Sez the feeble minded person that believes a god "poofs" things into existence, "Poofs" seas to split, "poofs" women into salt, and "poofs" dead men's rotten bodies back into life, but wears his thesaurus out trying to avoid the obvious common vernacular word of "magic."
Again, let me know when you're ready for a mature discussion.
Because the only context in which I've ever see it being applied as you claim is both:What did you expect? Did you think religious believers would admit that their beliefs are childish?
- By atheists
- On the internet
Red herring. Is the alleged broad definition of "magic" common use or neologism? Your response seems to support the latter.
Actually, atheism is special in the sense that it is different from the usual.
But of course. Your monsters are different
We know it's certainly not
the case that:Muslims are differentChristians are differentJews are differentZoroastrianism is differentTaoists are differentHinduism is differentBuddhism is different
of atheism is the different one, anyhow? Oh, dear me, my mind is slipping. There is only one atheism: the lack of a belief in deities. Atheism itself doesn't have any specific values, teachings, or points of view outside that one lack of belief. The apparent forms of atheism throughout the centuries were just various philosophical positions that were coincidentally atheist too, and thus don't actually count.
Other than their majority shared views on religion, sexuality, women's rights, birth control, abortion, evolution, scientific empiricism, separation of church and state, liberalism, racism, sexism, lack of afterlife, lack of soul/spirits, morality, human reason, democracy, conservation, privacy, and skepticism, each modern atheist is an individual who simply lacks a belief in deities and is not tied down by the attitudes, opinions, or mores of a group. And that is truly unique.
It is also more reasonable and justifiable to withhold belief when there isn’t a shred of solid evidence or a single sound argument to support that belief.
Yes, this is an argument for atheism. Were atheism a theology, we could call it "apologetics." But atheism is not a theology, so it is not appropriate to call it "apologetics." So it is simply an argument for atheism.
Each theology has its own apologetics. These are reasoned arguments intended to justify that religion's theology, and often are designed to lead a person to the basis for that theology. Were atheists to engage in apologetics, they would start with a claim like yours above, defend it against follow-up questions from the outsider ("On what basis do you claim it is reasonable and justifiable?" "Well x, y, and z, therefore it is both reasonable and justfiable!"), and finally connect it to the basis of atheism ("Thus, it is both reasonable and justifiable to reject deities.") However, atheists don't practice apologetics, since atheism is not a religion, and therefore this is yet another example of how atheism's monsters are different.
Hmmm… If it isn’t atheists or agnostics who currently make up the moronic masses then I wonder what those masses must be…
Mostly Christians, at least in the US. I thought that was obvious. Which is why I'm perfectly content with letting the atheists pull ahead.
You see, "it is intellectually easier, in some sense, to follow the crowd. Iconoclasts face a cognitive hurdle—they have to justify to themselves and others why they feel differently. Probably for that reason, non-traditionalists tend to be smarter than the average person."
Atheism is a non-traditional view in the US, which means the early adopters of atheism are statistically going to be well-educated. Similarly, as the article points out, in places where Christianity is non-traditional such as Japan, adopters of Christianity are statistically more well-educated.
However, the "mass morons" is the hypothetical group of people who are the exact opposite of that. They're the ones who would blindly follow tradition for tradition's sake, even when it doesn't make sense, and are also the ones who would loudly voice support of that tradition no matter how stupid it makes them (and everyone else) look. Statistically, they would be less-educated, and less capable of critical thinking than the academic elite.
I don't think I'd have to try very hard to convince you that this hypothetical group exists in the US, and in very large numbers. Currently, that group largely follows the dominant, traditional religious view: Christianity. If atheism were to become dominant, I suspect that at least some of these bandwagoners would deconvert after a long, thoughtful examination of reality tv shows and teenage pop music. If that happens, they'll be just as loud, just as stupid, just as prejudiced, and just as embarrassing to whichever view they support. You're welcome to inherit them.
Right… You would never say atheism is just another belief, would you? After all, what sort of ridiculous and pathetic claim would that be?
In English, "belief in no" and "no belief in any" are 100% grammatically equivalent.
I used the former construction as it flowed better than writing "belief (or lack thereof)." I did include the word "lack" in the same paragraph for those who absolutely insist on "lack of belief" appearing in the definition.
It's grammatically correct in English for you to say, "Your lack of belief in magic is your own personal belief" or whatnot, because my statement, "Mooby does not believe in magic" is grammatically equivalent to "Mooby believes in no magic," and the statement, "I lack a belief in magic" is grammatically equivalent to, "I believe in a lack of magic." However, the statements, "atheism is not a religion" and "atheism is a religion" are not grammatically equivalent. In fact, they are actually grammatical opposites. So your comparison between my comments on how I don't call atheism a religion and the sentence structure I used in reference to atheism's beliefs (or lack thereof) does not apply.
Oh, then what is prayer, Mooby? Prayer is nothing but wishful thinking. It’s ritual hand-wringing used to quell anxiety or assuage fear. That’s all it is and all it’s good for.
If you're seriously interested in the definition of prayer, Wikipedia has an entire page on it. If you're more interested in your made-up definition, then it's probably a waste of your time for you to look it up.
And on every other site I could possibly find on Google, including multiple sites run by actual Wiccans, spells are the practitioner's own manipulation of magic.
Yay, a circular definition! And one that lets you dodge the obvious parallels between magic and prayer.
I know! Isn't it convenient that numerous practicing Wiccans out there who created websites about their beliefs were generous enough to lie about their sacred rituals just so that a Christian whom they do not know exists or share any beliefs with could use it in an argument with an atheist they do not know exists or share any beliefs with? They are quite a generous faith, aren't they?
You are correct about one thing: Wiccans do have sacred acts that are very, very similar to Christian prayer. It's basically the same thing, except instead of directing it at the Christian God they direct it at one of the Wiccan gods or goddesses. They don't call it "spells," though; that's something different. They use a far more strange, obscure, technical term: prayer.
No, prayer and spells are not the same. They're not even the same within Wicca. Why is a Christian having to educate you on Wiccan beliefs? I'm supposed to be shunning them and calling them heathens, remember? I'm not supposed to be the enlightened, tolerant, educated one.
Oh really? Describe a typical prayer for me. What do you and one of your many godlings chat about?
We chat about anything. Prayer is simply communication with a deity.
Oh, no, not the least bit. You may pray to one of three "pieces" of god (each of them distinct and individual entities) or a virgin mother or a zillion saints, but that is completely and definitley not polytheism. No way, no how. No sir. Polytheism is something totally different.
Correct again. Polytheism is totally different from Christian monotheism. I am glad we are in agreement on this.
Semantics and pretense. You've not shown how it is anything other than that. Denials do not an argument or explanation make.
You're the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you to support that claim. There is no evidence that transubstantiation is magic. It's the belief that during the consecration Jesus becomes present in the bread and wine.
Fine, influencing events with supernatural or mysterious forces. It's still not specifying any bias to beliefs, creatures or deities.
It doesn't directly specify, no. It certainly implies that magic is something performed, as I mentioned before. As I pointed out, the OED also doesn't specify that atheism isn't a religion, or that the theory of evolution isn't a conjecture, or many other things. As I also pointed out, none of the examples lend support to your claim that magic applies to the acts of deities. Lastly, the OED is not the arbiter of the English language (common use is.)
To my mind, both definitions support my argument, only the one you gave was specific to humans, but when you look at how many 'non-humans' use magic in folklore, mythology, heck, video games and Disney movies, it's fairly clear that the definition is inaccurate in that regard.
It was my understanding that we were discussing "magic" within the context of religion, where the above are generally not applicable. I will readily accept that "magic" in common use includes extraordinary acts performed by not-divine entities in folklore, myth, and fiction. I still see no basis on which to accept that reference to any
supernatural event as "magic" is common use.
Also, as I said earlier, even if
such a definition were to become common use, it would still
not be an appropriate definition to apply to religions, because "magic" would mean something different in a religious context.