Stupid fucks who believe in magic.

The BBQ Pit
181

Nope.

(Man, that was easy.)

That said, I’ve always liked Ol’ Bullethead’s (aka “Uncle Al” aka Perdurabo aka Edward Alexander-cum-Aleister Crowley) take on it: “Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” This definition has, in my mind, several strong points:

  1. It can be intoned with great pomposity, and thus sound far more important than it is.

  2. The quaintly strained archaic use of Random Capitalization makes it very suited to be read in the voice of Winnie the Pooh (this is a superb way to read much of Al’s work, btw. Excepting the “poetry”, which at times rivals Vogon. None from the Hundred Acre Wood can improve it. Except perhaps Eeyore, but I digress).*

  3. Vagueness in this fashion serves as an idiot trap, which ye olde Beast fellow was arguably overly fond of, and I’m pretty sure that this was a deliberate consideration in constructing it.

  4. Once past the (debateable) aforementioned trap, it places the emphasis on the internal mental state and profound mystery of conscious intent, which is pretty much where all and only useful emphasis can be placed. I’ve done a minor amount of ritual “work” myself, though I’ve gravitated to more of a Zen meditation schtick in the last couple years, and they can be immensely powerful tools to alter one’s own consciousness in both precise and surprising ways. That’s very useful, as has been noted reasonably amidst all the overreactions through the thread.

Another definition of magic, from “The Goetia of the Lemegeton of King Solomon”, one of the various “medieval” grimoires, that a lot of folks might actually find surprising, particulary all magic-users with a deep-seated antipathy (and misunderstanding of) science:

“Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into Nature; they, because of their skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem to be a miracle.”

It’s been a subject that’s interested me for awhile. It’s one of those subjects that’s very hard to discuss, though, because of the sheer number of twits on both sides of an imaginary fence.

[sub]*those who have eyes to see will Wonder at the Breaking of the Line of Natural Numbers. The Wise shall know the Occult Mystery both hidden and revealed therein.[/sub]

182

Libertarian, even in the Pit, to use the term “Mengelean” to describe the views of another poster is beneath contempt.

183

You misspelled “naivete.” “Naivity” isn’t even in the dictionary. I looked.

That isn’t naivete; that’s either single-mindedness or absent-mindedness.

Careful, my libertarian friend. Jesus himself said, in Mark 5:22 “…whoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Of course, Jesus Himself called people fools in Mark 23:17 & 19 and in Luke 11:40, but I guess the rules don’t apply to Him? :rolleyes: )

Maybe you can tell us how an atheist knows the Bible better than you do?

What sort of ignorant turd does not realize that natural law exists everywhere in the universe? Or maybe you have a better explanation as to why stars in galaxies billions of light years away are similar to the stars in our own galaxy?

What sort of fuck thinks (I use the term loosely) atoms are unimportant? A stupid one.

Gee, Lib, you seem kinda ticked. Did you just pay your income taxes to the evil Feds?

184

4 Pages and growing fast. Too much vitriol for a detailed response, so here is my drive by.

I am an atheist.
I have no belief in magic (other than stage magic, of course).
I think that people who do believe in magic/k are wrong.
I think that people who believe in ghosts are wrong.
I think that people who believe in Santa Claus are wrong.
I think that people who believe in God are wrong.
I think that people who call others STUPID FUCKS because they have different beliefs are jerks.

Substitute God for magic in the above, and perhaps the answer will become clear.

If not, then try this: I respect the freedom of each person to choose their own reconciliation between internal and external realities. I respect the dignity of the individual even when I disagree with the individual belief.

I do not respect name calling and hatred, even when spit out under the banner of fighting ignorance. I have yet to see enlightenment arise from such tactics.

Hastur, if you meant this then you should follow through. If you did not, you should offer a public retraction.

What is true for Jodi is not true for all Christians, obviously. Snake handling, miracle cures, prayers for effect, blessings, etc. are a part of some Christian practices. Many religions teach that specific practices can have beneficial/harmful objective effects. This is every bit as much an “alteration of reality” as magic. Only the purported source is different.

I think that all such beliefs are mistaken. I also realoze that someone may disagree on this issue without being mentally deficient.

Lemme ask, how can biology be valid if scientists cannot even agree on the taxonomic structure?

Mine. Yours too, almost certainly. Do you believe that someone typed these words? Most personal epistemologies accept experience as valid unless contradicted by other experience. The one notable exception is nihilism.

Empiricism, the hallmark of the scientific method, depends rigorously upon the validity of repeated personal experiences.

I believe Libertarian meant “arrogant” to be a restrictive adjective, not a descriptive one.

185

When did I say I wanted them to listen to me? I was, quite simply, pushed over the edge. I had had ENOUGH of ignorance disguised as knowledge, of fantasy being passed off as fact and superstition disguised as science.

The people who can get through the day without resorting to mumbo-jumbo are far more powerful.

I’d say that religion tells people what the meaning of life is so they don’t have to figure it out for themselves. Naturally, it appeals to the feeble-minded. Very intelligent people who have religious beliefs ought to be ashamed of themselves.

186

:slight_smile:

I want to be Spiritus Mundi when I grow up.

187

jab, then I suppose I ought to be ashamed of myself. And so should my roommate, who is Catholic. So should Lib, and Polycarp, and Jodi and Guin, just to name a few others. I can’t speak for anyone but my roommate and myself, but FYI, and certainly not a proof of intelligence by any stretch of the imagination, I am approaching my third year in college toward my BA in Multimedia/English, and she holds a PhD. in Communications.

However, I disagree. And unlike Lib :wink: I’m not going to leave it at that.

For a long time (since I was about 16 or so), I thought I was an atheist. I didn’t believe in the Christian God or the Jewish God, and I didn’t know there were other options. I thought either you believed in one of those definitions of God or you were an atheist. Some time later (in my first bout with college), I encountered a Bloom County cartoon that featured Oliver Wendell Jones (resident scientist/computer nerd, for those who don’t know), standing on a hilltop, and making the pronouncement:

(or words to that effect, I can’t find the exact quote.

Hey, I thought, Now just hold the phone a second here. You mean I have options?

Strangely, this allowed me to reevaluate my faith (such as it was), and I came to the conclusion that there is “something” out there, though I think for the most part it’s relatively indifferent to what it started. Color me deist.

Since then, I’ve done reading on a number of religions. I considered Buddhism for a while. I considered a Taoist way of looking at things.

The spiritual path that resonated most with me, however, was the so-called neo-Pagan movement. And even then, I hesitated, because I thought the whole magic(k)al thing was silly. Because I didn’t believe one could cast spells and change the world. However, when I joined the local Unitarian Universalist church, I met other Pagans (most of whom are Wiccan), and I was invited to attend a full moon ritual with them.

There are still things that I question. I can’t really explain why I believe that there is a Divinity out there, nor why the masks that I choose to put on that Divinity must be both male and female for me to be comfortable. Heck, the masks I believe in shift from day to day.

I can give you all sorts of examples from my subjective experience, but you’ll simply discount them. I personally can’t explain them, nor do I want to. I like having a little mystery in my life.

I’m going to try to compose a more thorough explanation of what I believe for Freyr’s post; no promises, though. Every time I sit down to do something like this I end up confusing myself. Which I don’t necessarily consider a bad thing - I don’t believe there is any one Truth, so I figure as long as I can be confused I haven’t become so set in my ways that I can’t accept any other way of thinking.

188

For the record - though likely unecessary, as my comments have been mostly ignored - while I agree with the much of the sentiment of jab’s OP, I do not with the vitriol with which he stated his disagreement.

That said, I have to say this:

For place dedicated to fighting ignorance (mostly of non-religious matters) I amazes me the number of dumb fucks that are trying to diminish the scientific method without first having a grasp of how it works and the implications of its results. Frankly, it is an attitude I more expect to see in Homeopathy Today, than at the Straight Dope.

Now you may all go back to talking around me.

189

I have respect for people who have different beliefs as long as those beliefs are based on cold, hard facts.

Scientists agree on what biology is: The study of living organisms. But, judging by that GD thread, it seems like Wicca can be whatever you want it to be. It’s like they don’t want it defined.

If Wicca does not require one to believe in magic, then I should not have lumped them in with the morons who do believe there is magic.

190

Obfuscarist (sorry if I misspelled that, BTW) -

I wasn’t “talking around you.” I simply did not have anything to say to the things you’ve said. Sorry that you’re feeling neglected…

Here, hope this makes you feel better:

:wally

[sub]Post close-captioned for the humor impaired: no, I don’t think O’s a putz.[/sub]

191

Obfusciatrist, as a lurker to this thread I’ll point out that just because nobody is responding to your comments, doesn’t mean that they’re being ignored. I for one have read them with great interest. Has it occurred to you that perhaps your arguments are so devastating, that there is nothing further to be said?

192

I agree Obfu, I think that what you are saying is ignored because it is so devastating that they dare not attack it. :slight_smile:
Im glad that you are on My Side™

193

Libertarian, I love you too!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

…

I’m with ya, obfusciatrist. It’s all good.

194

Yes, your attitude in that respect is quite clear. You deny respect to people who do not share your epistemology.

I am a strong supporter of rationalism and the scientific method, but I do not delude myself that the picture of reality that they paint is necessarily complete. I like to think that this understanding insulates me from the hubris of declaring that all who disagree with my basic assumptions are morons.

You have missed my point. You attacked paganism because not all pagans agree about specific elements of practice (threefold return, etc.) Not all biologists agree upon specifics of taxonomy. That does not make biology invalid. Therefore . . .

[sub]I feel the urge to commit a sig.[/sub]

195

I hate to interrupt this thread (Really, I do. It’s very interesting) but this has gone from a flame to a kind of flamey-debate.

I think in the name fighting ignorance we really need to separate the debate from the flame here. Otherwise, as some posters here have demonstrated, we get a really nasty debate with far too much gratuitous Nazi imagery getting thrown around.

I suggest that further discussion about the relevance of science, the definition of magic, or even the spelling of magic be done in Great Debates. David and Gaudy run a tighter ship over there, so the debate will be a bit more focused and less prone to name-calling.

Perhaps this debate should also be broken up. The “what is magic” people seem to be shouting over the “sciense and epistemology” people. As a result a lot of good arguments (and thus genuine opportunities to exchange ideas and what-not) are getting lost in the shuffle.

So I’d suggest wrapping this thread up within the next day or so. I just hate to see insults get tossed around in what could be a purely intellectual and informative endeavor just because this thread is in the Pit.

Sound fair?

[Edited by Alphagene on 04-25-2001 at 10:17 PM]

196

JAB –

You seem very wedded to provable facts, so let’s just take a look at your position and see if we can find any:

I’m rapidly beginning to wish you had been. This is a fact, but it cannot be attributed to you.

You cannot prove your thesis which, at bottom, is that no God exists. You know this, or ought to, since it’s been done to death right here on the Board. Do not give me any nonsense about proving a negative; it is possible to prove the affirmative absence of something. I do not have to prove that God exists because quite frankly I have nothing invested in saying He does. You, on the other hand, apparently have quite a lot invested in attacking religion in the most disdainful and disrespectful manner possible; that means it is your thesis to prove. Which, just to bring us back around to the start, you cannot. Therefore, the implied statement “[religion] is fantasy being passed off as fact” or “[religion] is superstition disguised as science” is nothing more than your – unproven and unprovable – opinion. Not to mention that no one has here tried to “disguise” anything as science; the whole point of “magick,” as I understand it, is that it something other than scientific. Hence the term "supernatural.

“More powerful” than whom? Why? In what sense? Again, unproven and unprovable opinion, the worth of which is to be judged by the reader. Frankly, I doubt very much that you, with your disdainful and offensive attitude, are more “powerful” than any other average person of faith, no matter how “power” is measured.

Ah. Unlike you, who, in your brilliance, have managed to divine (ha!) The Meaning Of Life all by yourself. I’d always imagined a person with The Answer would be a little better adjusted than you appear to be.

It appeals to a lot of people who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered feeble-minded. Comfortingly for you, however, if you dismiss as “feeble-minded” anyone who disagrees with your opinions, you will suffer much less for being thought a fool, since the opinion of anyone who thinks so is by definition not worth considering. It is a common comfort of those who imagine themselves unsung geniuses possessing a greater truth than is available to the “feeble-minded.”

Phooey. Moderately (and even marginally) intelligent people who scorn the deeply held beliefs of others merely because they disagree with those beliefs ought to be ashamed of themselves. Besides, I can fairly easily prove my intelligence regardless of my beliefs; can you prove you’re not an asshole despite yours?

197

. . . and I have to be back in court tomorrow at nine-fucking-a.m. for a trial that is never-fucking-ending:

If you measure power in terms of money, JAB, I’d hardly pass the laugh test. But I could and did afford to buy my own dinner out tonight, which apparently means I’m more powerful than you, “feeble-minded mumbo-jumbo” and all. :rolleyes:

198

:: Sitting in silent of awe of Jodi yet again ::

199

While I am baffled by people who hold religious/spiritual beliefs I in no way consider them inherently feeble-minded, weak willed, or any of the other insults that atheists (like me) frequently use.

Reading C.S. Lewis’s writings on Christianity fixed that for me.

Rather I am perplexed that people I consider so intelligent and clear-minded have looked at the same basic facts and come to such divergent conclusions from mine (and I must egotistically declare myself intelligent and clear-minded).

That is why religion (in general) is something I enjoy discussing so much. I am trying to determine the point at which intelligent people have made different interpretations of our universe than I have.

200

O.K. Let’s limit the discussion on this thread to people who believe that, through chanting and/or ritual, they can influence the material world.
IMHO, they are self-delusional wishful thinkers.