Well, we all kinda agreed on that when we read the series. Than came fanin and made it a stupid cliché that you just argue for the sake of arguing.

 

I'm not really going to argue the point about the nature of magic anymore, because I don't feel we're accomplishing anything by doing so, and because I don't feel we know enough about it to begin with to draw any sort of reasoned and civil conclusion. But since you brought this up:

First of all, you need to cite where it was said that the brains were created by wizards, because I don't ever remember learning anything whatsoever about them in canon, beyond the fact that they have something to do with memories and they can mindrape people.

Secondly, the creation of new magical creatures is absurdly simple, because Hagrid can do it in his cabin with a broken wand, and he only has a Third Year-equivalent education in magic. For all we know, it's literally as simple as "Tab A goes into Slot B," and it works because they're magical creatures. The fact that vaguely humanoid creatures can apparently interbreed freely with humans (and presumably each other) supports this. So even if you could cite something that said the brains were created, and I don't believe you can because I'm pretty sure they were never elaborated on even in extracannon sources, you'd also have to prove that they are actually something that was formed by a process that's more complex than a guy with a wand compelling a fire turtle to mount a manticore and think of the queen.

 

Well, you can get a giant venomous snake with a petrifying gaze out of not magical(muggle?) chicken egg fertilized and incubated by not magical(muggle?) toad. With tiniest bit of magic that requires only for wizard to place a toad on an egg. The very same bit that makes bunch of toxic and unpleasant bits into a healing potion, apparently.
The trick of Rowling world isn't creation of something strange or unnatural. It is figuring its use and extent of it properties. Which is exactly what Hagrid and Unspeakables are mostly occupied with in their experiments. I suppose that's what Weasley's magical method of muggle studies mainly consists of, too.
Hermione got bad case of textbook logic("everything written is true"), and therefore should not be used as an ultimate argument.
I'd rather believe in Dumbledore conjuring small snacks and thus disregarding bunch of dumb laws of magic(which are full of bullshit, judging by amount of facts breaking them), than into him having a plate of fresh food and hot tea stashed somewhere far away and teleporting it to himself anywhere he goes.

 

...you mean like the kitchen of the school he is headmaster of?

 

Yes. Within Hogwarts every staff member can have some food any time, as Elves are capable of some kind of magic hearing and near-precognition when it comes to feeding their employers.
But away from Hogwarts? Conjuration is simpler than leaving proximity porkey plates or whatever device to teleport snacks to you.
You can conjure permanent objects. You can conjure organic matter. You can conjure digestible ingredients as long as you do not consider them as food.
I think that like unaided flight and wand-less apparition, food conjuration is impossible due to psychological block and lack of understanding the subject. They're told that something is impossible, so they can't do that, while their children lack magical knowledge to perform this(or any other) kind of conjuration.
Belief is very important to wizards - do remember how Harry could banish a horde of dementors(while his regular Patronus can barely hold few) in his third year just by knowing that it will assuredly happen.

 

Untrue. It was important and last missing part, but not the only one.

 

I do excuse myself. You are supposed to read statement before trying to declare it false, are you not? Well, and understand it, but that will be asking too much, most likely.
I will repeat myself and I will try to be a bit less eloquent. "Belief is very important to wizards". Not "Belief is Magic, the only part of Magic and only part of the event in question", as you most likely deliriously surmised.
Indeed there were many circumstances influencing the culmination point of the book. But it was the moment of absolute clarity, the certain knowledge of success that made difference between admirable, but ultimately insufficient attempts and feat short of wonder.

 

Belief-casting argument inbound.

 

Raine, chill, there already was one.
By the way, I read a bit about local Merlin. I have a question, why Rowling felt the need to turn most renowned English wizard and mentor of greatest English king into a pathetic Hogwarts student, proud Slytherin and a muggle-humper(which oxy-moronic enough by itself) at that? To prove a point that her Founders were greater? Who had taken original Merlin(s) place, as this one clearly cannot be that one?

 

I would be the first one to jump up against belief-based casting. I'm on the record several times as saying that it's boringly simple, doesn't work with academic types being the best magic users, and can't explain the disparity of skill between wizards.

However, it is undeniable that belief plays some role, where by belief I mean something more like "self-belief" than belief in any specific outcome. Neville's increased self-belief positively impacted his magic; Tonks lost her ability to use her metamorphmagus powers when she was depressed.

In the case of Harry's PoA Patronus I think we have to admit that his 100% knowledge that it would work did in fact assist the spell. Never again in the books is his patronus so powerful.

(That said, people should be careful not to confuse the books and the movies when it comes to the Patronus. In the books there was no wave of power that simultaneously blew away tens of Dementors. It was a corporeal Patronus. Sure, an almost-solid one that was able to hold up to a large number of dementors, but still a primarily defensive, not offensive, spell.)

Archie: the Statute of Secrecy and obliviation mean that Muggle myths about magic and wizards are rather unreliable. I see no particular reason why the Muggles believing a person lived a long time before he actually did is any more offensive than any of the other numerous false beliefs Muggles have about wizards.

 

Magic is never Belief only, or else any schizophrenic could be archimage if he believed so. First point of magic is doubtlessly innate magical ability, that why there are squibs, almost squibs and Tom-like born powerhouses. Then there attained though practice ability to feel, guess and shape magic into desirable results. Then there is addictive but effective magical foci. Then there amassed knowledge of magical education. Belief, intent, and self-assuredness are factors that affect outcome and sometimes possibility of feat itself, most simple example being Apparition, which merely is manifestation of focused need to be in certain place.
About Patronus. Its corporeal form is much more than a passive defensive spell, especially in books. Perhaps it cannot kill, but it is capable of semblance of behaviour, message delivery, and forcing entirety of dementor population to stay on dreary, gloom and utterly unappealing piece of rock somewhere in the northern sea. While we on that subject, how do dementors feel about Fiendfyre? It can destroy things that are invulnerable to common magic, and it appears about as, if not more sentient than corporeal Patronus. Perhaps that what Voldemort controls them with, as he is not the man to rely on carrot motivation only.
About Merlin. I do know how that inconsistency explained. But feeling I get, well, it's like stating that Gandalf was barmy pot-smoker which was born, raised and educated relatively recently somewhere at the outskirts of Shire and occupied mostly with promotion of hobbits welfare. I cannot quite comprehend what motivated Rowling to make such strange amendment.

 

To be honest the wizards themselves seem to think that Merlin was some kind of godly creature, on league of his own far above the founders. There are sayings like "What in the name of Merlin!" or "Merlin's beard!" - not to mention The Order of Merlin - but no one seems to acknowledge that he one time was a student in Hogwarts, or use the names of the founders the same way.

 

At time of the books, yes, he implied to be some kind of godly creature on league of his own far above the founders. Rowling retconned him after writing the books for some strange reason. Order of Merlin now supposed to be a.... SPEW, variation for muggles.
Wizards swear by most renowned wizards and witches, like Merlin and Circe, not by some one all-powerful jewish deity. And such renown is mostly area-based. I do suppose in Finland they would swear by Väinämöinen(local Gandalf), in Russia by Koschei(local Witch-King), in Geece by the Circe and Medea, in Babylon by Atra-Hasis and in Central America by some Cē Ācatl.

 

Eh. Swearing by, or otherwise usage of "God," is pretty widespread in the series. Even Draco Malfoy uses, "god knows... ."I don't think Circe is ever named outside of one chocolate frog card in The Sorcerer's Stone and a once mentioned portrait in Hogwarts.

 

Well it could be any god, not necessary douchebag of YHWH variety. Or it could be a borrowed speech habit. I'm pretty sure Malfoys are not religious.
Books suffer from Christian upbringing and general ignorance of the author. Witchfolk celebrates Christmas and appoints Godparents even tough none of them bears crucifix or knows about the Jesus and his merry journey.
All while the Good Book says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
Circe is an example. Few care about Merlin in Greece, Spain or Japan.

 

Oh. Well, okay. Carry on then.

 

Wrong! A more correct translation would be 'Do not let a malevolent user of magic to live.
Plus, most Catholics (can't speak for non-Catholics) don't hold to literal interpretaions of the bible. But since this is the plot holes thread, does anyone know how Tommy managed to create a horcrux in book 4? (Dumbledore being wrong about Nagini's creation date is a possibility, but not a good answer)
edit: Sorry for potentially instigating a reeligious flame-war.

 

Just because people say things like "Great Merlin!" it doesn't mean they think Merlin is godlike or religious in some sense. Consider, for example, "Great Scott!".

 

Mhm, too bad that fic hasn't been updated in years.

 

Even less true translation. Unnatural power from the clerical point of view could be bestowed either by their god to his slaves or by vile demons to everyone else. Non-malevolent magic users(herbalists, charlatans and circus magicians) are powerless. And witches generally considered to be malevolent, do try to find an example of well-intentioned witch in folk lore.
About the horcrux. Kill Bertha or Bryce, take a chunk of your soul, stuff it in snake. Could be done at any time after the murder, no precise date supplied.
Taure: Of course magic users are not religious, and of course speech ornaments do not have much of sanctual meaning. 'Scott' derived from 'Gott' though, or so I've been told. Or from Twain's "Yankee".