It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
definitions aren't subjective, they're agreed upon by the masses to be something objective
so how would you define "magick"?
and exactly what "magick" do you practice all the time?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
no
there were never any little magic folk running around. there is no magic either.
simple question
simple answer
Originally posted by parry noid
not true, there is currently unexplainable events happening everyday, just because you personally don't witness them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Take the wind for example, just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there.You only know it exists because you feel it.
Well magic is much the same, the only difference between the two is one you are taught in school and the other you have to learn elsewhere....
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and just because they happen doesn't mean that they are magical or supernatural in nature
i'm just going to ask: where is the evidence?
Originally posted by dreamer0
what about string theory or theories in general for that matter? once you dig a little deeper you'll find there are many things out there without evidence..... look at fundamental physics...
the only difference being that one is something you're taught in school because it's scientific and the other you're not taught in school because it isn't scientific
and whoever it was that compared me to the naysayers of scientific history... you're wrong. see, i'm disputing something based on a lack of evidence instead of the outright ridiculousness of the claim. i wouldn't dismiss a claim because it sounds weird because science tends to be weird.
i'm just going to ask: where is the evidence?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Cug, as you define magick... i guess that could be something possible at a base level... i'd just call it something different. just like how we abandoned the term alchemy in favor of chemistry
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if magic(k) existed there would be conclusive evidence to show that it existed. and no, eyewitness accounts aren't conclusive evidence, they are circumstantial evidence.
Originally posted by Cug
"Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will."
Originally posted by dreamer0
so because a number of people agree on something that then becomes truth?
Originally posted by uberarcanist
Also, Aleister Crowley seemed to have a strong belief in magic as did his tutor, Allan Bennett.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if magic(k) existed there would be conclusive evidence to show that it existed. and no, eyewitness accounts aren't conclusive evidence, they are circumstantial evidence.
Originally posted by Yaseanne
Aleister Crowley was 'the revolution' in magic. He pretty much tore down the medieval system of the mage under God and above demons, instead he kicked off the idea that the mage should always be on top of things. Mind you, that's the only good thing I think about him, as for his claims about him kicking demon's asses (not to mention the involvement of Ron Hubbard in Crowley's order ), I'm a tad more sceptical.
Originally posted by Cug
Well you will be happy to know LRH was never a member of any of Crowley's orders. He just conned a member of one of his orders out of a large sum of money and his girlfriend. (Crowley in fact called him a goat or lout depending on the source).