talkmagic.co.uk

I dont think anyone can be certain, for sure. Science isn't exact, about everything.. Science changes, discovers new things. While Science has done a hell of a lot for us.. its a progressive study.. and nothing is conclusive about the major issues surrounding our existence..

Just like religion relies on faith, there's an element of faith that has to be put in Science aswell. While they may be able to answer questions from millions and millions of years ago... I've yet to see conclusive evidence of a big bang, or that we developed from Monkeys. And the 'evidence' thats out there, millions choose not believe it, just as scientists refuse to believe 'evidence' in religion.

I no longer dispute either side... its a debate no one can win, because people will choose to belive whatever they want to, and those people who continue to argue their point.. end up looking like prats and pompous gits because people dont sway from what they believe, unless they want to be swayed.

I no longer have anything to be swayed from..Im just a small rock in the ocean. I just sit there.

I.D wrote:I've yet to see conclusive evidence of a big bang, or that we developed from Monkeys.

Just to clarify- the big bang happened. Observation from astronomers and the likes show it. The thing that's under question in the scientific community is the big bang THEORY.

We didn't evolve from monkey's. We have common ancestors with apes (not money's, there's a difference), but we never evolved 'from' them per se. After species branch away, they still keep developing independently.

I'm not a scientist, but I'll take their word about such topics over the likes of Kent Hovind any day.

"It's just a theory"
This is a very weak argument. A theory- in the context of science lingo- is essentially a fact. It's just not universal.

Observation shows that objects in the universe appear to be moving away from each other.

The big bang theory is not the only theory out there. Plasma theory is another, although it is one not given credence by the majority of astrophysicists. A book called 'The Big Bang Never Happened' presents an argument that counters the big bang. I think it's by Eric J. Lerner.

Also the theory of evolution is also just a theory. For an interesting discussion on how organisms adopt the forms they do check out 'How The Leopard Changed Its Spots'. I forget who it's by.

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that any of these theories are true. I don't know the truth. I just like to keep an open mind.

All the best
Gary

I just want to share a story of the time I performed on a private event and was reprimanded by the brother of the "party host." Apparently, he is Christian with strict methods and doesn't like the idea of me pronouncing words in backwards and using ESP cards (since I always do mentalism for adults). Please understand that Christianity is STRONG in our country and when this guest starts to argue with your presentation, I remained silent. If ever you faced this kind of situation, please do not argue with the guest even if you find it irrelevant. If it comes a time that you can leave, please do so. At least I remained professional about it.

Just sharing

The history of religion, science and magic have the same root. The stories in the new testament, old testament and any other testament can be compared to earlier stories and similarities will be found. The history of the church and Christianity is an interesting one. Just as the history of magic will reveal all sorts of fascinating things.

Opinions are easy to form as well as beliefs. We all need, after all, some belief system in order to function. Whether these beliefs are founded in fact at some point has not much relevance. Our experiences always have an interpretive element.

Was Jesus a god? Was he a magician? Was he a warrior? Was he a politician? Was he a Jew? Was he the original "early" Christian? Who wrote the "good" book? Who edited it? When, where, why?

Tracing science, religion and magic to the root, there is no seperation - until later. Do we remember the countless years of our history and beliefs? Our willingness to commune or kill based on our beliefs?

Using deception to preach the bible? Are we unaware of the very foundations of the church? What is and what is not a sin? Are we unaware of the history of the authors of these ideas? Are we unaware of which pope did what to whom? Deception used to sell religion? Is that really such an outlandish idea?

Can we understand Judeo-Christian religions without understanding the ancient Egyptian, Coptic, Babylonian, etc?

Belief does not require any fact.

Can any body be the sole determinant of what is and is not a sin? What did these thinkers perpetrate that was so holy? What was not so holy?

I do think it is good to respect the belief systems of other folks. Without that, magic is not possible. Neither is religion. At some point, neither is science.

In the beginning, magicians had awareness of the way people think and believe, and used that "secret" knowledge to bring about an effect. Often the effect was a healing one. Often it was a grab for power or control.

Is there anything unique in the gospel, or any exsisting religion? Are the holy ones incapable of making mistakes or committing "sin"?

Let's go deeper down the rabbit hole. Maybe it will make our magic better.

We all need, after all, some belief system in order to function

The question is if the belief system is build and supported by evidence, or is more like a sand castle molded by dreams and wishful thinking and highly unlikely to have any validity.

It is possible to identify more that 30.000 distinct "religions" that all makes specific claims that contradict each other on central points (I remove from the list the few wishy washy religions that do not make any specific statements about the world). It follows - logically - that only 0 or 1 of these 30.000 possibilities can be completely valid.
I find it highly unlikely that exactly 1 of the 30.000 distinct views gets it right so I belong to the group of people who are pretty convinced they are all wrong including atheism. One tenable view is in my mind some kind of agnosticisms that acknowledge the miracle of consciousness and our existence.

Religion (and philosophy) have - unlike science - never predicted in advance any measurable entity. And the history is full of examples of wars and atrocities done in the name of religion. If one cannot settle different views by rational arguments and/or experiments, only brute force seems to be left.

It is possible have strong moral and ethical convictions without religion.

greedoniz wrote:I'm yet to meet someone religious who could argue on a rational level when it comes to the validity of their religion and the existence of a deity.
For people who 'believe' tend to argue the subject emotively ' I feel that...' and the problem with most argument of this ilk is that ground rules for what constitutes evidence are not set down before hand. Hence them generally degrading into very heated discussions. A rationalist wants evidence that is hard or impossible to dispute and the person of faith uses their experience or experiences as their evidence which is not evidence within this sort of context.
I suppose the best way of putting it is that a hypochondriac knows he/she is ill because they feel it deep inside that something is up whereas a medical doctor would look for symptoms and signs of illness and if the two were to have a conversation it would be a similar one in regards to the two differing styles of argument.

Absolutely, precisely, 100% true!
...but are we totally the sum of our physical parts, or is there something more to us? Don't get me wrong, I believe emotions can be highly subjective and unhelpful sometimes (the number of marriages that break up because "I just fell in/out of love" )
However, it is "scientists" (and I use that term totally incorrectly, it's just easier in the context - my preferred term would be "atheists motivated purely by human discovery and achievement") who decide the "battlefield" (again, a convenient term, but again I don't believe in this "science vs. religion" idea) is of their choosing.

However, people of faith believe they are dealing with something very much bigger than themselves, something not possible to understand fully - we try our best with what we believe we've been given, e.g. the Bible, and obviously mistakes will occur. However, asking us to explain and "prove" God in scientific terms to me is as rediculous as asking me to explain how to bake a cake using only primary colours.

"Can't do it? Then cakes and baking must not exist!" shout the primary colourists, because to them, the only important things in life concern red, yellow and blue...

Interestingly, medical education is now swaying towards "patient centred care", and viewing the patient "as an expert in their own experience of illness." What that means is that when someone comes in whining, we can't send them out saying "we've done all the tests, you're fine, go home", we have to listen to them and acknowledge their insight into the problem. Which to be honest is annoying sometimes. But the point is, you might think the more we learn, the more we lean towards putting all of our trust in technology, but this is not the case at all.

When religions claim to be scientific, they're the ones walking towards the scientists' challenges. Creationists who claim that creationism id scientific is like a cake baker claiming that he can make a cake with only primary colors. Their claim should be challenged.

(Why oh why did I sleep in until 1.30pm... I knew I wouldn't sleep tonight!)

Agreed. However, I notice you come from California sleightlycrazy. The stance you suggest is far less common over here in the UK, unlike in America with "the Christian Right" which I'm afraid conjurs up a whole host of images and associations which do no one any favours.

I hope you won't take this personally but there is something a bit odd about America (Japan also!), in that everything has to be to radical extremes. Being a Christian American seems little to do with humbly believing in JC, and more to do with a heady mix of arrogance, hypocrisy and patriotism, summed up in the infamous phrase "God bless America." It could be "Lord, bring us peace" or "God, help us forgive" but no, "Lord, help us be the biggest, the best... help us succeed... help us kick ass..."

Unfortunately, being a Christian seems to come second to being "An American". Even more unfortunate is when English folk read about the crazy things the US religious right are doing and use it as ammunition against UK Christians.

I would just like to make one last plea about the term "rational", i.e. "rational people think this, crazy religious types thing that..." - defined as "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense" - there are many, many people who exhibit the above AND believe in God. Limiting yourself to currently available scientific method and understanding is no more inherently rational than anything else. The reason why these satires like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that atheists find so side splittingly hilarious are totally irrelevant (or rather, one of the reasons...) is that to many of us, the perspective that Christianity gives us on the world makes sense. From the behaviour of society to the personal thoughts of the individual, I look at the world and think "yes, this is spot on." I deal with "science" every day, and it is just as far from convincing me otherwise as it ever was.