wiccans come here! [Archive I]

emotional

March 30, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by reverendmoss
Occult merely means 'hidden'. Most of us are looking for that which is hidden. don't be afraid of occult studies since there is a treasure trove of work there, the paths already well worn.

I'm not looking for that which is hidden. As far as I'm concerned, the invisible and the non-existent are the same. I've never had a single paranormal experience, I've never managed to "gain the sight" by practising meditation, and not one thing in my life has ever hinted to me the existence of occult realms. On the other hand, I know medications changed my personality many times (saved me from suicide, in fact), so I'm quite convinced all of mind is emergent in the physical brain.

And it's not that I've avoided occult reading. I've studied Qabbalah, High Magick, Tarot, Astrology -- the whole lot, and all I see is a pile of man-made nonsense. I'm a religious, worshipping man, but I can't bring myself to worship what I can't see. I can't worship invisible gods, spirits or energies, I can only worship visible, sensed Nature.

The author of "Why Wiccans Suck" is an anti-Nature, mystically inclined occultist. She represents exactly what I couldn't stand in Wicca. The orientation of Wiccans is on a spectrum between pure nature-worship and absolute occultism, with most Wiccans driving along somewhere in the middle. When I learned about Wicca I was attracted to its naturalistic part, but I recoiled at its theistic, occultic part. For me, why Wiccans suck is not because they are fluffbunnies, but because they are steeped in the occult.

Nowhere357

March 31, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by emotional
I'm not looking for that which is hidden. As far as I'm concerned, the invisible and the non-existent are the same. I've never had a single paranormal experience, I've never managed to "gain the sight" by practising meditation, and not one thing in my life has ever hinted to me the existence of occult realms.

I'm reminded of the story where a man is searching under a street light. Another fellow walks up and says "you dropped something here under the light?". "no,", says the first guy. "I dropped it over there, in the dark. But it's to dark too see there, so I'll continue to search here under the light." :)

'Invisible' and 'non-existent' are not the same thing. Pain, desire, and empathy are are invisible, yet they exist, for example. As Einstein said, gravity is not responsible for people falling in love.

Meditation is not magical. It provides scientifically verifiable benefits. IMO it strengthens our ability to focus and concentrate, giving us better control over our brains. In much the same way, pumping iron strengthens our physical muscles. Both meditation and weight-lifting are useless in themselves; the advantage comes when we use our strengthened abilities for things that ARE important. Like moving heavy things, or making difficult choices.

emotional

March 31, 2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I'm reminded of the story where a man is searching under a street light. Another fellow walks up and says "you dropped something here under the light?". "no,", says the first guy. "I dropped it over there, in the dark. But it's to dark too see there, so I'll continue to search here under the light."

The occult worldview suggests that this material world (the realm of light) is just a distracting backdrop, while the hidden word (the realm of darkness) is the real thing. I find this abhorrent and degrading. The natural world is so big, so full of things, so filled with secrets and mysteries, I just can't accept it's all a backdrop for a hidden "real thing". Occultists have got it backwords: it's their hidden world that is a distraction, while the natural universe is the real thing.

'Invisible' and 'non-existent' are not the same thing. Pain, desire, and empathy are are invisible, yet they exist, for example. As Einstein said, gravity is not responsible for people falling in love.

Pain, desire and empathy are invisible, but they're emergent properties of the visible. Gods, ghosts and souls are fictions having nothing to do with the real world.

Meditation is not magical. It provides scientifically verifiable benefits. IMO it strengthens our ability to focus and concentrate, giving us better control over our brains.

I don't dispute that meditation and yoga can be a source of better health. I just reject that they are doorways to hidden realms. Even if I did succeed in accessing an altered state of consciousness by doing meditation, all it would prove is that I'd managed to switch my brain into an altered state. Psychedelic drugs can do that too. I don't think LSD-induced hallucinations have anything to do with objective reality, so neither do meditation-induced visions.

Nowhere357

April 1, 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by emotional

The occult worldview suggests that this material world (the realm of light) is just a distracting backdrop, while the hidden word (the realm of darkness) is the real thing. I find this abhorrent and degrading. The natural world is so big, so full of things, so filled with secrets and mysteries, I just can't accept it's all a backdrop for a hidden "real thing". Occultists have got it backwords: it's their hidden world that is a distraction, while the natural universe is the real thing.

[/b]

Pain, desire and empathy are invisible, but they're emergent properties of the visible. Gods, ghosts and souls are fictions having nothing to do with the real world.

I don't dispute that meditation and yoga can be a source of better health. I just reject that they are doorways to hidden realms. Even if I did succeed in accessing an altered state of consciousness by doing meditation, all it would prove is that I'd managed to switch my brain into an altered state. Psychedelic drugs can do that too. I don't think LSD-induced hallucinations have anything to do with objective reality, so neither do meditation-induced visions. [/B]

Good post. I agree with everything you say here, with the possible exception of 'emergent'. Our personal subjective awareness does seem to be emergent, but IMO there is still exploring to be done. :)

gsx1138

April 1, 2003, 12:57 PM

I've read it and still believe it to be like any thing else religious, One persons opinion. The struggle for anyone is to define themselves not allow others to define them. I define myself as Wiccan/Pagan and believe most of the common tenets. However, this does not mean that all Wiccans need to share a hive mind. This is a common mistake for someone from another religion or non-believer. What attracts me to paganism is its utter lack of dogma or centralized belief system. You take what works for you and move on. If certain traditions work for you then have at it but don't fall into the trap of other religions in believing that your way is the only right way. My way is right for me. Your way is right for you. It is the absolutist attitude of other religions that make them such easy targets for ridicule. Just as it is the absolutist belief of some wiccans that open them up for ridicule as well. I think some just want you to be in their "club" that way "they" feel important.

emotional

April 2, 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by gsx1138
What attracts me to paganism is its utter lack of dogma or centralized belief system. You take what works for you and move on. If certain traditions work for you then have at it but don't fall into the trap of other religions in believing that your way is the only right way. My way is right for me. Your way is right for you.

If it were true -- the concept that paganism utterly lacks dogma or centralised belief system -- then paganism would no longer be paganism. Certainly it's more free than a straitjacket religion like Christianity, but there's a framework nonetheless. Paganism is a broad category; Wicca is a category inside it and therefore less broad. Just as you have Islam (broadest category), Shi'i Islam in it, and 12-Imaamic Shi'ite Islam inside that.

I think the following points from Why Wiccans Suck are instructive:

"Just as long as I believe in the five elements, Wicca is anything I want it to be!" Absolutely NOT! Just as you can't add a green-skinned, three-eyed goddess statue to your communion altar and keep calling yourself "Catholic," neither can you mutilate "Wicca" to mean anything you'd like.

"So you're saying that we should practice Gardnerian Wicca down to the letter? How ignorant! One of the best things about Wicca is that we can be diverse and flexible!!!" Being "flexible" requires a starting point. Try to get some knowledge of what your religion was based on before you start grabbing and tossing like you're at a buffet table.

I agree with the WWS author on those points: somewhere along the line, when you ecclecticise too much, you're left with a personal smorgasbord instead of a definite religion. Which may not be a bad thing at all, but then you'd better change your religion's name into something that doesn't mislead.

For me, paganism is the broad category of "nature religion", and as such it can also have an atheistic branch (to which I adhere). Wicca is its duotheistic (God/Goddess) branch and, for example, Hellenismos (Greek reconstructionism) is one of its polytheistic branches. I find it all very rich and interesting!

Mike Rosoft

April 8, 2003, 05:19 AM

- Wicca is a new religion.

All right, no debate from me. While it is based on older beliefs, traditions and mysticism (starting with ancient pagans and ending with freemasons), all claims of an uninterrupted tradition lasting for thousands of years are bogus.

- Just as you can't add a green-skinned, three-eyed goddess statue to your communion altar and keep calling yourself "Catholic," neither can you mutilate "Wicca" to mean anything you'd like.

Maybe. But where exactly will you put the line you can't cross and remain a True Believer (tm)? Once you give somebody the right to determine what a Wiccan ought to believe in, what will prevent you from going the same way as the Catholic officials, such as: "You can't approve of women's ordination and call yourself a Catholic"? (This is exactly what I dislike about the Catholic church.)

I believe that only your conscience should judge whether your beliefs are compatible with the religion you profess. If you find them to be, then so be it. And this should especially be true for a religion whose main law is "As long as you harm no one, do what you will."

- From what I've seen, "Eclectic Wicca" is one percent Wicca and ninety-nine percent "make it up as I go along." Anything that you don't like gets thrown out.

This person is saying that Wicca has gone too far from its original way, not realizing that Christianity lookfive hundred years ago was very different from when it was founded, and today's Christianity is very different from both. Does that make them any less Christian?

Take modern liberal Christianity, for example. It seems to be only loosely based on the Bible (try reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (skepticsannotatedbible.com) if you don't believe), it discarded what didn't fit, and took much from modern humanism. Does that make it illegitimate? Should all Christianity be based on Biblical fundamentalism?

- Do you want Wicca to become as muddled and corrupted as other religions???

Face the fact: religions evolve, and Wicca is no exception. In other words, a religion is what people make from it.

- By the way, did you know that the Wiccan threefold law applies to everyone, whether Wiccan or not? And at the same time, Wiccans won't go to Hell because they don't believe in one.

I never heard anybody say that he is not going to hell because he doesn't believe in one. But I can clearly imagine an atheist (or a Neopagan) respond to a someone's claim that he is going to hell: "No, I am not; I don't believe in such a thing." (Try reading it as a statement of belief, rather than a statement of fact.)

The claim that "the threefold law applies to you as well" looks somewhat arrogant, but nowhere near as "you are going to hell because of your beliefs." At least, it implies justice and responsibility for your actions. (In fact, I have also made a statement which may look arrogant, if taken from its context. In response to a continuous ranting about hell by some fundamentalist troll, I said: "This only proves that Yahweh - or should I say Yaldabaoth? - is an evil demiurge, prone to all kinds of cruelty." And no, I am not Gnostic.)

- You see, for every Wiccan who is all-too-eager to tell Christians what an evil book their Bible is, there are always ten more who will feel it is their duty to correct the less enlightened newbies by saying "Magick isn't what Hollywood portrays it as! Witches can't stop time, that's why we get wrinkles. If you want to change your hair color, buy some bleach/dye. If you want to change your eye color, buy some contact lenses." Come on, people, it's as annoyingly overdone as "Male witches aren't called warlocks!" You can say you're sick of correcting people all you want, but the rest of us are even more sick of hearing your lame attempts to sound cute.

So they are supposed not to defend themselves against an inaccurate, incorrect, or downright insulting comment they hear? Should I pretend that I can't hear when I am told that "atheists hate God"?

- On the Wicca's 161 laws (http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/laws.html)
- I've been told that the laws were only applicable in the Dark Ages (the 1950's?)

Of course, missing another possibility: that they didn't exist in the middle ages, but they were written as if they were applicable then.

- On magic

This person seems to keep stressing that actual magic exists. Without evidence for this claim, let me remain highly skeptical.

- On Wiccan intolerance toward Christians

Sorry, cannot comment on this; the Neopagan community doesn't seem to be too large in Czech Republic, and I don't actively seek them and ask them for their opinion on Christianity.

Why Wiccans Rule:

There is one thing I admire about Wicca: it is probably the first religion to be based on human rights. If any religion came with "As long as you harm no one, do what you will" five hundred years ago, I would be tempted to believe that it was inspired by God.

Mike Rosoft

Marcel

April 17, 2003, 02:22 PM

The best way to 'show them Wiccans' who pronounce /wicca/ as [wikka], is by telling them that they have actually been pronouncing the name of their own religion the wrong way and that they probably don't have a clue of what Old English was like.
It should be pronounced as [wicha]; that's right, with a similar affricative as Modern English has. No 'k' involved here

It's even more fun doing this when you're not an native English speaker and your correcting an American, English, Canadian or Australian (or what have you) 'Wiccan'.

One of the things I don't like about Wicca, is that it is probably one of the most artificial faiths that I have come across. Like paganism it is blinking hard to reconstruct the system of beliefs and this vanished way of life. It is a bookish, actively revived, unapontaneous, uncultural religion, because it has been dead and lost. Only vague remnants of a pagant past remain. I find it hard to believe that Wiccans actually believe what they are supposed - or pretend - to believe. I guess they have to read so many books and magazines in order to define their folklore and to keep believing the stuff that they believe in.

But that skepticism is maybe due to my atheist position.

emotional

April 22, 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Marcel
The best way to 'show them Wiccans' who pronounce /wicca/ as [wikka], is by telling them that they have actually been pronouncing the name of their own religion the wrong way and that they probably don't have a clue of what Old English was like.
It should be pronounced as [wicha]; that's right, with a similar affricative as Modern English has. No 'k' involved here

It's even more fun doing this when you're not an native English speaker and your correcting an American, English, Canadian or Australian (or what have you) 'Wiccan'.

Old English "c" was ambiguous. It was pronounced like "k" in some places, like "ch" in others: cald (cold), cynn (kin), cyning (king), cyssan (to kiss), celan (to cool), cuman (to come); on the other hand cild (child), cyrice (church), �lc (each), hwilc (which), ceape (cheap), cese (cheese).

One of the things I don't like about Wicca, is that it is probably one of the most artificial faiths that I have come across. Like paganism it is blinking hard to reconstruct the system of beliefs and this vanished way of life. It is a bookish, actively revived, unapontaneous, uncultural religion, because it has been dead and lost. Only vague remnants of a pagant past remain. I find it hard to believe that Wiccans actually believe what they are supposed - or pretend - to believe. I guess they have to read so many books and magazines in order to define their folklore and to keep believing the stuff that they believe in.

Wicca is a new religion, not a reconstructionist (http://sannion.bravepages.com/) one. It was invented by Gerald Gardner as a fusion of Goddess/God worship with ceremonial magick from Aleister Crowley and Freemasonry. It was mixed-up to begin with. The connections between Wicca and old paganism are slight and superficial only.

Tyler A DiPietro

April 22, 2003, 12:14 PM

That was an interesting site. I enjoyed reading it but the author is just a little too contentious for my taste.

My main problem with Wicca is that it's just like most religions, it's founded on superstitions that hold no water when subjected to reason. I'm still waiting for one of these "occultists" to demonstate some of this "magic" for me. Everytime I ask them to do so I get the "you have to believe it in order to see it" excuse.

Marcel

April 22, 2003, 02:33 PM

Thank you for the information, Emotional.

Why actually did Crowley name his new religion after an old concept? Here in the Netherlands some people tend to adhere to this religion. Particularly midwives seem attracted to this - even worse - constructed faith.

You wrote:

Originally posted by emotional

Old English "c" was ambiguous. It was pronounced like "k" in some places, like "ch" in others: cald (cold), cynn (kin), cyning (king), cyssan (to kiss), celan (to cool), cuman (to come); on the other hand cild (child), cyrice (church), �lc (each), hwilc (which), ceape (cheap), cese (cheese).

That is right. But in Wicca the c (k) was palatalized to ch (tS). In verbs, however while in the vb. it remained (k); cf. make, match; bake, batch; wake, watch; break, breach; speak, speech; stick, stitch.
Apparently, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a Witch, OE Wicca, is a man who practises witchcraft or magic; a magician, sorcerer, wizard.

Strange...

Krieger

April 22, 2003, 06:01 PM

Wiccans are fine with me because they don't evangelize.

emotional

April 24, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Marcel
Thank you for the information, Emotional.

Why actually did Crowley name his new religion after an old concept?

It was Gardner, not Crowley. Gardner, the dirty old man behind Wicca (http://www.angelfire.com/wi2/thetruthaboutwicca/geraldgardner.html), called it Wicca, the "Craft of the Wise", or just Witchcraft.

Here in the Netherlands some people tend to adhere to this religion. Particularly midwives seem attracted to this - even worse - constructed faith.

I dabbled in Wicca for some time. For me, as for many other people, Wicca and paganism have become synonymous. The Wiccan wheel of the year is often called the Pagan wheel of the year, irritating reconstructionist pagans no end.

(reconstructionist pagans are those who try to revive the worship of the old Roman, Greek, Celtic or Norse gods. The site I gave in my previous post here is that of a Greek reconstructionist)

That is right. But in Wicca the c (k) was palatalized to ch (tS). In verbs, however while in the vb. it remained (k); cf. make, match; bake, batch; wake, watch; break, breach; speak, speech; stick, stitch.

Yes, my etymological dictionary lists wicca with a dot above each of the two c's: affricate.

Apparently, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a Witch, OE Wicca, is a man who practises witchcraft or magic; a magician, sorcerer, wizard.

The masculine form wicca had a feminine counterpart wicce. However, throughout most of the declension, the masculine and feminine forms were the same: accusative, genitive, dative wiccan, nominative and accusative plural wiccan, genitive plural wiccena, dative plural wiccum. Only the nominative singular forms were distinct as regards gender.

Marcel

April 29, 2003, 08:06 AM

That is interesting; you were more or less involved in Wicca?

What I wonder is how and why a person starts thinking about a religion to the extent that he or she gets involved with it.
Is it due to some statements in Wicca that you felt were true, or was it a mystic attraction; an irresistible, irrational call? These matters always fascinate me.

emotional

April 29, 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Marcel
That is interesting; you were more or less involved in Wicca?

Yes, I read a lot of books and even attended a few Wiccan meetups.

What I wonder is how and why a person starts thinking about a religion to the extent that he or she gets involved with it.
Is it due to some statements in Wicca that you felt were true, or was it a mystic attraction; an irresistible, irrational call? These matters always fascinate me.

The ethos of "worshipping green, green Nature" is what attracted me. Much less the Goddess/God stuff, which is why I decided to stop, and the spells I didn't believe in. I was attracted to Wicca because I thought it was all about nature-worship; when I found out it was more about the occult than about nature, I was disillusioned.

Nowadays I'm much more of a mystic than I was then. I now do believe in the paranormal and in life after death. But I still don't believe in any gods or goddesses, so I haven't a good reason to return to Wicca.

Great Teacher Umikun

August 20, 2004, 05:54 AM

Shven

August 20, 2004, 06:17 AM

161 laws!? That’s 151 more than Christianity has! :eek:

If that’s so, then they really can’t call it a form of paganism. Paganism, according to my understanding, has only one law: “Do as you want, as long as it harms noöne.�? The WWS webmaster seems to harbor a fundamentalistic attitude towards Wicca, insisiting on a “Gerald Gardner’s Way or the Highway�? approach. If people wanted to be constrained by loads of rules, they’d swarm to Islam instead. :down:
No, paganism has NO laws, merely an emphasis on taking responsibility for your actions. The 'Do what you like but dont hurt anybody' is Wiccan, not pagan. There are many non-wiccan witches and other neo-pagans quite willing to hurt people if necessary, through magical or mundane means. The best example would be the spiritual descendants of Crowley.

And she is insisting on no such thing. She is complaining about Wiccans who dont even know about Gardner's way (or anything else about Wicca) but still call themselves Wiccan.

And the reason you will find pagans talking about magic as if it is real is because most of us have seen it in action far too many times to doubt it. and no, it isn't scientificly provable.

Shven

Uncle Ants

August 20, 2004, 07:04 AM

<snippety snip>

And the reason you will find pagans talking about magic as if it is real is because most of us have seen it in action far too many times to doubt it. and no, it isn't scientificly provable.

Why not?

Shven

August 20, 2004, 07:11 AM

Why not?
Because you cant do something with magic unless there is a possibility of it happening anyway.

Shven

Uncle Ants

August 20, 2004, 07:31 AM

Because you cant do something with magic unless there is a possibility of it happening anyway.

Shven

So how can you know it works?

truthie

August 20, 2004, 03:20 PM

[/b]

The ethos of "worshipping green, green Nature" is what attracted me. Much less the Goddess/God stuff, which is why I decided to stop, and the spells I didn't believe in. I was attracted to Wicca because I thought it was all about nature-worship; when I found out it was more about the occult than about nature, I was disillusioned.

But I still don't believe in any gods or goddesses, so I haven't a good reason to return to Wicca.

But now you do believe in the gods and goddesses, if I am mistaken, I think this is Heathen Dawn....this is interesting.
How do people get from point A to point Z? It happened to me, but still I do not get the 'thing' that starts making you to believe in the whole enchilada.

T.

truthie

August 20, 2004, 03:50 PM

And the reason you will find pagans talking about magic as if it is real is because most of us have seen it in action far too many times to doubt it. and no, it isn't scientificly provable.

Shven

Not really,

Uncle Ants, this is for you, in this board there are Neopagans who do not believe that "magic" is real.

From this thread: (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85348)

Exactly!!

My take on neo-paganism and how I approach it (as well as many others) is "magick" and "ritual" are nothing more than exercise in self-betterment, a way to mental focus to manifest change in ones self. After all no one, except those that exert coercive force, has any power over the choices/thoughts/actions of others.

One of the main aspects of Wicca is the journey within - for that which cannot be found within will never be found without - so to speak.

No one can perform a "spell" that changes another person. One can create a ritual/spell that helps another concentrate on what needs to be changed, but ultimately he/she must change and those who attribute "changing" ability to "spells" as some sort of outside force are fooling themselves IMHO.

Brighid

Or check this thread (second page) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85965&page=2&pp=25) and what Tangiellis said:

Originally Posted by tangiellis
Hmm...what I said was what I meant. I do believe that everyone does magic to some extent. It is not, IMO, superstition. And I do not believe in anything supernatural. Everything exists inside of nature. Humans just have not defined everything that nature encompasses yet.

Magic in these terms is the same as meditation or prayer....just a way to get your mind to concentrate on one thing.

Focus=concentration. I don't see how that is a greater definition than what the word stands for.

Tangie

In this thread, there was a conflict because the critical thinkers saw that portraying magic as not being supernatural and changing the definition was to make it more convenient and credible (since it does not really work, let's just change the definition, but keep the word!). :p
Among other reasons.

Anyway, most Neopagan books and Neopagans (excluding Recons) say/believe that magic does work.

T.

Shven

August 21, 2004, 09:05 AM

So how can you know it works?
I cant, but in my position it would take a much greater leap of faith to write it all off as one big highly unlikely coincidence.

Shven

tangiellis

August 21, 2004, 04:23 PM

Try this instead:
Originally Posted by tangiellis
Hmm...what I said was what I meant. I do believe that everyone does magic to some extent. It is not, IMO, superstition. And I do not believe in anything supernatural. Everything exists inside of nature. Humans just have not defined everything that nature encompasses yet.

People change the definitions of words every single day. That is why our language, like human beings, progresses. Just as our knowledge of the world around us does.

IMO, there is nothing supernatural. Everything is natural. Yet the natural has aspects that have yet to be discovered. To the ancients, a thing like our modern cell phones would be supernatural only because they could not envision such things. A phone with a voice that come out it? The devil! A spirit! Unnatural! It was not a part of their reality because that technology was undiscovered.

The same can be said about black holes. There was a time when a person speaking about them would have been shunned by the scientific community, shunned as having faith in an impossibility. Belief in the impossible. And in fact, they do exist.

Are cell phones and black holes supernatural? No. But the possibility of such things in a different place and time would have been considered as such, though both are based on very natural laws. One hundred years from now, those things we once believed were flights of fancy, faith in the imaginary, improbable equations, some of them will be proven to be very much apart of our natural reality. We merely lack the sophistication to catalog such things at this time.

I, too, have seen magic happen. Personal experiences prove this to me. I believe it is a focus of mental energy to bring about a desired goal. Thought turned into event. There are too many examples of this to be dismissed as coincidence in my life; too many times when mental capabilities have done or known things that there are no rational explanation for.

If these things had not happened, I would indeed be skeptical. But I cannot. However, just because I believe something, I don't expect any one else to think my views are correct. I am but one droplet in a vast ocean of human thought on creation; what I believe or disbelieve does not ultimately matter in the scheme of things. We are all trees in a forest that have no clue that other forests exist, so rooted are we in our own lives and communities.

My two cents.
Tangie

Warthur

August 21, 2004, 06:27 PM

I, too, have seen magic happen. Personal experiences prove this to me. I believe it is a focus of mental energy to bring about a desired goal. Thought turned into event. There are too many examples of this to be dismissed as coincidence in my life; too many times when mental capabilities have done or known things that there are no rational explanation for.

Could you cite some of the more striking examples for us?

I'm sure both the sceptics and believers here will be fascinated, and it'd help to know what sort of thing you regard as a "magical" experience; we don't want people thinking you believe in wizards tossing fireballs about when you're talking about serendipitous synchronicity, after all. :)

tangiellis

August 21, 2004, 07:02 PM

Could you cite some of the more striking examples for us?

I'm sure both the sceptics and believers here will be fascinated, and it'd help to know what sort of thing you regard as a "magical" experience; we don't want people thinking you believe in wizards tossing fireballs about when you're talking about serendipitous synchronicity, after all. :)

There are many people willing to convince you of examples of magic and, as I have been bluntly told before on this forum, more than likely to redeem you of your money.

I'm not one of them.

I respectfully decline. I have learned from experience that such things are best left unsaid.

Tangie

NiceWookie

August 22, 2004, 02:32 AM

In this thread, there was a conflict because the critical thinkers saw that portraying magic as not being supernatural and changing the definition was to make it more convenient and credible (since it does not really work, let's just change the definition, but keep the word!). :p

T.

Critical thinkers? Hardly. It doesn't take much critical thinking to get hung up on a semantics point. It take even less critical thinking to dress up the sematics argument by framing it as an attempt to make the issue "more convient and credible".

This type of semantics nit-picking counterpoint more an example of rigid thinking that lacks flexibility and adaptability than critical thinking.

Karalora

August 22, 2004, 10:07 AM

It seems that we practitioners of magic are in a no-win situation when it comes to the hardcore skeptics. When we can't prove in scientific fashion that our practices are effective, they dismiss them as bunk. When we do demonstrate their effectiveness in scientific fashion, they declare that this proves they are not in fact magical, because magic is supernatural by definition and science cannot investigate the supernatural.

Would this be considered shifting goalposts or No True Scotsman?

Warthur

August 22, 2004, 12:05 PM

I respectfully decline. I have learned from experience that such things are best left unsaid.

Well, here's a problem. When people say "Oh, I know this really amazing thing/I've had this really amazing experience... but I can't tell you about it, because you wouldn't understand", I see little reason to assume such an experienced happened, or (if it did) that it actually happened the way the speaker things it has done.

If you don't want to give any details about these experiences, don't mention them in a public forum. People will want to know what you are talking about, and will be both disappointed and increasingly sceptical when you say "Ah, actually I cannot say more than this." It's a silly tactic to use in an argument and does not help your position gain credibility.

When we do demonstrate their effectiveness in scientific fashion, they declare that this proves they are not in fact magical, because magic is supernatural by definition and science cannot investigate the supernatural.

Please cite an instance where magical practices have been shown to be effective in a scientific manner! Can you get us a link to an article on the subject? I'm fascinated.

Oh, and if Heathen Dawn is reading this: I'm still waiting for that article proving the existence of telepathy that you promised me.

truthie

August 22, 2004, 04:20 PM

When we do demonstrate their effectiveness in scientific fashion, they declare that this proves they are not in fact magical, because magic is supernatural by definition and science cannot investigate the supernatural.

Really? Could you provide an article that regards this?
When has that happened?

T.

truthie

August 22, 2004, 04:25 PM

Well, here's a problem. When people say "Oh, I know this really amazing thing/I've had this really amazing experience... but I can't tell you about it, because you wouldn't understand", I see little reason to assume such an experienced happened, or (if it did) that it actually happened the way the speaker things it has done.

If you don't want to give any details about these experiences, don't mention them in a public forum. People will want to know what you are talking about, and will be both disappointed and increasingly sceptical when you say "Ah, actually I cannot say more than this." It's a silly tactic to use in an argument and does not help your position gain credibility.

Yes, it gives the impression that the experiences do not actually exist and that the person is not telling the truth, and hiding something.
Though, maybe some people do not care whether they gain credibility or not, but if that is the point, then don't claim things if you won't back them up.
It is silly.

T.

Karalora

August 22, 2004, 05:19 PM

Please cite an instance where magical practices have been shown to be effective in a scientific manner! Can you get us a link to an article on the subject? I'm fascinated.

Who needs an article? There are examples right in your own home. The magic pain-relieving herb used by the Native American tribes, white willow bark, has been proven by science to work. Magic stones that attract iron really do exist, and it is possible to magically put someone in a trance and cause him to do things that he would not do of his own initiative.

Warthur

August 22, 2004, 05:51 PM

Karalora:

It's possible to be correct about something for the wrong reasons.

The "magic" herb isn't used these days because we believe that a spirit dwelling within the herb will heal us. We use it because we know that there is a chemical (a non-living physical thing as opposed to a living entity) in the plant which will relieve pain.

We don't believe that magnets work because the iron within them is attracted to a large mass of iron at the North Pole, we now know that magnets interact with the earth's magnetic field.

Hypnosis is much more about manipulating the individual under hypnosis than invoking a spirit to ensnare their mind.

In each of the cases you have cited something has been regarded as "magical" precisely because the mechanism behind the phenomenon was not understood. Apparently "magical" effects are caused by decidedly natural mechanisms, *not* by lines and circles and invocations and prayers and rituals (which is what most people will think of when you refer to magical practices). You were talking about magical *practices*, not phenomena.

Grinding up the herb and chanting does not make it more effective (placebo effect discounted). Invoking the patron god of navigation whilst making a compass will not make the magnet work better. Whether you are a stage hypnotist in the style of Paul McKenna or a hypnotist who dresses his/her act up with esoteric regalia, the result remains the same.

Please cite an article where magical *practices*, as practiced by yourself, have been proven accurate. You have used these examples to claim that spellcasting works. Demonstrate this.

Shven

August 22, 2004, 06:03 PM

<snip>

Please cite an article where magical *practices*, as practiced by yourself, have been proven accurate. You have used these examples to claim that spellcasting works. Demonstrate this.
When we do demonstrate their effectiveness in scientific fashion, they declare that this proves they are not in fact magical, because magic is supernatural by definition and science cannot investigate the supernatural.

Capybara

August 22, 2004, 06:44 PM

Who needs an article? There are examples right in your own home. The magic pain-relieving herb used by the Native American tribes, white willow bark, has been proven by science to work. Magic stones that attract iron really do exist, and it is possible to magically put someone in a trance and cause him to do things that he would not do of his own initiative.

This is gonna sound crazy, I know, but whenever I flip a switch in my bedroom, the room is flooded with light. If it's already flooded with light, flipping this magical switch envelopes the room in darkness. I don't know how it works; it must be magic. I'm not even going to get into the other crazy stuff I've experienced, like the time I really, really wanted a job and kept hoping I'd get one, and then I got called in to an interview and they hired me! I've got some kind of thought control over people, I guess, I can channel my energy and concentrate really hard and make things happen!

tangiellis

August 22, 2004, 07:27 PM

If you don't want to give any details about these experiences, don't mention them in a public forum. People will want to know what you are talking about, and will be both disappointed and increasingly sceptical when you say "Ah, actually I cannot say more than this." It's a silly tactic to use in an argument and does not help your position gain credibility.
The point of contention is whether or not I'm seeking to gain credibility. I'm not. My experiences are relevant to myself, no one else.
I have been asked before to allow myself to be tested; if my experiences are true, then it can be scientifically proven. When I state I am not interested in allowing scientists to poke and prod me, I am told that I am a fraud because I am not John Edwards or Sandra Brown out to sway the masses. If I said I was going to explain my experiences, that they are valid and true, then I am out seeking money, a liar to the people whose only motive is profit.

It is a situation I can't possibly win. Thus I remain silent.

I could say that same things that you stated above about people who claim that God exists or does not exist. Neither side can prove such a thing, yet they still persist in debating about it. I see neither of side backing away from discussion. If you are skeptical, then perhaps you have good reason to be. Just as I have good reason to be skeptical that what I have to say will be met with an open mind. If this implies to you that I have no mystical story of relevance, so be it.
Please cite an instance where magical practices have been shown to be effective in a scientific manner! Can you get us a link to an article on the subject? I'm fascinated.

Go into your local pharmacy. The drugs that are there are the same drugs that were and still are being used by mystics to heal people. The same mystics that drug companies send their crews to study to this day so they can take their way of life, strip away the reverence and ritual from it to make a profit. And leave these people with nothing after they have made their discoveries. Some of these drugs can be grown in your own yard; yet they charge an arm and a leg for them; then call you insane for using "holistic" medicine.

Once even yoga and mediation were shunned as being the practice of heretics and gurus bent on taking money from the people. Only now that it is marketable as scientifically proven is it considered a valid practice. Not too long ago, if I had said that yoga had healed me and made me healthier, people would have taken me for a fruitcake.

We buy and sell healing magic everyday. One is considered to be holistic bullshit and the other a scientifically valid enterprise. The difference: $$$$$. Only when science can take these things, study them and find that the results are indeed true does it pat itself on the back for its "discovery" as if none of these things ever existed before a scientist began doing research on them.

Tangie

Karalora

August 22, 2004, 07:53 PM

It's possible to be correct about something for the wrong reasons.

Indeed. I agree. What relevance does this have to the current discussion? Are you saying that I am right about something for the wrong reasons? If so, then you presume a lot about my reasons for holding the view of magic that I do.

The "magic" herb isn't used these days because we believe that a spirit dwelling within the herb will heal us. We use it because we know that there is a chemical (a non-living physical thing as opposed to a living entity) in the plant which will relieve pain.

Did I ever claim otherwise? I only pointed out that this magic herb does in fact work.

We don't believe that magnets work because the iron within them is attracted to a large mass of iron at the North Pole, we now know that magnets interact with the earth's magnetic field.

See above.

Hypnosis is much more about manipulating the individual under hypnosis than invoking a spirit to ensnare their mind.

See above. You do seem keen on the idea of magic as invoking spirits, don't you? As far as I know, no one here has ever claimed to do such a thing.

In each of the cases you have cited something has been regarded as "magical" precisely because the mechanism behind the phenomenon was not understood.

Getting warmer....

Apparently "magical" effects are caused by decidedly natural mechanisms,

By George, I think he's got it!

*not* by lines and circles and invocations and prayers and rituals (which is what most people will think of when you refer to magical practices). You were talking about magical *practices*, not phenomena.

NOOOOOO! Damn, so close!

My dear Warthur, very few people believe that lines and circles and invocations, in and of themselves, do anything. But the effect which ritual has upon the human consciousness is a natural phenomenon which has been amply documented. (I mentioned hypnosis specifically for a reason.)

Again, you rely too much on a definition of magic as invoking the supernatural. Why won't you give us any credit for our definition? If you try to summon an imp to bring you a sack of gold, you'll be sitting there till Doomsday, which we as non-Abrahamics know will never occur. In the meantime, my prosperity meditation is making me present myself better in interviews for a higher-paying job. Whose magic has worked?

Grinding up the herb and chanting does not make it more effective (placebo effect discounted).

And why be so quick to discount the placebo effect? Since magic works primarily on the human consciousness, the placebo effect is exactly what we're trying for!

Invoking the patron god of navigation whilst making a compass will not make the magnet work better.

Not in and of itself, no. (Is there a patron god of navigation? I am unaware of any.) But perhaps the right focus can temporarily increase the compass-maker's own sensitivity to magnetic fields (which humans have in a rudimentary form, overshadowed by our more effective senses) and help him choose the most powerful magnet for his compass.

Whether you are a stage hypnotist in the style of Paul McKenna or a hypnotist who dresses his/her act up with esoteric regalia, the result remains the same.

With this I would have to disagree wholeheartedly. The atmosphere presented by a hypnotist has a great deal of effect on her ability to hypnotize the subject, depending on the subject's own prejudices about magic and hypnotism.

Please cite an article where magical *practices*, as practiced by yourself, have been proven accurate. You have used these examples to claim that spellcasting works. Demonstrate this.

A bit hard to do, since I have never volunteered my personal magical practices for scientific study. In a more general sense, I don't know of any scientific studies to examine Pagan or Wiccan spellcasting techniques per se. It's hard to imagine how we would go about carrying out such a controlled experiment, since the effectiveness of spellcasting depends so much on human variables that are difficult, if not impossible, to control.

In addition, most practitioners of magic are reluctant to go public with their practices. Since we are squeezed by paranoid Christian fundamentalists accusing us of Satanism on one side, and by dismissive skeptics who consider us naive nutcases on the other, it's not hard to understand the reluctance.

So for now, all we can give you is anecdotal evidence. We've had plenty of it on this board. Is anecdotal evidence that worthless? When numerous people report the same sorts of results from a given type of practice, does it matter if they haven't done it in a lab?

Capybara

August 22, 2004, 08:23 PM

Is anecdotal evidence that worthless?

Yes.

When numerous people report the same sorts of results from a given type of practice, does it matter if they haven't done it in a lab?

Yes.

truthie

August 22, 2004, 10:01 PM

Karalora:

It's possible to be correct about something for the wrong reasons.

The "magic" herb isn't used these days because we believe that a spirit dwelling within the herb will heal us. We use it because we know that there is a chemical (a non-living physical thing as opposed to a living entity) in the plant which will relieve pain.

We don't believe that magnets work because the iron within them is attracted to a large mass of iron at the North Pole, we now know that magnets interact with the earth's magnetic field.

Hypnosis is much more about manipulating the individual under hypnosis than invoking a spirit to ensnare their mind.

In each of the cases you have cited something has been regarded as "magical" precisely because the mechanism behind the phenomenon was not understood. Apparently "magical" effects are caused by decidedly natural mechanisms, *not* by lines and circles and invocations and prayers and rituals (which is what most people will think of when you refer to magical practices). You were talking about magical *practices*, not phenomena.

When people don't or don't want to understand science, facts, the reality they turn to myth.
After all, myth, the supernatural is easier to learn and comforting.
Like this site.
It is called naturalmagiconline.con

Magical Properties of Pearl Powder (http://www.naturalmagiconline.com/sitepages/pearlpowder.htm)

Pearl powder contains polysaccharides, vitamin B complex, over ten amino acids, a variety of trace elements, minerals and proteins which allow the skin to regenerate as well as strengthen the tone.

Pearl has been used historically for its lightening and softening abilities. It is very effective to treat hyperpigmentation, freckles , discoloration from scarring and blotchiness.

Pearl has anti-microbial properties which helps reduce blemishes, heal rashes and irritation to the skin.

When used in a day cream it has the ability to screen the harmful sun rays.

Regular topical use of pearl can rejuvenate dull, dry skin and leave you with a noticeable glow.

So, the polysaccharides, vitamin B complex, the amino acids, a variety of trace elements, minerals and proteins is the "magic" or what makes the product "magical." :rolleyes:

T.

Nostalgic Pushhead

August 22, 2004, 10:37 PM

tangiellis

August 22, 2004, 11:42 PM

When people don't or don't want to understand science, facts, the reality they turn to myth. After all, myth, the supernatural is easier to learn and comforting.

What I don't understand is why something fails to be magical just because we have a scientific explanation of its components. I don't understand why scientific thinking and magical thinking are so incompatible as you make them out to be.

I have a son that's 18 months old. He sees the world as something new every single day he lives. He can look at a bubble and giggle. What it is? Why are there so many colors in it? It mystifies him, entrances him. Things we so take for granted are things that these children look at and see for the wonderful things that they are.

Is it so hard to believe that adults see the world that way? That we want to see the world that way? That we don't want to go through our lives looking at things and knowing what they are but failing miserably to appreciate them?

I know that my beliefs are mocked, but it makes no difference to me. I look around me and all I see are people so busy with artificial lives they can't even be bothered to enjoy the sunshine. They don't splash in the puddles anymore. They don't go out and look at the stars in wonderment. They step on the flowers, put trash on the streets and moan about how horrible life is. They ignore the sick and the dying, they can't be bothered to help someone in need. So busy chasing after the dangling carrot of money and ambition that has us scurrying like rats in a maze.

Why is it that a child needs to teach us how to live correctly? Why is it that a child can see the beauty and wonder all around us but none of us can anymore? Since when does learning require that we turn off our sense of mystery of that which lies beyond us? Since when did education demand that we become indifferent not just to creation, but to the very nature that sustains us and the life that shares it with us?

Let me be mocked, but I would rather live my life and take nothing for granted. Giving thanks to all those that came before me, the creation that forged me out of infinite possibilities and the chaos that churned order into my birth. If that makes me silly because I look around with tears in my eyes at the beauty I see and give thanks to whatever it is that started all of this, so be it. If there was no beginning but only infinity itself, I will thank that.

And it is all magic. It is magic because to my mind, all of it is magical because it didn't have to be like this. The chance that something could have went wrong anywhere along the line of creation to create a world without us in it is too great for me not to be thankful that I'm here. The impossibility of all that exists. The improbability of it. The focused universal energy towards a desired result: creation and destruction; order and chaos; life and death; up and down; day and night. That is magic.

What that focused energy is...I don't know. But I do know that is not personified and definitely not human. And the only human equivalent that I can think of for this universal energy is mental energy. Mental focus on a desired goal=creation and destruction; order and chaos; life and death, good and evil. We are each carrying out the same cycles of nature every single day, adding to the process with our individual flavors of existence. We choose what we focus our mental energy on. We choose whether that result will create something or destroy it. We are an extension of nature; not apart from it, but holding a portion of its infinite power. We are each universes of consciousness all on our own, interconnected to each other through the bonds of humanity, the links of genetic history, and the union of an ocean of possibilities yet to be uncovered by our mental capacities.

How can anyone stand before all of this and not see the wonder in it? How can anyone think so lowly of me because I do and choose willingly to give my love and devotion to it all?

Now maybe that's not scientific enough. Maybe it isn't rational enough to suit anyone else. Maybe some would read my words and think them the stuff of myth and the supernatural.

But it satisfies me. And that’s all that matters.

My two cents.
Tangie

tangiellis

August 23, 2004, 12:18 AM

We seem to have two *completely* different defenitions of magic.

1. Magic is, uh... just normal stuff... concentration, coincidence, plants that heal... but we'll... uh... call it "Magic" because people used to call it Magic... before they understood it. So its not at all magic... they just thought it was magic... but we'll call it magic! Because, uh...........

2. Magis is, uh... real. Really! But I can't tell you because you won't believe me!

That's, absolutely, the only two defenitions I've heard. #1 is invalid because it's saying magic is 100% a placebo, motivation/concentration-buidling device. Completely meaningless. And building a religion around it is dishonest. #2 is invalid because there is no proof.

The human brain is fallible. When weird stuff happens people will attribute it to the religion du jour. End of story.

My definition:
Magic=mental energy focused on a desired goal to bring about the desired result or universal energy focused on a desired goal to bring about a result (i.e. nature).
It requires mental energy to do every goal we make for ourselves as humans and even those decisions we think mean little like getting up in the morning.

Because choose to get up in the morning, we might also choose to answer the phone when that telemarketer calls. We may choose to use our mental capacity to be rude to them. That person may choose to get upset about the interaction which allows them to choose to be rude to their next customer. Which causes that customer to be rude to their husband because she is irritated and left his socks in the middle of the floor. Which allows the husband to choose to start a heated argument. Which allows the woman to choose to leave the house in a huff and get into a minor car accident because she pulled out of the driveway too fast due to being emotionally distracted.

All because we chose to get up and answer the phone use our mental capacity towards the desired goal of getting rid of an annoying telemarketer. The power of that singular action...if that is not magical, I don't know what is: to influence people we don't even know for better or worse. To create a ripple effect with every single mental decision we make.

Each of these individuals choose their own route, but by that one interaction on our part, we added a slight influence that may have affected the situation to make it have a different outcome. And there are bigger examples of how one person's mental capacity is capable of influencing millions, of visualizing black holes and proving their existence with no positive confirmation, of healing the sick from their diseases by creating a vaccine, of bringing education and food to the poor, of easing the suffering of the dying by comforting them, of building technology that links us all in seconds no matter how far away we may be in physical location, of putting a man on the moon, of giving a baby a chance at life who would have otherwise died at within days of birth.

This is the magic. These are the miracles of human mental energy at work. The possibilities are endless.

Telling you that I have seen things and known things that I have no explaination for does little. Saying that I have done things that I cannot explain makes no difference either way. They all involved using mental energy in a manner I have been told is not possible or is highly improbable. Science and religion individually both fail to encompass these experiences. I am ever learning. But together, there is much to learn before I will reach a conclusion.

I am not seeking to sway anyone. I am seeking my own answers. There is a difference. It has already been stated here that anecdotal evidence is worthless. If my religious views inspire the comments listed above, why should I think that details about my experiences would receive anything other than that?

Tangie

Capybara

August 23, 2004, 12:25 AM

What I don't understand is why something fails to be magical just because we have a scientific explanation of its components. I don't understand why scientific thinking and magical thinking are so incompatible as you make them out to be.

I have a son that's 18 months old. He sees the world as something new every single day he lives. He can look at a bubble and giggle. What it is? Why are there so many colors in it? It mystifies him, entrances him. Things we so take for granted are things that these children look at and see for the wonderful things that they are.

Is it so hard to believe that adults see the world that way? That we want to see the world that way? That we don't want to go through our lives looking at things and knowing what they are but failing miserably to appreciate them?

I know that my beliefs are mocked, but it makes no difference to me. I look around me and all I see are people so busy with artificial lives they can't even be bothered to enjoy the sunshine. They don't splash in the puddles anymore. They don't go out and look at the stars in wonderment. They step on the flowers, put trash on the streets and moan about how horrible life is. They ignore the sick and the dying, they can't be bothered to help someone in need. So busy chasing after the dangling carrot of money and ambition that has us scurrying like rats in a maze.

Why is it that a child needs to teach us how to live correctly? Why is it that a child can see the beauty and wonder all around us but none of us can anymore? Since when does learning require that we turn off our sense of mystery of that which lies beyond us? Since when did education demand that we become indifferent not just to creation, but to the very nature that sustains us and the life that shares it with us?

Let me be mocked, but I would rather live my life and take nothing for granted. Giving thanks to all those that came before me, the creation that forged me out of infinite possibilities and the chaos that churned order into my birth. If that makes me silly because I look around with tears in my eyes at the beauty I see and give thanks to whatever it is that started all of this, so be it. If there was no beginning but only infinity itself, I will thank that.

And it is all magic. It is magic because to my mind, all of it is magical because it didn't have to be like this. The chance that something could have went wrong anywhere along the line of creation to create a world without us in it is too great for me not to be thankful that I'm here. The impossibility of all that exists. The improbability of it. The focused universal energy towards a desired result: creation and destruction; order and chaos; life and death; up and down; day and night. That is magic.

What that focused energy is...I don't know. But I do know that is not personified and definitely not human. And the only human equivalent that I can think of for this universal energy is mental energy. Mental focus on a desired goal=creation and destruction; order and chaos; life and death, good and evil. We are each carrying out the same cycles of nature every single day, adding to the process with our individual flavors of existence. We choose what we focus our mental energy on. We choose whether that result will create something or destroy it. We are an extension of nature; not apart from it, but holding a portion of its infinite power. We are each universes of consciousness all on our own, interconnected to each other through the bonds of humanity, the links of genetic history, and the union of an ocean of possibilities yet to be uncovered by our mental capacities.

How can anyone stand before all of this and not see the wonder in it? How can anyone think so lowly of me because I do and choose willingly to give my love and devotion to it all?

Now maybe that's not scientific enough. Maybe it isn't rational enough to suit anyone else. Maybe some would read my words and think them the stuff of myth and the supernatural.

But it satisfies me. And that’s all that matters.

My two cents.
Tangie

Tangiellis,

It's nice that you have a worldview that works for you.

But I don't really agree with your idea of the word "magic". Now, I'm not trying to interfere with your wonder at the beauty of the universe. It's all fine and good - whatever works for you. But "magic" is generally understood as something out of the ordinary, or something supernatural. A beautiful flower isn't really "magical", in the way the word is normally used. A dragon is "magic", or levitation, or the sky raining up.

I find your belief that one cannot enjoy life if one doesn't believe the natural world is "magical" rather odd. Are all these dour people you see around you, who don't enjoy the beauty of the stars and the sunshine atheists? Do they all have PhD.s in the sciences? I sort of doubt it. Most Americans don't consider themselves atheists. In fact, most of these people you complain about, who "don't splash in the puddles anymore. . . .. . don't go out and look at the stars in wonderment . . . . step on the flowers, put trash on the streets and moan about how horrible life is" are probably adherents to some kind of religious faith. Quite possibly a faith that believes that God or the Gods created this world. And most Americans receive a pretty half-assed scientific education (myself included).

So I don't really understand your contention that people with scientific explanations for natural phenomena, who don't believe that the world "magic" or "magical" is applicable to the natural world, are the ones stomping your buzz. I spent several hours today (my day off) looking at dogs in the dogrun, watching kids play in the park, admiring the plane trees, and talking to my cats. Not such a dreary day, considering I don't believe that spirits inhabit trees, or my cats are my familiars. My unwillingness to ascribe "magic" to everyday life doesn't seem to inhibit my enjoyment of it.

tangiellis

August 23, 2004, 12:44 AM

Tangiellis,
But "magic" is generally understood as something out of the ordinary, or something supernatural.
And what is out of the ordinary is determined by the individual perspective of ordinary is.What is an ordinary day for me is not an ordinary day for you. What may seem like an ordinary flower to you may not be ordinary to me.
Words mean different things for me than they may mean to you.
I find your belief that one cannot enjoy life if one doesn't believe the natural world is "magical" rather odd. Are all these dour people you see around you, who don't enjoy the beauty of the stars and the sunshine atheists?
I am not implying that those do not enjoy the beauty of things are atheists or scientists. Nor did I state that people cannot enjoy life without thinking as I do. I said PEOPLE. I assigned no faith to those people. I merely defended my own belief in the above post. There is a difference.
So I don't really understand your contention that people with scientific explanations for natural phenomena, who don't believe that the world "magic" or "magical" is applicable to the natural world, are the ones stomping your buzz.
No, people who think that I am somehow wrong or loony or less rational because I use the word magic to discribe the world around me stomp on my buzz.
You misunderstand me. I responded to a quote stating that people that have trouble with scientific knowledge resort to belief in myth and the supernatural. My post is in summation a response that I do not find shelter in myth and the supernatural because I cannot handle rational thinking. I think rationally AND I happen to hold a religious concept of the world being magical. I don't think they are incompatible.
My opening paragraph:
What I don't understand is why something fails to be magical just because we have a scientific explanation of its components. I don't understand why scientific thinking and magical thinking are so incompatible as you make them out to be.
My closing paragraph:
How can anyone stand before all of this and not see the wonder in it? How can anyone think so lowly of me because I do and choose willingly to give my love and devotion to it all? Now maybe that's not scientific enough. Maybe it isn't rational enough to suit anyone else. Maybe some would read my words and think them the stuff of myth and the supernatural. But it satisfies me. And that’s all that matters.

This last sentence is highlighted because I have already said several times that I am not trying to sway anyone to my worldview. I am simply explaining what my worldview is and my reasons for having it. Again, there is a difference from trying to convince you that my way is the best way or that faeries exist or that dragons fly. My way works for me. That's good enough.

Tangie

truthie

August 23, 2004, 01:31 AM

What I don't understand is why something fails to be magical just because we have a scientific explanation of its components. I don't understand why scientific thinking and magical thinking are so incompatible as you make them out to be.

Is it so hard to believe that adults see the world that way? That we want to see the world that way? That we don't want to go through our lives looking at things and knowing what they are but failing miserably to appreciate them?

Of course we appreciate them, but that does not mean that we have to attach mystical stuff to it, so it looks nicer and comforting to us.

I know that my beliefs are mocked, but it makes no difference to me. I look around me and all I see are people so busy with artificial lives they can't even be bothered to enjoy the sunshine. They don't splash in the puddles anymore. They don't go out and look at the stars in wonderment. They step on the flowers, put trash on the streets and moan about how horrible life is. They ignore the sick and the dying, they can't be bothered to help someone in need. So busy chasing after the dangling carrot of money and ambition that has us scurrying like rats in a maze.

Oh really in the US, right?
Have you been to Belgium, Switzerland....
And what does this have to do with "magic" and religious beliefs? :banghead:
I have known people that like to take care of the environment not because it is "magical" to them, or they see something beyond lurking in nature...They are not even environmentalists.

And it is all magic. It is magic because to my mind, all of it is magical because it didn't have to be like this. The chance that something could have went wrong anywhere along the line of creation to create a world without us in it is too great for me not to be thankful that I'm here. The impossibility of all that exists. The improbability of it. The focused universal energy towards a desired result: creation and destruction; order and chaos; life and death; up and down; day and night. That is magic.

union of an ocean of possibilities yet to be uncovered by our mental capacities.

[QUOTE]How can anyone stand before all of this and not see the wonder in it? How can anyone think so lowly of me because I do and choose willingly to give my love and devotion to it all?

Lowly of you? Where? When? Either there is a victim complex or you are too emotional.
There are people that see the wonder and beauty of nature, but do not try to make themselves to see stuff that isn't there, it is realism.

This is not the first time that you say something similar to this, a) implying that those who don't see the world a la "magic" then are not enjoying the world or are out. On the other hand, they are this cold rationalists who don't appreciate anything. :rolleyes:
Or b) implying that seeing things a la "magic" makes people care more about the Earth, be happier and so on.

Remember this? From this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85965&page=5) "To cast a spell"

I know that I'm probably going to get bashed for saying any of this, but I was taught to see life as a child does and I'm relearning this lesson through my son, seeing how we take little things like bubbles for granted just because we know the scientific explanation of what it is. How we rush to work everyday and forget to look at a rainbow because its just the refraction of light through raindrops or we don't bother to look at the clouds because they are manifestations of water particles rather than the cloud ships and dragons and balloons we called them as children.

If one can't see the humor, the light, the awe, the wonder, and yes, the magic of life and ourselves, what point is there in life?
Bash away.
Tangie

Fine, it makes your life have a purpose and meaning.

T.

Capybara

August 23, 2004, 01:49 AM

You misunderstand me. I responded to a quote stating that people that have trouble with scientific knowledge resort to belief in myth and the supernatural. My post is in summation a response that I do not find shelter in myth and the supernatural because I cannot handle rational thinking. I think rationally AND I happen to hold a religious concept of the world being magical. I don't think they are incompatible.
Tangie

But you are resorting to a belief in myth and the supernatural. You obviously don't find natural explanations for ordinary things very satisfying. If you hold the religious concept that the world is magical, in any typical sense that the word "magic" is used in the English language, you don't have a very rational view of the world. Or else you just enjoy shiny, happy nomenclature like the word "magical", and apply it to every feature of the natural world. And I guess then I have to ask, what's the point? If everything natural is supernatural, why have two words?

"What may seem like an ordinary flower to you may not be ordinary to me."

Why is it necessary to label flowers and rainbows and babies as "magical" to enjoy them? You imply that every waking hour is some mystical experience for you, and that people who don't see soap bubbles as magical rainbow fairylands are dour. I find that a bit rigid, actually.

NiceWookie

August 23, 2004, 02:01 AM

I'm 100% with you Tangiellis. So many ordinary events in life can become so much more than ordinary when percieved through a lens of "something magical".

NiceWookie

August 23, 2004, 02:03 AM

I say let folks cling to the narrow "harry potter-like" defintion of what magic means. After all, they don't beleive in it, so what does it matter anyway?

It seems even if we could get an army of folks here posting, agreeing that magic is art form of the mind, fueled by emotional desire and ignited by imagination and wonder that the naysayers would probably still be saying nay.

It is kinda sad that so-called self-proclaimed rational people would be so unopen to new and different ideas about this topic. It is quite logical to remain open to new ideas and be ready to adjust or discard old ideas in order to continue the learning process. Refusing new perspectives and information is counter-productive to healthy reasoning. As it seems folks here have chosen to take this path- I say let em. Their loss in my opinion.

Capybara

August 23, 2004, 02:33 AM

It is kinda sad that so-called self-proclaimed rational people would be so unopen to new and different ideas about this topic.

I don't know how "new and different" any of these ideas are. I mean, I've heard it all before, so it's not like I'm gonna think "Wow! Trees are alive! Flowers are beautiful! Seeing the world again through the eyes of a child is so amazing. I've never thought of such things before." I used to work in a health food store, so I have met hippies before. I've smoked dope and taken acid, so I'm no stranger to the "being one with the universe" concept. What's the new and different idea that I'm missing here? And am I not allowed to have an opinion that someone's philosophy isn't my cup of tea? Am I only allowed to nod my head and say, yeah, everyone's worldview is equally valid? It makes for a pretty boring discussion forum when discussion is frowned upon. I'm sorry if it hurts someone's feelings that I don't find their personal philosophy very compelling, but I assumed that it was okay to debate, and even be critical of, different religions and philosophies here, seeing as it's a discussion forum for infidels and others with an interest in religion and philosophy. But I'm real new here, so maybe I'm mistaken? Perhaps I should just smile and keep my mouth shut. But then why do they have this little box for me to type stuff into?

Uncle Ants

August 23, 2004, 03:50 AM

In this thread, there was a conflict because the critical thinkers saw that portraying magic as not being supernatural and changing the definition was to make it more convenient and credible (since it does not really work, let's just change the definition, but keep the word!). :p
Among other reasons.

Anyway, most Neopagan books and Neopagans (excluding Recons) say/believe that magic does work.

T.

Hi Truthie,

... and reading on through the thread the conflict continues. Gotta say, I definitely fall on the side of the argument that redefining the meaning of magic in this sort of way means that it isn't magic anymore. You could redefine walking, talking, breathing and eating as magic if you liked ... would it make it so? If you redefine magic to basically be a bunch of techniques for self empowerment (which seems to be the gist) - then what word DO we use for the Harry Potter stuff??

Shven

August 23, 2004, 04:37 AM

For what its worth, there's more to it than self empowerment.

Shven

Uncle Ants

August 23, 2004, 05:35 AM

For what its worth, there's more to it than self empowerment.

Shven

Perhaps I was just being a bit glib, but I'll stick by the point. If you define (or redefine) magic as something which isn't supernatural as many believers in magic seem to do, then what do you call the real deal hocus pocus stuff?

Shven

August 23, 2004, 05:56 AM

Perhaps I was just being a bit glib, but I'll stick by the point. If you define (or redefine) magic as something which isn't supernatural as many believers in magic seem to do, then what do you call the real deal hocus pocus stuff?
Fiction

Uncle Ants

August 23, 2004, 06:24 AM

Fiction

Ha :)

Karalora

August 23, 2004, 08:21 AM

But I don't really agree with your idea of the word "magic". Now, I'm not trying to interfere with your wonder at the beauty of the universe. It's all fine and good - whatever works for you. But "magic" is generally understood as something out of the ordinary, or something supernatural. A beautiful flower isn't really "magical", in the way the word is normally used. A dragon is "magic", or levitation, or the sky raining up.

If magic is generally understood that way, then it is generally misunderstood. The meaning of the word "science" does not change just because most people's mental image of it is rather inaccurate to what actually goes on in a lab or in the field. Let the people who are actually involved with such things supply the definitions.

Your protest reminds me of people who say "Oh, I don't mind if gay couples can have government benefits, as long as they don't call it marriage."

Warthur

August 23, 2004, 09:55 AM

The point of contention is whether or not I'm seeking to gain credibility. I'm not. My experiences are relevant to myself, no one else.

Then why do you raise them in a public forum like this one?

I have been asked before to allow myself to be tested; if my experiences are true, then it can be scientifically proven. When I state I am not interested in allowing scientists to poke and prod me, I am told that I am a fraud because I am not John Edwards or Sandra Brown out to sway the masses. If I said I was going to explain my experiences, that they are valid and true, then I am out seeking money, a liar to the people whose only motive is profit.

Then... erm... don't ask for money for explaining your experiences. Tell us about them for free. We won't accuse you of trying to get our money then.

It is a situation I can't possibly win. Thus I remain silent.

Except you don't, because you keep raising these visions and magical experiences on public discussion boards and then refusing to discuss them.

If a Christian came on here and claimed that Jesus had spoken them directly, but then suddenly became evasive when asked for details of what JC had said, I somehow doubt you'd let him or her off the hook so easily.

I could say that same things that you stated above about people who claim that God exists or does not exist. Neither side can prove such a thing, yet they still persist in debating about it. I see neither of side backing away from discussion.

If you're not interested in religious debate, then I can only conclude most of the content on IIDB isn't to your taste. ;)

Go into your local pharmacy. The drugs that are there are the same drugs that were and still are being used by mystics to heal people. The same mystics that drug companies send their crews to study to this day so they can take their way of life, strip away the reverence and ritual from it to make a profit. And leave these people with nothing after they have made their discoveries. Some of these drugs can be grown in your own yard; yet they charge an arm and a leg for them; then call you insane for using "holistic" medicine.

There's a difference, see: the mystics have superstitious explanations as to why the medicine works, the scientists actually look into how the medicine helps.

Reverence and ritual are of very little use, after all, when all you really want is a cure for the disease that's killing you.

Warthur

August 23, 2004, 10:13 AM

My dear Warthur, very few people believe that lines and circles and invocations, in and of themselves, do anything. But the effect which ritual has upon the human consciousness is a natural phenomenon which has been amply documented. (I mentioned hypnosis specifically for a reason.)

Firstly: give us a citation.

Again, you rely too much on a definition of magic as invoking the supernatural. Why won't you give us any credit for our definition? If you try to summon an imp to bring you a sack of gold, you'll be sitting there till Doomsday, which we as non-Abrahamics know will never occur. In the meantime, my prosperity meditation is making me present myself better in interviews for a higher-paying job. Whose magic has worked?

So, erm, what you are actually talking about is what most people would call psychological self-help.

Hate to break this to you, but for most of recorded human history "magic" and "supernatural" have sort of been closely tied together. Redefining "magic" as "self-help and the placebo effect" doesn't seem to have any purpose except to make the latter seem kewler.

Not in and of itself, no. (Is there a patron god of navigation? I am unaware of any.) But perhaps the right focus can temporarily increase the compass-maker's own sensitivity to magnetic fields (which humans have in a rudimentary form, overshadowed by our more effective senses) and help him choose the most powerful magnet for his compass.

Citation for human sensitivity for magnetic fields?

A bit hard to do, since I have never volunteered my personal magical practices for scientific study. In a more general sense, I don't know of any scientific studies to examine Pagan or Wiccan spellcasting techniques per se.

The thing is, if it's all about the placebo effect, why dress it up with all the gods and nature-worship and magical trappings? Why not make it look scientific?

After all, the whole point of the placebo effect is that you don't know that the placebo is any different from any other medicine that the nice doctor gives you.

Shven

August 23, 2004, 10:14 AM

Except you don't, because you keep raising these visions and magical experiences on public discussion boards and then refusing to discuss them.
We keep raising them because you keep claiming our beliefs are baseless.

Warthur

August 23, 2004, 10:22 AM

If magic is generally understood that way, then it is generally misunderstood. The meaning of the word "science" does not change just because most people's mental image of it is rather inaccurate to what actually goes on in a lab or in the field.

And the meaning of the word "magic" does not change because someone applies it to their psychological self-help regime, just as it wouldn't be legit of me to call dancing under the stars in order to contact alien life "science". There's centuries of cultural context which makes my personal redefinition of the word irrelevant.

By your argument, if I was (say) a cowherd I could legitimately call a cow a "motorcycle", milk "liquidised baby", grass "cocaine" and meadows "brothels".

However, if I did that, and then I said that every day I took my motorcycles out to a brothel full of cocaine and that I make my money by selling liquidised baby, everyone else would get the wrong idea as to what I did for a living.

Language is a consensus thing. It has to be, otherwise it's meaningless.

Let the people who are actually involved with such things supply the definitions.

No, let the all the people who are *speaking English* supply the definitions collectively. That is how language works.

Shven

August 23, 2004, 10:34 AM

And the meaning of the word "magic" does not change because someone applies it to their psychological self-help regime, just as it wouldn't be legit of me to call dancing under the stars in order to contact alien life "science". There's centuries of cultural context which makes my personal redefinition of the word irrelevant.
Its alot more than a 'psychological self help regime' - though I have no desire to get into that argument.

And actually, if your world view is true, then all claimed practitioners of 'magic' throughout time have basically either been doing what we've been doing now (our 'spychological self help regime') or using trickery - so what better definition of magic is there?

Or do you believe everything hollywood tells you?

Shven

Protoctista

August 23, 2004, 11:03 AM

And actually, if your world view is true, then all claimed practitioners of 'magic' throughout time have basically either been doing what we've been doing now (our 'spychological self help regime') or using trickery - so what better definition of magic is there?

That's right: they were mistaken, and what they were doing wasn't really magic.

Let's say I have a box that I think has a little elf in it. I put food in the box every now and then for many years to "feed the elf". But then, people look inside the box and find out there is no elf; just air. I would be a very silly person if I went on claiming that I'm feeding the elf, except for the discovery that an elf is really a small volume of air. (Elfs may not be air in movies, but do you believe everything Hollywood tells you?) And yet, that's what you're doing by calling perfectly ordinary psychological effects "magic". "Magic", as far as I know, has always meant much more than just changing your mood a bit: it means there are real effects that ordinary everyday processes can't account for; effects that behave in mind-like ways, respond to symbolism, and so on. Upon closer investigation, these effects turn out not to exist in reality, even though they're common in fiction, and so the same is true of magic.

Warthur

August 23, 2004, 11:58 AM

Its alot more than a 'psychological self help regime' - though I have no desire to get into that argument.

Karalora seems to describe magic as precisely this sort of thing.

What is your definition of magic? It's getting to the point where everyone in this debate is going to need to define the term since it's clear we're not only reading from different hymn sheets, but we are actually in different churches in different towns in different countries on different continents. :)

And actually, if your world view is true, then all claimed practitioners of 'magic' throughout time have basically either been doing what we've been doing now (our 'spychological self help regime') or using trickery - so what better definition of magic is there?

Magic is what they claimed to do... trickery/self-deception was what they actually achieved.

truthie

August 23, 2004, 12:20 PM

I say let folks cling to the narrow "harry potter-like" defintion of what magic means. After all, they don't beleive in it, so what does it matter anyway?

Harry Potter like magic?
That is not the magic we are talking about, it is the magic that is found in occult and Wiccan books.
The real definition of magic, the supposed art that can change events in reality or that can make people control the laws of nature.

From Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29)Magic (also called magick to distinguish it from stage magic) is a way of influencing the world through supernatural, mystical, or paranormal means. This article provides an overview of specific magical traditions and practises. It also discusses the use of magic as a plot device in various kinds of fiction. For a list of historical figures associated with paranormal magic, see: List of occultists.

It is kinda sad that so-called self-proclaimed rational people would be so unopen to new and different ideas about this topic. It is quite logical to remain open to new ideas and be ready to adjust or discard old ideas in order to continue the learning process. Refusing new perspectives and information is counter-productive to healthy reasoning. As it seems folks here have chosen to take this path- I say let em. Their loss in my opinion.

I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, only because a person does not share a certain view, that does not mean that she/he is more or less narow-minded.

Of course, claiming that magic is natural, just makes the "validity", legitimization and "existence" of magic more possible, since there is evidence for the validity and existence of naturalism.

T.

tangiellis

August 23, 2004, 03:15 PM

Of course we appreciate them, but that does not mean that we have to attach mystical stuff to it, so it looks nicer and comforting to us.
LOL. Nicer and comforting? No, that's the way I see the world through my eyes. I'm not attaching anything to it; it's already there. :)
And what does this have to do with "magic" and religious beliefs? :banghead:
I have known people that like to take care of the environment not because it is "magical" to them, or they see something beyond lurking in nature...They are not even environmentalists.
I am defending my beliefs and giving you reasons why I have chosen my path.
You stated that people flock to the supernatural and myth because they can't handle science. My post is a rebuttal of that statement. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Lowly of you? Where? When? Either there is a victim complex or you are too emotional.
Let me explain another aspect of myself: my living is made as a writer. I made a living writing editorials, prose, speeches and fiction. I still do so now. So what you are seeing is my writing style, not a persecution complex. A written response on a message board, even with smileys, can be misinterpreted. I also do not post when I am emotional or upset. I post when I am calm always. Look at the posts and see the way the words flow together; it is stylistic. The terms I use fit and flow within the post to create a singular expression of words. It's my job to work with words everyday to create a vision of another world or viewpoint. So I understand all too well the limitations of those words when they are misunderstood.
There are people that see the wonder and beauty of nature, but do not try to make themselves to see stuff that isn't there, it is realism.
What am I seeing that isn't there? How is what I'm seeing any less real or valid because I use vivid, colorful language to describe it?
This is not the first time that you say something similar to this, a) implying that those who don't see the world a la "magic" then are not enjoying the world or are out. On the other hand, they are this cold rationalists who don't appreciate anything. :rolleyes:
Or b) implying that seeing things a la "magic" makes people care more about the Earth, be happier and so on.

Remember this? From this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85965&page=5) "To cast a spell"

If you are going to quote me, remember that there is more to it than that. From that same post:

Why not be Buddhist? was the question. Simple. Religion is like poetry. This religion might move and speak to a person, another might not. Because individuals are so vastly different, their interpretation of the world around them and, by extension, religious concepts are understood in different ways, in different languages. To me, its all metaphor for the same thing, no matter the window dressing. Some people simply identify more with a certain presentation of concepts than they do with others. Rather like how many of us love color, but we don't all have the same favorite color.
There is a difference between explaining one's own viewpoint and reasons for it and saying that everyone that doesn't believe as I do should convert to my way of thinking.
If I truly believed that my way is the right way for everyone, then this paragraph would have been nowhere to be found in my work. To believe or disbelieve a religion is up to the individual. The universal codes like the Golden Rule are found even in those that don't adhere to any religious thought. When I use an example of other people, my criticism is not that they fail to see the world as magical. Only that so many of us take it for granted and misuse it, regardless of religious or nonreligious affiliation. I dislike this behavior and strive not to be a participant in it. I am not seeking to make everyone a worshipper of nature. I am merely giving my reasons why I am one.
This quote:
If one can't see the humor, the light, the awe, the wonder, and yes, the magic of life and ourselves, what point is there in life?
All that statement implies is that this is how I see the world, this is why I am a believer in my religion. It is not meant as a commentary of how others should live. A quote when used by itself may have a different meaning than when one takes the entire post in context, correct?
Fine, it makes your life have a purpose and meaning.
Which was the point of my posts: to explain why I believe as I do. I am defending my religion, not trying to convince you to join it. There's a difference.

Tangie

tangiellis

August 23, 2004, 04:05 PM

But you are resorting to a belief in myth and the supernatural. You obviously don't find natural explanations for ordinary things very satisfying.
My quote:
I think rationally AND I happen to hold a religious concept of the world being magical.
:) I have already explained that I do not adhere to myth and the supernatural. I have already defined what magic is to me in the same post you are quoting, yet it is overlooked.
Tell me what about that post is supernatural. Tell me where I listed a belief in pink unicorns, trolls or faeries in that post. Better yet, where did I state in it that I believe in personified deities that look down on us in judgment and speak to us? Even better, where did I mention word of a god at all in that post? I only said that the force that started creation, assuming that there is a definite starting point from which all this was spun, certainly isn't human.
If you hold the religious concept that the world is magical, in any typical sense that the word "magic" is used in the English language, you don't have a very rational view of the world.
But each of us is a judge on what is typical just as we are a judge on what is ordinary. We use words out of context all the time. Take the word ice, for example. On the one hand it is used to describe frozen water. On the other is used as slang to describe diamonds. Is one definition wrong or right? Again, I have already defined magic in the last post.
Or else you just enjoy shiny, happy nomenclature like the word "magical", and apply it to every feature of the natural world. And I guess then I have to ask, what's the point? If everything natural is supernatural, why have two words?
And this is a valid argument? That the existence of the words natural and supernatural proves your definition to be more valid, as if words in the English language do not alter at any given point in our history to mean new things? Or that people do not use words for different things all the time?
Why is it necessary to label flowers and rainbows and babies as "magical" to enjoy them? You imply that every waking hour is some mystical experience for you, and that people who don't see soap bubbles as magical rainbow fairylands are dour. I find that a bit rigid, actually.
What difference does it make if I apply such terms to things to enjoy them? Am I not the only person who can adequately state what frame of mind works best for me? Again, there is a difference between defending a belief and implying that people who do not think as I do are wrong or dour. It is not my job to decide the worldviews of others, only to give my opinion of why those worldviews do not work for me.
Take a look at this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1780078#post1780078). If I'm rigid in my thinking I don't think I would be capable of any of these things. And everything in that post applies to people I don't know also. Were I rigid, I sincerely doubt I would have found a niche in a atheist community. A statement that I frequently say in my posts: I really know nothing. And that's the best lesson I ever learned.

Best Wishes,
Tangie

truthie

August 23, 2004, 04:10 PM

LOL. Nicer and comforting? No, that's the way I see the world through my eyes. I'm not attaching anything to it; it's already there. :)

You have admitted that it gives purpose and meaning to your life, that is comforting.

You stated that people flock to the supernatural and myth because they can't handle science. My post is a rebuttal of that statement. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You were the one claiming about the "magical" properties of herbs and discarding that it is nothing but chemical (wandering into science) properties.

Let me explain another aspect of myself: my living is made as a writer. I made a living writing editorials, prose, speeches and fiction. I still do so now. So what you are seeing is my writing style, not a persecution complex. A written response on a message board, even with smileys, can be misinterpreted. I also do not post when I am emotional or upset. I post when I am calm always. Look at the posts and see the way the words flow together; it is stylistic. The terms I use fit and flow within the post to create a singular expression of words. It's my job to work with words everyday to create a vision of another world or viewpoint. So I understand all too well the limitations of those words when they are misunderstood.

Sure, and implying that some members thought lowly of you as if we have insulted you in this thread. Ridiculous.
Most of the skeptics have *debated* in a fair way, which is an activity of this board.
The lowly saying, it did seem like a persecution/emotional complex.

What am I seeing that isn't there? How is what I'm seeing any less real or valid because I use vivid, colorful language to describe it?

So now you are describing it and not claiming that there is "magic" over there. :rolleyes:

All that statement implies is that this is how I see the world, this is why I am a believer in my religion. It is not meant as a comentary of how others should live. A quote when used by itself may have a different meaning than when one takes the entire post in context, correct?

The point of the quote...in this thread you never said that magic gave your life meaning and purpose, instead, you were trying to convince others that there is magic.
I have read that you are skeptical of your beliefs but in this instance I did not perceive your skepticism at all.

Which was the point of my posts: to explain why I believe as I do. I am defending my religion, not trying to convince you to join it. There's a difference.

It did not lool like that at all, otherwise, the skeptics would not have debated and brought up so many arguments. :banghead:

In any case, try to express yourself in a clearer way. You were the one who was insinuating that those who don't see the world a la "magic" are not enjoying the planet or are out. And that if people saw things a la "magic," then they would become nicer and have a happier life and, that there is magic.
Plus, attaching environmentalism with religious beliefs, magic and touchy-feely language, which does not make any relevant point.

Moreover, the next time that you claim something and do not want to back it up, then keep it to yourself or state that you won't discuss it since it gave the impression that you were into alluding people. :)

T.

tangiellis

August 23, 2004, 04:20 PM

Then why do you raise them in a public forum like this one?
Why does anyone talk about anything? Personally, I seek interaction with others. Talking. I don't have to convince anyone of anything. Fact is, I'm pretty isolated here and I just like to run my mouth. :D :rolling:
Then... erm... don't ask for money for explaining your experiences. Tell us about them for free. We won't accuse you of trying to get our money then.
Been there, done that. Still happened.
Except you don't, because you keep raising these visions and magical experiences on public discussion boards and then refusing to discuss them.
If you want to talk about the visions I can do that. I've mentioned them in other threads because I do yoga and meditation. I will not discuss my intense magical experiences beyond what I have outlined in this thread. They are private and not up for discussion.
If a Christian came on here and claimed that Jesus had spoken them directly, but then suddenly became evasive when asked for details of what JC had said, I somehow doubt you'd let him or her off the hook so easily.
I have never told a single person that claimed Jesus spoke to them directly to explain their experiences unless they offered to do so. And even then, I have never told anyone that I believe it didn't happen. I'm not them, so I don't know. I have heard people tell me that various gods and goddesses have spoken to them. Again, I am not that person, so who am I to say whether their experience was valid or not?
If you're not interested in religious debate, then I can only conclude most of the content on IIDB isn't to your taste. ;)
LOL. :rolling:
I've been debating religion. I have over one thousand posts on this site, which proves how much I love it here.
There's a difference, see: the mystics have superstitious explanations as to why the medicine works, the scientists actually look into how the medicine helps.
Yes, that is the major difference. However, it doesn't dispute that fact that the stuff works no matter who is peddling it, right?
This is what my major point is: Just because I know the scientific definition of something doesn't take the WHY out of it. Doesn't take the mystery out of it. I don't shun or deny science. I embrace it and try to find the WHY.
Reverence and ritual are of very little use, after all, when all you really want is a cure for the disease that's killing you.
That is up to the person actually dying of the disease to say. Some are comfronted by such things. Others are not. Individuality and the right to choose different courses of doing things are part of what makes humanity great.

Best Wishes,
Tangie

tangiellis

August 23, 2004, 04:55 PM

You have admitted that it gives purpose and meaning to your life, that is comforting.
My religious views are not comforting to me. Sometimes they trouble me because of the magnitude of creation. I didn't seek this path out of comfort. I was comfortable being a Christian and scared of hell and damnation to change. That wasn't easy for me as I was raised in a fundamentalist tradition. It still isn't easy for me. But if it was easy, I wouldn't be doing it. :D
You were the one claiming about the "magical" properties of herbs and discarding that it is nothing but chemical (wandering into science) properties.
Because I stated that people who adhere to magic do not necessarily believe in the supernatural or myth. You stated that people flee to those things because they don't understand science. I understand science. I'm also have religious views. Doesn't mean I believe in the supernatural at all. Doesn't mean I believe in myth. And certainly doesn't mean that I'm not capable of rational thought.
Sure, and implying that some members thought lowly of you as if we have insulted you in this thread. Ridiculous.
Have you ever heard the term generalization? Better yet, have you ever heard a speech? I could have easily exchanged lowly for horrible or bad or ill. I didn't say "Truthie you think lowly of me." I didn't say anyone's name or single any one out. That post is an essay I wrote on my beliefs, a general directive of why I believe as I do. If it makes you feel better to believe I am insulted, go right ahead.
So now you are describing it and not claiming that there is "magic" over there. :rolleyes:
I can only debate semantics so much because it becomes weary for all of us. I have defined magic. I have stated my terms for it and what I believe. There's nothing else I can say.
The point of the quote...in this thread you never said that magic gave your life meaning and purpose, instead, you were trying to convince others that there is magic.
No, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. One is allowed to have more than one reason. Religious conviction is only part of that for me.
I have read that you are skeptical of your beliefs but in this instance I did not perceive your skepticism at all.
My skepticism is my open mind. I am willing to say that my beliefs can change with new evidence. That when I die I can be proven wrong. I fully admit that I don't know everything about the world at this instant. But this is what I believe at this moment right now. I can't speak for the next month or year or even the next decade as to what I will believe. But I can say that I have an open mind to change my opinion.
It did not lool like that at all, otherwise, the skeptics would not have debated and brought up so many arguments. :banghead:
Ever heard of the term devil's advocate?
In any case, try to express yourself in a clearer way. You were the one who was insinuating that those who don't see the world a la "magic" are not enjoying the planet or are out. And that if people saw things a la "magic," then they would become nicer and have a happier life and, that there is magic. Plus, attaching environmentalism with religious beliefs, magic and touchy-feely language, which does not make any relevant point.
I NEVER said that people would have a happier life if they believed as I do. I NEVER said that people have to believe as I do. You are picking and choosing what statements to harp on and ignoring the others that punch holes in your arguments.
If I said, everyone must believe in magic, then you'd have a point. I never said that. I said, "This is why I believe in magic. This is why I believe that rational thinking and magical thinking are compatible." I'm explaining my viewpoint to you, not trying to sway you.
To put it another way, JWs tell you "This is the one way, the one truth. Everything else is a lie." I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is MY way. MY truth. And this is why it works for ME.
I mentioned the environmentalism because I have mentioned nature in the rest of my posts and my awe of it. The lack of awe regarding nature is one of the things that led me into Paganism. So it is relevant in that it caused my conversion. Weren't there were things in your old belief systems you questioned that led you to other paths as well. Well the people I saw disregarding nature was one of mine.

Best wishes.
Tangie