I'm a Wizard! Ask Me Anything

[Jarhyn]

Man, like, don't get me wrong this is fun, but what's with all the softball questions? I mean I get that once one accepts magic as only possible within the bounds of physics things become less "fun" and more "why are we even here again," though still....

That said, I might as well talk a little bit about magic in the broader and more mysterious "woo" sense.

The first rule is generally that magic isn't "magic": nothing in this world gets done without invoking some real engine of some kind. That engine can be whatever black box drives gravitational force, if the magic is "get down there really fast", or it may be something as simple as a sturdy lever to raise something against the workings of that other engine. The magic comes in two ways: the madness that creates the engine, and the madness that sees where it must go to produce effects after the goals of the mad.

There is, however, what one might consider to be "special" magic: magic for which the engine is unknown, or the engine is, ambiguously, the self, Or where the engine is broad and absurd coincidence.

It is this last category that I find most interesting insofar as it produces the most amazing of artifacts with the greatest leverage against the concept of "self": by leveraging the faith and "woo" that humans recognize around such absurdities, you can create far more impactful acts of self-actualization.

What does this even mean? Well, let's take for example the placebo effect on "luck". A player takes their lucky stone that they have had since they were a child to every game, and they believe this gives them luck. In fact, this is the Tinkerbell effect: their belief makes it true because we make our own luck and the belief facilitates this action of self-actualization. In this way the rock IS "lucky" insofar as it moderates stress and doubt when in possession. But the effects are no less real for the engine being the player themselves.

All that is required is some cognitive dissonance (hopefully acknowledged by the player in a mature way), to manage the two disparate knowledge's that rocks don't contain engines of luck, but to also hold onto the useful belief that holding onto this rock will drive an actual engine of luck, because the belief drives the engine of self.

The real hard part here is the juxtaposition of seeing the cognitive dissonance for what it is without also destroying the effect... Lest you lose visibility of the engine, and thus lose yourself to it.

 

[Angry Floof]

OK, if you want to talk more seriously about it. Luck, for instance, can be more clearly and easily explained in cognitive and psychological terms. It's true that luck or lack of luck lies in belief, but it's not so mysterious or counterintuitive. It's a matter of openness. Rather than write a whole page about it, watch Derren Brown's Experiment episode called The Secret of Luck. Suggestibility and openness to opportunity are not at all mysterious, and no less "magical" or powerful when understood as such versus needing to be ignorant of our minds' workings for it to work.

 

[Jarhyn]

OK, if you want to talk more seriously about it. Luck, for instance, can be more clearly and easily explained in cognitive and psychological terms. It's true that luck or lack of luck lies in belief, but it's not so mysterious or counterintuitive. It's a matter of openness. Rather than write a whole page about it, watch Derren Brown's Experiment episode called The Secret of Luck. Suggestibility and openness to opportunity are not at all mysterious, and no less "magical" or powerful when understood as such versus needing to be ignorant of our minds' workings for it to work.

Personally, "needing to be ignorant..." is, in my estimation, merely a claim brought by those who wish to separate fools from their money, admittedly a favored pastime of many who would pass themselves off as magically inclined.

I said I'm a wizard, though, not some kind of backwater swami, prophet, or "miracle worker": any effect that you wish to create in the universe requires some engine to produce it, and generally this engine is as visible and understandable.

I'm not claiming that suggestibility and opportunity are actually "mysterious" so much as wishing to blow the whole lid off this "mysteriousness" business without doing it in such a way as to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

One issue here happens to be, in addition to the Tinkerbell effect, the reverse Tinkerbell effect or perhaps the "lights on" effect: by knowing too much about what is going on, by being too gnostic up front, the effects become less effective (similarly to how believing an election will be won will lead it to be lost; or knowing too much about flirting can lead you to "flirt" inorganically and thus accomplish nothing).

In many ways, the placebo effect ONLY works when we are in some way ignorant of its workings, or where our knowledge is abstracted through enough layers that knowledge is insulated from the effect. This is part of WHY people like me engage in ritual: to build layers of abstraction between the driver of the effect (beliefs), and the knowledge that the belief in the magic is entirely manufactured. The difference between being a rube for whom sugar pills work and a wizard for whom they may remove their pain with some magic and sugar is entirely the fact that the wizard is capable of seeing and understanding that the pills are sugar and still getting pain relief from them moreso even than the rube.

 

[Angry Floof]

OK, if you want to talk more seriously about it. Luck, for instance, can be more clearly and easily explained in cognitive and psychological terms. It's true that luck or lack of luck lies in belief, but it's not so mysterious or counterintuitive. It's a matter of openness. Rather than write a whole page about it, watch Derren Brown's Experiment episode called The Secret of Luck. Suggestibility and openness to opportunity are not at all mysterious, and no less "magical" or powerful when understood as such versus needing to be ignorant of our minds' workings for it to work.

Personally, "needing to be ignorant..." is, in my estimation, merely a claim brought by those who wish to separate fools from their money, admittedly a favored pastime of many who would pass themselves off as magically inclined.

I said I'm a wizard, though, not some kind of backwater swami, prophet, or "miracle worker": any effect that you wish to create in the universe requires some engine to produce it, and generally this engine is as visible and understandable.

I'm not claiming that suggestibility and opportunity are actually "mysterious" so much as wishing to blow the whole lid off this "mysteriousness" business without doing it in such a way as to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

One issue here happens to be, in addition to the Tinkerbell effect, the reverse Tinkerbell effect or perhaps the "lights on" effect: by knowing too much about what is going on, by being too gnostic up front, the effects become less effective (similarly to how believing an election will be won will lead it to be lost; or knowing too much about flirting can lead you to "flirt" inorganically and thus accomplish nothing).

In many ways, the placebo effect ONLY works when we are in some way ignorant of its workings, or where our knowledge is abstracted through enough layers that knowledge is insulated from the effect. This is part of WHY people like me engage in ritual: to build layers of abstraction between the driver of the effect (beliefs), and the knowledge that the belief in the magic is entirely manufactured. The difference between being a rube for whom sugar pills work and a wizard for whom they may remove their pain with some magic and sugar is entirely the fact that the wizard is capable of seeing and understanding that the pills are sugar and still getting pain relief from them moreso even than the rube.

That's what I meant by "needing to be ignorant" regarding the placebo effect, but the magic of ignorance is not the only way to take advantage how our minds work. Watch the video I linked. It demonstrates both ignorance and knowledge in how belief can bring "luck."

 

[skepticalbip]

That's what I meant by "needing to be ignorant" regarding the placebo effect, but the magic of ignorance is not the only way to take advantage how our minds work. Watch the video I linked. It demonstrates both ignorance and knowledge in how belief can bring "luck."

Belief and a propensity for confirmation bias.

 

[Angry Floof]

That's what I meant by "needing to be ignorant" regarding the placebo effect, but the magic of ignorance is not the only way to take advantage how our minds work. Watch the video I linked. It demonstrates both ignorance and knowledge in how belief can bring "luck."

Belief and a propensity for confirmation bias.

But also knowledge, on the other hand. Watch the video The Secret of Luck. Notice the guy who didn't believe in luck was not open to things going on around him and missed opportunities left and right, even money laying on the street right in front of him. Meanwhile, his more open minded neighbors with more positive attitudes about the world around them found the money and all the other opportunities that were put in place for them by Darren.

Once that guy got a bit of schooling and help in realizing his own closed mindedness, he consciously chose to open up and trust. It's a pretty amazing story, and as I said, beautifully illustrates both the blind suggestive kind of luck and the kind that isn't really luck but awareness and attitude, things that can change in ways that it appears that "luck" has changed.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Man, like, don't get me wrong this is fun, but what's with all the softball questions? I mean I get that once one accepts magic as only possible within the bounds of physics things become less "fun" and more "why are we even here again," though still....

That's basically it. There's nothing to really talk about if you define magic as being indistinguishable from physics.

 

[Jarhyn]

Man, like, don't get me wrong this is fun, but what's with all the softball questions? I mean I get that once one accepts magic as only possible within the bounds of physics things become less "fun" and more "why are we even here again," though still....

That's basically it. There's nothing to really talk about if you define magic as being indistinguishable from physics.

Everything in nature is "indistinguishable from physics". But I bet there are lots of such things within physics that you find amazing, special, full of wonder, curious, useful, spooky, or whatever.

Even if I had a magic wand I could wave to make you less of a stick in the mud, I would still have some nature with some physics by which an engine was assembled to produce the effect (and given that it is a coercive effect, I would consider it to be dark magic indeed!) I am thoroughly convinced you would find a word for it that isn't the utterance "magic". That's the problem: nature is perfectly efficient in the context.

Of course this creates a sticking point insofar as when you meet a sane and honest wizard, it is painful to disambiguate the honest discussion of how manifestation, hauntings, demons, etc actually function in reality and call these things "real". It HURTS to have made a claim all your life that, for example, "hauntings aren't real" and then have some schlub walk up to you and not only tell you they are, but to explain the actual physics and science of what is going on and show an actual mechanism by which such 'woo' as waving some burning sage around can create the effect of resolving the phenomenon.

Really, the bigger issue I see is that rather than identifying that real people have experiences and that there are realities behind those experiences, you have said "those experiences are not real in the least; they are the product of a failed mind!"

Instead, you would do far better to ask "what is the reality of the situation and how do we mitigate any negative externalities of that reality?" Not asking for example if a haunting is "real", so much as asking "what is the nature of being haunted, and what does it have to do with me?"

 

[skepticalbip]

That's what I meant by "needing to be ignorant" regarding the placebo effect, but the magic of ignorance is not the only way to take advantage how our minds work. Watch the video I linked. It demonstrates both ignorance and knowledge in how belief can bring "luck."

Belief and a propensity for confirmation bias.

But also knowledge, on the other hand. Watch the video The Secret of Luck. Notice the guy who didn't believe in luck was not open to things going on around him and missed opportunities left and right, even money laying on the street right in front of him. Meanwhile, his more open minded neighbors with more positive attitudes about the world around them found the money and all the other opportunities that were put in place for them by Darren.

Once that guy got a bit of schooling and help in realizing his own closed mindedness, he consciously chose to open up and trust. It's a pretty amazing story, and as I said, beautifully illustrates both the blind suggestive kind of luck and the kind that isn't really luck but awareness and attitude, things that can change in ways that it appears that "luck" has changed.

Derren Brown is damned good. He does seem to have a good understanding of human mental processes. But surely you understand that his videos are the ultimate in planned confirmation bias. He only shows where he was successful, not his failures. Then there is the possibility that much was staged.

Of course someone has to be open to opportunities to experience "luck". Someone who does not buy a lottery ticket will not win the lottery. OTOH, buying a lottery ticket certainly will not guarantee a win.

 

[Angry Floof]

But also knowledge, on the other hand. Watch the video The Secret of Luck. Notice the guy who didn't believe in luck was not open to things going on around him and missed opportunities left and right, even money laying on the street right in front of him. Meanwhile, his more open minded neighbors with more positive attitudes about the world around them found the money and all the other opportunities that were put in place for them by Darren.

Once that guy got a bit of schooling and help in realizing his own closed mindedness, he consciously chose to open up and trust. It's a pretty amazing story, and as I said, beautifully illustrates both the blind suggestive kind of luck and the kind that isn't really luck but awareness and attitude, things that can change in ways that it appears that "luck" has changed.

Derren Brown is damned good. He does seem to have a good understanding of human mental processes. But surely you understand that his videos are the ultimate in planned confirmation bias. He only shows where he was successful, not his failures. Then there is the possibility that much was staged.

Of course someone has to be open to opportunities to experience "luck". Someone who does not buy a lottery ticket will not win the lottery. OTOH, buying a lottery ticket certainly will not guarantee a win.

Yes, he does use all those techniques, but a big part of his process is to educate us all regarding our own cognitive pitfalls. He openly tells us how he tricks us. His goal is to educate as much as to entertain, and he did exactly that with that episode.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing, though. Was it my saying that self awareness and knowledge of how we operate can be as useful and "magical" (without the lies) as tricking us via our perceptive and cognitive weaknesses?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Man, like, don't get me wrong this is fun, but what's with all the softball questions? I mean I get that once one accepts magic as only possible within the bounds of physics things become less "fun" and more "why are we even here again," though still....

That's basically it. There's nothing to really talk about if you define magic as being indistinguishable from physics.

Everything in nature is "indistinguishable from physics". But I bet there are lots of such things within physics that you find amazing, special, full of wonder, curious, useful, spooky, or whatever.

Yes, which is why it's hard to figure out what you're talking about when you talk about "magic".

 

[Jarhyn]

Everything in nature is "indistinguishable from physics". But I bet there are lots of such things within physics that you find amazing, special, full of wonder, curious, useful, spooky, or whatever.

Yes, which is why it's hard to figure out what you're talking about when you talk about "magic".

Because magic isn't the thing you do. It is, in my estimation, equal parts the reason why you do the thing and how you go about doing it, and very little about the "it" that you do.

I could just as easily live a very similar life, as not-a-wizard. I could get on the same bus, I could go to the same workplace, meet the same people, frame all of my discussions and ideas in mundane terms, cut my hair, mothball my duster coat, throw my staff onto the wood pile, scrap my altar. The result, I expect, would be me being utterly miserable going about it, my co-workers being more miserable, my viewpoints less visible, my husband less interested and my work less inspired. I could, in fact, be normal... Assuming I also wanted to be a depressed schlub pointedly aware of how pointless life actually is. Not that I'm unaware of the objective pointlessness of life NOW, but rather it doesn't depress me because while it is pointless and absurd, it is pointless and absurd and magical.

It is accepting that not everything in your life has to make objective sense for the things in your life to make subjective sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

Everything in nature is "indistinguishable from physics". But I bet there are lots of such things within physics that you find amazing, special, full of wonder, curious, useful, spooky, or whatever.

Yes, which is why it's hard to figure out what you're talking about when you talk about "magic".

Because magic isn't the thing you do. It is, in my estimation, equal parts the reason why you do the thing and how you go about doing it, and very little about the "it" that you do.

AHA, so you just use a meaning for magic that is very different than the dictionary (accepted meaning) definition. Surely you realize that means that you are not actually communicating with people who speak English.

I could just as easily live a very similar life, as not-a-wizard. I could get on the same bus, I could go to the same workplace, meet the same people, frame all of my discussions and ideas in mundane terms, cut my hair, mothball my duster coat, throw my staff onto the wood pile, scrap my altar. The result, I expect, would be me being utterly miserable going about it, my co-workers being more miserable, my viewpoints less visible, my husband less interested and my work less inspired. I could, in fact, be normal... Assuming I also wanted to be a depressed schlub pointedly aware of how pointless life actually is. Not that I'm unaware of the objective pointlessness of life NOW, but rather it doesn't depress me because while it is pointless and absurd, it is pointless and absurd and magical.

In other words, role playing as in method acting where the role is internalized.

It is accepting that not everything in your life has to make objective sense for the things in your life to make subjective sense.

That isn't special. That is how everyone lives except for the mentally unstable.

 

[Politesse]

AHA, so you just use a meaning for magic that is very different than the dictionary (accepted meaning) definition. Surely you realize that means that you are not actually communicating with people who speak English.

Jarhyn's definition is not far different from what Crowley was using back in the earliest days of the European magickal revival. If the dictionary is more than a century behind the times, that seems more like the dictionary's problem than Jarhyn's. The problem is Christian hegemony over the English language, not a deficiency in magicians themselves knowing what they are doing and why.

That isn't special. That is how everyone lives except for the mentally unstable.

You're close to actually getting it, there!

 

[skepticalbip]

AHA, so you just use a meaning for magic that is very different than the dictionary (accepted meaning) definition. Surely you realize that means that you are not actually communicating with people who speak English.

Jarhyn's definition is not far different from what Crowley was using back in the earliest days of the European magickal revival. If the dictionary is more than a century behind the times, that seems more like the dictionary's problem than Jarhyn's. The problem is Christian hegemony over the English language, not a deficiency in magicians themselves knowing what they are doing and why.

Sorry but the purpose of language is to communicate. To communicate ideas to another, one has to use a language (words) that those others understand and accept those words to mean. Cults assign "special" meaning to certain words that is not in the common use. Jarhyn is pretending to be trying to communicate but insists on using the cult meaning for words so is not actually communicating.

That isn't special. That is how everyone lives except for the mentally unstable.

You're close to actually getting it, there!

There is nothing to get. That is unless you really think that people actually believe that they have a full, in depth, understanding of everything in the universe. I personally know no such mentally unstable people though I do know some who think they know more than they actually do... most are very religious.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because magic isn't the thing you do. It is, in my estimation, equal parts the reason why you do the thing and how you go about doing it, and very little about the "it" that you do.

AHA, so you just use a meaning for magic that is very different than the dictionary (accepted meaning) definition. Surely you realize that means that you are not actually communicating with people who speak English.

I could just as easily live a very similar life, as not-a-wizard. I could get on the same bus, I could go to the same workplace, meet the same people, frame all of my discussions and ideas in mundane terms, cut my hair, mothball my duster coat, throw my staff onto the wood pile, scrap my altar. The result, I expect, would be me being utterly miserable going about it, my co-workers being more miserable, my viewpoints less visible, my husband less interested and my work less inspired. I could, in fact, be normal... Assuming I also wanted to be a depressed schlub pointedly aware of how pointless life actually is. Not that I'm unaware of the objective pointlessness of life NOW, but rather it doesn't depress me because while it is pointless and absurd, it is pointless and absurd and magical.

In other words, role playing as in method acting where the role is internalized.

It is accepting that not everything in your life has to make objective sense for the things in your life to make subjective sense.

That isn't special. That is how everyone lives except for the mentally unstable.

I would lose then that there are a lot of mentally unstable people then, between the people who think their subjective "sense" is objective sense (the religious, generally), and those who think that they are perfectly rational in everything they do (the staunch atheist, generally).

What you call "method acting" and "roleplaying" though are nonetheless functional elements of my life.

Part, not necessarily of magic but of wizardry in general according to this linguistic exploration, is that most of the things you describe as roleplaying have practical applications buried in the mysticism of it: a staff makes a good club if someone gets cheeky. A duster keeps my legs warmer than a simple jacket. A hat keeps the rain off. I just plain look good with long hair (not to mention the money I save not spending it on haircuts).

If you want to frame it as mere roleplaying rather than actually engaging in wizardry, that's your prerogative I guess.

The fact is, dictionaries are written, generally, by those who do not have a strong grasp or relationship with this particular subject. I have a fairly large, and growing, community of friends among whom my own position is the more common understanding.

Think after this: a few weeks ago my husband and I went out for a walk. The snow had just fallen for the first time, and we walked past his favorite tree in the neighborhood, a ginko tree that had just dropped it's berries (and most of it's leaves). The moon was gibbous and waxing and bright, and as we walked further along, we spotted a fox, which is noteworthy because while there are parks, I live in what is arguably "the inner city". I only got the barest glimpse of the fox's tail as it disappeared behind a berm. When we got home I planted the berries. In ten years when I tell my kids the story of our ginko tree, I could either say "your other father and I got high, took a walk, and stuffed berries in the dirt" or I could say "on a night touched by the fox spirit, of the week of our anniversary, we ran across some ginko berries and planted them under the light of the gibbous waxing moon." I guarantee you, that tree will hold much more wonder and magic... Assuming that the squirrels don't just eat all the seeds before spring.

 

[Politesse]

Sorry but the purpose of language is to communicate. To communicate ideas to another, one has to use a language (words) that those others understand and accept those words to mean. Cults assign "special" meaning to certain words that is not in the common use. Jarhyn is pretending to be trying to communicate but insists on using the cult meaning for words so is not actually communicating.

That isn't special. That is how everyone lives except for the mentally unstable.

You're close to actually getting it, there!

There is nothing to get. That is unless you really think that people actually believe that they have a full, in depth, understanding of everything in the universe. I personally know no such mentally unstable people though I do know some who think they know more than they actually do... most are very religious.

So if a Christian majority defines all witchcraft as a dangerous cult, actual witches must also define themselves as a dangerous cult, for the sake of "actual communication"? If all the dictionaries define my homosexuality as a form of advanced mental illness, as they did forty years ago, am I obliged to define myself as mentally ill in order to "actually communicate" that I love my partner?

In your majority-always-rules doctrine, what exactly is being communicated, and to whom? You are suprisingly uncritical in your thinking, for someone with "skeptical" in your nickname.

You know atheism hasn't always been defined by the majority as atheists themselves would prefer, right?

 

[skepticalbip]

Sorry but the purpose of language is to communicate. To communicate ideas to another, one has to use a language (words) that those others understand and accept those words to mean. Cults assign "special" meaning to certain words that is not in the common use. Jarhyn is pretending to be trying to communicate but insists on using the cult meaning for words so is not actually communicating.

There is nothing to get. That is unless you really think that people actually believe that they have a full, in depth, understanding of everything in the universe. I personally know no such mentally unstable people though I do know some who think they know more than they actually do... most are very religious.

So if a Christian majority defines all witchcraft as a dangerous cult, actual witches must also define themselves as a dangerous cult, for the sake of "actual communication"? If all the dictionaries define my homosexuality as a form of advanced mental illness, as they did forty years ago, am I obliged to define myself as mentally ill in order to "actually communicate" that I love my partner?

In your majority-always-rules doctrine, what exactly is being communicated, and to whom? You are suprisingly uncritical in your thinking, for someone with "skeptical" in your nickname.

You know atheism hasn't always been defined by the majority as atheists themselves would prefer, right?

WTF are you on about???

Do you really not understand the basics of communication?

 

[skepticalbip]

AHA, so you just use a meaning for magic that is very different than the dictionary (accepted meaning) definition. Surely you realize that means that you are not actually communicating with people who speak English.

In other words, role playing as in method acting where the role is internalized.

It is accepting that not everything in your life has to make objective sense for the things in your life to make subjective sense.

That isn't special. That is how everyone lives except for the mentally unstable.

I would lose then that there are a lot of mentally unstable people then, between the people who think their subjective "sense" is objective sense (the religious, generally), and those who think that they are perfectly rational in everything they do (the staunch atheist, generally).

What you call "method acting" and "roleplaying" though are nonetheless functional elements of my life.

Part, not necessarily of magic but of wizardry in general according to this linguistic exploration, is that most of the things you describe as roleplaying have practical applications buried in the mysticism of it: a staff makes a good club if someone gets cheeky. A duster keeps my legs warmer than a simple jacket. A hat keeps the rain off. I just plain look good with long hair (not to mention the money I save not spending it on haircuts).

If you want to frame it as mere roleplaying rather than actually engaging in wizardry, that's your prerogative I guess.

The fact is, dictionaries are written, generally, by those who do not have a strong grasp or relationship with this particular subject. I have a fairly large, and growing, community of friends among whom my own position is the more common understanding.

Think after this: a few weeks ago my husband and I went out for a walk. The snow had just fallen for the first time, and we walked past his favorite tree in the neighborhood, a ginko tree that had just dropped it's berries (and most of it's leaves). The moon was gibbous and waxing and bright, and as we walked further along, we spotted a fox, which is noteworthy because while there are parks, I live in what is arguably "the inner city". I only got the barest glimpse of the fox's tail as it disappeared behind a berm. When we got home I planted the berries. In ten years when I tell my kids the story of our ginko tree, I could either say "your other father and I got high, took a walk, and stuffed berries in the dirt" or I could say "on a night touched by the fox spirit, of the week of our anniversary, we ran across some ginko berries and planted them under the light of the gibbous waxing moon." I guarantee you, that tree will hold much more wonder and magic... Assuming that the squirrels don't just eat all the seeds before spring.

Indeed so. You have better described what you mean in your use of the word (a poetic rather than literal meaning), "magic". Without your expanded explanation, I would describe the moment more as an emotionally moving, 'poetic', experience for you... nothing to do with defying universal laws as the word "magic" is commonly used.

 

[Politesse]

Sorry but the purpose of language is to communicate. To communicate ideas to another, one has to use a language (words) that those others understand and accept those words to mean. Cults assign "special" meaning to certain words that is not in the common use. Jarhyn is pretending to be trying to communicate but insists on using the cult meaning for words so is not actually communicating.

There is nothing to get. That is unless you really think that people actually believe that they have a full, in depth, understanding of everything in the universe. I personally know no such mentally unstable people though I do know some who think they know more than they actually do... most are very religious.

So if a Christian majority defines all witchcraft as a dangerous cult, actual witches must also define themselves as a dangerous cult, for the sake of "actual communication"? If all the dictionaries define my homosexuality as a form of advanced mental illness, as they did forty years ago, am I obliged to define myself as mentally ill in order to "actually communicate" that I love my partner?

In your majority-always-rules doctrine, what exactly is being communicated, and to whom? You are suprisingly uncritical in your thinking, for someone with "skeptical" in your nickname.

You know atheism hasn't always been defined by the majority as atheists themselves would prefer, right?

WTF are you on about???

Do you really not understand the basics of communication?

Do you? Because getting the very basic concept of "sometimes people interpret words differently because of political and/or religoius bias" is a pretty damn basic element of understanding communication.

It should not be baffling to you that magical practicioners see magic differently than the majority-Christian hoi polloi. You yourself seem utterly incapable of thinking about magic except in terms of Christian theological language of "natural" and "supernatural". Have you ever stopped to think why, despite not having a dog in the fight philosophically, you instinctively revert to Christian terminology when referring to relgioius matters and concepts?