Printable View
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittoria666
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.
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
"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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
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.
"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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Equality72521
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Equality72521
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.
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittoria666
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.
keep in mind, Satan is a lot older than Christianity also, he is a pagan deity too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.
No - they just don't exist and never have.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Magic :lol: Sorry :lol:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
hahahhahahah :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
yep, being an atheist myself, I'm surprised that Christians even take magic seriously enough to condemn it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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?
I always enjoy reading Anastasija's posts. :):)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
Unfortunately, that's not quite how the world works and you are simply describing self-delusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas130
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.
Just a couple of brief comments:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Some brief comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Please don't be making things up.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittoria666
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Citing my father (PhD Chemistry).
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?Quote:
Logic does not in any way suggest that non-physical manipulation is possible.
Not one exists, or not one you did or you encountered?Quote:
There are lots of scientific experiments which have failed to find examples of non-physical actions, but not one proving such a thing exists.
EDIT: If you speak Russian, PM me regarding your request.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
I always do my best to avoid being fictional when I'm posting here. I'll assume you're doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.
I'm only answering this one piece as it encapsulates all the reasons why I won't be answering you again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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...
I don't know whether that hypothesis is right, but science is often more stupefying than fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
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?
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
:D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anastasija
Great link!Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
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.
Figured. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
All summed up, it seems that we basically agree, only use different terminology.
Magic is a imaginative thing.I do not concur that it exists.Well,probably the Bible cites that,so it maybe 50% genuine.
How gracious. Shall I consider this withdrawal a strategic retreat?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Such posts will be deleted without further notice.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
But you've made it clear that seeking a discussion with you is pointless, and I shall honor that.
Thanks anyway...
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.