@whatever
"Firstly, the word "magic" is amorphous and ambiguous as I said, and should not be used in any debate as it's meaning is never clear."
Sweet Jesus, heaven forbid we call a spade a spade. It's magic, no matter how you spell it. There are no semantics to be had over the term.
"If I have an experience of something that does not fit within your rather restricted worldview, then I have a right to say so without prejudice. As I said, ridicule is the preserve of the deeply insecure."
Okay, just STOP with your high-and-mighty holier-than-thou whinging. I am not saying that you have no right to voice your beliefs. Quite the opposite! You have every right to shout your beliefs from the mountaintop. But what you DON'T have is the right to say such things and automatically expect deference and respect for them, just because you believe in them. Which brings us to MY right to call them out as silly, false and dangerous.
"'Your belief supplies implicit, environmental support, a fertile ground if you will, for evil weeds to take root.'
You do come across like the Christian fundies, I'm sorry to say. They constantly use the "absolute morals" argument, which you appear to be usurping. It's the same as saying 'there's nothing to stop atheists from raping, murdering, and eating babies'."
Hold it right there. I am not saying that there is an absolute morality. There is no such thing. I'm an atheist, remember? What I'm saying is that when you do not base your beliefs or morality on FACTS AND EVIDENCE, then you leave pandora's box open for all this mayhem to come spilling out. An atheist can attack another atheist for raping and murdering, because they can point to evidence that it is harmful and bad. But when believers criticize one another, the perpetrator's justifications for their actions are equally valid to the critic's, that is to say, neither are valid!
By the way, you're calling me narrow-minded? He who refuses to even consider their own fallibility or even trust the scientific explanation of your so-called phenomena? That's rich.
"You assume that psychic function leads to abuses. The truth is, all these things come with responsibility attached."
You have got to be kidding me.
"And as I said, if you do not wish to accept it, then that is fine. But don't attack me for occupying a stance different from your own, then go on to criticide fundies for their lack of tolerance towards others."
And here we go again. I am not being a hypocrite for pointing out your nonsensical woo and then turning around and calling Fundies intolerant. That's because there is a fundamental difference between factual criticism and unfactual bigotry. Sure, you may be indignant that I call whatever it is that you're peddling the umbrella term "magic," rather than the specific hair-splitting term you prefer, but it's not like the lies that Fundies spew out about the promiscuity of gays, the beliefs of Moslems, and the inferiority of minorities.
Furthermore, the difference between criticism and intolerance extends to the behaviors exhibited. Fundies don't say, "I know that the little family of Jews across the street are a part of a massive cabal bent on world domination and the extinction of my culture, but I'm gonna just treat them like everyone else in the interest of equality and civility." Intolerance implies that you cannot tolerate the very existence or proximity of something, and are bent on censoring, defeating or destroying it. Criticism means that you're pointing out that something is wrong, but you still allow it to exist, and still allow it to be seen.
What you want is preferential treatment. You want deference, respect, and obsequiousness towards your beliefs. And I won't have it. I do not bow to false idols. If you want your beliefs to be respected, then they had better earn it.
