Do you believe in magic?

[HelioPrime]

I thought this out from another thread.

So I'll lump religion and supernatural into the word "magic"

Now magic has no evidence that can prove it completly. Neither does it have evidence to disprove it completly.

Take intelligent design: The ideal some god planned out how the universe would work, down to the smallest cell and the evolution of species.

Now the design supporter has no evidence. They might claim its so hard to see evolution producing such variety but stictly they have no evidence of a gods influence. The design supporter accepts evolution, yet would support evoultion was a process made or somehow influenced by god.

The Evolution supporter has the observations of scientist like Darwin and others on his side. All life developed from single celled organisms. This idea is supported because of the observed evidence and fossile records. The evolutionary supporter rejects design because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

So who is right, or has a greater lever of being on the right track? Is there a "right answer"? The design supporter has evidence, yet its not scientific and more observation. The evolutionary supporter has evidence as well, but it has more merit in the lab. Does man have to support only one theory and only the scientific evidence.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime I thought this out from another thread. So I'll lump religion and supernatural into the word "magic" Now magic has no evidence that can prove it completly. Neither does it have evidence to disprove it completly.

Incomplete.

Magical claims are simply alternative scientific claims. Like any scientific claim, those with evidence trump those without. In this manner, we don't need evidence against a specific claim. We can simply point to the lack of evidence and acknowledge contradictory claims are supported.

For example, there's no evidence stating a rabbit can materialize in a hat and hop out of it... however, the "rabbit hypothesis" contradicts the law of conservation of matter & energy. Without compelling evidence, the rabbit hypothesis is false.

Take intelligent design: The ideal some god planned out how the universe would work, down to the smallest cell and the evolution of species.

What about it?

Now the design supporter has no evidence. They might claim its so hard to see evolution producing such variety but stictly they have no evidence of a gods influence. The design supporter accepts evolution, yet would support evoultion was a process made or somehow influenced by god.

They're wrong, but I'm curious as to where you're going with this.

The Evolution supporter has the observations of scientist like Darwin and others on his side. All life developed from single celled organisms. This idea is supported because of the observed evidence and fossile records. The evolutionary supporter rejects design because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Again, incomplete.

Not only is there no supportive evidence, the claim of design is critically flawed. The aspects of life & the universe which theists believe evidence a designer (like intelligence) are also present in the designer, itself. This means the designer requires a designer (giving us an endless regress) or (tragically common) theists present a tremendous cop out by blithely declaring god terminates this regress without actually explaining how or why. "Goddidit... justcuz" is not a sound hypothesis.

So who is right,

Certainly not theists.

or has a greater lever of being on the right track?

What?

Is there a "right answer"?

Of course. The universe came to be the way it is in one way. It wasn't created by god for you and big banged for me.

What far more important is determining the wrong answers. Figuring out how life originated and how the universe came into being is like detective work. What do detectives do? They look for evidence and construct hypotheses based on that evidence. If the hypotheses turn out to be false, they discard them.

"We thought the victim was shot to death, but forensics told us the body was already dead when it was shot. Now we're back to square one."

I don't know is always superior to a wrong answer, Helio.

The design supporter has evidence, yet its not scientific and more observation.

Absolutely false. The design supporter has a nonsensical conclusion and is grasping at straws to try to support it.

The evolutionary supporter has evidence as well, but it has more merit in the lab.

Evolution is proven. This isn't a matter of debate in any real way. The idea that evolution didn't happen is a myth perpetuated by the political christian right wing that feels threatened by evolution.

Does man have to support only one theory and only the scientific evidence.

To be sure, both intelligent design and evolution are scientific hypothesis. Evolution has support. ID has none. It's that simple.

EDIT: Let's also keep in mind the scope of what we're dealing with here. ID isn't a cutting edge scientific discovery found by leading scientists. It's an attmept to validate bronze age nonsense that happened to be institutionalized by Constantine over 1600 years ago. We're talking about claims that were made by individuals who were completely clueless about the workings of the world and came up with guesses. These guesses they wove into religious doctrine. For centuries, contradicting that doctrine was punishable by torture or worse.

So, what you're trying to do here, Helio, is come up with an intellectual justification for a bronze age folk tale about the origin of the universe / life.

[triad]

Quote by: HelioPrime Does man have to support only one theory and only the scientific evidence.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you meant that to be a question.

Here is my answer:

No. Man does not have to support only one theory. Man doesn't have to support any theory. The fact is, the global population of mankind will never agree on a theory unless drastic evidence is provided. Drastic meaning it is in full view, recorded, and has nothing to contradict it.

Until then, Volconvo is going to make it's money off of people who are here to debate about a non closeable case. Religion is like the OJ simpson of philosophies, you know it is wrong - but you can't prove it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Do you believe in magic?

No, I don't.

Helio said: So who is right, or has a greater lever of being on the right track? Is there a "right answer"? The design supporter has evidence, yet its not scientific and more observation. The evolutionary supporter has evidence as well, but it has more merit in the lab. Does man have to support only one theory and only the scientific evidence.

All individuals can believe what they wish, individually. (belief is subjective)

As a society, it behooves us to place value on logic and tangible reality above subjective beliefs in order to prosper, both as individuals, as well as a society.

Putting faith in objective reality benefits everyone.

Putting faith in subjective reality, ignores everyone.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As a society, it behooves us to place value on logic and tangible reality above subjective beliefs in order to prosper, both as individuals, as well as a society. Putting faith in objective reality benefits everyone. Putting faith in subjective reality, ignores everyone.

So to put it in a sentance, if we were all atheists or non believers in any supernatural, the world would a much better place?

The point of the OP was why does a person have to follow a certain view? Does it make them any less of a person because they accept the possibility of the supernatural? Do we have to follow just the objective facts, and nothing but the objective facts, and who determined this.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime So to put it in a sentance, if we were all atheists or non believers in any supernatural, the world would a much better place?

Oh certainly. Women wouldn't be oppressed in Muslim countries the way they are now. The Jews and Palistinians probably would still be fighting over land, but if the land didn't have as much sentimental value, it's doubtful so many individuals would be willing to die for it. We'd see FAR less instances of ethnic cleansing (though it would sadly probably still exist). Most of all, we wouldn't have the majority of the world's population infecting their children with bronze age propaganda.

That would be a grand thing.

On the down side, we'd have a lot of so-called good natured Christians doing all sorts of terrible things without the fear of god to keep them in line, but I figure most of the Christians who offer this argument are being disingenuous anyway...

The point of the OP was why does a person have to follow a certain view? Does it make them any less of a person because they accept the possibility of the supernatural?

Does it make them less of a person? No... but neither does having a lower IQ or earning less money. It would be better to be smarter and wealtheir, but these aren't things that make people less.

What I can say, though, is that your worldview is inferior to mine because yours is inconsistant. You apply skepticism only to things which do not contradict the dogma you've been indoctrinated to believe. Where your religion is concerned you do what all theists do: bring to bear an entirely different set of standards. It's what Rez referes to as supernatural thinking and it's intellectually bankrupt. The end result is that you've been taken in by a 1600 year old scam. I haven't.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: HelioPrime Do you believe in magic? So I'll lump religion and supernatural into the word "magic"

#1
No, except for games :-)

#2
You can not blend religion with supernatural, since both represent 2 separate meanings.

[Cephus]

Quote by: HelioPrime So to put it in a sentance, if we were all atheists or non believers in any supernatural, the world would a much better place?

Absolutely. The world would be a much, much better place without religion. The whole Middle East problem would go away, you'd get rid of most gaybashing, religious hatemongering, intolerance, etc. in one fell swoop.

Please, let's get rid of religion, then maybe mankind will GET somewhere!

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime So to put it in a sentance, if we were all atheists or non believers in any supernatural, the world would a much better place?

You don't think superstitious thinking is irrational? You don't think its completely retarded that one person thinks their superstitious beliefs are more real then another superstitious person's beliefs?

The point of the OP was why does a person have to follow a certain view?

Oh you mean the view "What works will yield results". I don't know anybody that does not follow that viewpoint, even theists (except when it comes to how the universe came to be etc.)

Does it make them any less of a person because they accept the possibility of the supernatural?

That would be nice and cute if that is what all they do. But they don't. They go on saying that their supernatural beliefs are true and the rest are just superstious crap that has no say. But because their faith has made them so absurd they are to ignorant to realize that their belief is just as superstious as all the others. Dishonesty does make them a lesser person.

Do we have to follow just the objective facts, and nothing but the objective facts, and who determined this.

Why do you do this to yourself? Take it easy.

Humans follow what works and throw away and learn from what does not work. All people follow what works because they don't want to waste their time on something that does not work. This is where the objective facts come from.

What exactly are you not getting here?

[Madeline]

Weellll, I know that people such as Nostradamus practiced white magic or the healing arts.Voodoo practitioners can use black magic to curse people through demonic powers. So yes, I believe in magic. Even the bible writes about magic.

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. Acts 16:16-18

The bible states that magic is real.

Love,
Madeline

[Cephus]

Quote by: Madeline The bible states that magic is real.

Since the Bible is a ridiculous book of mythology, that's not saying a whole lot.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: So to put it in a sentance, if we were all atheists or non believers in any supernatural, the world would a much better place?

Not necessarily. I am not saying there is anything wrong with individual religion, or the values they espouse. My point of conflict arises when individuals, place their individually subjective religious beliefs ABOVE tangible, objective reality.

There are many values, or morals in common between religions, and I don't fault any in particular, except when it comes to attempting to recruit others to their subjective religion, un-solicited.

I am non-religious, but I don't think only non-religious people are moral, good or equals to myself.

I do think subjective reality(in this case, religious beliefs) should societally take a backseat to the objective reality which nature defines if man has any tangible goal of "getting along" as much as possible.

Helio said: The point of the OP was why does a person have to follow a certain view?

I don't believe they do, or should.

Helio said: Does it make them any less of a person because they accept the possibility of the supernatural?

That would be a solicitation of subjective opinion, for which I have one, but, it is only my opinion.

My opinion is, there is nothing wrong with allowing religion to guide your morals, your "personal" choices. I have a huge problem when people want to let their subjective religious views be entered into "law", such as using religion as a cudgel on issues such as abortion, immigration, prohibition, freedom of speech, etc.

I am 100% anti-theocracy, or any form of theocracy.

I believe law should eminate from objective reality, should be bound by objective logic and objective law.
Objectivity and logical deduction is the only non-biased analysis of the world around us.

Helio said: Do we have to follow just the objective facts, and nothing but the objective facts, and who determined this.

As government, individuals, collectives, or what?

As an individual, you can believe in any gods, unicorns and/or the tooth-fairy and it wouldn't make any difference to me, as long as you didn't try to put those "logical fallacies" into law.

As a nation, we were designed as a nation of objective laws, governed by objective logic, logical deduction, and physical proof, or sworn testimony in some cases.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Madeline Weellll, I know that people such as Nostradamus practiced white magic or the healing arts.Voodoo practitioners can use black magic to curse people through demonic powers. So yes, I believe in magic. Even the bible writes about magic.

You're using unsupported claims to prop up other unsupported claims. This is like saying: "Well, the tabloids say that Elvis is alive so I believe Elvis is alive."

The bible states that magic is real.

The bible also states "that a Cosmic Jewish Zombie (CJZ) who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."

[5010]

HP, your definition matches the term "presumption". Do I presume things? Sure, all the time.

[Le GoogelGuRu]

I don't believe in magic. Never have, never will.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime I thought this out from another thread. So I'll lump religion and supernatural into the word "magic" Now magic has no evidence that can prove it completly. Neither does it have evidence to disprove it completly. Take intelligent design: The ideal some god planned out how the universe would work, down to the smallest cell and the evolution of species. Now the design supporter has no evidence. They might claim its so hard to see evolution producing such variety but stictly they have no evidence of a gods influence. The design supporter accepts evolution, yet would support evoultion was a process made or somehow influenced by god. The Evolution supporter has the observations of scientist like Darwin and others on his side. All life developed from single celled organisms. This idea is supported because of the observed evidence and fossile records. The evolutionary supporter rejects design because there is no scientific evidence to support it. So who is right, or has a greater lever of being on the right track? Is there a "right answer"? The design supporter has evidence, yet its not scientific and more observation. The evolutionary supporter has evidence as well, but it has more merit in the lab. Does man have to support only one theory and only the scientific evidence.

Actually, Helio, Intelligent Design doesn't attempt to argue that there is a designer, only that there is design. It's the Creationist that goes beyond design to a designer. Intelligent Design and Creationist adherents would both argue that they also have observations and that these observations lead to the conclusion that there is design (Intelligent Design) and a designer (Creationism).

It seems to me that the claims of evolution are just as much "magic" as you accuse ID and Creationism of being. That all life evolved from a common ancestor is just as much a conclusion as ID and Creationism are. Even more magical is the notion that there were these elements or molecules or whatever that were just somehow "there" and started expanding all by themselves - eventually resulting in us here on this debate forum.

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor Actually, Helio, Intelligent Design doesn't attempt to argue that there is a designer, only that there is design.

LOL. design implies designer. There would be no other reason to think design.

It's the Creationist that goes beyond design to a designer.

It is the Creationist that thinks the Christian god created teh universe. Then there are other creationists, such as the Chinese folklore creationists and the native american creationists. But, I am sure you don't think they are real just like they don't think your creation story is real.

Intelligent Design and Creationist adherents would both argue that they also have observations and that these observations lead to the conclusion that there is design (Intelligent Design) and a designer (Creationism).

Please provide these observations. Hopefully your observations are a little different then all the other types of creationists out there.

It seems to me that the claims of evolution are just as much "magic" as you accuse ID and Creationism of being.

That is because you are uneducated in the field of science.

That all life evolved from a common ancestor is just as much a conclusion as ID and Creationism are.

It is not a conclusion whatsoever, if you had a basic biology class you would understand that and not even attempt to make such an ignorant comment.

Even more magical is the notion that there were these elements or molecules or whatever

Thats right, you don't know what "elements" and "molecules" --- like "whatever"....

that were just somehow "there" and started expanding all by themselves - eventually resulting in us here on this debate forum.

If you are going to suggest that the current acceptable explanation for how reality works is flawed, then atleast understand what the current accepted explanation is. If you can't understand what the current explanation for how reality works, then how can you even understand how your explanation is better? What is it better then? Please provide a clear concise post as to how your explanation is better. What is it better then? Do you even know what explanation you are comparing your explanation with?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: rez LOL. design implies designer. There would be no other reason to think design.

I don't give a rat's behind about "implies"! Those who promote ID do not go beyond design to identifying a designer because that would require something that falls outside of what they say is science.

It is the Creationist that thinks the Christian god created teh universe. Then there are other creationists, such as the Chinese folklore creationists and the native american creationists. But, I am sure you don't think they are real just like they don't think your creation story is real.

Well, at least that there is a specific designer - whether the Judeo-Christian God, various other deities or whatever.

Please provide these observations. Hopefully your observations are a little different then all the other types of creationists out there.

If you want THEIR observations, ask them!

That is because you are uneducated in the field of science.

Not true.

It is not a conclusion whatsoever, if you had a basic biology class you would understand that and not even attempt to make such an ignorant comment.

It damned well IS a conclusion! It's what comes out of the other side after you've done all your observing and hypothesizing and theorizing.

Thats right, you don't know what "elements" and "molecules" --- like "whatever"....

And apparently neither does science.

If you are going to suggest that the current acceptable explanation for how reality works is flawed, then atleast understand what the current accepted explanation is.

I suggested nothing and you damned well had better knock it off with all this reading into what people write!

If you can't understand what the current explanation for how reality works, then how can you even understand how your explanation is better? What is it better then? Please provide a clear concise post as to how your explanation is better. What is it better then? Do you even know what explanation you are comparing your explanation with?

I can only go by what your side is saying. You people are the ones that put forth the so-called "big bang" theory (even though the notion of a bang isn't really accepted in science today): it's up to you to identify what specifically it was that all of a sudden just started expanding. It's up to you to not only identify what it was but also where it came from.

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor I don't give a rat's behind about "implies"! Those who promote ID do not go beyond design to identifying a designer because that would require something that falls outside of what they say is science.

So its the same story, it just doesnt have the little details filled in yet by its followers.

Well, at least that there is a specific designer - whether the Judeo-Christian God, various other deities or whatever.

Besides not supporting that there is a deity, you have the really impossible obstacle of supporting which deity is the real one.

So I will give you the principle of charity right here right now. A Deity does exist, but I cant really tell which one is the real one. And if there was a real one, what happens to all the other ones?

It damned well IS a conclusion! It's what comes out of the other side after you've done all your observing and hypothesizing and theorizing.

Scientists never stop observing and hypothesizing. Where did you get that lame idea that they do?

I can only go by what your side is saying. You people are the ones that put forth the so-called "big bang" theory (even though the notion of a bang isn't really accepted in science today): it's up to you to identify what specifically it was that all of a sudden just started expanding. It's up to you to not only identify what it was but also where it came from.

I am not a teacher. Go pick up a book and learn about it yourself. And when you do learn about it, you should question it. But you should question it so you can understand it more. If you have a problem with the explanation then tell us why and for what reasons. Tell us how a scientist can fix that problem.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: rez So its the same story, it just doesnt have the little details filled in yet by its followers.

ID folks would deny that it's the same story. They're only going as far as to say that there is design.

Besides not supporting that there is a deity, you have the really impossible obstacle of supporting which deity is the real one.

It would fall outside the realm of science anyway. Belief in one or more deities requires faith, something that has no place in science.

So I will give you the principle of charity right here right now. A Deity does exist, but I cant really tell which one is the real one. And if there was a real one, what happens to all the other ones?

But the ID folks aren't taking it that far. The Creationists do but the ID folks don't. Why can't you accept that there may be a difference between ID and Creationism at least on a philosophical level?

Scientists never stop observing and hypothesizing. Where did you get that lame idea that they do?

I didn't say that they ever stopped. You really need to read what people write and stop reading into what people write.

I am not a teacher. Go pick up a boo