Proof Jesus Contradicted Himself

[Sarevok]

Can you provide a solid, valid reason for discussion? Most I've come across are weak personal viewpoints which people refuse to budge on, based on something assumed, or are contradictions give to show discontinuity in the bible.

[screwtape]

Mooby doesn't believe in magic. 

You do.  You just call it something else.

[Mooby]

Mooby doesn't believe in magic. 

You do.  You just call it something else.

No, I do not.

[12 Monkeys]

Mooby doesn't believe in magic.  He woos his girlfriend constantly, though. 

Now is this a fiancee' or a girlfriend? we would not want you to act contradictory to the teachings of the bible by having premarital sex.

 

[screwtape]

Mooby doesn't believe in magic. 

You do.  You just call it something else.

No, I do not.

What do you call it when the host turns into jesus H christ brisket?

[Mooby]

What do you call it when the host turns into jesus H christ brisket?

Consubstantiation.

[Seppuku]

Mooby doesn't believe in magic. 

You do.  You just call it something else.

No, I do not.

You are a Christian aren't you Moobster? You believe in the God of the bible, you may not necessarily believe in it the same way as people like the Phelps, Kent Hovind or Ted Haggard, but you still believe in the same God described in the bible who is known for having mysterious and supernatural powers. I am sure you believe in God as an existing entity rather than a symbol or metaphor.

The God of the bible has magical powers, they may not be referred to as magic, but He has a mysterious or supernatural powers, different Christians may have different ideas about how they work, but I've not heard of any versions of Christianity where such mysterious or supernatural powers are not present and I'm pretty sure you've talked about a God who demonstrates such powers, though you can at times be pretty vague about your own beliefs.

If you believe in something with mysterious or supernatural powers you are by proxy believe in magic because that's all magic is. Some may use the word 'magic' to discredit somebody's beliefs because 'magic' is considered to be a childish notion, regardless of that, it is still magic and it is no different to believing in fairies and unicorns. The beliefs are no less valid, yet people will put their own beliefs on a different pedestal to try and present their views in a more reasonable light. At the end of the day, they're supernatural, they are based on faith and have nothing really to back themselves up. To my mind they serve better as hypotheses, I am willing to accept that people will have faith, be it God, unicorns or Santa Claus, if they come here naturally I'd attempt to scrutinise them, but none of those beliefs are deserving of more respect than the next and naturally, I consider them all 'magical', because for them to exist in their described form then they'd require magic. Heck, due to the content of the bible and what it has led a certain number of Christians to support, believe and even do, in general I have less respect for Christianity than I do for any ideologies for belief in fairies, unicorns or Santa. On an individual level, I judge Christians for who they are. However, I will not hide by the illusion that Christianity isn't based around magic, regardless of who I respect.

[Brakeman]

Mooby, The claim that anyone can do something outside the realm of physics is magic. You claim "God" can do magic. If not, you have no god and thus are an atheist like us.

[Mooby]

You are a Christian aren't you Moobster? You believe in the God of the bible, you may not necessarily believe in it the same way as people like the Phelps, Kent Hovind or Ted Haggard, but you still believe in the same God described in the bible who is known for having mysterious and supernatural powers. I am sure you believe in God as an existing entity rather than a symbol or metaphor.

Basically correct, though I try not to use the word "entity" in reference to God's being as it connotes something a bit different than what I believe.  Otherwise, yes.  I'm a Catholic.

If you believe in something with mysterious or supernatural powers you are by proxy believe in magic because that's all magic is.

This is partially correct.  Magic is a subset of supernatural powers, in the same way cats are subsets of mammals.  If you were to say to me, "If you believe that Seppuku is a mammal then you by proxy believe he is a cat because that's all cats are," I would have to contest that because while all cats are mammals, not all mammals are cats.  Similarly, while all magical powers are supernatural, not all supernatural powers are magic.

While I recognize the definition of "magic" (more on that a few quotes down) within the spectrum of the supernatural, I do not believe that magic actually exists.  And while the existence of magic has never been outright accepted or rejected by Christianity, attempts to practice magic are considered sinful.

Some may use the word 'magic' to discredit somebody's beliefs because 'magic' is considered to be a childish notion, regardless of that, it is still magic and it is no different to believing in fairies and unicorns.

I don't have a problem with the use of the term to describe religious beliefs or practices.  Wiccans, for example, use magic in their rituals, which they sometimes spell "magick" to differentiate themselves from the illusory magic that modern magicians practice.  But the term does not describe anything extant in Christianity, and I personally don't believe in magic as a true supernatural occurence.

Mooby, The claim that anyone can do something outside the realm of physics is magic. You claim "God" can do magic. If not, you have no god and thus are an atheist like us.

Your first sentence is accurate.  Your second sentence is not.  The key word is "anyone."

Magic is human control over the supernatural (Definition 2.)  If we look at the etymology of the word, we can see that it arose as a human art, not as a reference to the divine.  Furthermore, Wikipedia explains how magic is rejected by all of the Abrahamic religions.  Specifically, practitioners of these faiths believe that the supernatural is the realm of God, not humans, and therefore it is not man's place to try to control it.

So no, I don't believe in magic.  If you want the silly creationists to learn the distinction between "abiogenesis" and "evolution" or the distinction between "don't believe in God" and "lack of a belief in gods," you can put forth the effort and learn the correct terms on the religious side of the discussion.

Next time just take the 5 seconds and google the term before you tell me why you're more qualified to determine what I believe than I am.

[Seppuku]

On the note of the 'human' influence, was Jesus not human?

Next time just take the 5 seconds and google the term before you tell me why you're more qualified to determine what I believe than I am.

I am quoting the above because (I don't know if Brakeman did) before posting I decided to look it up to make sure I had it right. Generally I avoid reference.com and Wikipedia for my definitions, I have used them in the past and have found them to fail me, shame because I like how they explain some things - I may use Wikipedia from time to time if I feel how they explain the facts is easy to read and understand, but it is a flawed resource. For any dictionary definitions I tend to use the Oxford Dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary doesn't mention it having anything to do specifically with humans, nor is the word used just to apply to humans either (for instance, fairies aren't human nor are unicorns). Reference.com listed multiple definitions, the closest one to God would be number 6, it uses 'mystical' where the oxford dictionary prefers 'supernatural' or 'mysterious', mystical usually refers to the occult, but reference.com notes 'mysterious' as one of its definitions for 'mystical', though rare. Personally, I would side with the Oxford Dictionary because it is generally considered more reliable than reference.com or Wikipedia.

The etymology on the other hand, it is more related to witchcraft, that is correct, as you are familiar with etymology I am sure you are familiar with language change as well and presumably are aware of 'broadening' and also 'semantic shift'. The word 'magic' no longer just applies to witchcraft as you've rightly noted with Wicca and as you've also noted they distance themselves with a different spelling, the word clearly has broadened in meaning for them to do that. Also before it was associated with the witchcraft in the times people spoke Old English it related to the Greek, magike, and it was the art of the magus (which Etymology Online seems to leave out that part) and they weren't witches, though there were alchemists, astrologers and other things. 'Magi' also exists in the bible, the three wise men are referred to by Mathew as magi (from the Latin, which is from the Greek referring to the same people). The word is older than the Greek too, but we'd be going into Old Persian and further back in History.

Once upon a time I am sure Christians would want to distance themselves from the word 'magic' because it was once the word of witches, any divine intervention or any holy work is the work of God, not witchcraft, but I don't think the need to create that distance is necessary. Because its meaning has broadened to the supernatural and not one specific branch of the supernatural. Words change[1], it's the way of language, no matter how much control people try to put over it. This is why a good dictionary is descriptive of the English language, rather than prescriptive. Would I suggest that thus is the case with the word 'atheism' or as some to it, 'Atheism'? I fear it is going that way. Although I try to correct people because I am not an 'Atheist', I am an 'atheist' and try to make it about 'atheism' because I insist 'Atheism' does not exist because we not an organisation grouped by a series of ideals as people like to suggest (for example, my ideals are different to many atheists here), if the word 'atheist' becomes lost I would have to refer to myself as a non-theist to make the distinction, which to my mind would be ludicrous because that's what an 'atheist' is, but I too do not have control over language.


This perhaps doesn't apply to you, but I am certain it applies to groups of Christians out there, people have seen witchcraft as a real threat, the old testament instructs their death, hence we had the slaughter of so-called witches in Christianity's history and heck, even today.

1.	Like the word 'meat', instead of broadening it narrowed, it once referred to all food, leaving only those starving to death refusing a salad because they don't eat meat (or mete).

[Nam]

Not if he were Biblegod in human form.

-Nam

[Brakeman]

Next time just take the 5 seconds and google the term before you tell me why you're more qualified to determine what I believe than I am.

Google smoogle. How freaking dishonest can you get? You know we were speaking of your god doing supernatural stuff.  You then hide behind definitions and wiki's about how it is the common claims of men claiming to do magic. We were not talking about men or witches doing magic. Quit trying to hide behind semantics. Only someone seriously divorced from reality believes in paranormal woo from a magic god.

[Mooby]

For any dictionary definitions I tend to use the Oxford Dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary doesn't mention it having anything to do specifically with humans, nor is the word used just to apply to humans either (for instance, fairies aren't human nor are unicorns)[. . .]Personally, I would side with the Oxford Dictionary because it is generally considered more reliable than reference.com or Wikipedia.

You are correct that the OED does not mention "humans" on that page.  It does not mention "fairies" or "unicorns," either.

The definition states, "the power of apparently influencing events," which implies there is a magician.  Furthermore, none of its examples it gives have anything to do with the supernatural abilities of a deity.  Lastly, the wording on the American English version of the page makes it even more clear that magic as an adjective refers to an object such as a wand as opposed to something like a deity.

You have to be a bit careful with the OED's definitions, because it often generalizes definitions like that.  For instance, take a look at the definition of theory (identical on both the British and US English page.)  The definition of theory as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something" can certainly be read via the colloquial "just a theory" definition, even though that doesn't reflect how scientists use the term.  By contrast, dictionary.com (which you find dubious) goes out of its way to separate the formal and colloquial uses of the term.

In short, the OED gives no indication whatsoever that the term "magic" is or was ever intended to be used to describe a supernatural act performed by a deity.

The word 'magic' no longer just applies to witchcraft as you've rightly noted with Wicca and as you've also noted they distance themselves with a different spelling, the word clearly has broadened in meaning for them to do that.

Indeed, the word broadened to include creating the illusion of supernatural abilities for entertainment.  There is no evidence, however, that the term broadened to include something that's its polar opposite in several major religions.

Also before it was associated with the witchcraft in the times people spoke Old English it related to the Greek, magike, and it was the art of the magus (which Etymology Online seems to leave out that part) and they weren't witches, though there were alchemists, astrologers and other things. 'Magi' also exists in the bible, the three wise men are referred to by Mathew as magi (from the Latin, which is from the Greek referring to the same people). The word is older than the Greek too, but we'd be going into Old Persian and further back in History.

You are correct.  The biblical Magi were wise men from the east (often assumed to be Persia) who followed the stars to find Jesus.  The Bible is silent on whether they practiced any of the above, but they were likely astrologers.  In this sense, it's possible they were practitioners of magic--but the Bible never claims they have any supernatural influence on anything.  All we know is that God placed a star that had significance to them, and they followed it.

Once upon a time I am sure Christians would want to distance themselves from the word 'magic' because it was once the word of witches, any divine intervention or any holy work is the work of God, not witchcraft, but I don't think the need to create that distance is necessary.

It is if the term has absolutely nothing to do with actual Christian belief or practice.

Because its meaning has broadened to the supernatural and not one specific branch of the supernatural.

No, it has not.  A few atheists exercising wishful thinking so they can use the word improperly to annoy Christians with impunity is not common usage.  And even if it did one day become common usage, it would still not change how it is used in basically every religion in the world, and thus it would be improper to use it otherwise in such a discussion.

Just as how it will always be inaccurate to say that the scientific theories of evolution, relativity, gravity, etc. are equivalent to conjectures because of common use, it will also always be inaccurate to say that Christians believe in magic because of alleged common use.

This perhaps doesn't apply to you, but I am certain it applies to groups of Christians out there, people have seen witchcraft as a real threat, the old testament instructs their death, hence we had the slaughter of so-called witches in Christianity's history and heck, even today.

As I said, there's no real Catholic (I'm Catholic, so I know its positions best) stance on whether magic is possible.  Magic is grouped in within the larger subset of the occult, which in general is recognized as potentially possible and is considered sinful.  But the reason the occult is considered sinful is precisely because the church doubts magic can come from a human source.  But that's another topic entirely.

How freaking dishonest can you get? You know we were speaking of your god doing supernatural stuff.  You then hide behind definitions and wiki's about how it is the common claims of men claiming to do magic. We were not talking about men or witches doing magic. Quit trying to hide behind semantics. Only someone seriously divorced from reality believes in paranormal woo from a magic god.

It takes a certain kind of arrogance to intentionally twist the definition of a word for the precise purpose of using it improperly and then accuse the other person of intellectual dishonesty when they call you out on your pathetic charade.

If you're not going to take the time to learn the basic terms a religious person uses to describe their beliefs, then you have no business in discussing those beliefs.  And if you insist on doing so anyways, that person has every right to insist that you look up them up so they don't have to waste time holding your hand and walking you through a vocab lesson like a small child.  That goes for anyone, whether you're discussing magic with Christians or voodoo with a vodouist.  Granted, I don't know any vodouists, but I doubt they'd appreciate you going into a discussion ready to criticize "knowledge" you gained from Temple of Doom or Live and Let Die. 

Kindly pull your head out of your backside, take the time to educate yourself, and let me know when you're ready to have a mature discussion.

[Seppuku]

You are correct that the OED does not mention "humans" on that page.  It does not mention "fairies" or "unicorns," either.

In short, the OED gives no indication whatsoever that the term "magic" is or was ever intended to be used to describe a supernatural act performed by a deity.

It specifies nothing, only that it is a supernatural power. The word is used to refer to anything supernatural these days, not just the practice of humans, which is why I consider your chosen definition to be inaccurate. From dictionary.com I would have chosen number 6 and not number 2 because number 6 is a broader use of the term.

But what difference is there believing in fairy magic or a genie and the supernatural powers of God? This is why I would use the word magic, because magic is no longer a specific branch of supernatural power. I've always understood magic as being anything that breaks the laws of nature and that's the way I've always used the word and how I've seen other people use the word and I don't see how the supernatural powers of God is different to magic. If magic is no longer specific to man or belief, then why are certain beliefs exempt?

You have to be a bit careful with the OED's definitions, because it often generalizes definitions like that.  For instance, take a look at the definition of theory (identical on both the British and US English page.)  The definition of theory as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something" can certainly be read via the colloquial "just a theory" definition, even though that doesn't reflect how scientists use the term.  By contrast, dictionary.com (which you find dubious) goes out of its way to separate the formal and colloquial uses of the term.

Whilst, yes it is a generalisation, it is not inaccurate. Yes, the word theory is used in a broader sense and not just in scientific theory. For a scientist to refer to anything as a theory, yes there's a lot of evidence required. As I previously said I like how reference.com explains things, but I have been tripped up before by using it. Whilst OED tends to be more generalised, I've not yet found it inaccurate.

But there is always an issue with dictionaries, they can never really offer a perfect representation of language because at the end of the day it's down to how people use the words and that can at times be inconsistent. Perhaps combining the use of multiple dictionaries is better than just sticking to one.

Just as how it will always be inaccurate to say that the scientific theories of evolution, relativity, gravity, etc. are equivalent to conjectures because of common use, it will also always be inaccurate to say that Christians believe in magic because of alleged common use.

This isn't the same. I will explain why.

The word 'magic' being applied to religion would suggest that the religion is using supernatural powers as part of its belief, which would not be inaccurate. It's not saying it's witchcraft or anything to do with the occult. Just as I sure once it started applying to witches it no longer had anything to do with the magi.

If the word 'theory' was equivalent to conjectures (in some ways, it has) then scientists would have to find a new word. The difference is that one word is becoming inclusive of one set of principles whilst the other is being exclusive. Given 'theory' at the moment includes conjecture AND scientific theory, if it were to become just conjecture it'd be narrowing, not broadening (like with magic).


I would agree though, that the word 'magic' is often used to annoy Christians (as I think I've already said) because of its connotations - it can viewed as being more childish or fantastical and I'm sure Christians know where the word comes from, but I don't think it is an inaccurate word to use. Heck, wouldn't it piss off those atheists who do use it in a derogative way if suddenly it didn't annoy Christians? To my mind, there should be no reason why the word 'magic' can't apply to God, generally I won't refer to it as magic because I know people don't like it when you do, but I don't see why any of the supernatural should be exempt from the word as it really isn't specific to the occult anymore.

[The Gawd]

@Mooby,

maybe I missed it somewhere, but what word would you use instead of magic? Since we in Western Civilization generally no longer believe in wizards, witches (although I know some Christians that do believe in witches), genies, fairies, warlocks, magicians, or David Blaine (or any other being that had been suspected of doing 'magic') it appears to me that dieties would be the ONLY place where the definition of magic would even apply.

[screwtape]

Mooby, I see you using a lot of high falutin labels, like "magic" and "occult" and "unicorns" in an attempt to distance your beliefs - which of course are perfectly sound and reasonable - from the beliefs of other so-called religions - which of course are vulgar, superstitious and frightening.  But all these labels are just semantics.  They only mean anything to you because you are invested in it.  From the outside it looks like an absurd pretense.

You talk about Wiccans casting spells.  What is that, really?  According to ReligiousTolerance.org, it is a ritual activity wherein the wiccan beseeches the supernatural to alter reality for her.[1]  Compare that to a prayer.  A prayer is a ritual activity wherein Mooby beseeches one or more supernatural entities to alter reality for him.[2]  It is the same thing.  Yet, despite being generally the same, I'm sure you'd also object to having your prayers referred to as spells.  But your objection would be silly. 

Similarly, your objection to catholic hocus-pocus being called magic is also silly.  Hocus-pocus is hocus-pocus, no matter who is doing it.  You say "occult" to characterize non-catholic superstitious beliefs.  But from the outside, there is no difference.  They are all superstitions, only one is catholic, one is not.  I know, you don't want to think your beliefs are in any way similar to wiccans because the church has looked down its nose at them for two millennia now.  You may want to think your religion is so sophisticated and rational.  But, newsflash dude, it's not.  It is just as primitive and backward as Wicca.

Consubstantiation.  It is just a word catholics use so they don't have to say "magic".  Such pretense.

1.	http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr4.htm
2.	As a catholic you might pray to god, the holy spirit, jesus H, the Virgin Mary, or one of several hundred saints.  Yeah, that's not polytheism.  Not at all.

[Brakeman]

..

How freaking dishonest can you get? You know we were speaking of your god doing supernatural stuff.  You then hide behind definitions and wiki's about how it is the common claims of men claiming to do magic. We were not talking about men or witches doing magic. Quit trying to hide behind semantics. Only someone seriously divorced from reality believes in paranormal woo from a magic god.

It takes a certain kind of arrogance to intentionally twist the definition of a word for the precise purpose of using it improperly and then accuse the other person of intellectual dishonesty when they call you out on your pathetic charade.

If you're not going to ..

Translation: WAH WAH WAH! I like to hide behind semantics so I can avoid the obvious discussion point that my imaginary god can wink like Samantha the witch in "Bewitched" and "Poof" things into existence. Now i will whine and attack because you're seeing though me.. Wah Wah WAH!

[Mooby]

It specifies nothing, only that it is a supernatural power.

No, that's not what it says.  No definition on that page has  the supernatural as its only qualifier.  Read it again.

The word is used to refer to anything supernatural these days, not just the practice of humans, which is why I consider your chosen definition to be inaccurate.

Since you've claimed this multiple times, you obviously feel it has some weight.  So where's the evidence that this is common use?

Because the only context in which I've ever see it being applied as you claim is both:
- By atheists
- On the internet

Which suggests to me that this alleged broad definition of yours is neologistic.

The word 'magic' being applied to religion would suggest that the religion is using supernatural powers as part of its belief, which would not be inaccurate. It's not saying it's witchcraft or anything to do with the occult. Just as I sure once it started applying to witches it no longer had anything to do with the magi.

If the word 'theory' was equivalent to conjectures (in some ways, it has) then scientists would have to find a new word. The difference is that one word is becoming inclusive of one set of principles whilst the other is being exclusive. Given 'theory' at the moment includes conjecture AND scientific theory, if it were to become just conjecture it'd be narrowing, not broadening (like with magic).

They are actually quite related.  Saying "evolution is just a theory" is a distraction technique used to cause confusion between the broad definition of the word and the specific scientific definition of the word.  Similarly, saying "Christians believe in magic" is a distraction technique used to cause confusion between the alleged broad definition of the word and the specific religious definition of the word.  Scientists are quick to point out, "No, evolution is not 'just a theory;' it's a scientific theory."  Similarly, Christians are quick to point out, "No, Christians don't believe in magic." 

If the alleged broad definition of "magic" were to become a real, dominant definition, then we would have to do the same thing as a scientists.  Wiccans already do this, using the archaic spelling "magick" to differentiate their rituals from illusory magic.  So then we might switch to saying, "Christians don't believe in illusory magic or magick," but that won't be necessary until your alleged broad definition becomes the dominant definition of the word.

Heck, wouldn't it piss off those atheists who do use it in a derogative way if suddenly it didn't annoy Christians?

Wouldn't it piss off creationists if it didn't annoy scientists when they used "just a theory" in a derogatory way, and wouldn't it piss off fundamentalists if it didn't annoy atheists when they claimed the atheists "reject God?"

No, it'd validate them, and validate an intentionally misapplied definition.  This is why the atheists in this thread are desperately hanging onto the indefensible claim that I believe in magic than try to understand what it means for me to say that I don't.  You guys have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't care what I actually believe or its implications, you only care about whether you can ride out a stupid, misapplied statement long enough to score a point.

This is why I think it's hilarious when people uphold atheism as an intellectually strong or independent position.  For every one person who makes an intelligent argument, there are 100 sheep blindly following along, going through the motions of a discussion, and looking to score points and get high fives from their buddies.  Sure, all the religious do it too, but at least they're transparent about it. 

At its core, atheism is just another belief, just another world view, no different than the thousands of others you reject.  Calling it a "lack" of belief doesn't make it special, doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it any more intelligent than any other one.  I personally can't wait until atheism becomes a dominant world view, because right now it's still able to ride the wave of its intellectual leaders.  But that won't last forever, and if this thread is any indication, once the moronic masses take over the results should be quite interesting.

Am I any better?  Yeah, marginally.  When an atheist tells me why they feel atheism is not a religion, I don't cite OED's 3rd bullet point or Reference.com's #6, use it to twist the word into something I know doesn't apply to you, claim that it's common use, and then spend multiple posts insisting that it must apply to atheism while waiting for other Christians to join in and agree with me and accusing the other person of being dishonest for not accepting my application of the label.  Instead, I try to understand why it means for an atheist to say they are not part of a religion, and then direct my further attention to addressing that distinction.  But then again, I'm generally more interested in the atheist's beliefs (or lack thereof) than wasting my time desperately trying to apply a label I know isn't really accurate in the first place.

maybe I missed it somewhere, but what word would you use instead of magic?

It depends on what we're talking about.  If we're talking about God doing something supernatural to impact the natural world, then the best word is probably "miracle."  If we're talking about God synthesizing the natural world or something to add to the natural world, then the best word is probably "creation."  If we're talking about God's abilities, we'd probably be using terms like "God" or "God's power" or "omnipotence."  And so on.  If we're talking about supernatural elements ascribable to God while excluding those not ascribable to God, then the best word is probably "divine."

Mooby, I see you using a lot of high falutin labels, like "magic" and "occult" and "unicorns" in an attempt to distance your beliefs - which of course are perfectly sound and reasonable - from the beliefs of other so-called religions - which of course are vulgar, superstitious and frightening.  But all these labels are just semantics.  They only mean anything to you because you are invested in it.  From the outside it looks like an absurd pretense.

I don't think I used "unicorns," and "magic" wasn't introduced by me.  And I don't think any of those labels are particularly "highfalutin;" all of those words are pretty common, with "unicorns" being the least common of them.

You talk about Wiccans casting spells.  What is that, really?  According to ReligiousTolerance.org, it is a ritual activity wherein the wiccan beseeches the supernatural to alter reality for her.[1]  Compare that to a prayer.

1.	http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr4.htm

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.

A prayer is a ritual activity wherein Mooby beseeches one or more supernatural entities to alter reality for him.

No, that's not what a prayer is.

As a catholic you might pray to god, the holy spirit, jesus H, the Virgin Mary, or one of several hundred saints.  Yeah, that's not polytheism.  Not at all.

Correct.  Christianity is not polytheistic.

Consubstantiation.  It is just a word catholics use so they don't have to say "magic".

Incorrect.  Consubstantiation is the process of becoming consubstantial, and that's not something Christians believe in magical.

<Crap>

Like I said, when you've pulled your head out of your bottom, educated yourself, and are ready for a mature discussion, let me know.  Clearly you're not there yet.

[Brakeman]

<Crap> I don't want to face

Crap to try to save face.

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."

And he says "I" have my head up my ass!  Ha ha. What a true gem!

[William]

I've heard it said that real magic will only ever be true and work if you actually believe in it    Perhaps Mooby is too reasonable to really believe.  For example, here's some Catholic Altar magic for True Catholics ^TMcomplete with powerful relics and other lala woowoo special water and oils and stuff.  I especially love the reasons for "loss of consecration" ... when the special magic just flies away and the altar stops working:

II. CONSECRATION OF A FIXED ALTAR
 
At the consecration of a church at least one fixed altar must be consecrated. Altars, permanent structures of stone, may be consecrated at other times, but only in churches that have been consecrated or at least solemnly blessed. We have instances in which a simply priest has performed this rite. Walafridus Strabo, in the Life of St. Gall (ch. vi), says that St. Columban, at that time being a priest, having dedicated the church of St. Aurelia at Bregenz on the Lake of Constance, anointed the altar, deposited the relics of St. Aurelia under it, and celebrated Mass on it. But according to the present discipline of the Church, the ordinary minister of its consecration is the diocesan bishop. Without the permission of the ordinary, a bishop of another diocese cannot licitly consecrate an altar, although without such permission the consecration would be valid. One and the same bishop must perform the rite from the beginning to the end. An altar may be consecrated on any day of the year, but a Sunday or feast day is to be preferred (Pontificale Romanum). It is difficult to determine when the rite used at present was introduced. To the essentials of consecration reference is made as early as the sixth century by the Council of Agde (506): "Altars are to be consecrated not only by the chrism, but with the sacerdotal blessing"; and by St. Caesarius of Arles (d. about 542) in a sermon delivered at the consecration of an altar: "We have today consecrated an altar, the stone of which was blessed or anointed" (Migne, P.L., LXVII, Serm. ccxxx).
 
The ceremonies of the exposition of the relics on the evening before the day of consecration, the keeping of the vigil, the blessing of the Gregorian water, the sprinkling of the altar, and the translation of the relics to the church are the same as those described at the consecration of a church (see IV, below). When the relics have been carried to the church, the consecrator anoints with holy chrism, at the four corners, the sepulchre of the altar (see ALTAR), in which the relics are to be enclosed, thereby sanctifying the cavity in which the venerated remains of the martyrs are to rest, and then reverently places therein the case containing the relics and incenses them. Having anointed with holy chrism the nether side of the small slab that is to cover the sepulchre, he spreads blessed cement over the ledge of the sepulchre on the inside and fits the slab into the cavity, after which he anoints the upper side of the slab and the altar-table near it. He then incenses the altar, first, on every side -- right, left, front and on top -- whilst the chanters sing the antiphon "Stetit angelus"; secondly, in the form of a cross on the top, in the middle, and at the four corners, thirdly, whilst going round the altar three times. After the third incensation, the censer is given to a priest, vested in surplice, who, till the end of the consecration, continues going around the altar, incensing it on all sides, save when the bishop uses the censer. The incense symbolizes the sweet odour of prayer which is to ascend from the altar to heaven, whilst the fullness of the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is to descend on the altar and the faithful, is indicated by the prayers recited after the three unctions which follow. The consecrator then anoints the table of the altar at the middle of the four corners, twice with the oil of catechumens, and the third time with holy chrism. After each unction he goes round the altar once, incensing it continuously, the first and second time passing by the Epistle side, and third time by the Gospel side. Finally, as if to indicate the complete sanctification of the altar, he pours and spreads over its table the oil of catechumens and holy chrism together, rubbing the holy oils over it with his right hand, whilst the chanters sing the appropriate antiphon, "Behold the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field", etc. (Gen., xxvii, 27, 28). When the church is consecrated at the same time, the twelve crosses on the inner walls are now anointed with holy chrism and incensed. The consecrator then blesses the incense and sprinkles it with holy water. Then he forms it into five crosses, each consisting of five grains, on the table of the altar, in the middle and at the four corners. Over each cross of incense he places a cross made of thin wax taper. The ends of each cross are lighted and with them the incense is burned an consumed. This ceremony symbolizes the true sacrifice which is thereafter to be offered on the altar; and it indicates that our prayers must be fervent and animated by true and lively faith if they are to be acceptable to God and efficacious against our spiritual enemies. Finally, the bishop traces with holy chrism a cross on the front of the altar and on the juncture of the table and the base on which it rests at the four corners, as if to join them together, to indicate that this altar is to be in future a firmly fixed and constant source of grace to all who with faith approach it. Then follow the blessings of the altar-cloths, vases, and ornaments of the altar, the celebration of Mass, and the publication of the Indulgences, as at the end of the consecration of a church.
 



Loss of Consecration
 
An altar loses its consecration: (1) when the table of the altar is broken into two or more large pieces; (2) when at the corner of the table that portion which the consecrator anointed with holy oil is broken off; (3) when several large stones of the support of the table are removed; (4) when one of the columns which support the table at the corners is removed; (5) if for any reason whatever the table is removed from the support, or only raised from it -- e.g., to renew the cement; (6) by the removal of the relics, or by the fracture or removal, by chance or design, of the small cover, or slab, placed over the cavity containing the relics. (See also HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR.).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Consecration


So if an electrician fixing the chandelier above the altar drops his screw driver and knocks off a special "anointed" corner the altar is fucked.

[3sigma]

Because the only context in which I've ever see it being applied as you claim is both:
- By atheists
- On the internet

What did you expect? Did you think religious believers would admit that their beliefs are childish? Of course they won’t use the term ‘magic’ to describe what they believe—they’ll hide behind euphemisms such as “miracle”, “creation” or “God’s power” instead. Religious believers want to think that their beliefs are real, sensible and justified, which is why they object so strenuously to the term magic even though that’s basically what they believe. Magic is the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. That is exactly what religious believers believe their god is doing when they imagine it uses its power to answer their prayers or perform miracles.

…wouldn't it piss off fundamentalists if it didn't annoy atheists when they claimed the atheists "reject God?"

…Or when they claim atheists must hate god or it takes more faith to be an atheist or atheism is just another belief. That last one’s a classic, isn’t it? What sort of person would make such a ridiculous claim?

At its core, atheism is just another belief, just another world view, no different than the thousands of others you reject.  Calling it a "lack" of belief doesn't make it special, doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it any more intelligent than any other one.

I guess that answers my last question. Actually, atheism is special in the sense that it is different from the usual. 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.

I personally can't wait until atheism becomes a dominant world view, because right now it's still able to ride the wave of its intellectual leaders.  But that won't last forever, and if this thread is any indication, once the moronic masses take over the results should be quite interesting.

Hmmm… If it isn’t atheists or agnostics who currently make up the moronic masses then I wonder what those masses must be…

Am I any better?  Yeah, marginally.  When an atheist tells me why they feel atheism is not a religion, I don't cite OED's 3rd bullet point or Reference.com's #6, use it to twist the word into something I know doesn't apply to you, claim that it's common use, and then spend multiple posts insisting that it must apply to atheism while waiting for other Christians to join in and agree with me and accusing the other person of being dishonest for not accepting my application of the label.  Instead, I try to understand why it means for an atheist to say they are not part of a religion, and then direct my further attention to addressing that distinction.  But then again, I'm generally more interested in the atheist's beliefs (or lack thereof) than wasting my time desperately trying to apply a label I know isn't really accurate in the first place.

Right… You would never say atheism is just another belief, would you? After all, what sort of ridiculous and pathetic claim would that be?

I don't think I used "unicorns," and "magic" wasn't introduced by me.  And I don't think any of those labels are particularly "highfalutin;" all of those words are pretty common, with "unicorns" being the least common of them.

And yet unicorns are mentioned nine times in the KJV and magicians fifteen times. Furthermore, if you read Exodus chapters 7 & 8, you will see it claims magicians perform the same tricks as your god, but I wouldn’t read too much into that, Mooby. After all, it’s just childish make-believe.

No, that's not what a prayer is.

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.

[screwtape]

That was a lousy post, Mooby.  Really lousy.  It addressed nothing and essentially just reasserted your original claims.  Raspberries for you.

I don't think I used "unicorns," and "magic" wasn't introduced by me.  And I don't think any of those labels are particularly "highfalutin;" all of those words are pretty common, with "unicorns" being the least common of them.

Irrelevant and completely evades the point I was making (and misses the blatant satire).

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.

A prayer is a ritual activity wherein Mooby beseeches one or more supernatural entities to alter reality for him.

No, that's not what a prayer is.

Oh really?  Describe a typical prayer for me.  What do you and one of your many godlings chat about? 

As a catholic you might pray to god, the holy spirit, jesus H, the Virgin Mary, or one of several hundred saints.  Yeah, that's not polytheism.  Not at all.

Correct.  Christianity is not polytheistic.

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.

*snigger*

Consubstantiation.  It is just a word catholics use so they don't have to say "magic".

Incorrect.  Consubstantiation is the process of becoming consubstantial, and that's not something Christians believe in magical.

Semantics and pretense.  You've not shown how it is anything other than that. Denials do not an argument or explanation make.

[Seppuku]

No, that's not what it says.  No definition on that page has  the supernatural as its only qualifier.  Read it again.

Fine, influencing events with supernatural or mysterious forces. It's still not specifying any bias to beliefs, creatures or deities. But you knew what I meant, given I've already offered a definition and how I've understood it. With the lack of bias to belief, creatures or deities the word can applied where there's any influence of events with supernatural or mysterious force, be it a witch turning somebody into a frog, a fairy making children fly with fairy dust and happy thoughts, being granted 3 wishes by a genie, the summoning of demons, talking to the dead, the powers of djinnis, Loki's shapeshifting abilities...Loki giving birth to a horse, God answering prayers, Jesus healing the sick.

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.
 

Since you've claimed this multiple times, you obviously feel it has some weight.  So where's the evidence that this is common use?

The Oxford Dictionary chooses to not make it specific to humans. I've used some examples where 'magic' is applied to non-humans. If I were to accept your chosen definition, it would mean I'd have to exclude all non-human things, it'd allow God to be exempt, but it wouldn't exempt Jesus, because wasn't Jesus human? Son of God, yes, but born to a human mother and as a human.

If the alleged broad definition of "magic" were to become a real, dominant definition, then we would have to do the same thing as a scientists.  Wiccans already do this, using the archaic spelling "magick" to differentiate their rituals from illusory magic.  So then we might switch to saying, "Christians don't believe in illusory magic or magick," but that won't be necessary until your alleged broad definition becomes the dominant definition of the word.

Wiccans do it to refer to something more specific as the meaning of the word has broadened from witchcraft. With the word being broadened, you may choose to find a way to differentiate between the two. Because the word 'theory' has broadened people already do this, I tend to refer to 'theory' in the scientific sense as 'scientific theory' if I feel I am going to be misunderstood. What you were suggesting was 'narrowing' where scientific theory is thrown out of the window and only conjecture was kept, this would require scientists to use a completely different word.

Wouldn't it piss off creationists if it didn't annoy scientists when they used "just a theory" in a derogatory way, and wouldn't it piss off fundamentalists if it didn't annoy atheists when they claimed the atheists "reject God?"

No, it'd validate them, and validate an intentionally misapplied definition.  This is why the atheists in this thread are desperately hanging onto the indefensible claim that I believe in magic than try to understand what it means for me to say that I don't.  You guys have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't care what I actually believe or its implications, you only care about whether you can ride out a stupid, misapplied statement long enough to score a point.

Love how I make a joke to try and lighten the mood would be taken seriously. And you've figured us out, it's all about point scoring, not about making any real points out all, because obviously we're all here to jack each other off.

Frankly I don't give a shit about point scoring. Don't be so presumptuous. You've failed to convince me you're right. I've already acknowledged that the word 'magic' is used in a derogative sense, but the point I was trying to make is that whilst it's used in that way doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Though you'd rather assume this is about point scoring and that I don't care what your point of view is. As far as I was aware this was a two way discussion, but with one failing to convince the other, but that's quite common.

Also to note, I'm pretty sure I have agreed with a creationist on more that one occassion that evolution is 'just' a theory, though it tends to annoy them more when you suggest gravity is 'just' a theory. If somebody's going to use something in a derogative way, there are ways of turning it on its head and not letting somebody use it as a weapon. Whilst I wasn't trying to make a serious point, but that's the serious answer.

When an atheist tells me why they feel atheism is not a religion, I don't cite OED's 3rd bullet point or Reference.com's #6, use it to twist the word into something I know doesn't apply to you, claim that it's common use, and then spend multiple posts insisting that it must apply to atheism while waiting for other Christians to join in and agree with me and accusing the other person of being dishonest for not accepting my application of the label.

One day it may be the case you could argue it. The word atheism itself is still 'non-belief' or 'disbelief' in any deities. There are big groups of atheists united by similar views, but atheism doesn't only apply to these groups and there are many atheists who distance themselves, heck I do to a degree. There are more variations to atheism than meets the eye, many who don't use the label 'atheist' are in fact atheists. One example I would highlight is atheistic Buddhism - Buddhism is a religion that doesn't require belief in any deities.

To suggest atheism is a religion is like suggesting theism is a religion, but theists and atheists can all be religious, but the terms themselves don't necessarily apply to the religious...not unless their meanings change, I fear the word 'atheism' may take that route, hence I mentioned how atheism could become 'Atheism' and was used how some use it, I would have to be a 'non-theist' because the term would not include me.

[Mooby]

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:
- By atheists
- On the internet

What did you expect? Did you think religious believers would admit that their beliefs are childish?

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, right?

We know it's certainly not the case that:
Muslims are different
Christians are different
Jews are different
Zoroastrianism is different
Taoists are different
Hinduism is different
Buddhism is different

Which version 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.

[Seppuku]

But exactly how is 'magic' and supernatural power in Christianity different? Except the words people choose to use? If we throw the derogative use out of the window. You've tried convincing me that 'magic' is different because it's about human control, but we know it's not always the case and if it were, it wouldn't exclude Jesus. So really I am trying to figure out exactly where this difference is, I know people tend not to use the word on Christianity because they have other words to describe said power, but I can't see an argument why people couldn't use the term.

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.

I already addressed those two. 'Theory' can be conjecture, in the context of science it isn't. The oxford dictionary's definition is broad enough to include both types of 'theory'. People sometimes use the modifier 'scientific' to avoid confusion where confusion may be found. I've some do it and I've done it myself.

Atheism in it's current definition is only the opposite of 'theism', neither terms can be applied to OED's definition of religion, but as I said, one day the word 'atheism' could eventually mean something where it could. There are religious atheists and there are religious theists. I suspect the term 'atheism' could one day change because there are people who use it to mean 'evolution supporting, Dawkins loving religion bashers' but it is not what 'atheism' means, even if I chose a less derogative way of saying it.

[3sigma]

Red herring.  Is the alleged broad definition of "magic" common use or neologism?  Your response seems to support the latter.

The definition of magic is the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. That is exactly what religious believers believe their god is doing when they imagine it uses its power to answer their prayers or perform miracles. Calling it magic isn’t a red herring or a neologism—it’s calling a spade a spade. Calling it “God’s power” or a “miracle” is euphemism on the part of religious believers. It’s substituting another word for one considered to be too blunt when referring to something embarrassing. Religious believers certainly should be embarrassed to believe such childish nonsense.

But of course.  Your monsters are different, right?

Actually, I don’t believe in any of those monsters at that link, do you? Oh yes, I see you do. You believe in a god and a particularly monstrous god at that—one that’s killed millions. Atheists don’t believe in monsters like your god. The majority of people in the world believe in some god or other. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Therefore atheism is different from the usual.

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.

What arrant nonsense. It is the lack of a shred of solid evidence or a single sound argument to support religious beliefs that makes it reasonable and rational to reject them. It isn’t reasonable or rational to believe something that has no solid evidence or sound arguments supporting it. Anyone who believes there is a god is simply gullible.

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.

You seem to be postulating that religion is just some passing fad soon to be overtaken by the trendier atheism. I don’t see religion disappearing or even waning significantly any time soon. As long as there are ignorant, insecure and gullible people in the world, there will be religious beliefs. Religion is also self-perpetuating. Parents instil their insecurities into their children and indoctrinate them with their religious beliefs at an early age, before they’ve had a chance to develop emotional maturity and critical thinking skills.

I don’t think it’s as easy to deconvert people as you seem to think. We don’t see masses of people losing their religious beliefs. Those who do lose their religious beliefs appear to be those who aren’t particularly insecure and who acquire critical thinking skills, either through higher education or their own efforts.

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.

What on Earth are you on about? You said, “atheism is just another belief”. Then, after that ludicrous statement, you tried to claim that you don’t apply labels that aren’t really accurate—another ridiculous statement.

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.

According to the Wikipedia entry, prayer is “an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication.” In other words, it’s wishful thinking. To give us an idea of what prayer is used for, why don’t you tell us what you pray for, Mooby? Some Christians pray for such trivial things as an excuse not to take their daughter to a Batman movie. Are you that shallow or do you make more noble requests for things such as world peace or the elimination of all diseases? After all, the Bible claims that whatever you ask for in prayer you will receive, doesn’t it? Oh, wait, I just read Mark 11:24 more closely and it actually says that if you believe you’ve received it, it’s yours. That sounds like wishful thinking again.

[screwtape]

[quote
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?

Dodge.  Number one, trying to foist off the responsibility for giving a circular definition onto someone else is sad.  Sack up and own your response.  But then to characterize it as a lie?  Why Mooby, I don't believe that was what I said, was it?  I simply pointed out your shitty response was shitty because it was circular.

No, prayer and spells are not the same.

Ipse dixit.  Repeating your claim a third time does not make it true (despite the Rule of Three).

They're not even the same within Wicca.  Why is a Christian having to educate you on Wiccan beliefs?

You aren't doing a very good job of education because you are wrong.  "Within wicca" is not our context.

Here are some wiccans who say it is essentially the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Three_(Wicca)

This guy calls the RCC mass "a classic example of ceremonial high magic"
http://ebon-dragon.com/cotd/prayer_spellwork.html

Every other source I looked at characterized them as I had, given our context.  Some said there were differences, but they were essoteric differences within the context of wicca and they generally conformed with the idea of xian prayer.

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.

That is a dodge.  I asked for specifics.  So, you talk about laundry and grocery lists and movies?  Bullshit. 

But let's for a moment, assume you are being honest.  Have you ever asked for strength in a trying time, or patience in stressful situations, or to do well on a test, or for safety before a trip?  Don't lie.

I know when I was a catholic I was encouraged by the clergy to pray for those things.  I wasn't supposed to pray for a pot of gold, but I was supposed to pray for jesus H to help me hit a sharp line drive up the gap when I played Babe Ruth. 

And I would definitely call that trying to work magic.

Not to put too fine a point on it, let's look at some standard Catholic spells prayers.
The Lords Prayer

Our Father, who farts in heaven, hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespsass against us
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil

bold mine. That right there is attempting to alter reality via the supernatural, aka a spell.  It asks the supernatural to provide food.  It also asks the supernatural to do metaphysical things - forgive sins - that affect supernatural aspects of ourselves - our souls.   It then goes on to beg the supernatural to make sure we are not tempted.  It leaves the mode of affecting that result up to the supernatural agents, whether that be keeping temptations our of our way or making us more morally resillient.  That my misguided friend, is a spell.

The Hairy Mary

Hail Mary...blahblahblah... pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

Calls upon supernatural agency to intercede on behalf of the pray-er.  A spell. 

Come Holy ghost

Come, Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and enkindle in them the Fire of Thy Love.
R. Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created;
V. And Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.
Let us pray.
O God, Who by the Light of the Holy Spirit didst instruct the hearts of Thy faithful, grant us in that same Spirit to be truly wise and ever to rejoice in His consolations, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

In D&D we'd call this Summoning Undead.  It summons a ghost, which the prayer then enjoins to possess one or more devotees to grant them some special power called "Fire of Thy Love".  It also asks the same summoned ghost to imbue the devotees with knowledge and happiness.  A spell.

There you go.  Three Catholic Spells.

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.

I quite agree.  It's not magic.  Magic does not exist.  Magic is just a label we put on things we cannot explain, like gods, transbustantiation and gloryholes.

It's the belief that during the consecration Jesus becomes present in the bread and wine.

Is it the belief or it is the thing? 

[Brakeman]

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.

Why, do you know someone that is mature and rational that could admit that god's magic is just as insane as a witches' magic?

[junebug72]

"22 [...]And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22

Hey GamerGirl,

I'm junebug. Let me offer you my perspective please.  If you read the whole chapter, Jesus was trying to teach the people there that the old ways were wrong. No eye for an eye, but love your enemy. Did you read vs. 11. Jesus is saying that the people here on this website, will be blessed, along with gays, and any other human being that has been persecuted for His name sake.  Nobody was as angry as Jesus.  He was trying to teach people not to do the same things they're still doing.  Reading this helped me to believe that God still loves me even though I am gay 8 years ago now.  Then reading on down to vs. 22 He is teaching us to forgive.  Not to hold a grudge, but let it go and receive a blessing or hold on to it and be tormented. It makes perfect sense to me. Standing up for people like you and me got Him tortured and hung on the cross to die.  That is the kind of Love for one another Jesus tried to teach us to have.  No it's not easy I'm struggling with that one right now.  I just got seriously wronged by someone I have been very good to and I'm still hurting from the wound the knife left in my back, but I will find the courage and strength to forgive, because that is what's best for me and world peace.  You know people learning to forgive.