Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[1137]

I agree fi you do not like to have a belief doubted or picked apart than you should not put it under a debate section.

Easy for someone who refuses to engage to say. I can assure none of us in this thread have problems with being doubted and debated with, we wouldn't have even found our path without it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

A religion, a philosophy, and a movement that doesn't even hide the fact that it's psychology and not magic. None of this name dropping is impressive nor suggests you have any authority in the area.

Yeah....Wiccans don't call it magic.... sure buddy.....

 

[Erebus]

I doubt magic is the right word to describe much of what people are talking about if we get down to the nuts and bolts of it.

Okay. I disagree and at this point will have to call it a day. I think I've explained my position as well as I can and anything further would be repetition on my part. That does none of us any good.

Let me ask you this.

Why do you want to call it magic?

I don't mean to come across as condescending, but I really feel that I've covered this. The OP gives a breakdown of the reasons and I've expanded on them over the course of the thread.

 

[1137]

Yeah....Wiccans don't call it magic.... sure buddy.....

Wicca is a religion in which some practitioners do, indeed, practice witchcraft. Maybe you should, I don't know, grab the slightest bit of education on the subjects you're going to pretend to dominate?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Erm, you're the only one here who can't seem to grasp this simple understanding of magic. Besides, I already pointed out how it fits with the definition.

And I pointed out that if you take that definition ANYTHING you find mysterious is magic.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Prove it. If you could you'd have a Nobel Prize.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature.

Nature: the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth.

Human: a person, especially as distinguished from other animals.

Brain: the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and many other animals.

Therefore the brain is part of nature and everything it does is natural.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Wicca is a religion in which some practitioners do, indeed, practice witchcraft. Maybe you should, I don't know, grab the slightest bit of education on the subjects you're going to pretend to dominate?

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY DONT PRACTICE MAGIC!

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Okay. I disagree and at this point will have to call it a day. I think I've explained my position as well as I can and anything further would be repetition on my part. That does none of us any good.

Your position is that you want to change the definition of magic to say magic is real.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I don't mean to come across as condescending, but I really feel that I've covered this. The OP gives a breakdown of the reasons and I've expanded on them over the course of the thread.

Please refresh me because I am having trouble deciphering the motive.

 

[outhouse]

I disagree and at this point will have to call it a day.

Not to pick on you, but this is a debate forum. And I have a hard time calling personal perception that cannot be substantiated outside imagination or hallucination or visions, "magic".

 

[outhouse]

Maybe you should, I don't know, grab the slightest bit of education on the subjects you're going to pretend to

There is no credible education on pseudohistory or pseudoscience, or the supernatural.

There is study however on how weak the human mind actually is and why many people see things that do not exist.

 

[Erebus]

Not to pick on you, but this is a debate forum. And I have a hard time calling personal perception that cannot be substantiated outside imagination or hallucination or visions, "magic".

My stance is that there comes a point in a debate where everything that can be said has been said. After that point, if opinions on either side haven't changed, all that will happen is both sides repeat themselves. Personally, I prefer to leave it at that point as I don't see continuing as either constructive or particularly healthy.

Your position is that you want to change the definition of magic to say magic is real.

Please refresh me because I am having trouble deciphering the motive.

Right now, I honestly don't know how to make myself better understood.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

My stance is that there comes a point in a debate where everything that can be said has been said. After that point, if opinions on either side haven't changed, all that will happen is both sides repeat themselves. Personally, I prefer to leave it at that point as I don't see continuing as either constructive or particularly healthy.




Right now, I honestly don't know how to make myself better understood.

You cannot tell me why?

I thought the whole purpose of "magic" was for introspection?

 

[Quintessence]

Agreed.

Then people should not join a "debate" on their personal experiences, unless they are ready to defend them

A "put up or shut up" mentality doesn't strike me as in keeping with the forum mission, and as such, doesn't strike me as a reasonable or realistic expectation.

Know what's funny, though? The one personal experience about magic I shared in this thread... none of the naysayers have responded to. It's possible it was missed, but... I find it curious.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

A "put up or shut up" mentality doesn't strike me as in keeping with the forum mission, and as such, doesn't strike me as a reasonable or realistic expectation.

Why make a claim in a debate section you cannot back up?

If you cannot back up your claim there are comparative and DIR sections.

 

[Erebus]

You cannot tell me why?

I thought the whole purpose of "magic" was for introspection?

Are you trying to goad me? I feel I've been more than patient with you over our last little to and fro. I've explained my position, I've expanded on it, I've repeated it. The process has been both tiring and one-sided.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to discuss the matter with you against my instincts. Now we're starting to see the little jabs appear again.

I only ever give one second chance.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Are you trying to goad me? I feel I've been more than patient with you over our last little to and fro. I've explained my position, I've expanded on it, I've repeated it. The process has been both tiring and one-sided.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to discuss the matter with you against my instincts. Now we're starting to see the little jabs appear again.

I only ever give one second chance.

Do you think it is not infuriating that you will never give a straight answer?

 

[Quintessence]

Why make a claim in a debate section you cannot back up?

There are plenty of reasons, but I'd note the edit to that last post. Nobody has bothered calling me out on the example I gave. I can definitely "back it up." The question is can I "back it up" to the satisfaction of the audience, and that is something I have no control over. Given I have zero interest in convincing everyone on the planet that I'm right and they're all wrong, I don't care if people take it or leave it. I don't see the point of arguing about it ad nauseum. A sentiment that @Erebus and I share, apparently.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There are plenty of reasons, but I'd note the edit to that last post. Nobody has bothered calling me out on the example I gave. I can definitely "back it up." The question is can I "back it up" to the satisfaction of the audience, and that is something I have no control over. Given I have zero interest in convincing everyone on the planet that I'm right and they're all wrong, I don't care if people take it or leave it. I don't see the point of arguing about it ad nauseum. A sentiment that @Erebus and I share, apparently.

If you do not want to debate.

Then put it in comparative religions.

If you only want to talk with people who agree with you on that subject.

Go to the DIR.

Am I wrong?

 

[Quintessence]

If you do not want to debate.

Then put it in comparative religions.

If you only want to talk with people who agree with you on that subject.

Go to the DIR.

Am I wrong?

No, but you're kind of missing something here. Let me repost that there for you:

Nobody has bothered calling me out on the example I gave.

Nobody has actually bothered to engage me about an example of magic I've done before. This is not atypical. I (or others) will present something, and it'll be ignored, overlooked, dismissed as "not good enough" by the audience. Which then makes me ask the question: is it really debate this person is interested in? Or is it pigeon chess?