Spells

[Astreja]

With respect to changing the weather... actually it's fairly common for people to think they've done this...

I've tried this, and did actually get what I asked for: Completely clear skies on the morning of February 26, 1979. And this is why I attempted it:

 

... and sometimes arguments occur in the Pagan community whether trying to influence the weather is ethical or not (those who think it's not usually believe Nature re-corrects itself after such attempts in negative ways...

Well, it's noteworthy that the weather *after* the eclipse was spectacularly bad, with about three months of unrelenting grey skies and/or rain. Suffice it to say I have permanently retired from the weather-tinkering business.

[Tabula Rasa]

If you're interested in this, try some things and keep a log of observations like a scientist. See how it works for you.

 

Update: I bought a Wanding kit out of the New Age section where I work It has a simple wand and an instructional booklet. I decided using it to focus my willpower . I work the evening shift and for the most part, management is laidback,they're used to me being a little eccentric, which is why I was able to do what I'm about to tell you. As part of my job, I have to sell a savings card where the members get percentage off everything in the store.

Well, a week ago last Sat, I wasn't doing good on card sales and waved it over my register and facing out my palm and the wand at the monitor concentrated and chanted "cards, cards , cards." I sold about 4 more that night. The next night one of my colleagues hadn't sold a single one so I did the same ritual over her register and after that she sold 4 of them in one hour. I also repeated the wand waving over the other registers and on Monday found out the day crew had a high card percentage. I'm not certain if really did any magick or if it was just coincidence, but it was an interesting experiment to say the least.

 

I might do some more experimentation, but nothing work related. They're open minded folks, but I don't really want to weird them out.

[Guest eejay]

This is an interesting subject for me as I myself spent several years of my life involved in Wicca. I found a lot of it appealing to me in comparison with the x-tian religions. The wiccan rede is a good rule to live by and fairly simple in principle. I liked the fact that there were both male and female dieties and it lacked the oppressiveness towards females that x-tianity is so full of. I also liked the openness towards sexuality, because that was always one of my downfalls in the x-tian doctrines. I liked the balance and the respect of nature. So much about wicca felt like I was at home.

Spells on the other hand, I just can't say that I've had much luck with them any more than prayer. Or that carrying a magical symbol really does protect you from things. Matter of fact I've had some repercussions from placing some protective symbolism in an aircraft I used to fly back then. I was fired, because my supervisor was catholic and didn't take much of a liking to me. I could not prove the reason he fired me, nor could he give a particular reason that I was let go. I actually won the unemployment hearing, because he would not give a definative reason of why I was termnated. I was very open of my paganism then. All I can say is that I was heartbroken that I lost a job that meant something to me at the time.

I remained pagan for quite a while longer, but eventually came to the conclusion that I was responsible for everything in my life and that what did and did not happen, had nothing to do with anybody up there. I still do a lot of meditation and am thankful for for time spent in the pagan culture for if anything else, made me look deeper within.

[JernJane]

Personally, I'd like to see evidence for magic working under double-blind, professional testing. Before I can see that, I don't believe magic works any more than I believe my future can be read in stars that have nothing to do with one another, but from our point of view in the universe form a pattern according to a few traditions.. Until then, I believe the explanation is purely psychological.

[florduh]

Personally, I'd like to see evidence for magic working under double-blind, professional testing. Before I can see that, I don't believe magic works any more than I believe my future can be read in stars that have nothing to do with one another, but from our point of view in the universe form a pattern according to a few traditions.. Until then, I believe the explanation is purely psychological.

 

It's been done, several times. Negative results. Just like prayer.

 

Anecdotal "evidence", wishful thinking and coincidence are the only factors at work. Yet, superstition still reigns in the 21st Century, and the sales of amulets, crystals, Tarot cards and astrology books keeps climbing. Same for the sales of Bibles and Christian literature.

 

Sometimes evolution seems very slow . . .

 

With all that said, I DO have respect for pagan tradition and the respect for nature that got lost somewhere along the way. The kindness and brotherhood of the pagans I have been associated with is a rare treasure. I just don't get how people can really think they affect anything with their thoughts, other than their own mind.

[HadouKen24]

Personally, I'd like to see evidence for magic working under double-blind, professional testing. Before I can see that, I don't believe magic works any more than I believe my future can be read in stars that have nothing to do with one another, but from our point of view in the universe form a pattern according to a few traditions.. Until then, I believe the explanation is purely psychological.

 

Exactly what methodology could be used? How would such an experiment be constructed? What would be tested for? How could one ensure good laboratory hygiene and prevent external influences (either mundane or magical)?

 

Frankly, I don't know how an experiment to test for the existence of magic could be set up. And even if it could be, there are serious theoretical concerns with the project of scientifically testing magic in the first place. Much of magical theory holds that magic works by arranging coincidences in the chaotic mess of day-to-day life. The rigorous structure of a scientific test might present insurmountable barriers by eliminating that chaos as a factor. Many magical theories present the argument that magic can be done unconsciously, and the presence of an unbelieving mind can prevent its action. (I mention this only for completeness' sake, not because I believe it to be a legitimate reason; it sounds like a cop-out excuse because it is.)

 

How would you find sufficiently powerful magicians willing to be tested? It is common lore among those who study the occult that those with power rarely, if ever, seek attention for it or riches from it. The kind of personality required to develop these abilities may entail a certain penchant for solitude and desire to be left alone that makes it difficult to 1) find such people and 2) convince them to take part in a study.

 

I'm not saying that you should believe that magic exists without warrant. However, believing that magic does not exist because there are no scientific studies for it seems prima facie to completely ignore the occult literature on the subject, and may even betray an ignorance of what it is to be studied.

 

You cannot study something scientifically until you know that it is the kind of thing amenable to scientific analysis.

 

It's been done, several times. Negative results. Just like prayer.

 

Sorry?

 

Trained scientists have done tests to see whether workings by Wiccans--or even better, Western ceremonial magicians--do or do not work? Several times, even? Where are these studies? In what journal(s) were they published? Who administrated them?

 

You must forgive my skepticism. I try to keep apprised of the literature of parapsychology, and I haven't seen anything like that. There have only been a handful of studies on prayer. I would be very surprised if studies on magic had been performed that I am unaware of.

[Astreja]

Suffice it to say I have permanently retired from the weather-tinkering business.

Or so I thought...

 

Does this count as a spell?

[insanezenmistress]

I wetn thru the wicca thing too. But being christian just before i retained the thinking... 'why should i Do magic if the Goddess wants me to ahve a thigns she'll bring it.' But all the same i ahve done spells in my time. mostly protection. I have had a spell back fire on me. I annointed my hosue and prayer that anyone whopasses theses doors with ill intent or a lie in their hearts should have their stomachs burn like cinimon oil. Well , my room mates health got worse. He did better when he was not staying in the house.

 

Seems that the spell worked but i did not put a clause in for those people who are depressed and self loathing.

 

 

I tend to think it is natural energies and personal intentions involved in majic. But i dotn see how a clinical test could be preformed. those tested are already tainted becasue they are "doing it for the test" Sounds like a cop out rationalisation.

 

But also like a former poster suggested such a test cant BE set up....i would go farther to say that the same critieria for not being abotu to set it up may also be applied to prayer studies. There are verious kinds of prayer and cerimonial majic, and many would be practitioners of each are merely mouthing words. I would like to bet if the ones who have more success also have more interest and intent in the answers.

 

 

But notice what happens when someone mentions answered prayer or sucessfull majic....the greed comes out.... the challenge well if so then gimme money. Or suit my desires. Then desires get in the way of subtle energy. Watched pots never boil.

 

 

Jessy

[florduh]

This is a classic scenario of Magical Thinking vs Critical Thinking. There is no solution. There is no point in debating.

 

The magical thinking of the Bible and the areas of parapsychology and spell-making are immune to scrutiny by their very natures. When the Bible says something stupid, the answer is, "we can't know the mind of God." When somebody claims some paranormal power they say, "it can't be done on demand, and the unbelief of scientific observers will prevent it from happening."

 

If someone said, "this area has suffered drought and there is no rain in sight, so at 3:00 I will make it rain for them" and it actually happened, then you have some evidence that the spell worked. But that hasn't happened even once, and the reason given is always something like, "it doesn't work like that." The truth is, it doesn't work at all, except in the mind of the believer, who will make excuses for every failure and look to occasional coincidental success as solid proof of their belief.

[insanezenmistress]

you cant really state that it has never happened even once. I know people suprisingly accurate abotu teh weather and i dont mean on the news.The reason we argue is because shit happens that doesnt makes sence and we jsut cant seem to proove it yet. OH coincidence....oh the fronatl lobe got zapped again.

 

 

It seems like a cop out but there something to the cant put it under the microscope thing. In real life what one might concider an answered prayer, such as a *coincidental* orchestration of events or desire met after a prayer. For instance i might pray that i coudl get on american Idol, even play act (magic) that i audition well, and out of the blue, of coincidence someone Else auditioned with teh song *i* play acted with, and he goes on to hollywood.

 

That has happened to me. Was it a precognition? Well thats another ball of wax. Did i lie about having pretended it, was it prophecy after the fact? No. I been pretending this game a while, and not always with the same song. So it is Simple probability?

 

Well i dont know. It is not important to me how it occured, but that having it occure was really cool. And the point is that it is totally unprooveable and illlogical.

 

Jessy.

[HadouKen24]

I know people suprisingly accurate abotu teh weather and i dont mean on the news.

 

They're called "farmers." They're really good at predicting the weather just by glancing at the sky and feeling the wind. Nothing supernatural or magical. They have to pay attention because of their livelihood, and they become very good at it.

 

 

The magical thinking of the Bible and the areas of parapsychology and spell-making are immune to scrutiny by their very natures. When the Bible says something stupid, the answer is, "we can't know the mind of God." When somebody claims some paranormal power they say, "it can't be done on demand, and the unbelief of scientific observers will prevent it from happening."

 

Eh? First, I did mention that such an explanation is a cop-out. I agree with you there.

 

However, it's strange to me that you would claim parapsychology uses magical thinking. The experiments are quite scientific. The autoganzfeld experiments in particular are perfect examples of good scientific protocol.

 

(I think it's worth pointing out, by the by, that they tested whether the unbelief of skeptical observers would prevent psi effects. Two researchers performed the exact same double-blind experiment in the exact same lab with the exact same assistants. One researcher believed in psi, the other didn't. The one who didn't got negative results, while the one who did got statistically significant results.)

 

If someone said, "this area has suffered drought and there is no rain in sight, so at 3:00 I will make it rain for them" and it actually happened, then you have some evidence that the spell worked. But that hasn't happened even once, and the reason given is always something like, "it doesn't work like that." The truth is, it doesn't work at all, except in the mind of the believer, who will make excuses for every failure and look to occasional coincidental success as solid proof of their belief.

 

I think it's rather dogmatic of you to make the claim that it "hasn't happened even once." Even so, what if it really doesn't "work like that?" If the test is to see whether a particular magical theory does or does not reflect reality, then the experiment must reflect the theory. Otherwise, one is testing an entirely different hypothesis.

[florduh]

"hasn't happened even once."

It may have happened, I stand corrected.

 

I should have said that even though these things may really happen, the only reporters that ever get the story are from supermarket tabloids. The only witnesses are True Believers. But that doesn't mean it didn't really happen. It just gives me absolutely no reason to consider the possibility.

[HadouKen24]

If that is the case, then I would recommend withholding judgment--skeptically. You're not really in a position to critique claims made by those who believe they've experienced the real effects of spells, any more than I am to critique claims made by those who believe they've seen Sasquatch. Many such claims I'm willing to outright disbelieve, put forth as they are by individuals obviously seeking profit or notoriety, but I'm unwilling to pass such judgment on all such claims as a whole.

[florduh]

If that is the case, then I would recommend withholding judgment--skeptically. You're not really in a position to critique claims made by those who believe they've experienced the real effects of spells, any more than I am to critique claims made by those who believe they've seen Sasquatch. Many such claims I'm willing to outright disbelieve, put forth as they are by individuals obviously seeking profit or notoriety, but I'm unwilling to pass such judgment on all such claims as a whole.

 

We just have different benchmarks.

 

Like you, I would dismiss an absurd claim by someone obviously trying to sell his book if he had no proof. If there was proof to back up an outlandish claim I wouldn't care if someone profited monetarily from it. But there are even stronger motives than profit when it comes to the realm of the supernatural.

 

People can have a very strong need to be different, better, more powerful in their lives. The need to believe they have a special power, a secret of the universe, or the ear of god, is a motive that can unconsciously drive them to do whatever is necessary to maintain their fantasy.

 

Maybe you would consider dismissing the claims of those people as well.

 

I confess, it is a mystery to me how someone can dismiss Christianity because there is no evidence for it, yet embrace some New Age discipline that has even less credibility. I lack the need to believe so I have a hard time relating to that mindset.

[HadouKen24]

Like you, I would dismiss an absurd claim by someone obviously trying to sell his book if he had no proof. If there was proof to back up an outlandish claim I wouldn't care if someone profited monetarily from it. But there are even stronger motives than profit when it comes to the realm of the supernatural.

 

People can have a very strong need to be different, better, more powerful in their lives. The need to believe they have a special power, a secret of the universe, or the ear of god, is a motive that can unconsciously drive them to do whatever is necessary to maintain their fantasy.

 

In my experience, people who have such a motivation tend to be relatively easy to spot in the occult, pagan, and New Age communities. In fact, people with such motivations are almost universally deplored within those communities precisely because they give everyone a bad name.

 

I confess, it is a mystery to me how someone can dismiss Christianity because there is no evidence for it, yet embrace some New Age discipline that has even less credibility. I lack the need to believe so I have a hard time relating to that mindset.

 

A mere "lack of evidence" is not, I think, sufficient reason to dismiss Christianity. It may be sufficient to bring about the decision not to accept it, but that is a weaker position than dismissal.

 

Christianity ought to be dismissed, instead, because it is logically incoherent. The doctrines of Christianity are mutually incompatible. Attempts to resolve the fundamental problems in Christianity are usually rejected by the Christian community as heresy. Moreover, there can be found no reasons to reject one contradictory doctrine over another. Lacking justification for rejecting any particular point of doctrine, the only rational course is to jettison the whole thing.

 

And by the by, Western magical practices long predate the New Age. Grimoires from the Medieval period are still in use. Even contemporary paganism predates it. Nor can Western occultism or paganism be lumped in with the New Age movement; they are usually very distinct.

[.god]

Why does it feel like I'm just reading the same arguments again?

 

So far there's been the "No True Wiccan/Pagan/spellcaster"

Then there's the "too many unbelievers" argument... I 've been told the reason why there are many more Christian miracles in 3rd world countries (ie. Africa) than in the 1st world countries is that because there are too many unbelievers and skeptics here... This as to why we don't see multiple tales of loaves of bread multiplying and other miracles in say... new york.

Then there's the "can't be tested with the scientific method" argument - this one works for Dowsing, tarot reading, psychic readings and communication with the dead, and gimmick healing machines as well as miracles

 

Citing studies as well.. there are studies that show prayer caused a statistically significant result as well

 

I think the only argument I haven't seen yet is:

 

Of course prayer, dowsing, tarot, astrology, psychic readings, miracles, the "secret", chi manipulation works!

It's all connected, they're all just casting spells, they just don't know it!

 

ie. the "They're all worshiping the same god but under a different name" argument

[florduh]

A mere "lack of evidence" is not, I think, sufficient reason to dismiss Christianity.

 

Christianity makes extraordinary claims. They better have some evidence to back it up.

 

So must any such claim.

[HadouKen24]

Christianity makes extraordinary claims. They better have some evidence to back it up.

 

So must any such claim.

 

 

Every knowledge claim requires evidence--or at least, justification. Claims that do not aspire to being knowledge claims, it seems to me, probably do not.

 

I myself frequently make claims that I cannot back up with evidence. But I don't claim that these are knowledge claims, but suspicions, opinions, and the like. Likewise, the intellectually prudent Christian will recognize that his claims are not knowledge claims, either, but faith claims. Faith claims may be assented to or not assented to, but cannot be simply "dismissed" unless a defeater can be found.

 

 

 

Then there's the "too many unbelievers" argument... I 've been told the reason why there are many more Christian miracles in 3rd world countries (ie. Africa) than in the 1st world countries is that because there are too many unbelievers and skeptics here... This as to why we don't see multiple tales of loaves of bread multiplying and other miracles in say... new york.

 

What does that have to do with spells? Spells don't claim to be miracles.

 

 

Then there's the "can't be tested with the scientific method" argument - this one works for Dowsing, tarot reading, psychic readings and communication with the dead, and gimmick healing machines as well as miracles

 

 

Of the list you provide, only tarot reading, miracles, and possibly psychic readings, are not amenable to scientific analysis. It's rather sloppy to lump them all together.

 

Citing studies as well.. there are studies that show prayer caused a statistically significant result as well

 

A non-repeatable effect. Parapsychological experiments, on the other hand, have found repeatable effects. The main debate is whether conclusions can be drawn from them, or whether they are mere statistical artifacts or the result of sloppy experiment protocols.

 

Of course prayer, dowsing, tarot, astrology, psychic readings, miracles, the "secret", chi manipulation works!

It's all connected, they're all just casting spells, they just don't know it!

 

ie. the "They're all worshiping the same god but under a different name" argument

 

You seem to be unaware that these methods are frequently based on each other. The Secret, for instance, uses something like basic magical theory you'd find in almost any modern book of magic. The difference being that it omits all the difficult mental training and ritual bits. These practices actually are connected in some objective sense--though not necessarily the one you mean.

[florduh]

Christianity claims factual, historical occurrences as the basis of the faith. These include such things as virgin birth, resurrection, and several miracles. These are claims that are well out of everyone's common experience and understanding. Such claims require real evidence if they are to be taken seriously be a critical thinker.

 

If I claimed I could raise someone from the dead, you would rightfully ask me to prove it before you gave my assertion any credence. How is Christianity, or any other supernatural claim, exempt from proof? Is it that what you believe and what makes you feel good is not bound by normal rules of logic and common sense? That's how Christianity survives - it claims we can't know the mind of God and must only believe. Are we so politically correct that we must honor and validate any and all beliefs, no matter how outrageous and ridiculous they might be?

 

I'm tired of doing the mental gymnastics to justify unfounded faith. That's why I left Christianity. I will not abandon reason again. I now think things through, look for evidence, and decide what claims people make are true on their merits. All supernatural claims I've encountered have these things in common: they are untestable, and won't work without belief. From Peter Hurkos, to Uri Gellar, to John Edwards and Sylvia Brown I call bullshit. Faith healing? Bullshit. Angels? Spirit Guides? All unprovable or untestable hokum. Remember the Succubus and Incubus? They are out of fashion today, but they have been replaced by Alien Abduction scenarios. Did anyone predict the Twin Towers disaster? Why not - there are thousands of professional psychics, and even more amateurs. Somebody should have picked up on it.

 

I can't pretend anymore, but a whole world of pretenders won't miss me.

[SWIM]

Christianity claims factual, historical occurrences as the basis of the faith. These include such things as virgin birth, resurrection, and several miracles. These are claims that are well out of everyone's common experience and understanding. Such claims require real evidence if they are to be taken seriously be a critical thinker.

 

 

It has always been my understanding that incredible claims require a lot of proof, solid proof. Otherwise, whats to stop people from believing in ALL religious writings? Since most all religion is "exclusive", meaning believing in multi-religions is generally never acceptable, it brings us back to pascal's screwed up wager.

 

It's the threats and the false promises that keep people in religion, not "facts" or "evidence". Xtianity has a long history of suppressing science and free thinking. If the RCC had it's way, there would be people getting labeled "heretic" for NOT believing the world was flat. (this used to be the case).

[HadouKen24]

Christianity claims factual, historical occurrences as the basis of the faith. These include such things as virgin birth, resurrection, and several miracles. These are claims that are well out of everyone's common experience and understanding. Such claims require real evidence if they are to be taken seriously be a critical thinker.

 

If I claimed I could raise someone from the dead, you would rightfully ask me to prove it before you gave my assertion any credence. How is Christianity, or any other supernatural claim, exempt from proof? Is it that what you believe and what makes you feel good is not bound by normal rules of logic and common sense? That's how Christianity survives - it claims we can't know the mind of God and must only believe. Are we so politically correct that we must honor and validate any and all beliefs, no matter how outrageous and ridiculous they might be?

 

I don't think you quite understand me.

 

I'm not arguing that it's okay to accept outlandish claims haphazardly and with no regard for reason. Indeed, it is my suspicion that you would find few individuals more devoted to the application of reason than I am; it is part of the warp and woof of my character.

 

If you are as devoted to reason yourself as you claim, then very well--let us reason. Let's philosophize about claims, evidence, and knowledge.

 

How necessary it is to have evidence backing a claim up depends on the kind of claim it is. This, I think, is very clear. A conjecture or hypothesis does not require as much evidence as a suspicion, which does not require as much evidence as knowledge. To claim that you know something, you must have very strong evidence indeed. Do Christians claim to "know" that Christianity is true? Some do, but the most reasonable recognize that they do not. That is, after all, part of the definition of "faith." However, we cannot help but recognize that faith claims differ very much from other non-knowledge claims. In other claims, there is still a very close relationship between the strength of the claim and the weight of the evidence for it. A hypothesis is deemed to be such because it lacks direct evidence, but nonetheless seems to be consistent with known evidence for other claims. A suspicion may have very little evidence, but it has a small amount--but not enough to rule out competing claims. Faith, on the other hand, claims strength far out of proportion to its evidence.

 

The question now becomes under what circumstances it becomes reasonable--or at least not inconsistent with reason--to accept a strong claim without any supporting evidence. First, there must be no counter-evidence. Such would clearly defeat such a claim. Second, I would propose that there can be no reasonable expectation of finding evidence--either because time presses too hard to adequately search, or because time or other factors would probably have erased any that might have existed. This second criterion, I would propose, applies to Christianity. There can be no reasonable expectation that after 2000 years direct evidence would be found of a particular man's life--a man who did not even attain high position in his own country of birth, and who would have had political enemies interested in suppressing such information. Third, the claim must matter. There must be some importance extending into the realm of action contingent on accepting or failing to accept the claim. Such is certainly true of Christianity; one's very lifestyle must change if one accepts it to be true. Fourthly, the presentation of the choice to accept the claim or not--though not the choice itself--must not be arbitrary. That is, one cannot simply pick or invent a notion to follow. Forces external to oneself must present the claim and force a choice onto oneself.

 

Finally, given all the above, it must remain clear that this is not a choice based on a rational consideration of evidence. It must be clearly distinguished from claims to knowledge.

 

If all of the above can be said to be true of a claim, then I would propose that acceptance of it is, at the very least not inconsistent with reason. It may not be rational, but that does not mean it is irrational--just that it is nonrational. It must not oppose reason, but simply goes beyond the bounds of reason's arbitration. If the first two criteria apply, in fact, then such a claim is by definition beyond the bounds of reason; there is no evidence either way, and hence one has no rational ability to judge either way whether it happened. If the second two criteria apply, then one must make a decision; some sort of decision is forced.

 

Thus, one may accept a faith claim without thereby compromising one's rational faculties.

 

(One may replace "evidence" with "rational justification" above, and the epistemic proposal above can be generalized beyond merely empirical claims.)

 

 

Of course, none of this has much to do with spells; empirical justification need not be scientific justification.

 

From Peter Hurkos, to Uri Gellar, to John Edwards and Sylvia Brown I call bullshit. Faith healing? Bullshit. Angels? Spirit Guides? All unprovable or untestable hokum.

 

Hokum, yes. Unprovable and untestable? Uri Geller thought he was testable. John Edwards and Sylvia Brown have both been demonstrated to be frauds. Faith healing is perfectly testable--and has been found wanting. Angels? The existence of "angels" depends on certain cosmological ideas which are rather wanting. Spirit guides? Yeah.. that's pretty untestable, but there are some obvious examples of hokum. I'd be reluctant to pass judgment on all claims, though.

 

Remember the Succubus and Incubus? They are out of fashion today, but they have been replaced by Alien Abduction scenarios.

 

You may not realize this, but you just presented a reason to think that there is some consistent underlying phenomenon behind both. (Of course, whether or not that phenomenon is in any sense supernatural is another question entirely. A peculiarity of human brain chemistry would suffice.)

 

Did anyone predict the Twin Towers disaster? Why not - there are thousands of professional psychics, and even more amateurs. Somebody should have picked up on it.

 

I'm afraid this is just blatant hypocrisy. Were I to provide examples of psychics who did predict the Twin Towers (though I'm certainly not saying there are any), you'd just say that it was random chance--the one right guess out of a hundred wrong ones--and there would probably be no legitimate statistical method to test the contrary hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

It has always been my understanding that incredible claims require a lot of proof, solid proof.

 

That's a pretty incredible claim. Where's your proof?

 

It's the threats and the false promises that keep people in religion, not "facts" or "evidence". Xtianity has a long history of suppressing science and free thinking. If the RCC had it's way, there would be people getting labeled "heretic" for NOT believing the world was flat. (this used to be the case).

 

You... haven't studied much history, have you? Your conclusions are simplistic at best, and seem to be based on some rather faulty information. It has never been the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that the earth is flat. There were a few early Christians paranoid about philosophy who denounced the idea of a round earth up until the 8th century, but they never managed to get their ideas established as Church doctrine. Indeed, it was Galileo's repudiation of the Aristotelian cosmology--which unequivocally featured a round earth--that got him in so much trouble. (Well, that, and the fact that his ideas were inspired as much by Hermeticism and Pythagoreanism as by actual evidence; his telescopes weren't nearly precise enough to definitively establish a heliocentric solar system.)

[florduh]

HadouKen, suppose I told you that one night recently, I got in my car, levitated it, and flew it from Florida to Maine.

 

Before you believed me, what kind of proof would you demand of me? One eyewitness? A video? A repeat performance in front of your own eyes? Six minutes on Oprah?

 

Suppose I told you I could only do that levitating alone, when nobody is watching. I could repeat the feat, but everything has to be just right for it to happen, so I can't do it on demand. Besides, it wouldn't work anyway if you didn't believe it would.

 

I'm guessing you'd need some pretty hard evidence to believe my story. The same kind of evidence I need to seriously entertain outrageous and bizarre claims.

 

Just because we don't know absolutely everything there is to know doesn't mean we can't safely rule out the obviously absurd just because "anything is possible." Simply calling an absurdity "non-rational" rather than "irrational" doesn't fix it.

[hereticzero]

I can't believe they have used up four pages so far to argue spells work. It is the same kind of brain drain as xtianity.

[florduh]

I can't believe they have used up four pages so far to argue spells work. It is the same kind of brain drain as xtianity.

 

That's why I think magical thinking is hardwired in humans. Disprove beyond doubt one fantasy, and another takes its place.

 

The burden of proof is accepted here as applying to Christianity only. Biblegod is not possible, but damn near anything else is possible, even if there is no evidence, proof or rational reason to consider it.

[Deva]

I am all for scientific investigation of the paranormal. Its my view that these phenomenon are real - apparitions, ESP, precognition - but their explanation remains to be discovered by science. That I accept their reality doesn't mean that I am a gullible pushover or a sucker. I have personally actually experienced all three at one time or another in my life. I don't know about spells too much but would not be opposed to the investigation of spells either. Seems to me that the power of the mind is tremendous since the "placebo effect" of medication has been well established.

 

The question of what would constitute enough evidence to convince skeptics in these matters is one that could occupy another thread.

 

Anyway, thank you HadouKen for your very interesting posts.