So do you believe in magic or sorcery?

[DangerousBeliefs]

I was just wondering for those who believe in the Bible, do you believe in magic or sorcery? That witches and wizards truly walk the earth?

And do you have an evidence or anecdotes to back this belief up?

Or is it because the Bible mentions it so it must be true?

[The GM]

Of course it really exists, just go check out any new age book store. There's tons of manuals on the subject. Witches and sorcerers are real too. You can find their web pages all over the internet.
Now does that mean that magic actually works? Well, if I can get it to, I'm applying for the cool mil!
I would say at this point, there is no evidence to support 'functional' magic. Doesn't matter what the bible has to say about it, if 'magic' doesn't work, there's no reason to be afraid of it.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
I was just wondering for those who believe in the Bible, do you believe in magic or sorcery? That witches and wizards truly walk the earth?

And do you have an evidence or anecdotes to back this belief up?

Or is it because the Bible mentions it so it must be true?


There are people who are called witches who practice Wicca.

Christians whether they like to admit it or not believe in magic and sorcery simply because the Bible is full of it.
Walking on water, raising the dead, healing the sick by magical means, changing water to wine, talking animals, telling the future by prophecy, and so on.
This is just a small part of the Christian myth's & legends that are in the Bible!
If one was to study Greek, Norse, Egyptian mythology etc. etc.
One would find that Christian mythology is not unique in the lease.
In fact the Christian Church had actually absorbed many of the pagan traditions into their own religion.
That's one of the main reasons we have holidays like Easter, Christmas, etc... That are connected to paganism in origin.

[Yahweh]

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalms 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

And also many references to the word dragon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/d/1083448639-230.html).


I think for the most part, Christians do not believe in witches, unicorns, dragons, or sorcery.

(I dont think the word "witch" in Christianity has anything to do with the word "witch" in Wicca. The same word to describe unrelated concepts.)

[Ratman_tf]

It always interested me that Pharaoh's wise men could turn sticks to snakes like Moses, but Moses's snake was stronger and ate the others. Does that mean that Moses's god was more powerful than Pharaoh's? Like Ra and Yahweh were arm wrestling in the heavens over the Jews?

[Bikewer]

In "Lost Christianities", the author details a number of accounts of magical "duels" between Simon Magus and Paul, one occurring on the Roman Senate floor! (these are in various "non-canonical" gospels and books.)

[geni]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
It always interested me that Pharaoh's wise men could turn sticks to snakes like Moses, but Moses's snake was stronger and ate the others. Does that mean that Moses's god was more powerful than Pharaoh's? Like Ra and Yahweh were arm wrestling in the heavens over the Jews?

As portrayed in the old testiment probably. Wern't the magicians of egypt also able to do the rivers of blood thing?

[MLynn]

Leviticus 19:31 (NASB): "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out ot be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."

In the NASB translation of the Bible, the term, "wild ox" is used instead of "unicorn."

[c4ts]

The way I see it, the fundies believe in magic and witchcraft so much that they see it as other gods competing with their god. I don't know about the rest of Christianity, except for the faith healers, poison snake guys, and the rest of those kind of people. They might view parts of the bible as mythology that isn't literally true.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by MLynn
In the NASB translation of the Bible, the term, "wild ox" is used instead of "unicorn."
Ah, thank you :)

I searched Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.com) quickly and forgot to add SAB's "'unicorn' is a mistranslation" disclaimer.

[Dancing David]

It sure seems that way , especialy for the strict interpretation crowd. I have been told that it is an OLD DAYS kind of phenomena, in the past you could work miracles but not anyome.

Of course magic and sorcery works, it sure causes enough soccer riots in Africa! Magic is a way of creating mental spaces for certain effects, if one wishes to work agaisnt nature, then well, magic is about as succesful as anything else.

Magic is the Art and Science of causing change in conformity with will. - A. Crowley

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
I was just wondering for those who believe in the Bible, do you believe in magic or sorcery? That witches and wizards truly walk the earth? I don't believe in the Bible (at least, not as an authority about the nature of the world), but I do play Dungeons & Dragons from time to time. So, naturally I believe in witches and wizards. ;)

[BoulderHead`]

I was just wondering for those who believe in the Bible, do you believe in magic or sorcery? That witches and wizards truly walk the earth?
I do not qualify as a believer in the Bible, but I know first hand a good number of believers who accept the existence of such things as fact….
And do you have an evidence or anecdotes to back this belief up?
….without firsthand knowledge….
Or is it because the Bible mentions it so it must be true?
….but because of things mentioned in the Bible.

The most prevalent theme shared by these individuals was that if such things existed in Biblical times then it only made good sense that such things still exist even in modern times. Demons must exist, for example, because there is a story in the Bible where Jesus seems to have taken pity on a legion of them, granting their request to enter into a herd of swine (at the expense of destroying some poor bastard’s livelihood).
When it is believed that devils and demons exist, it isn’t too far a jump to also believe in interactions between these entities and human beings…. Wahlah, witness the satanic birth of witches and wizards ! *

*as told to me by believers themselves over the course of my life*

[evilgoldtoesock]

I would say that "magick," or actual sorcery, is quite real and valid in its own right. It is a religious philosophy, and does not claim to offer scientifically objective explanations of observed phenomena. Rather, the primary objective of a "magickian" is to build an empowered self-identity that enables him or her to to do what he or she wishes to do in life.

"Magick" is an amalgamation of masonic rituals, eastern mysticism, and parts of modern psychology. It uses some scientific principles to justify its theories.

Much of magick requires use of the imagination and creative thought. While it is a structured practice, it isn't exactly about the pursuit of objective truth. Rather, magick is about the exploration of the self.

As I am an artist, (and not a scientist,) magickal philosophy provides me with a structured way of exploring mythology and the imagination. However, I certainly would not want my doctor performing rituals to try to cure me.

I believe the "subtle energies" and other paranormal phenomena described in magick can be viewed as abstractions. The various entities and Gods and Goddesses of magick represent different thought patterns and various poetic concepts.

The strange language of magick can be useful (to some) to describe complicated feelings and emotions.

I personally don't find magick to be in conflict with science. I read magickal theory with a sense of humor and take what I need from it.

Now, that said, there are a number of "magickians" on the internet who seriously claim to have super-powers. These people, in my opinion, mar the validity of real magick.

How do we deal with them? Well, I say, don't just dismiss them. Make them test their claims, objectively, using REAL scientific trials.

I see the bible as a story that is "real" when you are in the midst of reading it. It deals with "real" human conflicts and emotions. Still, it isn't one of my favorite stories...

I welcome any disagreement or other comments.

[Zombified]

If "magick" to you is just a philosophy and you're not claiming to have any paranormal powers, then fine, whatever, I won't pick any fights with it.

This, however, I have a small objection to:
Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
It uses some scientific principles to justify its theories.All I've ever heard is using some scientific-sounding words and analogies, not actual science. Unfortunately, many people who think they have magical powers also justify their theories with obscure references to scientific-sounding but bogus analogies. I'm curious to know what scientific principles you think "magick" applies (excluding psychology).

[evilgoldtoesock]

I make no claim that magickal theory is objectively true. Again, it is a ritualistic practice that many find beneficial.

It's all about constructing a personal mythology, and not about discovering objective truth. This sounds entirely goofy from a scientific standpoint, but from an artistic standpoint, it makes quite a lot of sense.

Without the arts and creativity, there isn't much inspiration for science. Both the irrational and rational are needed for human progress to occur (so I would argue.)

Magick addresses the irrational, chaotic aspects of the human mind, and attempts to give them some structure through ritual. Great personal insight can be gained from delving into these realms...(but of course, that's my opinion.)

The "jargon" is great fun, isn't it? I'm all for it, I love paranormal theory and eccentric ideas. There is a strange neccesity for folklore and mythology that I don't think can be explained as simply being "escapism." We really do seem to need this stuff.

That said, we also need a grounding in reason and science. Otherwise we end up with things like government funded psychic programs and "health supplements."

[Bubbles]

I am a Christian. I'm not a literalist.

Being a Christian, I believe in the possibility of miracles, but I don't think that is what we mean by witchcraft and such.

I assume that we mean something like "If person A combines the right ingrediants while saying the proper words under the proper circumstances, person B will get jock itch".

The difference, I mean, is that a miracle would be an event that was of neither deterministic or random origin. It would be an act of free mind and will. Magic (at least as I understand the term) works mechanically. There is simply a causal relationship between the spell and the outcome.

I can't disprove witchcraft, and neither can I prove it. I have no experience of it. If I had to choose one side or the other I would decline to believe in witchcraft. I generally maintain my agnosticism, though.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
I make no claim that magickal theory is objectively true. Again, it is a ritualistic practice that many find beneficial.

It's all about constructing a personal mythology, and not about discovering objective truth. This sounds entirely goofy from a scientific standpoint, but from an artistic standpoint, it makes quite a lot of sense. I have no objection to this, as long as people are clear about the objective truth part.

Without the arts and creativity, there isn't much inspiration for science. Both the irrational and rational are needed for human progress to occur (so I would argue.)
I'm not sure how I feel about this. There's plenty of inspiration to be found in simple curiosity, and I consider that a powerful force. Perhaps this is what you consider to be irrational. Of course, science is an extremely creative endeavor, although people who've never tried it often do not realize this.

The "jargon" is great fun, isn't it? I'm all for it, I love paranormal theory and eccentric ideas. There is a strange neccesity for folklore and mythology that I don't think can be explained as simply being "escapism." We really do seem to need this stuff.
While I agree there is a powerful pull towards it (after all, I'm a D&D playing Tolkein nerd), I do think in my case is really is escapism. But I do not have a problem with escapism so long as people are clear on when it is happening.

[evilgoldtoesock]

Thanks for the feedback, Zombified. I agree, science is an extremely creative endeavor. I have family members who are researchers and I know that it isn't simply following rules or going through a routine. That said, I find that many scientists draw inspiration from the arts, religion, and mystic philosophy.

The human mind can operate in many different ways, and people have discovered how to "access" different ways of thinking through altered states. I believe that these ways of thinking can actually be productive.

I believe that the ritualistic experience is critical to the development of new forms of language, and to the development of new paradigms. It seems to be a integral part of human behavior, and I don't think that is simply escapism.

This is something I think should be studied by real science, and not just by pseudo-scientific institutions such as the "Monroe Institute," which seem intent on just selling self-help tapes for lots of money.

Anyway, there are, as you know, compelling arguments for both sides of the issue.

[Skyknight]

Most christians do believe in it to a certain degree, but some don't and take it in another direction.

Two examples:

Woman A is a University educated, law school graduate that at 21 started to article at a law firm downtown. She's a christian that goes to church every week and prays every day, she's very intelligent and believes firmly in the bible and her god. When I asked her if she believed in magic, witches and curses she thought for a moment and said, "yes". When pressed as to why she simply said, "I believe that God can do miracles, and others in his service can also perform feats that are nothing less than miraculous. So if blessings exist from God, then curses must also exist. If Satan can curse, then others in his service (those of course being witches and sorcerers) can also cast curses."

Woman B is University educated, still not finished her degree and is currently taking anthropology as her major. She's a christian that goes to church every week, and while not agnostic or atheist, she doesn't believe that the bible is a literal tale. When asked if she believed in such things she answered, "hell no! The entire idea of a 'witch' is based on the woman being a healer, midwife and knowing herbology. Witches (other than wiccans) don't really exist and those that claim they are witches are just Goth kids running around in costumes and pretending like they're so connected to the Earth. Magic doesn't exist in the real world, it's all fairy tales and make believe."

[Anders]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
I was just wondering for those who believe in the Bible, do you believe in magic or sorcery? That witches and wizards truly walk the earth?

And do you have an evidence or anecdotes to back this belief up?

Or is it because the Bible mentions it so it must be true?
I would say that one has to accept the whole package. Either you believe in no supernatural “things” whatsoever, i.e. you’re a skeptical atheist, or you accept that everything is true and exists: god, gods, dragons, daemons, goblins, magic, satan, the tooth ferry, xemu, homeopathy, reflexology, atlantis, lemmuria, mu, big foot, the greys, nirvana, etc, etc.

There is no way, IMHO, that you just can take the raisins out of the cake.

[Irish Murdoch]

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
I would say that "magick," or actual sorcery, is quite real and valid in its own right. It is a religious philosophy, and does not claim to offer scientifically objective explanations of observed phenomena.

Your post is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on this topic. But your way of looking at things does put you in the minority of people into magick doesn't it? (That's a genuine question--I would assume that it does, but I don't know.)

I used to know a chap, back in my teens, who was heavily into magick. He, and other people he knew and whom I met, claimed that they performed evocation rituals and all that sort of stuff. I doubt they were all lying when they described their experiences of entities they had conjured up, etc (and that, if you were to believe them, they could "see"). I do, of course, (more than) doubt that those experiences corresponded to anything "out there". So the interesting question about these people--assuming, again, that they weren't simply lying about their experience, or even, come to think of it, if they were lying--is what was going on with them? I mean, psychologically speaking? Do you yourself have any such experiences, despite your thinking that Gods and Goddesses represent poetic ideas and so on, without being objectively real?

[Bubbles]

Originally posted by Anders

I would say that one has to accept the whole package. Either you believe in no supernatural “things” whatsoever, i.e. you’re a skeptical atheist, or you accept that everything is true and exists: god, gods, dragons, daemons, goblins, magic, satan, the tooth ferry, xemu, homeopathy, reflexology, atlantis, lemmuria, mu, big foot, the greys, nirvana, etc, etc.

There is no way, IMHO, that you just can take the raisins out of the cake.

I don't follow your logic. Now, if you said that if one asserts the existance of any purely spiritual being, one must allow the possibility of the existence of other, I would have no problem with your statement.

To put the matter another way, if we begin by assuming that God exists, does it follow of nessecity that the tooth fairy exists? I think the assertion is silly. If you have logic that shows me otherwise, I would love to hear it.

[True-Gossiper]

I'm an christian, tho would easily (and proudly) be labeled as 'atheist' by other common christians because of my skeptical attitude. I believe there are some real sorcerers in the Bible era, but of course there are also ones that are fake. I havent got any evidences, but probably in the future I will. Btw I myself also perform magic, mentalism and psi-games. It's so easy to fool christians that what I'm doing is a mind manipulation. ^^

[Anders]

Originally posted by Bubbles


I don't follow your logic. Now, if you said that if one asserts the existance of any purely spiritual being, one must allow the possibility of the existence of other, I would have no problem with your statement.

To put the matter another way, if we begin by assuming that God exists, does it follow of nessecity that the tooth fairy exists? I think the assertion is silly. If you have logic that shows me otherwise, I would love to hear it.
Yes, if you do believe in a supernatural being as the Christian god, you better believe in al supernatural beings! As it has been pointed out several times in this forum, believing in the tooth ferry is as logical as believing in Christian god. No one has ever seen god or the tooth ferry. Much text has been produced to describe both the tooth ferry and god. They both can do supernatural deeds, as transforming a tooth to a coin, or feeding 5000 people with a fish.

So basically they, god and toothy, are the same, supernatural, described in text, have magical powers. It’s just pure logic to say they are the same.

But of course they don’t exist, not any of them, not god and not toothy.

[Bubbles]

Simply bad logic: Either every unverifiable entity must exist or none of them. How can I use logic to argue with 'rational' people being irrational!

As regards the question of whether belief in God is any more or less rational than belief in the tooth fairy, I would argue that the belief in God is a rational explanaition for a particular set of observations (such as that things that do not of nessecity exist existing). Is it the only logically consistent explanation? Probably not. Is it the most likely? I don't even know how anyone would calculate such a thing.

The tooth fairy (other than the possibility of it existing) is not a philosophical problem. It is simply an explanation of an evident material fact. I don't think it a particularly convincing explanation; I think there are others that fit the facts better.

It has been pointed out a number of times on this forum? Well then, it must be true!

[Anders]

Originally posted by Bubbles

...I would argue that the belief in God is a rational explanaition for a particular set of observations (such as that things that do not of nessecity exist existing). Is it the only logically consistent explanation? Probably not. Is it the most likely? I don't even know how anyone would calculate such a thing....

In that case, which observations? Let us see them, pleeeeease! “things that do not of nessecity exist existing“. Oh, please, come up with something new! It simply not in any way implicates a god. Saying that is god that’s responsible is the same as saying that it is my pink invisible dwarf elephant that lives under my bed, that’s responsible for the existing of not out of necessity existing things.

The tooth fairy (other than the possibility of it existing) is not a philosophical problem. It is simply an explanation of an evident material fact. I don't think it a particularly convincing explanation; I think there are others that fit the facts better.

Of course thooty is a philosophical problem for you theists. If you can’t prove she exists you can’t prove god exists.

It has been pointed out a number of times on this forum? Well then, it must be true!
I give you that! True! I take that back!

[Bubbles]

If I looked back far enough, would I find a refutation of the argument that contingent being requires nessecary being? I mean, I find interesting discusions of it and I find a lot of people (like you) who mock the argument as if it had been disproved. Nowhere, on the other hand, do I find the argument that so proves your position. I was not aware that novelty in any way made an argument more likely to be true. Perhaps I am not rational enough.

I do not claim to have proven the existence of God. I have weighed the philosophical evidence and my own experience and have made a descision on a matter of inadequate evidence (the same thing that I would do if I were on a jury in a trial). I do not claim to have disproven the existence of the tooth fairy. I have weighed what evidence I have and have made a descision. As the evidence for the two is not identical (neither the objective nor the subjective), it is in no way illogical for my beliefs on the existence of the two possible beings to be different.

[evilgoldtoesock]

Many magickians will insist that their experiences are very very real... If you experience an intense ritual, it likely you will find it rather real as well.

That said, if you are convinced that magickal phenomena is real in the exact same way that walking down the street is real, then you probably need some strong medication. The practice isn't exactly beneficial if you start confusing the different states.

I suppose I am more of rationalist than many who are into this stuff, still...

Your friends were probably not lying. The techniques of magick, as I've heard and experienced to some degree, make visualization of ideas very effective. You can really learn to "see" entities. If a certain number of people are visualizing a similar thing, then they will likely all "see" it. (Please note though, that as each person is different, the entity they see will be slightly different.)

You can see how this has an appeal to artists.

The comic book writer Alan Moore has very sensible views on Magick. He doesn't deny that it can get quite kooky, but he also explains its validity in relation to his work and his life in several interviews. I believe you can find some online, if you search.

I have had out of body and "astral" experiences. To me, these demonstrate the creative potential of the human brain. It's amazing what your mind can generate, and how many different states of sensation chemical conditions and electric signals can create. The sensation of the "astral body," is ultimately (in my opinion) generated by physical phenomena. It is, for practical purposes, in your head. This makes it no less interesting, as far as I am concerned. But yes, my views are unusual in this regard.

It's hard to contemplate how and why all this stuff evolved, but it did...I have to admit we're a strange species.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Bubbles


I do not claim to have proven the existence of God. I have weighed the philosophical evidence and my own experience and have made a descision on a matter of inadequate evidence (the same thing that I would do if I were on a jury in a trial). I do not claim to have disproven the existence of the tooth fairy. I have weighed what evidence I have and have made a descision. As the evidence for the two is not identical (neither the objective nor the subjective), it is in no way illogical for my beliefs on the existence of the two possible beings to be different.
In what way are the evidence for thooty and goddy not identical? There are writings about both, the both have magical powers, and it seems to be very hard to get an appointment with any of them. I would say, can you prove the existence of toothy, you will have no problem prove the existence of Goddy!

[Bubbles]

I won't hijack the thread any more than I already have (mercifully it was unsuccessful).

If I may offer an analogy:

Situation 1) Ray Lewis (linebacker for the Baltamore Ravens)says, "If I don't skip breakfast before the game, it will help us win."

Situation 2) Ray Lewis says, "If I wear my Miami Hurricanes T-Shirt under my shoulder pads, it will help us win the game."

Situation 3) A Ravens fan who will be watching the game at home says, "If I wear my Ray Lewis replica jersey, it will help the Ravens win the game.

Each statement asserts a causal relationship. I would assert that the first is objective (presumably eating breakfast would help him keep his energy level up, which would help him play better, which would help his team the game).

The second is subjective, in that while there is probably no direct relationship between the shirt and a victory, wearing the shirt (because he believes in it and it is part of a ruitine) will help him relax and focus, and hence play better, and then help his team win.

The third, I would think, is wholly imaginary. Assuming a basically scientific view, we would think the cause could have no ability to contribute to achieving the desired affect.

The question, then, is which of the three fits the practice of magic. I'm inclined to believe in a mixture of 2 and 3. I believe that much of magic was the finding of causal relationships where none existed.

[Irish Murdoch]

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
Many magickians will insist that their experiences are very very real... If you experience an intense ritual, it likely you will find it rather real as well.



Interesting stuff! You have a commendably level-headed approach.

[KAW143]

I must agree with Bubbles, here. Anders is being just the tiniest bit preposterous, here. (Actually, he is being very preposterous, but I don't wish to be impolite).

Asserting a belief in god is not the same as asserting a belief in the tooth fairy. Though it is true that writings exist regarding both characters, I think it can be easily shown that none of the writings about the tooth fairy are held to be true. The tooth fairy is a construct (and a fairly modern one, at that), designed for children. God, however, is a rather ancient idea whose writings are said to hold the power of truth. One (the tooth fairy) has never been claimed to be real; the other (god) has always been claimed as real. Therefore, it is decidedly less logical to "believe" in the tooth fairy, since most accept that the tooth fairy is, in fact, not real. The same, however, cannot be said for god; most feel that he *is* real. Whereas a sceptic might point out that both have similar powers, or some such; but that does not show that such a similarity equates the two. Janet and Michael Jackson have similar attribites and abilites, as well; yet, by this logic, they are the same person -- a theory I am certain that both would have a problem with. . . .

Likewise, it is possible to believe in that Bible as a whole and yet reject certain parts as incorrect. Questionable translations, and the origins of certain scriptures allow some to accept that parts of the Bible might be incorrect. This is not the same as saying that it is all incorrect, any more than a single flaw in the weave of a sweater renders the sweater useless. Certain Christians do not make a distinction between this part or that part, because they believe that god has somehow protected the document from forgery and hijack throughout the ages. (Though I would think that a quick study of the various bibles available throughout the mellenia would allay that one FAST: there are all kinds of "official" bibles with amusing type-os and glaring mistranslations. . . It is not a far logical leap to presume that one or two errors made it into the KJV or even the NIV, for example. But that's just my opinion. . . .)

Hijack back at 'cha, Bubbles.

[sackett]

Thank you, Bubbles, for your sane and thoughtful posts.

You alone know the quality of your inner experiences, but, with great submission, I doubt that you have really "chosen" to believe in God. I doubt that anyone can genuinely believe whatever he wants to believe.

The tooth fairly is probably not a good example to use when comparing supernatural beings; only little children believe in it, and their belief doesn't survive rational explanation.

You've weighed the philosophical evidence and your own experience, and you've chosen to believe in God. Well and good; I have no doubt you could weigh the evidence and choose to reject John Frum. But have you weighed the evidence about Odin? Thor? Ra? Satan? There have been many, many deities, demons, and invisible beings in history - and prehistory, to judge from the mighty leavings around the world: Avebury, the pyramids of Shaanxi, Tenochtitlan, the ritual terraces of Polynesia, and so on. People were once stirred to believe in supernatural beings completely unrelated to our latter-day God; in India, as we speak close to a billion people believe in Kali and Krishna; they bow respectfully to elephant- and monkey-headed gods; and I fear that they too could weigh the "philosophical evidence" and continue to believe. (One helluva lot of them also believe in magic; and no wonder, because what is religion, after all, but magical thinking?)

A weak or poorly provided mind can fall into almost any sort of belief; superstition opens the door to madness. You, being neither weak nor ignorant, keep yourself safe by applying good old sweet reasonableness - but not strict logic, I would submit.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by geni


As portrayed in the old testiment probably. Wern't the magicians of egypt also able to do the rivers of blood thing?

IIRC, the priests were able to do it with water in a bowl, but not the entire river.

Of also particular note is the phrase used repeatedly "and the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart." Seems to me God never gave the poor guy a chance to surrender...

[Anders]

Dear Kaw143,

Thank you for being so polite. I also want to thank you for submitting so easy targets for me. And now I'm going to drive a truck through the logical holes you’ve provided.

Originally posted by KAW143
I must agree with Bubbles, here. Anders is being just the tiniest bit preposterous, here. (Actually, he is being very preposterous, but I don't wish to be impolite).

Asserting a belief in god is not the same as asserting a belief in the tooth fairy. Though it is true that writings exist regarding both characters, I think it can be easily shown that none of the writings about the tooth fairy are held to be true. The tooth fairy is a construct (and a fairly modern one, at that), designed for children. God, however, is a rather ancient idea whose writings are said to hold the power of truth. One (the tooth fairy) has never been claimed to be real; the other (god) has always been claimed as real.

Claiming something doesn’t make it real, even if it has been claimed by millions and millions of people. Should that be true, it would be more “logical” to believe in a god that has an elephant trunk.
Also, an ancient construct is not necessarily no truer than a recent construct. An example to prove my point: Many years ago, people believed earth was flat=wrong; nowadays people know earth is spherical=correct. Or, millennia ago people believed in a god who had his uncle as father. (its Horus for those of you who don’t follow logic, and the father is Osiris, and mother Isis)

Therefore, it is decidedly less logical to "believe" in the tooth fairy, since most accept that the tooth fairy is, in fact, not real. The same, however, cannot be said for god; most feel that he *is* real.

Feeling what is correct does not necessarily mean it is correct: I sometimes feel I’m correct during arguments, but I’m sometimes proven wrong (“I feel I don’t have to do the dishes tonight". "Oh yes you do!”)

Whereas a sceptic might point out that both have similar powers, or some such; but that does not show that such a similarity equates the two. Janet and Michael Jackson have similar attribites and abilites, as well; yet, by this logic, they are the same person -- a theory I am certain that both would have a problem with. . . .

Toothy is an example in the same line as our famous invisible pink unicorn. My argument is based on the fact that the neither Toothy nor goddy exists. Giving them different attributes and powers in descriptions doesn’t change that fact.
Janet and Michael Jackson exist, that’s a fact, and they has nothing to do with this discussion.

Likewise, it is possible to believe in that Bible as a whole and yet reject certain parts as incorrect. Questionable translations, and the origins of certain scriptures allow some to accept that parts of the Bible might be incorrect. This is not the same as saying that it is all incorrect, any more than a single flaw in the weave of a sweater renders the sweater useless. Certain Christians do not make a distinction between this part or that part, because they believe that god has somehow protected the document from forgery and hijack throughout the ages. (Though I would think that a quick study of the various bibles available throughout the mellenia would allay that one FAST: there are all kinds of "official" bibles with amusing type-os and glaring mistranslations. . . It is not a far logical leap to presume that one or two errors made it into the KJV or even the NIV, for example. But that's just my opinion. . . .)
The bible is a novel with certain historical passages, nothing more nothing less. And to be frank, the prose in the bible is terrible. There are tons of novels out there that are partly fictional and partly historical, nothing strange, and people don’t go around claiming these novels describe a supernatural being as goddy!

[Dancing David]

That said, if you are convinced that magickal phenomena is real in the exact same way that walking down the street is real, then you probably need some strong medication. The practice isn't exactly beneficial if you start confusing the different states.



This is the total truth, magical practises cause a change in consiousness that causes a change in 'reality'. It is important to 'ward' the spiritual from the mundane and to not mistake the two for each other. I believe that invokation can cause real changes in people lives but it also can only work with the material at hand. One can not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, maybe a smallish football.

I have seen many a strange thing, I have even seen people succsefully curse each other. But at the basis there is always a rational explanation that is totaly material.

Somewhere in Crowley's writing there is a great story that puts it to light as well, a sadhu practises meditation by the river for years and years and after decades of practise they learn to walk on water. The sadhu then goes to thier guru and says "Oh master i have learned to walk across the river.", thier guru replies "That is great but people have been using the ferry for years."

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Gestahl


IIRC, the priests were able to do it with water in a bowl, but not the entire river.

Of also particular note is the phrase used repeatedly "and the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart." Seems to me God never gave the poor guy a chance to surrender...

I always thought that Moshesh was an egyptian that just stole the best tricks, and the rest is "history written by the victors'.

[evilgoldtoesock]

Agreed, Dancing David. There's quite a lot of strange stuff out there, all of which I believe seems even stranger when you realize that it does have a material basis.

Crowley, if I recall correctly, was not fond of spiritualists, psychics, and mediums. He believed they used their "magick" powers (in this case the power to manipulate belief) for immoral purposes.

I am an agnostic, believing that the term "God," is just that, a term. The universe may indeed be self-aware, but I can find no evidence that confirms the existence of a creator.

As an idea, "God" is very powerful, however.

One of my favorite pieces of writing is by Douglas Adams and found in his last book, The Salmon of Doubt. He writes about a phenomena called "The Artificial God," which I find both amusing and true.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock
Crowley, if I recall correctly, was not fond of spiritualists, psychics, and mediums. He believed they used their "magick" powers (in this case the power to manipulate belief) for immoral purposes.If I recall Crowley's story correctly, that is really the pot calling the kettle black...

[Irish Murdoch]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Somewhere in Crowley's writing there is a great story that puts it to light as well, a sadhu practises meditation by the river for years and years and after decades of practise they learn to walk on water. The sadhu then goes to thier guru and says "Oh master i have learned to walk across the river.", thier guru replies "That is great but people have been using the ferry for years."

The story's actually from the Pali Canon, and it's the Buddha who makes the withering remark about the cost of the ferry.

[Bubbles]

In this thread it has been asserted that religion and magic are one and the same. If I may, I would like to propose a distinction (though one that makes much of religion as it is practiced, in fact, magic)

Both obviously deal in truth-claims regarding the supernatural.

The distinction I offer is this:

Religion is the seeking of supernatural truth in order to adore.

Magic is the seeking of supernatural truth in order to profit.

I would define God as the greatest possible being. We will set aside (as irrelevant to my post) whether such a being exists. If I seek that being on the belief that, if it exists, it ought to be adored and that I would wish to do so (I am not saying that God demands to be worshipped, meely that a being of the definition i proposed would merit it in my mind), it is a religious action.

If I seek that being on the belief that, if it exists, it can cure my cancer (I don't have cancer, so far as I know; it is strictly an example), it is magic. As I day, much of religion would qualify as magic by that definition.

I think the classical way of saying this would be to say that magic is a practical undertaking while religion would be a speculative undertaking. Anyway, it is strictly a thought, nothing more.

[evilgoldtoesock]

Yeah, good point...

Crowley was an interesting character. NOT always the most moral guy himself.

Still, some appreciate his work. To those that don't, that's quite allright with me. There are many reasonable philosophies out there, each with their own validity...

Anyway, I conclude my comments on this topic. It's been a good discussion.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Bubbles
In this thread it has been asserted that religion and magic are one and the same. If I may, I would like to propose a distinction (though one that makes much of religion as it is practiced, in fact, magic)

Both obviously deal in truth-claims regarding the supernatural.

The distinction I offer is this:

Religion is the seeking of supernatural truth in order to adore.

Magic is the seeking of supernatural truth in order to profit.



Just to further blur the lines between the two, I think that they are the same, a magician is a practicing religionist.

Some people use thier religion for personal gain, such as when people buy a statue of St Francis or whoever and bury it until they sell thier house or someone prays to win the lotto.

The highest forms of magic are invokation where the practitioner craetes a space for the indwelling diety.