Destroying and Removing Black Magic Ad. Is This Legal?

Received this in mailbox today https://imgur.com/a/HJczfOc

Is this even legal to advertise such businesses?

Comments

  • +38 votes

    A fool and their money…

    • +3 votes

      Sorry I don't understand. What is the different between some guys practising black magic and prays? tell that to people donate to their churches/mosques/temples after they done something bad/very bad and asking for forgiving/protection?

      • +31 votes

        Churches and similar PoW don't have a list of fees up front that you have to pay for the service to be provided. Any donation, tithe or similar is voluntary. You can walk into a church, participate as much or little as you like then leave without spending a cent if you like.

        In this case the services are BS and lies, fraud even that is being offered to people who are clearly a bit vulnerable.
        It's not far off those scams where people are called and told they have IT issues & if you go buy me a bunch of iTunes cards (look for discounts, do it the OZB way) we will fix them, then saying oh it's fixed now.
        Nothing was done, its deception. It doesn't fix the person's problem but they are now poorer for it.

        • +1 vote

          I can see your points. I can't say all but there are always someone/some places will make/force you to believe that you must contribute to the groups and the more you do the more you get blessed. I know people will get offended what I said but look some rich monks in Asia used money from their members to buy luxury cars/bags/items and have sex with members, underage children. Same applied to everywhere.

          Besides, none of organisations can be operated without fund. Anyway, from 1 to 10, 1 is bad, 5 is grey, 10 is totally scam. I would rate this guy to 8. If some one is worrying about they get cursed, why can't you pay some $ to get yourself relief.

        • +17 votes

          Just ask hillsong

        • +2 votes

          But what about the people with evil spirit court cases? Did you consider their plight?

        • +3 votes

          The Church of Scientology has upfront fees.

        • +1 vote

          Synagogues have mandatory dues.

          • +2 votes

            @bio: I was going to rebut you but have learned something. Thank you.
            In comparison, I don't believe churches or mosques do (I know for a fact mosque's don't as they rely on donations).

          • +1 vote

            @bio: TIL.

      • +2 votes

        Maybe this will help

        https://youtu.be/UzPVSzSvpzg

      • +1 vote

        No where in pegaxs comment was a fool limited to those who believe in black magic…

      • +1 vote

        Sorry I don't understand. What is the different between some guys practising black magic and prays?

        The difference is that the fraud in the ad is advising he will remove health problems, stop divorce, reunite lovers and so on.

        He also destroys black magic which presumably also applies black magic to others by request, so he's the Ying & Yang.

        So yeah, Pandtih Sairam seems to be quite a powerful force, what he can't stop though, is having severe diarrhoea after a delli-belly.

        FYI: The Church and Mosque operate in that they offer hope to someone that has suffered a consequence on the premise the individual turns back to their Lord and asks forgiveness + repent. The ultimate goal of the religion is to believe in God and abstain from that which he deemed forbidden.

  • +77 votes

    price in title would help us establish if this is a bargain…

    • +1 vote

      reported

      Edit: sarcasm.

    •  

      lol…u made my day

  • +6 votes

    It's no different to most alternative medicines or religions.

    • +23 votes

      I beg to differ.

      I am certainly not religious but I take issue with people passing off religion as fact and conversely, religion as alternative medicine.

      Some people benefit from religion. They are better people because of it. Some religious people are assholes but I can guarantee they are assholes without it as well.

      Alternative medicine OTOH is simply useless. It is by definition useless as anything that is a alternative but appears promising is studied. If it actually works, it becomes regular ol' medicine.

      • +5 votes

        I would argue with this. Mainstream medicine is based on evidence (i.e. evidence based medicine). Alternative medicine don't have such backing. While much doesn't work, or is based on placebo effect, many also work but are not studied thoroughly, or is not as effective as the pure components.

        • +19 votes

          The ones that work aren't alternative anymore. It is just medicine. Intention is not required.

          Dispensing a lower dose of medicine, unknowingly or otherwise is still treating with medicine.

          Similarly, someone dispensing poison under the banner of alternative medicine is still providing poison.

          So… if intentionally practicing alternative medicine, one has to intentionally identify compounds that work and make a conscious effort to not use it.

          That is alternative medicine.

          • +8 votes

            @tshow: I read a quote once that resounded with me a lot. "The reason it's called alternative medicine is because there's no proof that it works. If there were proof, it would just be called medicine."

            • +1 vote

              @trankillity: More like it won't make money for big pharmaceutical companies!
              I suffer from a chronic condition (cystic fibrosis) and swear the so called alternatives, the ones doctors shrug their shoulders for, are the ones that are keeping me alive and well at age 55. Especially since travelling to Ukraine, Poland and Belgium for bacteriophage medicine and discovering a world of resistance against clear cures for antibiotics overuse and resistance as was successfully used on WWII battlefields just to give one example. Even the CSIRO dedicated a 2019 quarterly microbiology publication to it. That is just one example, one im currently 'upset' about not being available to me. Ps. Can add bacteriophage to the conspiracy lists :)

              • +19 votes

                @Waltervp: Not all medicines are "big pharma owned". You are conflating medicine with drugs.

                Also, you know who has higher profit margins than big pharma? Alternative medicine. Zero research cost, zero liability. Whatever they can sell is practically pure profit.

              •  

                @Waltervp: Bacteriophages are medicine, its just the USSR lead the way in their research and the FSU has kept up with it. I know someone who has MS who got treated in Russia, because they used alternative therapies derived from Soviet research (though the reason Australia doesn't use it is a good one).
                We use antibiotics, rather than phages. But as we get more and more antibiotic resistant bacteria, we (the West) have started researching phages.

              •  

                @Waltervp: There would be nothing stopping big pharma from making money on (for example) homeopathic remedies, if they worked.

          •  

            @tshow: Placebo works… If I tell you that I can cure your headache by jumping around while I smoke oregano, and you truly believe, your headache might go away. That doesn't make jumping smoking oregano evidence-based medicine, or medicine.

            Identifyng compounds that work is quite easy if you don't consider evidence-based criteria. That's why evidence-based medicine requires a scientific method that is not present in black magic nor religion.

            • +5 votes

              @tderevko: I never claimed that placebo effects do not exist hence why all medicine have gone through double blind RCTs with control tests, and then peer reviewed.

              I prescribe placebos all the time for patients that will not take bed rest as genuine advice. Usually something harmless like mild exercise or vitamins if I have their blood work. It is a placebo and by god, it works like a charm.

          •  

            @tshow: No, medicine is trialed, tested and peer reviewed. Alternative therapies that work don’t suddenly become medicine. Or to put it another way, medicine is just a well understood subset of effective treatments.

            • +1 vote

              @AddNinja:

              Alternative therapies that work don’t suddenly become medicine.

              No they don't suddenly. They are put through a series of trials to determine if it will indeed be considered medicine.

              medicine is just a well understood subset of effective treatments.

              Not necessarily true and practically false at the same time.

              Some medicines which have been used for decades are still not fully understood. We understand the compound but the knowledge of interaction is still limited. See safety classification of drugs.

              Effective treatments do not go unnoticed. If you are a pharma optimist/neutral, you'd accept that all businesses are looking for new products. It's simply profitable.

              If you're a pharma cynic, you'd suspect that a pharmaceutical company would buy the patent and either sell it at astronomical prices and/or sandbag production.

              Either way, it will get studied and if effective, be part of medicine whether the compound is commercially available or not.

              •  

                @tshow: I agree with your reply. Just not your earlier post: “So… if intentionally practicing alternative medicine, one has to intentionally identify compounds that work and make a conscious effort to not use it. That is alternative medicine.”

                I’m happy to leave it at that :)

          • +1 vote

            @tshow: You aren’t “wrong” on this, but there’s so much more granularity to the picture.

            A lot of modern medicine is by that definition alternative. For instance, even tried-tested-proven drugs get used for “off label” purposes. That would be an unproven alternate medicine.

            And a lot of potentially very effective treatments are labelled “useless” by your definition. And it’s not that I don’t agree - but the reality of medical science is we have few resources and minimal clinical trials. “No evidence” is not quite the same as “not been robustly studied yet.” Many alternate substances are generally recognised as safe (GRAS) and have some weak evidence in the form of anecdote.

            Is that strictly “medicine” perhaps not. But the majority of us can’t wait around for thousands of dollars, hundreds of clinical trial participants, and 10s of years of research on their… I dunno, herbal tea.

            We perform experiments on our own and see how we go. Science may have high standards and by all means placebo is real. But those standards are adjusted to the needs of the study. And the outcomes are of an unblinded study of n=1 aren’t publication worthy - but they’re not useless. They’re an everyday treatment plan within and outside of evidence based practice.

            •  

              @haemolysis: I do not disagree with anything said as I was speaking re alternative medicine in context of homeopathy, voodoo, and underqualified punters.

              Your comment re medicine as a discipline is spot on.

        • +3 votes

          many also work but are not studied thoroughly,

          Isn't massage a good example of this? We understand parts of it (hence physiotherapy), and it works for many people, but we still don't completely understand it.

          • +7 votes

            @Chandler: Physiotherapists would be fuming at your comment.

            Physiotherapy has little to do with "massage" and it is understood. It is based on evidence.

            You're confusing chiro and physio.

            •  

              @tshow:

              Physiotherapists would be fuming at your comment.

              Yes, and I'm sorry about that.

              Physiotherapy has little to do with "massage"

              Yes and no. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical%20therapy [emphais mine]:

              physical therapy noun
              therapy for the preservation, enhancement, or restoration of movement and physical function impaired or threatened by disease, injury, or disability that utilizes therapeutic exercise, physical modalities (such as massage and electrotherapy), assistive devices, and patient education and training

              — called also physiotherapy

              Also the times I've been to physio frequently involved deep-tissue "massage". I wasn't trying to conflate massage with physiotherapy, just that there are some aspects of massage that are well understood and are thus used in medical professions such as physiotherapy. Physiotherapy is much more than just massage (as noted in the definition above), but it can/does involve it (when appropriate).

              and it is understood. It is based on evidence

              That was why I brought it up.

              You're confusing chiro and physio.

              No, but you make a good point in that chiropractic is not proper medicine, even though some people see them as such.

              • +2 votes

                @Chandler: Physiotherapy is actually not very well defined from country to country. I've been to parts of the world where it isn't a formal qualification.

                The dictionary definition doesn't really capture the scope of the profession. It is really just a layman explanation.

                I regularly attend physio therapy and never get massages. :(

            • +1 vote

              @tshow: Further to my previous comment, physio/chiro is almost a perfect example where we apply a dichotomy of “medicine” vs “alternate” where the actual grey zone is so very prominent.

              LOTS of physiotherapy is absolutely not evidence based practice. We even have surgeries which aren’t proven to be effective - slowly modern medicine catches up doing “sham surgery” trials and uncovering decades of widely accepted practice is not clinically valid.

              But such trials are extremely rare. And “standard practice” is inherited in the profession with or without evidence.

              LOTS of physiotherapy is proven for some conditions, not for others, but becomes accepted practice for a broad range of conditions anyway.

              Similarly, chiropractic procedures sometimes end up getting studied and proven to have value. For instance, spinal manipulation used to be dismissed (2011 Chochrane review - “no better than sham”) but modern research (eg 2017 JAMA review of 15 new RCTs) shows statistically significant benefit.

              Of course, in the long run, that means things like that will become medicine and drop the “alt.”

              But we aren’t in a perfect world. That shift in the medical consensus will take time. There’s some haze. Chiro will still have lots of shams, physiotherapy will have lots of shams. But we need to be open-minded, but critical of BOTH.

              •  

                @haemolysis: Glad you brought this up.

                Just because a practitioner holds the appropriate qualifications does not mean their practice is infallible. The opposite is true.

      • -1 vote

        Lots of people benefit from black magic in the same way (i.e. it's all made up nonsense, but it makes them feel better). I have no idea how you can possibly make such a guarantee either - I've known several people who were not bad people, but became bad people after indoctrination.

        While I generally agree about alternative medicine, your argument doesn't make much sense. The alternatives that are studied and then become normal medicine clearly weren't useless before that point - it's very possible that there are therefore medicines currently viewed as "alternative" which will turn out to be useful. I completely agree that the majority is a waste of time though.

        • +1 vote

          We can have a debate on the precise moment alternative becomes medicine and 100 years ago, this would be an interesting and actually significant debate.

          Today, it is not. Advancement in chemistry, understanding of biology and testing methodology is able to very quickly take a sample and examine it for medical value.

          No longer do compounds and treatment remain a mystery for lengths of time worth measuring. By extension, alternate medicine which works does not remain alternate for long.

          My argument doesn't make much sense if you are tolerant to arguments from ignorance. I personally have not a shred of tolerance for it.

          (I'm not labelling you ignorant btw, I refer to the concept/ thought process. I feel I have to make this disclaimer everytime I refer to it as some people get confused and then offended. I tried using the Latin words for it but it makes matters worse.)

          • -2 votes

            @tshow: It most definitely is a significant issue if you are making the claim that NO alternative medicine could possibly be useful.

            Absolute rubbish. Analysing medicine is a million times more complex than "very quickly taking a sample and examining it". CBD is an example which immediately springs to mind - it's been used for decades yet has only very recently started being approved as "proper" medicine and still isn't properly understood. In fact, cannabis itself has been used for TEN THOUSAND YEARS and is also only very recently being accepted as mainstream medication.

            You're still making a conflicting argument… Alternative medicine found to be useful and accepted into the "proper" medicine category was STILL useful before it gained that classification…

            I'm well aware what an argument from ignorance is, but I cannot see where I have made one? Nor do I see how it's remotely relevant to analysing your argument. In fact, it seems to me that you are in fact making an argument from ignorance - "there's no evidence that alternative medicine works therefore it cannot work".

            You may try and claim that there's evidence that it doesn't work, but the exact process you described for transitioning from alternative to mainstream medicine directly contradicts that.

      • +2 votes

        Religion, historically, has been the cause of most evil by mankind

        • +1 vote

          I am not religious and I can tell you that is false for two reasons.

          1. You can't quantify evil so making a claim of most evil is meaningless.
          2. The best and most convenient metric to quantify evil is then based on murders. In the last century, there has been more systematic murders attributed to communists and socialist parties than all the deaths in all the crusades combined. This isn't even a matter that a scholar would consider contested information.
          •  

            @tshow: Correct on point 1.

            Point 2 is just your chosen metric.

            I consider kiddie fiddling evil as well. Churches/religious orgs are well represented in that aspect

            Edit: Also, while you may be correct in defending religion as not being the most evil, a claim of potentially 30 million deaths due to religion is not a figure id be proud of.

            • +1 vote

              @Vote for Pedro:

              I consider kiddie fiddling evil as well. Churches/religious orgs are well represented in that aspect

              Well represented as in actually more often or the media just focuses on it more?

              If a guy likes to play video games or sport, is that also because of his religion?

              •  

                @ozhunter: And the institutional concealment of the abuse.

                You’re on a winner on that deflection defence.

            •  

              @Vote for Pedro:

              a claim of potentially 30 million deaths due to religion is not a figure id be proud of.

              I don't think anyone is proud of that save a few lunatics.

              The point that is being made is that religion isn't the most evil thing because there isnt a universally accepted metric for evil and the most simple binary metric, ie. Alive vs murdered would not support your claim.

              The reason why I bring up socialism/communism is because it is generally not in favour of religion and mandates are made independent of religion. It serves as the best control group we can find.

              So, when the control group displays a similar or greater incidence of a given metric, it stands to reason that the studied factor isn't really the primary causative factor, let alone a cause.

          •  

            @tshow: The crusades had the advantage of a much smaller world population to work with.
            If you count all religion based pogroms, holy wars, slaughters, 'ethnic cleansings', murders, stonings etc. you get a pretty big number.

            •  

              @Scrobo: I don't doubt the number is pretty big but even by the highest estimates, the death tolls are still lower than social/communist genocide which happened in a very signifcantly shorter period of time.

              If we go by the metric of murder, there is simply no contest.

              If we go by a different metric, it is very wishy washy.

              Religion isn't great in my books but I do want to point out that people were equally as horrible before and after the peak of religion.

              •  

                @tshow: Isn’t whataboutism beautiful

              •  

                @tshow:

                I don't doubt the number is pretty big but even by the highest estimates, the death tolls are still lower than social/communist genocide which happened in a very signifcantly shorter period of time.

                So… you're defending religion (and probably your personal faith) because when it comes to the death and destruction it is directly responsible for, it's "less bad" than the death and destruction caused by humans that didn't hold to any religion?

                Are you then advocating belief in the god that would result in the least amount of death and destruction? You are a pragmatist in this regard?

                Christians love to point to Stalin and say "look what atheism did!" Questions:
                - did record high world population and technology of the modern age have any influence on the magnitude of lost life during WW2 and in particular in the USSR?
                - how many wars have been waged and populations slaughtered with religion as a primary enabling tool to motivate the troops and/or leaders?
                - did Stalin commit the crimes he did BECAUSE of his lack of a belief in God?
                - what was written on the belt buckles of the Nazis?

                •  

                  @defecat0r: My faith? I am openly atheist. I'm not agnostic. I'm unambigously atheist.

                  Christians love to point to Stalin and say "look what atheism did!"

                  That's a theist looking at it from yet another denominational/belief system. When a religious person says that, they are claiming that atheism is another form of belief which causes deaths so better their form of belief.

                  I am saying that regardless of belief… Ie I don't think religion, if any, is a significant factor.

                  Are you then advocating belief in the god that would result in the least amount of death and destruction?

                  I don't think I even implied that. If I did, I would have to first acknowledge religion as causative. I know many religious people across various religions that would not commit any of those atrocities.

                  I am advocating the position that religion is just a scapegoat for shit people do. So are those who do so under the banner of politics.

                  Unless one is willing to completely outlaw a form a wing of politics because of the correlation to sanctioned murder, it is silly to condemn religion under exactly the same criteria - correlation.

                  • +1 vote

                    @tshow:

                    That's a theist looking at it from yet another denominational/belief system. When a religious person says that, they are claiming that atheism is another form of belief which causes deaths so better their form of belief.

                    Yes I agree it's a pragmatic argument they make, looking only at outcomes and abandoning any regard for truth. If that's not your argument then my mistake!

                    I am saying that regardless of belief… Ie I don't think religion, if any, is a significant factor.

                    Do you think that religious beliefs occur in a vacuum? Do we not see religious beliefs influence the way people judge others, the way people vote, possible restrictions to medical care they will impose on their children, what scientific facts they will choose to believe? Do these beliefs not have consequences? Is it not a stretch to think that religious beliefs may at times enable their group to think they are doing GOOD because the creator of the universe wants them to exterminate their enemy? Can religion not be used as a manipulative tool?

                    I know many religious people across various religions that would not commit any of those atrocities.

                    Sure, what does that prove? If they were put in the right place at the right time, in a big enough group of people believing the same thing, and with the right external influence - could that change?

                    I think I could sum up like this: Does believing in absurdities increase the susceptibility of a person to manipulation to do evil?

                    •  

                      @defecat0r:

                      Sure, what does that prove?

                      It disproves causation. If we claim that religion causes people to commit atrocities then anyone religious will/have committed atrocities. Ie. Cause and effect.

                      If we downgrade religion to a factor, then we have to accept that there are major influencing factors and ones that practically have no impact.

                      I am suggesting that religion has minimal impact as a bad person would be bad due to multiple factors. Remove religion and I am sure that the other factors are sufficient to make a bad person commit atrocities all the same.

                      Some are arguing that in the absence of religion, none of the bad things associated with religion would have occured. I highly disagree with this theory.

                      Does believing in absurdities supernatural/superstition increase the susceptibility of a person to manipulation to do evil?

                      I think that is a great ultimatum question.

                      (Let's replace absurdities with the word supernatural/superstition as many would consider the opposing political opinion as "absurdities".)

                      In my opinion - No.

                      I believe that the process of belief, ie. If one believes they are entitled to more than their share, if one believes that one is inherently superior, if one believes that another's rights are meaningless… The process that allows one to believe without substantiation or introspection is the primary factor for evil itself.

                      • +1 vote

                        @tshow:

                        It disproves causation. If we claim that religion causes people to commit atrocities then anyone religious will/have committed atrocities. Ie. Cause and effect.

                        If we downgrade religion to a factor, then we have to accept that there are major influencing factors and ones that practically have no impact.

                        So you are claiming that religion will cause ALL religious people to commit atrocities, OR the effect will be negligible and those are the only two options? That seems to be far too black and white way of looking at things to me.

                        I am suggesting that religion has minimal impact as a bad person would be bad due to multiple factors. Remove religion and I am sure that the other factors are sufficient to make a bad person commit atrocities all the same.

                        As the saying goes, With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

                        Does believing in supernatural/superstition increase the susceptibility of a person to manipulation to do evil?
                        I think that is a great ultimatum question. In my opinion - No.

                        You don't think that the Jehovah's Witness that prevents their child from receiving a life-saving blood transfusion is doing evil while thinking they're doing good?
                        You don't think that the individual throwing a gay person off a roof top thinks they're doing good because this is what their god wants?
                        You don't think that the holy texts these individuals subscribe to can't be quote mined and used to manipulate a society to the bidding of an authority?

                        I believe that the process of belief, ie. If one believes they are entitled to more than their share, if one believes that one is inherently superior, if one believes that another's rights are meaningless… The process that allows one to believe without substantiation or introspection is the primary factor for evil itself.

                        Interesting take, but I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise. When you say that one's "process of belief" (method/epistemology) that allows them to believe without substantiation or introspection is the primary factor for evil itself, isn't this exactly the method that enables countless billions to believe the various religious claims of the world?

                        •  

                          @defecat0r:

                          You don't think that the Jehovah's Witness that prevents their child from receiving a life-saving blood transfusion is doing evil while thinking they're doing good?

                          I don't think they intend evil. Unfortunately, they are indeed doing harm. The problem with trying to legislate intention and belief will be definition and intended outcomes.

                          I am sure you're with me when I propose that all matters and decisions with permanent repurcusions should be scrutinized by a third party and laws enacted to protect the interest of said minors. I am glad to inform you that those laws already exist here (imperfect as they may be.)

                          You don't think that the individual throwing a gay person off a roof top thinks they're doing good because this is what their god wants?

                          I am sure they are deeply delusional and believe it to be good.

                          I propose to you that the sample individual is rather pliable and that is the reason why they've allowed religion to induce such delusions, therefore, without said religion, they would still be open to suggestion. The issue with such individuals is that they crave purpose. In the absence of religion, they may take another cause to the same detriment.

                          Yes, the operative word is may, however, it is only worth demonizing and removing religion if the outcome is one fewer superstitions to corrupt, however, I theorize that like drugs, the Hydra Paradox applies.

                          I suppose, just like drugs, it is perhaps the demand that has fueled the supply. Remove religion and those who yearn for absolution, belonging and purpose will find it in yet another religion or belief.

                          isn't this exactly the method that enables countless billions to believe the various religious claims of the world?

                          It is. It absolutely is but it also enables countless of people to make other claims outside of religion. Hitler didn't use religion to justify his actions but he did have a system of unsubstantiated belief of a superior race. The common con man believes that his is the world if he can take from the dim.

                          • +1 vote

                            @tshow:

                            I propose to you that the sample individual is rather pliable and that is the reason why they've allowed religion to induce such delusions

                            Sure, by WHY are they pliable? Is that just their character, simply a consequence of their biological makeup? I think that might be part of it but the other part (the part that can be fixed) is that they simply haven't been taught critical thinking skills. That, in conjunction with the fact that in our society it is considered taboo to criticize beliefs. Beliefs, and in particular, religious beliefs are often off the table as far as discussion goes.
                            Were people to be taught simple critical thinking skills, taught what constitutes a sound method for arriving at conclusions that are likely true (epistemology) and we actually discussed religion openly I suspect that people like this would be far less pliable.

                            Hitler didn't use religion to justify his actions but he did have a system of unsubstantiated belief of a superior race.

                            It's a side note really, but as i understand it Hitler did embed a substantial amount of "God talk" in this rhetoric although he was not a believer himself (at least later in life). God was a useful tool in his toolbelt.
                            Is teaching critical thinking and epistemology also a possible counter here to unsubstantiated beliefs of superior race? If people were to learn to think, could that be at least some form of immunization to dangerous ideas? I think so.

                            •  

                              @defecat0r:

                              WHY are they pliable?

                              I wish I can shrug my shoulders louder.

                              in our society it is considered taboo to criticize beliefs.

                              Couldn't agree more. Hence why I hate censorship.

                              Were people to be taught simple critical thinking skills

                              Gooooood luck. I mean that both in terms of success and not getting hurt in the process.

                              Is teaching critical thinking and epistemology also a possible counter here to unsubstantiated beliefs of superior race

                              It will fix a whole lot of common issues but it will never happen.

                              It's as grand a dream as getting people to stop doing crime.

                              Seriously, I have tried getting people to think critically. I have had success but for every person I am able to edify, two would be pissed at the process. People want/need to cling on to cognitive dissonance.

                              Why? Well, I wish I could shrug my shoulders louder.

                              • +1 vote

                                @tshow: Lol, well I haven't given up hope yet. I guess I'm just an optimist :p

                                Peace :)

          •  

            @tshow: Do you even read your own links?

            •  

              @StiffHindQuarters: Do you even comprehend the comments?

              (Comments like these are just pointless jabs. It's trying to be dismissive without making an argument, probably out of fear that the argument can be deconstructed and criticized. If you want to make a point, I'll be happy to read it whether I am in agreement or not.)

  • +49 votes

    Definitely in contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act and thus illegal, everyone knows it should be just magic, not black magic.

    • +53 votes

      #allmagicmatters

  • +5 votes

    If the people selling and buying believe in it, there isn't a big issue. Problem is if the sellers are being intentionally deceptive (ie fraud).
    Same with alternative medicines or religions, we can't really assume or prove that the average priest or scientologist doesn't believe what they are saying.

  • +38 votes

    Plot Twist: OP is Pandith Sairam

    testing the waters

  • +33 votes

    Why not, Christianity is allowed to advertise its fairy tales

    • +16 votes

      Don't you believe in a talking snake, virgin pregnancy, turning water to wine, creating the universe in seven days, and cramming all land-based animal species on a ship? Be careful, buddy, your soul could end up in hell instead of heaven.

      • +1 vote

        Can't remember where I saw this, but I wouldn't leave my child alone with a priest, it might get converted to Christianity.

        • +2 votes

          Beware of anyone offering your child a catholic boat trip.

        • -2 votes

          That would be the least of my concerns

      •  

        'The Jesus turned to his father and said, "You remember that little fishing club I started…'

      • -12 votes

        Some people believe in evolution, so nothing is off limits :D

        • +1 vote

          When you look at what some States in America teach as “science”, in their schools, you just despair. Apparently the dinosaur bones were put their by God to test people’s faith.

          •  

            @try2bhelpful: Some Australian schools teach that too.

            The point is, it is bizarre hence why it makes the news. Somewhere in the world, someone is referencing something extremely bogan as typical Australian.

            •  

              @tshow: God has a great marketing team.

              Something nice happens and “it’s god’s work” a kid dies of bone cancer and it’s “god works in mysterious ways”

              Religions are leeches and prey on the most vulnerable.

        •  

          We can observe evolution in bacterial studies. We can observe fossils and bones and use carbon dating to track evolutionary progress. Have you observed a talking snake?

          • +6 votes

            @kahn: Then how do you explain the jump from bacterial to membrane bound organelle containing organism?

          •  

            @kahn:

            We can observe evolution in bacterial studies. We can observe fossils and bones and use carbon dating to track evolutionary progress. Have you observed a talking snake?

            Not to give the deniers ideas, but have you observed someone with COVID-19? I personally haven't, and only personally know (colleague) one person who had it prior to returning to Australia.

            Non-observation doesn't prove non-existence. We have (almost?) 0 evidence of life anywhere in the universe except earth, and yet we look. When was the last time you looked for a talking snake? Maybe they're just waiting for a m8 someone to start a conversation with them!

            • +1 vote

              @Chandler:

              We have (almost?) 0 evidence of life anywhere in the universe except earth

              Actually, the lack of signs of life is often confused with a lack of civilization - the lack of the impact of an organism on the planet's surface. It's a much smaller scope than what many think is being considered.

              We actually cannot detect microorganisms anywhere near the distant edges of our solar system let alone on a intra galactic, then intergalactic and alas on our observable universe scale.

              Also, when referencing distant planets, bear in mind we are actually viewing something that is millions of years outdated. This means that what appears to be nothing millions of years ago may infact be something today.

              It's all very fascinating really.

            •  

              @Chandler: The 5g’s spread covid!!!! Stop the 5g’s

          •  

            @kahn: I don't think all life evolved from a single-celled organism. If one was placed in front of me, I'd assume it would just die after some time. But if it ever did evolve, some one or some thing would have caused it.

            No I haven't seen a talking snake. Maybe they have devolved. lol

        •  

          What if someone chooses to not believe in either… Most people assume you choose God or Evolution. I'm open to anything but believe in nothing. The world is a crazy place and we have no real understanding of enough history to make a choice for any option. Our choices change all the time based on stories, traditions and evolving technology. Don't know why someone would commit to any point of view when nothing is definite and there's so much lies and corruption worldwide behind all of these theories and events.

          • +5 votes

            @Monstalova: A lot of people are just subscribers of ideology/concept/philosophy without any actual depth of understanding.

            Those that believe in evolution because it is the teaching they grew up with are actually not appreciably different to someone that believes in creation.

            • +2 votes

              @tshow:

              Those that believe in evolution because it is the teaching they grew up with are actually not appreciably different to someone that believes in creation.

              I'm not convinced of this. Unless it's something we can test for ourselves, there's always going to be some sort of appeal to authority but all authority is not equal. The scientific method and peer-review process is not perfect but it's better than any other alternative that I'm aware of.
              For example, did the US land on the moon? Is the evidence for and against equally valid? I've read papers where physicists have bounced lasers off the retroreflectors that the Apollo astronauts left on the moon so I say yes, but I've never bounced a laser off the moon.

              •  

                @dazweeja:

                For example, did the US land on the moon? Is the evidence for and against equally valid? I've read papers where physicists have bounced lasers off the retroreflectors that the Apollo astronauts left on the moon so I say yes, but I've never bounced a laser off the moon.

                Assuming you are a denier. What implication does this have?

                Assuming you are a believer. What implication does this have?

                Probably none. No practical difference.

                The point I was making is that without sufficient depth of knowledge, there is no application for the information acquired.

                (Also, I can take either side, theological vs scientific theory of origin for a debate. I'm adequately versed in both.)

              • +2 votes

                @dazweeja:

                Unless it's something we can test for ourselves, there's always going to be some sort of appeal to authority but all authority is not equal.

                You're right but I think it's interesting to point out that appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, only when appealing to an authority that is NOT a valid authority:
                Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ )

                Tshow is right though, those that believe in evolution BECAUSE it's the teaching they grew up with are not any different to those that were indoctrinated into believing the earth is 6000 years old.

                The difference is, there are good reasons to trust in the method that has lead to the theory of evolution, whilst the method that leads to a belief in any god is epistemologically broken.

            •  

              @tshow: Well, you can easily test a large part of the evolution theory for yourself with some plants, and there is so much fact-based research that is easily found. Sure there is plenty of religious writings, but all of the 'eyewitness accounts' are from non-verifiable sources. Quite a different thing.

            •  

              @tshow: With the scientific method you can be reasonably assured that the conclusion are drawn from evidence and that there are people questioning and pushing the edges of that knowledge. It's not true for faith based teachings, by definition.