OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 03:44:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?  (Read 1393 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2013, 06:00:17 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass.  

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley

Cool, they trapped love and feelings in a jar?


EDIT - also their "explanations" are "theories", not Scientific law.   As far as feelings go, I'm speaking of the actual emotional feeling that you feel.

Other than that, I don't get where else you' disagree, but LOL, guess we'll agree to disagree Wink
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 06:02:35 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,804



« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2013, 06:02:27 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass. 

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley

Cool, they trapped love and feelings in a jar?

Yes. They tried mason jars for a long time, but there was always leakage. By the time the love got to the consumers it was barely infatuation. Finally they figured out that they needed jars made from a certain type of plastic. And voila.
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2013, 06:03:59 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass. 

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley

Cool, they trapped love and feelings in a jar?

Yes. They tried mason jars for a long time, but there was always leakage. By the time the love got to the consumers it was barely infatuation. Finally they figured out that they needed jars made from a certain type of plastic. And voila.

MASON jars.... eek.   So they are putting love in the luciferian... nevermind.  heh edit above.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2013, 11:42:51 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2013, 11:48:36 PM »

I tend to see scepticism and the related solipsism as a joke. It can, however, be hilarious to use sceptisicm and solipsism to make the most outlandish claims and then ask Average Joe to disprove it.
Well, they are a joke for most. However, the possibility of solipsism has been very disconcerting for some philosophers.

Astute. Can you tell which works you have read which you would consider to be works which support nominalism?

Frankly, I think I would hard pressed to meet a non-nominalist today.
The post you are quoting is not about nominalism. But since you ask, the most famous nominalists I have read are David Hume and John Locke.
I have also read some 20th century nominalists in my contemporary philosophy class but none were philosophical giants the way Hume was.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 11:53:07 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2013, 11:50:32 PM »

I don't see how people don't see universals. Smiley


When have you seen one?

Of course this is in jest.

I am not sure I can quite believe in a universal or rather as I was saying in another thread, universals might be part of the imaginary so that I can encounter anything at all. Universals certainly do strike me as a having a certain psychic element to them. Nietzsche was clear about this, but I think his conclusions while brilliant led himself back to the same spot he was trying to get away from.

There are three threads going on right now that come down to the old questions of the many and the one.
Sounds somewhat like a form of Kantian Conceptualism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2013, 01:57:20 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.

So do you believe in universals?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2013, 05:11:33 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.

So do you believe in universals?
Yes. But only in the Aristotelian sense. They exist only insofar as individuals beings make them manifest and the intellect makes them universal. I don't believe that they exist in some third realm out in who-knows-where. If there were no individuals, there would be no universals.
I can predict Orthonorm's response: "How stupid, papist, what a moronic post, papist.... etc... etc... etc." Just thought I would save him the trouble.

Anywhooooo, I think that Bertrand Russell's response to nominalism was interesting. He argues that the nominalist denies universals, and claims that universals only exist because one gives universal names to objects that have a relationship of similarity with one another. Russell responds that if that were the case, then resemblances would be universals. One might argue that those resemblances are only given a universal name because they resemble one another. But then we have another higher level universal concept of resemblances. He concludes that nominalism suffers from infinite regress, and rejects its validity.

That all being said, I really do enjoy reading the works of nominalist philosophers, as I do enjoy reading pretty much any philosopher with whom I disagree. It gives me more to think about. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 05:22:30 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2013, 05:29:43 PM »

Oh,
And btw, I disagree with orthonorm completely. I don't think that there is a single functional nominalist anywhere. Even the philosophy professors/students who write papers on nominlism do not act like nominalists in real life. When some one refers to a cat, that person does not go through a process of thinking, I see x in front of me, an x resembles y and y resembles z. I know that they are not really the same kind of thing, but for the sake of engaging in thought and speech, I will refer to it with common term "cat."

No one does that!

Here is what all really do on a day to day basis. We see a cat, and we see another cat, and we assume that when we call each a cat, we mean exactly the same thing. Sure we recognize some accidental differences, but we recognize the term cat applying to both in a univocal manner.

People might like to pretend they are nominalists, so that they sound "enlightened" (for some reason, in our day and age, disagreeing with the majority automatically = enlightened), but they don't act like nominalists.

NOTE: This post is not intended to disprove nominalism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,615


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2013, 05:50:43 PM »

I'm probably coming off really amateur here, but I just don't get how we could say in either direction whether or not something abstract that we cannot see, feel or touch exists. It seems foolish to me. How could some fairy tale Greek philosopher definitively say that universals exist in some far-off realm? Likewise, how could a nominalist definitively say that they don't exist? The way I see it is that we have no way of saying whether or not they exist, so we are better off staying neutral. That being said, I believe that the concept of universals and abstract things exist in our mind--we still notice similarities and traits in physical phenomena and we can classify those certain traits and similarities under a label like "universals," but, how could we definitively say whether or not "universals" actually exist or not? What if they are just manmade concepts to describe what we see around us?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #55 on: June 29, 2013, 07:00:33 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?
I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.
So do you believe in universals?
Anywhooooo, I think that Bertrand Russell's response to nominalism was interesting. He argues that the nominalist denies universals, and claims that universals only exist because one gives universal names to objects that have a relationship of similarity with one another. Russell responds that if that were the case, then resemblances would be universals. One might argue that those resemblances are only given a universal name because they resemble one another. But then we have another higher level universal concept of resemblances. He concludes that nominalism suffers from infinite regress, and rejects its validity.

Some time ago, orth and I posted the same thing at the same time, and since then I've become the OC.net prince of nominalism or something. We agreed that people today tend toward some kind of nominalism.

Aren't you a philosophy student? Or am I confusing you? I'm not read in the subject except for a few things, so maybe you can help clear up my uneducated and fogged-up mind.

I believe there are similarities, but not exactly universals. My view requires that one ditch the law of the excluded middle here, as something is not longer absolutely a cat or not a cat. Calling something like similarity a universal is difficult, because such a thing could only exist in the complete abstract (how can you instantiate similarity?)

If one goes the route of much of modern philosophy by reducing an object to the phenomenon, I believe the argument against universals could get even stronger.

Then there's the matter of ideas, which are not the same as universals.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2013, 07:09:21 PM »

Oh,
And btw, I disagree with orthonorm completely. I don't think that there is a single functional nominalist anywhere. Even the philosophy professors/students who write papers on nominlism do not act like nominalists in real life. When some one refers to a cat, that person does not go through a process of thinking, I see x in front of me, an x resembles y and y resembles z. I know that they are not really the same kind of thing, but for the sake of engaging in thought and speech, I will refer to it with common term "cat."

No one does that!

Here is what all really do on a day to day basis. We see a cat, and we see another cat, and we assume that when we call each a cat, we mean exactly the same thing. Sure we recognize some accidental differences, but we recognize the term cat applying to both in a univocal manner.

People might like to pretend they are nominalists, so that they sound "enlightened" (for some reason, in our day and age, disagreeing with the majority automatically = enlightened), but they don't act like nominalists.

NOTE: This post is not intended to disprove nominalism.

I have no idea what goes through my mind when I see a cat. What about borderline cats? Do they possess the universal cat qualities, or not? If they do, then in virtue of what is such a thing's cathood questionable?

Orth's old post reflects my experience when talking to the philosophically uneducated today about universals and especially essences:

Cavaradossi,

Back to the other thing I know nothing about.

If you talk to a non-sophisticate (if someone of your erudition know such folks), ask them in a plain way about "universals". If green exists? And wait for their answer.

I think you might be surprised about how nominalist in a "weak sense" most folks are.
Logged
Greatest I am
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 311



« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

I have to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures in order to participate in this thread.  After all, I'm replying to one. 

Boo.

Regards
DL
Logged
Greatest I am
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 311



« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL


If you expect respectful answers, I don't think you should describe the things, people believe in, as "fantasy creatures".

Just a thought.

Understood but what would you call those types of creatures and events?
Talking donkeys and water walking men. That type.
Logged
Greatest I am
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 311



« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

Quote
Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

How old are you sir? This will help me answer your question better.

I am 63 years young and father of 4 boys.

Regards
DL
Logged
Greatest I am
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 311



« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

Perhaps so but they will know what I am speaking of exactly the way you do.

Regards
DL
Logged
Greatest I am
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 311



« Reply #61 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL

Why do you dogmatically and religiously profess that the material is all that exists?

Is telepathy part of the material world?

I think that that is how God communicates and Jesus also said that the mind is the conduit to God and our minds are in the material world.

Do you not believe Jesus when he says that the kingdom of God is within us.

I am willing to swear that it is and that apotheosis is real.

Are you?

Regards
DL
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 44 queries.