that means, once you remove the layers that debar you from knowing the truth of it things will be revealed to you.

[JBI]

The only possible magic is undiscovered science. Naturally if it becomes studied, this magic, its properties fall under the realm of science, as it is an attribute of the universe to be studied, just like everything else. Magic, therefore, is science, assuming it exists, though I have a hard time believing lighting candles does anything but create light/heat/melt wax.

[The Atheist]

We do not know whether they really exist or not and we can draw conclusions just because science can not prove and there are many things science can not prove, and besides what we call sciences today can be deemed falsehoods tomorrow.

No, you're being silly. We do know that magic doesn't exist as it has repeatedly failed scientific investigation over hundreds of years. And there is nothing science can't prove. It has trouble disproving the odd thing, but it's very good at providing proof. Given that no magic has ever been successfully done and no magic tricks remain unexplained, I'm quite happy to dismiss the magic, however.


Do not turn to science and do not infer it, with opinionated notions.

I really don't know where you get off with this type of remark, because there is no opinion in science, there is fact and fallacy. As to me turning to science, I always have and always will. Just because science conflicts with some pet notion of yours does not mean you can dismiss it. That isn't how the world works. People used to think it did several hundred years ago, but we've learned a few things since then.


Magic exists, and so does its evil effects, and you can understand it once you uncloak yourself, that means, once you remove the layers that debar you from knowing the truth of it things will be revealed to you.

Sorry, but this is just a plea for magic without any basis in fact or reality. It would be lovely if humans could fly [unassisted] too, but gravity and reality mean we can't, so while it's nice to keep the fantasy, that's all it will ever be - fantasy.

[Etienne]

Magic :lol: Sorry :lol:

[Judas130]

Necromancy, magic, witchcraft, conjuration are some unscientific, unempirical notions of things. I do not subscribe to such things as they degrade, disgrace human beings to their fall.

In history or in some books of literalness we have read plenty of stories related to necromancy, for instance, we Dr. Faustus who was a good doctor and could do something to help human beings in a humanitarian way, but taking to a world of magic or conjuration he damaged himself and many others. He destroyed himself to an extent that he created a history of debaucheries or decadence of the human soul.

Man came across so many times such cases and there were temptations, too many temptations and man at times exceeding conquering them and at times got routed.

Therefore, dear friend do not try to repeat the history of necromancy and magic and we must collectively object them.

There are many tales of tortures, falls, degradation of human beings and now we do not want such black spots of history, the history of magic and necromancy in human life. Let us live without these things and create a world, a peaceful and beautiful world for posterity without airs of necromancy and magic.

it doesnt change anything, but i wholeheartedly agree, though we must learn from our past, we can't forget or shun these black spots of our history because if we did, we wouldnt learn.

[SleepyWitch]

The only possible magic is undiscovered science. Naturally if it becomes studied, this magic, its properties fall under the realm of science, as it is an attribute of the universe to be studied, just like everything else. Magic, therefore, is science, assuming it exists, though I have a hard time believing lighting candles does anything but create light/heat/melt wax.

hahahhahahah :lol:
yep, being an atheist myself, I'm surprised that Christians even take magic seriously enough to condemn it.

[aabbcc]

there is no opinion in science, there is fact and fallacy.
I disagree with this way of wording it, since it might be misleading. Science does not function as a set of hard and indebatable facts; rather, it consists of theories, replacing one another as we advance, which together form the best model we currently have to explain the world. As such, science is inevitably consisted of "opinions" - the difference between science and other explanatory systems (e.g. religion) being that those "opinions" are put to test by scientific method in the empirical world, open to be debated and possibly disputed if somebody comes up with different theory, and are not 'derived' from any specific source (other than our logic) such as religious dogma.

However... If something is not scientifically explained, it does not exclude logical possibility that it might be if we had better instruments and greater understanding of the empirical world. I personally do not think there is "magic" in Hollywood-ish sense, but I do accept logical possibility that there exist forms of manipulation with/over physical world in ways which are yet to be scientifically treated and explained. That being said, I basically agree with JBI that "magic" is yet undiscovered science.

Regarding Atheist's claim that those phenomena have failed scientific investigation... There were scientific experiments which proved the existence of such phenomena, in which they were demonstrated in controlled environment (at the moment I am overly lazy to search for citations and scientific papers, so you will have to either search for yourself, either take my word for it). It means that they were testified. What scientists failed to do was to explain them in accordance with current scientific theories (even though some hypotheses were formulated), which is why those phenomena still have a veil of 'mystery' over them, which will inevitably disappear once a theory is proposed, and tested, which includes in itself explanation of such phenomena as well.

The initial question of the thread, though, dealt with ethical component of practising those forms of yet-unexplained manipulation over physical world. It is, of course, incredibly hard to speak of it before defining "good" and "bad" first (which I am not even going to attempt), since the question is dependent upon it, and upon where does your moral judgement come from in the first place.
Speaking very generally, I would condemn any kind of such practice which attempts to interfere with another person's will (Hollywood example: love spells :p), including any act which attempts to change, be it in physical or psychological sense, other person's reality via such yet-unexplained phenomena (because, given that still science says nothing about upon which variables the result is dependant, even good intentions can possibly go wrong). So hypothetically, I would morally condemn both "good" and "bad" magic when done to/for anyone else other than the subject who performs "magic" him/herself.

And, finally, to end my point... Placebo is scientifically proven phenomenon, perhaps some of the "personal magic" can be the result of that, and not of unexplained ways to affect the physical/psychological world?

[Virgil]

I always enjoy reading Anastasija's posts. :):)

[NikolaiI]

Some would say that love is magic...and it seems that some here might be forgetting that science is not only physical science but there's mental science as well-- psychology, and love is included in psychology.

[Judas130]

And, finally, to end my point... Placebo is scientifically proven phenomenon, perhaps some of the "personal magic" can be the result of that, and not of unexplained ways to affect the physical/psychological world?

aye, i'd say that if a person truly believes something, completely, then it is true at least to them. If i <i>completely</i> believe the sky is pink, then its pink. if i believe i'm going to get better through what i think is a real drug (which is actually a placebo) then i can get better...it does happen. Magic can be like this, if it manifests itself into the doubt of a person's mind, events may trigger around that person's actions that, because of his/her doubt (caused probably if you told him/her that there was a spell cast against them), the idea of ''magic'' did infact act out what it was intended for.

So, if i told you you're cursed, you'll do everything wrong, you ruins things, your life will from this point forward will be nothing but pain and strife. Then, possibly, you'd laugh at me, but the doubt might nestle in, and affect your actions. However, 'Might' or 'possibly' aren't very concrete words, but you know what i mean.

[The Atheist]

As such, science is inevitably consisted of "opinions" - the difference between science and other explanatory systems (e.g. religion) being that those "opinions" are put to test by scientific method in the empirical world, open to be debated and possibly disputed if somebody comes up with different theory, and are not 'derived' from any specific source (other than our logic) such as religious dogma.

I think you're confusing the issue here as theories are not opinions. Theories grow out of what is known. Scientists don't start with a priori reasoning, so opinion doesn't come into it.


I personally do not think there is "magic" in Hollywood-ish sense, but I do accept logical possibility that there exist forms of manipulation with/over physical world in ways which are yet to be scientifically treated and explained. That being said, I basically agree with JBI that "magic" is yet undiscovered science.

And I'm quite sure you're wrong here. Logic does not in any way suggest that non-physical manipulation is possible. There are certainly unknowns, but none of them have anything to do with non-physical phenomena. As far as I'm aware, no non-[hysical phenonemna have ever been noted.


Regarding Atheist's claim that those phenomena have failed scientific investigation... There were scientific experiments which proved the existence of such phenomena, in which they were demonstrated in controlled environment (at the moment I am overly lazy to search for citations and scientific papers, so you will have to either search for yourself, either take my word for it).

I've spent most of the past 35 years debunking this very subject, so I repeat my comment above that none has ever been discovered, You claim to be too lazy to find and ask for trust, well, I don't accept your word for a second, so I would ask that you present evidence to back up your claim. There are lots of scientific experiments which have failed to find examples of non-physical actions, but not one proving such a thing exists.


It means that they were testified. What scientists failed to do was to explain them in accordance with current scientific theories (even though some hypotheses were formulated), which is why those phenomena still have a veil of 'mystery' over them, which will inevitably disappear once a theory is proposed, and tested, which includes in itself explanation of such phenomena as well.

Unfortunately, unless you can point to these proposed phenomena, the above is meaningless. Science doesn't have "veils of mystery". Good or bad, results of scienitific investigation are published.


aye, i'd say that if a person truly believes something, completely, then it is true at least to them. If i <i>completely</i> believe the sky is pink, then its pink.

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

[JBI]

No, Judas raises a good point. If someone believes something, then we must accept that, at least to them, that thing is real. To the person who believes it, the religious experience is very real, and very effective, whereas to a skeptic, it is bogus, the question though, is a moral one, and not a logical one. It is really, whether or not such beliefs are really harmful to a) society, and b) the individual. As Henry James seems to discover, the world is a game, where each player makes up their own set of rules. If somebody gives a poor person food, because god told them to, or if somebody gives someone food, because Rousseau told them to, the result is essentially the same.

The question over morality has really nothing to do with truth and falsehood. If people don't kill because god says "Thou shall not murder (mistranslated as kill)" or if they don't kill because they don't want to go to prison, the outcome is still the same. What we need to realize is that science is as dogmatic as religion, it is just founded on a different set of rules, and functions for the most part in a more dynamic way than most religions. Science however, does not function as a moral guidebook, unless you force it too, whereas religion generally is designed, for the most part, to preach the correct way to live/approach life.

The question here proposed however, is whether or not it is contradictory to believe in two separate beliefs, that of candle magic (I admit myself not very knowledgeable on the subject) or that of Christianity. Depending which Bible is being used, the definition of magic can change, but for the most part, most Christian sects at least believe in the evil of a witchcraft, or sorcery, which by my knowledge, has never factually surfaced with any credibility since the church's formation.

Candle magic, assuming it is lighting candles for desired outcomes, is actually part of many religions, including various Christian sects, including Catholicism. If you go to many churches/cathedrals/abbeys/etc. you can actually purchase candles, and light them there, by the alter, as a means of bringing about some sort of humility/sacrifice to god.

I know personally in the Jewish tradition, candle burning is an integral part of worship, as it is done at least 2x a week (on Friday and Saturday night) and on most holidays and festivities. In addition, candles of mourning are lit depending on the desire of the mourner at various times each year, some people actually lighting numerous ones per night.

Light is a complex symbol in both Christian and Judaic theology and spiritualism. Milton, the great poet-scholar defines god as 'holy light'. The Bible itself opens up with the creation of light out of darkness and tovu va vohu (I wish not to give a translation, as an exact definition does not even exist in Hebrew).

If the original poster's candle-practices are similar to this, than I perhaps may have given enough convincing evidence to prove that you are not practicing witchcraft, or at least, if your beliefs cannot sustain such infringement, a middle-ground alternative. Either way though, as mentioned above, your morality is subject to the rules you created for yourself, and therefore only you can decide whether such practices must stop, or whether they are infringement at all. The Biblical books themselves are rather unclear on the subject, and you must decide what theology to follow in your interpretation.

[The Atheist]

Just a couple of brief comments:


No, Judas raises a good point. If someone believes something, then we must accept that, at least to them, that thing is real.

Yes, to them, but the whole point is that if someone is seeing things which are demonstrably incorrect - pink sky for example - then the person is either deluded or suffering from some physical problem. ("Physical", including brain chemical imbalances resulting in hallucination/psychotic episodes, etc) On your basis, you would argue that in cases of delusional paranoia, the risk actually exists.


To the person who believes it, the religious experience is very real, and very effective, whereas to a skeptic, it is bogus, the question though, is a moral one, and not a logical one.

Although I dislike the term "skeptic", I have to argue that actual skeptics don't see the religious experience as bogus at all - just a simple effect of how we know the brain works.

[Redzeppelin]

I think you're confusing the issue here as theories are not opinions. Theories grow out of what is known. Scientists don't start with a priori reasoning, so opinion doesn't come into it.

Some brief comments:

1. Theories are opinions - opinions based upon observation and speculation. Some have a more solid basis than others, but theories cannot be said to be synonymous with facts.

2. Your final sentence is one of the biggest fallacies in the scientific community - and by clinging to this fallacy, scientists attempt to portray themselves as more "objective" than other types of "knowing." Nobody begins from a blank slate - scientists will begin with one of two possible positions:

a. Naturalism - only the material world is real
b. Religious - there is a spiritual component as well as a material component to reality - and the spiritual component includes an entity known as "God."

Once an individual has established which of these two foundations seems most sensible/believable to him/herself, s/he then proceeds to create arguments to support either position - which is ultimately unprovable by both sides.

[The Atheist]

Some brief comments:

1. Theories are opinions - opinions based upon observation and speculation. Some have a more solid basis than others, but theories cannot be said to be synonymous with facts.

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.

Please don't be making things up.


2. Your final sentence is one of the biggest fallacies in the scientific community - and by clinging to this fallacy, scientists attempt to portray themselves as more "objective" than other types of "knowing." Nobody begins from a blank slate - scientists will begin with one of two possible positions:

a. Naturalism - only the material world is real
b. Religious - there is a spiritual component as well as a material component to reality - and the spiritual component includes an entity known as "God."

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.


Once an individual has established which of these two foundations seems most sensible/believable to him/herself, s/he then proceeds to create arguments to support either position - which is ultimately unprovable by both sides.

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.

[Shalot]

everything that i refer to says magic is bad and that all magic is directed to satan... as a candel magic practitioner, i have never cast a candel to hurt people or to make one desire me as it is my personal rule and the rules of this magic for say that one may believe in whatever god they like but candel magic is for one's own benefits.

what do ya'll thik

I don't think candle magic is bad. Candle magic is a ritual performed in many differing spirtual settings/religions. Religions are essentially an organzied group of people who agree to a prescribed set of beliefs. The prescription varies from religion to religion, and subscribers argue and debate about which set of beliefs is "correct." I think all beliefs serve some spiritual purpose for both the people who entertain them and the people who oppose them.

[aabbcc]

I think you're confusing the issue here as theories are not opinions. Theories grow out of what is known. Scientists don't start with a priori reasoning, so opinion doesn't come into it.
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).

Logic does not in any way suggest that non-physical manipulation is possible.
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?

There are lots of scientific experiments which have failed to find examples of non-physical actions, but not one proving such a thing exists.
Not one exists, or not one you did or you encountered?

EDIT: If you speak Russian, PM me regarding your request.

[Etienne]

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

[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".

:D


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.

:)

[Judas130]

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.

Thats an altogether different issue. yet one that deserves its time and thought on also. Christian history and its present together display some vile hypocrisy, and the things done in God's name, by Christians, have been sickening. Yet i sometimes forget, by my family's will, that I am still a Christian. I am not responsible for these atrocities. A hypocrite, is someone who does not practice what he preaches, and i seriously doubt that ALL Christians are thus. A christian child born tomorrow is not a hypocrite to hold Christians morals, as it was not he who murdered or repressed.

[Simao]

Thats an altogether different issue. yet one that deserves its time and thought on also. Christian history and its present together display some vile hypocrisy, and the things done in God's name, by Christians, have been sickening. Yet i sometimes forget, by my family's will, that I am still a Christian. I am not responsible for these atrocities. A hypocrite, is someone who does not practice what he preaches, and i seriously doubt that ALL Christians are thus. A christian child born tomorrow is not a hypocrite to hold Christians morals, as it was not he who murdered or repressed.

I totally agree with you. I really don't get why children or grandchildren should apologize for what their ancestors did. I think the closest thing to an apology that everyone should accept is the fact that the children don't approve the acts of their ancestors and that is it. You'd find a lot of people hypocrites, liers and all together immoral but that doesn't mean by anyway that the religion is what those people display. People are people and religion is religion. People are condemned to make mistakes and those mistakes shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator of what the religion represents.

[Judas130]

I totally agree with you. I really don't get why children or grandchildren should apologize for what their ancestors did. I think the closest thing to an apology that everyone should accept is the fact that the children don't approve the acts of their ancestors and that is it. You'd find a lot of people hypocrites, liers and all together immoral but that doesn't mean by anyway that the religion is what those people display. People are people and religion is religion. People are condemned to make mistakes and those mistakes shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator of what the religion represents.

Well Said.

[Jozanny]

People are condemned to make mistakes and those mistakes shouldn't be taken as a serious indicator of what the religion represents.

What does religion represent then that so many people, millions, if not more, fail to use the doctrine to live in compassion and humility? In Christianity, eating the flesh and blood of Christ is not merely symbolic, though most who take communion probably don't give it a second thought that their god dictates "you have to eat me in my human form for salvation to have any possibility of success."

The act of cannibalism is hardly consistent with mercy, with turning the other cheek--and Islam not only permits the subjugation of women, but leaves the door open for domestic violence which at the very least has been criminalized in most Western legal canons.

I do not buy it--this notion that Christian doctrines are super-attenuated forms of perfection toward reunification which would be pure bliss but for the human failing of following the directions to the letter.

*We*, and I include Western atheists in this group, should be ashamed, and feel guilt, for what was done to minorities in the name of this Jesus, and believers should not willfully blind themselves to historical atrocity.

Believe all you like, but you owe the less fortunate atonement for evils which were done using your creeds as justification. It should trouble your conscience and weigh your prayers, and lead to activism, true activism, like risking yourselves in inner cities to push back against gang violence and drugs. My sister, who is still a Catholic, is terrified of the inner city--and that is hypocritical. If you really believe in following Christ, you should be right there in the muck with his sinners, and if you get in danger well, by what you believe you will have martyred yourself for theology, but so few of you really follow the example.

[The Atheist]

If you really believe in following Christ, you should be right there in the muck with his sinners, and if you get in danger well, by what you believe you will have martyred yourself for theology, but so few of you really follow the example.

Well said.

I like to ask theists why so many of 'em join the army. Not really turning the other cheek, is it?

[Judas130]

Believe all you like, but you owe the less fortunate atonement for evils which were done using your creeds as justification.

i can not accept that. I don't follow my religions dogma or creed, i dont even feel i belong to my faith. However, a Spanish catholic in today's world, who is devout in his faith, was not the ancestor who slaughtered innocents in the Philippines in the name of his faith. That, was his ancestor, and that ancestor will be judged accordingly by his God for his actions. The spanish catholic today, in this example, lives his life on a clean slate, he would do well to accept that these atrocities happened so that he learns from them, but in no way do i believe he should hold responsibility for them.

a German born today isn't responsible for Hitler just because he might become passionate for his country.

[Redzeppelin]

Well said.

I like to ask theists why so many of 'em join the army. Not really turning the other cheek, is it?

A total misunderstanding of what Jesus meant. Jesus did not mean allow evil to have its way with you, or to allow evil to be perpetrated upon others. The "turn the other check" comment deals with the minor insults, sleights, and annoyances that come from interacting with people in our day to day life - it's Jesus way of mitigating the "eye for an eye" stuff of the OT. Nothing in the Bible indicates that we are not to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or our country from harm.

If you intend to use the Bible to attack believers, make sure you know what it actually says and the context within which it says those things. I know I get toasted around here when I speak of scientific things with less than optimal accuracy.


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.

All religions are exclusive in that they all claim to have the "truth" and know "the way." Even if they don't explicitly claim so, their beliefs - when placed side by side - clearly show that they are incompatible, and as such, that they are right while others are wrong (because they certainly won't admit the obverse statement).

All people - not just Christians - do hypocritical, atrocious things to other people. Being a Christian does not mean being perfect or being sinless - and there's no doubt that terrible things have been done in the name of God and God will judge those who committed those acts - but plenty of evil has been done in the name of countless other beliefs - and even a so-called "lack of belief" (ie atheism).


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.

God is not responsible for the abuses committed in His name by others, any more than you would be if I went out and murdered people and said "I do this in honor of Jozanny!"

God gave us freewill, and we are responsible for the choices we make with it. He is not responsible for those choices.


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.

How benevolent of you to cut us some slack. Who put you in the judgment chair, and what about your life or belief system allows you to take the superior position?

As for the evils done in the name of God - that is a regrettable reality that God will judge, but how interesting that many atheists choose to overlook the reality that more good is done in the name of God than evil. That is what I would call selective evidence.

[The Atheist]

A total misunderstanding of what Jesus meant.

Uh, no it is not. Please read on.


Jesus did not mean allow evil to have its way with you, or to allow evil to be perpetrated upon others. The "turn the other check" comment deals with the minor insults, sleights, and annoyances that come from interacting with people in our day to day life - it's Jesus way of mitigating the "eye for an eye" stuff of the OT. Nothing in the Bible indicates that we are not to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our property, or our country from harm.

That's fine, but it has no relevance whatsoever.

Unfortunately, to show why that does not apply in 2008, I would have to discuss current politics and point out that none of the situations you quote above; no threat, no defence, applied in the case of Iraq.


If you intend to use the Bible to attack believers, make sure you know what it actually says and the context within which it says those things. I know I get toasted around here when I speak of scientific things with less than optimal accuracy.

As I trust you now realise, I know exactly what it means. However, as noted above, the moral issue is completely disregarded by hundreds of thousands of theists involved what I certainly consider "unjust" if I look at it from either my own morality or "WWJD?"

Another point that seems to be missing from your argument is that the christian bible has been interpreted in hundreds and hundreds of different ways and there is no scholarship which makes your reading of it right and anyone else's wrong. That's the joy of science & maths, you see - no interpretation, just the same old results every time, year in, year out.

From Adam & Steve to Noah to Job, to the life of Jesus, the theology & letters of Saulus and the gibberish of Revelation, every christian church has its own unique interpretation - Catholics treat Genesis figuratively, fundies literally and the Anglican church is happy to treat the entire book as allegorical, not even demanding Mary's divinity or a bodily resurrection.

I know this is aimed at Jo, but I'll stick my $0-02 worth here.


All religions are exclusive in that they all claim to have the "truth" and know "the way." Even if they don't explicitly claim so, their beliefs - when placed side by side - clearly show that they are incompatible, and as such, that they are right while others are wrong (because they certainly won't admit the obverse statement).

Yet, I presume you'd be equally certain that yours is really the right one.

;)


but plenty of evil has been done in the name of countless other beliefs - and even a so-called "lack of belief" (ie atheism).

I am just amazed at the persistence of this notion.

Happily, that certain fundamental christian sects choose to believe the nonsensical idea that atheism has caused evil does not make it so. It does, however, show the deperation with which those same fundies need to find things to berate atheism with. I guess there's an element of "tit-for-tat" in it, because atheists are apt to point out the evil deeds done in the name of god/s. The bad news is that there's no equivalence in the two claims.


God is not responsible for the abuses committed in His name by others, any more than you would be if I went out and murdered people and said "I do this in honor of Jozanny!"

I don't know of any atheists who would disagree with your statement. I haven't ever heard of "god" being blamed for past excesses, genocide, torture and murder. All of the atheists I've ever met credit religion and humans with the crimes. Given that religion is a human construct, I don't even need to argue that god is a human construct, because we agree implicitly, men are responsible.


As for the evils done in the name of God - that is a regrettable reality that God will judge, but how interesting that many atheists choose to overlook the reality that more good is done in the name of God than evil. That is what I would call selective evidence.

Again, I think you're generalising here. I certainly recognise - as do many atheists - the good that religion does. The trouble is that nobody has yet prepared a cost/benefit analysis for religion overall. Whether the billions spent on preachers' salaries, private jets and mansions and the oppression of women by some religions outwieghs the good is hard to tell. The RCC alone is possibly costing hunderds of thousands/millions of lives with its ongoing failure to endorse contraception.

[Jozanny]

All religions are exclusive in that they all claim to have the "truth" and know "the way." Even if they don't explicitly claim so, their beliefs - when placed side by side - clearly show that they are incompatible, and as such, that they are right while others are wrong (because they certainly won't admit the obverse statement).

All people - not just Christians - do hypocritical, atrocious things to other people. Being a Christian does not mean being perfect or being sinless - and there's no doubt that terrible things have been done in the name of God and God will judge those who committed those acts - but plenty of evil has been done in the name of countless other beliefs - and even a so-called "lack of belief" (ie atheism).

How does this absolve you from the remorse and shame of Christian persecutions which occurred in the name of your theology? Can you give me an example of how you redeem yourself for Bibles being handed out to Africans in shackles and leg irons while they sat in jail cells waiting to be traded like domestic live stock?

I can judge, quite simply, because I don't accept the doctrine which tells me I am less than an *unknowable* essence, to use Richard's definition. What about persecution of Jewish Europeans? Your conscience is entirely clear on the historical impetus of your faith which got you to its modern forms? I am abused by able-bodied Protestants all the time, and of many different skin tones. It is rather sanctimonious for you to tell me they will be judged for their prejudice and lack of compassion--it merely proves to me that doctrine is a broken reed which has a pretty sharp thrust.

I have paid my dues as an activist for the voiceless, and will continue to do so, and I also acknowledge the historical guilt of my ancestors. That is conscience, to me.

If you think non-believers and those who aren't of your faith are wrong, haven't you already consigned them to a fate worse than that you believe you will be getting? If you are going to tell me it isn't for you to judge, it seems pretty clear you already have if you are absolutely certain the doctrine you follow will reunify you with the divine, but upon my death, I will continue to *suffer* due to separation from it.

This is also an ideal which seems tailored to allow humans to be cruel to each other rather than allowing for compassion, and doubt.

[Judas130]

How does this ABSOLVE you from the remorse and shame of Christian persecutions which occurred in the name of your theology? Can you give me an example of how you REDEEM yourself for Bibles being handed out to Africans in shackles and leg irons while they sat in jail cells waiting to be traded like domestic live stock?

Nuuur, listen, I did not commit these crimes, and neither did Red. Other men have done it based on their ideals and the ways in which they feel they must practice their faith. I find it mildly irritating and slightly insulting that you say I/we must be absolved for sins we did not commit. Its quite simple:

two men of same faith. one chooses to axe a civilian to prove some point in their God's eyes. the other, a good young man, sits at home watching movies and prays to the same god before dinner.

the man who had the axe has sinned on his own. the other is in no way responsible for it. Yet they worship in the same faith, in the eyes of the law your ideal is ridiculous.

when you say things like this, it reminds me of how when western people think 'Islam' or 'Muslim' they instantly think 'terrorism'. A good Muslim schoolgirl has not committed an act of terrorism while another Muslim does, the second person must be absolved, the first has nothing to do with it, even though they worship the same deity.

Your ideal is quite unfair.

[Jozanny]

Nuuur, listen, I did not commit these crimes, and neither did Red. Other men have done it based on their ideals and the ways in which they feel they must practice their faith. I find it mildly irritating and slightly insulting that you say I/we must be absolved for sins we did not commit. Its quite simple:

two men of same faith. one chooses to axe a civilian to prove some point in their God's eyes. the other, a good young man, sits at home watching movies and prays to the same god before dinner.

the man who had the axe has sinned on his own. the other is in no way responsible for it. Yet they worship in the same faith, in the eyes of the law your ideal is ridiculous.

when you say things like this, it reminds me of how when western people think 'Islam' or 'Muslim' they instantly think 'terrorism'. A good Muslim schoolgirl has not committed an act of terrorism while another Muslim does, the second person must be absolved, the first has nothing to do with it, even though they worship the same deity.

Your ideal is quite unfair.

No it isn't. White European Christians, if they are truly what they claim to be, should rent their garments, and beg forgiveness of humans who are shades of red, tan, yellow, brown and black. True followers would end European and American wealth, and you don't. Caucasians are guilty of some of the worst human genocides, and a good portion of those genocides were done in the name of Christianized nations.

I am not *absolving* myself due to my non-belief, hardly. I actually practice what I preach.

I wonder how many believers on this board truly do the same.

[dzebra]

White European Christians, if they are truly what they claim to be, should rent their garments, and beg forgiveness of humans who are shades of red, tan, yellow, brown and black.


So are you implying that anyone who is white and European is automatically guilty of some evil deed against people of another color?

I know that people are guilty of evil things, but generalizing crimes based on color or nationality seems unfair. Shouldn't everyone be begging forgiveness of everyone regardless of color?

[Etienne]

No it isn't. White European Christians, if they are truly what they claim to be, should rent their garments, and beg forgiveness of humans who are shades of red, tan, yellow, brown and black. True followers would end European and American wealth, and you don't. Caucasians are guilty of some of the worst human genocides, and a good portion of those genocides were done in the name of Christianized nations.

I am not *absolving* myself due to my non-belief, hardly. I actually practice what I preach.

I wonder how many believers on this board truly do the same.

Oww this very perspective is the actual basic of all racial, cultural, nationalistic, etc. hate. I am not accusing you of anything, mind you, simply I find that the way of reasoning is flawed in itself, even if in some cases, like yours, it might lead to positive results.

Since when am I responsible for the deeds of someone else, just because his skin color was the same?

Bad deeds have been committed in the past. But I don't think the solution lies in raising forever such things from the past, or even try to fix them as close as possible to what it was before. I personally think that once the deed is done you should simply strive to make the best of it, or else, it will simply cause more harm. Let us take the illustrative example of Israel. After the Holocaust, Israel was given to the Jews. Bad move. It caused much more harm than good. But now, people have been living there for years, the existence of Israel has become entirely justified and cannot be contested or it will simply create yet more harm than good, etc. etc. etc.

Now let's take the example of native Americans (I'll take the more specific example of those in Canada, but I think my example could be extended much further) where by trying to give them as much as possible to so-called conditions to their ancestral lives, it is in fact simply destroying them. Why do you think there is so much suicide, drug problems, criminality, poverty, etc. in native American reserves? If they were simply integrated to the society as normal citizens it would be best for both parties. But there is one (main) thing stopping it and it is the reasoning that spawned this post.

One should take the present situation, then look to the future, without minding too much the past (to some extent), and make the best of it for all parties involved.

[The Atheist]

Bad deeds have been committed in the past.

This is true.

I know of no culture or race which hasn't committed atrocities against others. Christians now are no more responsible for slavery than Germans are for the Holocaust, Americans for the genocide of Native Americans, Australians for genocide against Aborigine or Belgians for genocide in its former colonies.

The world just can't work that way, and as you note at the end, far better to have learnt the lesson and move forward for the benefit of all.

[Redzeppelin]

That's fine, but it has no relevance whatsoever.

Which, of course, you'll neglect to explain or demonstrate.




Unfortunately, to show why that does not apply in 2008, I would have to discuss current politics and point out that none of the situations you quote above; no threat, no defence, applied in the case of Iraq.

What you really need to do is deal with the fact that I responded to this statement:

"I like to ask theists why so many of 'em join the army. Not really turning the other cheek, is it?"

I dealt quite clearly with the implication of this sentence - which (at the risk of being insulting and explaining to you what you should already clearly understand) is simply this: that serving in the military is a violation of Jesus' admonishment to "turn the other cheek." I addressed that quite clearly; why you're acting like your statment was more complex is a mystery to me.



As I trust you now realise, I know exactly what it means. However, as noted above, the moral issue is completely disregarded by hundreds of thousands of theists involved what I certainly consider "unjust" if I look at it from either my own morality or "WWJD?"

No - you've said absolutely nothing that shows that you understand the portions of the Bible you quote. All you're really done (as usual) is act as if I'm obviously wrong for reasons you don't have to (or cannot) provide. I'm dealing with what you said - period. Why you're squirming around with all kinds of other responses is something I don't understand.


Another point that seems to be missing from your argument is that the christian bible has been interpreted in hundreds and hundreds of different ways and there is no scholarship which makes your reading of it right and anyone else's wrong. That's the joy of science & maths, you see - no interpretation, just the same old results every time, year in, year out.

Here a straw man, there a straw man, everywhere a straw man...

You're grasping, my friend. You made a comment that any Christian knows to be false, and now, rather than admit that you might be wrong, you're throwing up whatever you can to smokescreen the issue. This has nothing to do with interpretation and everything to do with the principles put forth in the Bible. It takes no interpretive gymnastics to understand that the Bible does not say anywhere that you are to tolerate the perpetration of evil against yourself, your family, your country. Period. Defending oneself from harm, one's family, and one's country does not in and of itself constitute a violation of the "turn the other cheek." Jesus said "turn the other cheek" if someone slaps your cheek - not "turn the other cheek" while you are assaulted, your wife raped, and your country attacked by a hostile enemy.

If you want to argue about Iraq, well, your original comment should have made that clear. It didn't.




From Adam & Steve to Noah to Job, to the life of Jesus, the theology & letters of Saulus and the gibberish of Revelation, every christian church has its own unique interpretation - Catholics treat Genesis figuratively, fundies literally and the Anglican church is happy to treat the entire book as allegorical, not even demanding Mary's divinity or a bodily resurrection.

None of this is germane to the comment you made and the refuation I provided. Interpretation has nothing to do with the fact that your insinuation is flat out wrong.




Yet, I presume you'd be equally certain that yours is really the right one.

Condescending as always. If you'll read your answers to my posts, you'll see that your attitude of unquestionable rightness is pretty much the same.


I am just amazed at the persistence of this notion.

Yes - reality is quite persistent, isn't it?


Happily, that certain fundamental christian sects choose to believe the nonsensical idea that atheism has caused evil does not make it so. It does, however, show the deperation with which those same fundies need to find things to berate atheism with. I guess there's an element of "tit-for-tat" in it, because atheists are apt to point out the evil deeds done in the name of god/s. The bad news is that there's no equivalence in the two claims.

Nobody said atheism "caused" evil; you might want to re-read my post a bit more carefully again. I made it clear that atrocities are committed under all beliefs - including atheism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al). It is not an attempt to "berate" atheism as it is to reinforce the reality that people tend to be petty, vicious, and quarrelsome no matter what they do/don't believe. People are bad no matter what they believe in; the Christian is supposed to behave better, but humanity sometimes gets in the way - just like it gets in the way of atheists doing the right thing sometimes too.




I don't know of any atheists who would disagree with your statement. I haven't ever heard of "god" being blamed for past excesses, genocide, torture and murder. All of the atheists I've ever met credit religion and humans with the crimes. Given that religion is a human construct, I don't even need to argue that god is a human construct, because we agree implicitly, men are responsible.

The implication from many atheists in these forums is very clear: God is to blame for the terrible things Christians do. How could you possibly have missed that?




Again, I think you're generalising here. I certainly recognise - as do many atheists - the good that religion does. The trouble is that nobody has yet prepared a cost/benefit analysis for religion overall. Whether the billions spent on preachers' salaries, private jets and mansions and the oppression of women by some religions outwieghs the good is hard to tell. The RCC alone is possibly costing hunderds of thousands/millions of lives with its ongoing failure to endorse contraception.

And you just engaged in a fair amount of generalizing too about "preacher's salaries" etc -- the majority of people who serve God do so for average pay, to less than average pay - often making huge sacrifices to serve. You reached into the standard pocket of stereotypes for that one, my friend. Don't accuse me of what you yourself do and expect me to take the hit quietly.


How does this absolve you from the remorse and shame of Christian persecutions which occurred in the name of your theology? Can you give me an example of how you redeem yourself for Bibles being handed out to Africans in shackles and leg irons while they sat in jail cells waiting to be traded like domestic live stock?

My theology? What - by the way - is "my theology"?

How I "redeem" myself? What? What are you talking about? I don't have to "redeem" myself - Christ did it for me.


I can judge, quite simply, because I don't accept the doctrine which tells me I am less than an *unknowable* essence, to use Richard's definition. What about persecution of Jewish Europeans? Your conscience is entirely clear on the historical impetus of your faith which got you to its modern forms? I am abused by able-bodied Protestants all the time, and of many different skin tones. It is rather sanctimonious for you to tell me they will be judged for their prejudice and lack of compassion--it merely proves to me that doctrine is a broken reed which has a pretty sharp thrust.

What is all this? I don't have to atone for the misdeeds of other Christians. I reiterate: God will judge all in the end; Christians who misrepresented God will bear a harsher penalty because they should have know better (as the Bible says, "to those whom much is given, much is required"). Atheists who just want to beat the dead horse of Christian misbehavior have a tunnel vision which allows them to pretend that only Christians act hypocritically and do terrible things in the name of something good - but the reality is that is a fact of the human condition and occurs at all levels of family, culture, society.



If you think non-believers and those who aren't of your faith are wrong, haven't you already consigned them to a fate worse than that you believe you will be getting? If you are going to tell me it isn't for you to judge, it seems pretty clear you already have if you are absolutely certain the doctrine you follow will reunify you with the divine, but upon my death, I will continue to *suffer* due to separation from it.

All beliefs claim to have the exclusive truth; the Jews do, the Hindus do, the Muslims do, the Buddhists do - so why does everyone get hostile when the Christians say the same?

I haven't "consigned" anybody to anything - I have stated my belief that Christianity is the correct way to God. Guess what? In a so-called "tolerant" world, aren't you supposed to tolerate my belief? From what you're saying, it sounds like you're not being very tolerant, my friend.


This is also an ideal which seems tailored to allow humans to be cruel to each other rather than allowing for compassion, and doubt.

Only those who are unfamiliar with the Bible (esp the Gospels) would make such an incorrect statement.

[Scheherazade]

Final Reminder

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Such posts will be deleted without further notice.

[The Atheist]

Final Reminder

Sure.

It does surprise me a little that my last post came under that umbrella as I had tried to ensure I didn't do that, but I'll take your word that it did and has been deleted accordingly.

I'd be interested to know how this post doesn't qualify:


Which, of course, you'll neglect to explain or demonstrate.

What you really need to do .....

.... what you should already clearly understand....

.... why you're acting like your statment was more complex is a mystery to me....

No - you've said absolutely nothing that shows that you understand ....

...for reasons you don't have to (or cannot) provide. ...

... Why you're squirming around ...

Here a straw man, there a straw man, everywhere a straw man...

You're grasping, my friend. You made a comment .....

..., you're throwing up whatever you can to smokescreen the issue. ...

.... How could you possibly have missed that?

[Judas130]

ladies please, this thread is getting interesting. Yet well off-topic...

new topic for new arguments? the informality in some of these comments won't get us anywhere nearer to clearer understanding.

anyways,



The implication from many atheists in these forums is very clear: God is to blame for the terrible things Christians do. How could you possibly have missed that?

wrong. to believe that there is a god to be angry at is a theistic belief as it acknowledges a deity to be angry towards. Atheists don't believe in God.





And you just engaged in a fair amount of generalizing too about "preacher's salaries" etc -- the majority of people who serve God do so for average pay, to less than average pay - often making huge sacrifices to serve. You reached into the standard pocket of stereotypes for that one, my friend. Don't accuse me of what you yourself do and expect me to take the hit quietly.

when people draw on these stereotypes an image of a white man on a stage who looks like Elvis, wearing an expensive suit with people waving money at him shouting 'i believe!!!'.

unfortunately, this is very real all over the world. Yet, look, i'm a christian, and i'm saying this: that's completely disgusting. The man will, according to christian belief, be punished in some way for this as he is perverting God's cause and benefiting only himself and not others, unlike how a real preacher of God should be. Apparently, traditionally, that would be a man with little or even nothing, leaving his family behind to preach. However, in this modern world we tend not to do that, i wouldn't want to leave my family behind. Yet, because i dont, does this somehow make me into the filth i described above? I'd laugh if you said yes.




What is all this? I don't have to atone for the misdeeds of other Christians. I reiterate: God will judge all in the end; Christians who misrepresented God will bear a harsher penalty because they should have know better (as the Bible says, "to those whom much is given, much is required").

exactly, its an unfair argument that when put to question becomes only hazy accusations on account of history. Christians are not some bloodthirsty cult. Also, not all christians actually think this deeply as Jozanny is thinking now. Most of the christians i know and have ever met growing up in a christian society are people who want money for their work, who put their faith last, who care about themselves, who regularly indulge in 'sin' and don't think twice, and hardly know a thing about the history of their faith. The one thing that makes these folk different is that at the back of your head you feel bad if you're mean, you might not want to kill the spider for the girl, you feel like helping the old woman across the road, you have the ability to put yourself before others and care for them instead. All this indoctrinated as good conduct in the back of your brain from childhood, and no...this is a side to human nature, not just a christian thing, only we are taught to respect this and see it as important and, well, it rubbs off a little on some.

Most Christians would simply take what you've said (Jozanny) and reply with a 'sorry, thats ridiculous, i've got to take my child to school now, goodbye' or, maybe if your lucky, a good old '...wha?'.




All beliefs claim to have the exclusive truth; the Jews do, the Hindus do, the Muslims do, the Buddhists do - so why does everyone get hostile when the Christians say the same?



A Likely answer is probably because Christianity has ever had its it stranglehold on western history since the roman empire crumbled, as they censored literature and science, and slowed the development of physical knowledge and medicines because of it. Now the church doesn't have this hold anymore, so far as we know. It might seem weak and old and people have the choice not follow the church without being exiled from their towns or whatever. People are looking for every opportunity to ridicule and damage one of the largest, if not THE largest, organisation in the world.

is it weird that i say organisation and not faith? hmm.

[Redzeppelin]

wrong. to believe that there is a god to be angry at is a theistic belief as it acknowledges a deity to be angry towards. Atheists don't believe in God.

I understand why you say this, but the reality that atheists don't think God is real doesn't always seem to stop a number of them from attacking Him anyway because we believe He's real.


Most of the christians i know and have ever met growing up in a christian society are people who want money for their work, who put their faith last, who care about themselves, who regularly indulge in 'sin' and don't think twice, and hardly know a thing about the history of their faith. The one thing that makes these folk different is that at the back of your head you feel bad if you're mean, you might not want to kill the spider for the girl, you feel like helping the old woman across the road, you have the ability to put yourself before others and care for them instead. All this indoctrinated as good conduct in the back of your brain from childhood, and no...this is a side to human nature, not just a christian thing, only we are taught to respect this and see it as important and, well, it rubbs off a little on some.

You speak truth, but you're harsher than I would like to be - all people are sinners, and all are in need of God's help to be better people. Christians are not immune to temptation, sin, and choices that are unequivocally evil in nature. But that doesn't invalidate Christianity any more than some bad Catholic priests preying on children invalidates the good that many priests provide their congregations. A few bad cops does not invalidate the value of the police department; a small number of sexual predator teachers does not cancel out the value of what the mass majority of teachers give to kids. Yes there are shallow, superficial Christians out there - but there are also plenty who do good, and good you'll never hear about because it was a quiet, local action - giving food to the poor, comforting the neighbor who just got divorced, donating a dryer to the single mom who hasn't got one - that stuff happens in little tiny churches all over the country, but such things rarely if ever make the evening news.


Most Christians would simply take what you've said (Jozanny) and reply with a 'sorry, thats ridiculous, i've got to take my child to school now, goodbye' or, maybe if your lucky, a good old '...wha?'.

Maybe so, but now we're dealing with the term "Christian" and the difference between those who "wear" the name, and those who act it out. The latter are the real ones.



A Likely answer is probably because Christianity has ever had its it stranglehold on western history since the roman empire crumbled, as they censored literature and science, and slowed the development of physical knowledge and medicines because of it. Now the church doesn't have this hold anymore, so far as we know. It might seem weak and old and people have the choice not follow the church without being exiled from their towns or whatever. People are looking for every opportunity to ridicule and damage one of the largest, if not THE largest, organisation in the world.

The church is never wholly free (as humans never are) of the influence of culture. The medieval church was a reflection of much of the attitudes and philosophies of the time; if a church lives during a brutal, repressive time, the risk is that it might absorb some of those qualities - and this is true because in today's postmodern, relativistic society, a clear trend of relativism even shows up in Christian dialogues - even though the Bible makes very clear that some actions, some beliefs, are clearly wrong.

[Etienne]

A little food for thought linked to the subject at hand:

"The death of dogma is the birth of morality." - Kant

[Scheherazade]

Sure.

It does surprise me a little that my last post came under that umbrella as I had tried to ensure I didn't do that, but I'll take your word that it did and has been deleted accordingly.

I'd be interested to know how this post doesn't qualify:No posts have been deleted in this thread since its start. They might have been merged if they were posted in close succession but that is all.

If you go back and check your posts, I am sure you will see that they are still there.

[The Atheist]

No posts have been deleted in this thread since its start. They might have been merged if they were posted in close succession but that is all.

If you go back and check your posts, I am sure you will see that they are still there.

Oh, ok. Must be my computer - it showed the post made but must have got lost in the ether.

In the meantime, someone else has posted appropriate answers anyway!

:D