Originally posted by Deadline
I didn’t say wings I said big. The thing is its such a terrible example of something you could debate about being a dragon. Its like talking about giants and producing a scan of a midget. A komodo dragon isn’t a dragon and a midget isn’t a giant because they don’t fit the defintions.I need some clarification here, don’t you mean they don’t exist?
Everbody knows who Zeus and Thor are and they know they don’t fit the defintion of the Biblical God. There is no reason why we should stick to God.
Sorry that’s not really relevant. A Komodo dragon isn’t a dragon because it doesn’t fit the defintion, wether knights fought Komodos is irrelevant.
By the way when I say powerful aliens I don’t mean aliens that are simply more advanced than us I mean aliens that are so advanced its mind-boggling eg tech so advanced it seems to warp reality.
Clarification: if you put aside the myth, then the fact that something has a name means it is that. Did that help? No. If you didn't know what a dragon was, and I told you about a Komodo dragon, then you would think that dragons do exist? Did that help? If not, lets just move on.
Supernatural is detached from natural. To find a definition for something that is supernatural, you cannot go to nature. Instead you have to go to mythology. So, if we talk about demons or gods, we are stuck with mythology as our only source for information. If something we think is supernatural is found in nature, then it is no longer supernatural, and not longer connected to mythology.
Originally posted by inimalistYes. If, say, I'm in a social situation that makes me nervous and I respond out of habit (not really paying attention), I may be missing opportunities I wouldn't be if more aware. Eg, I could calm my breathing, better remember so-n-so's name, disregard any negative thoughts that might make me self-cognizant, etc. And people can pick up on this. You come across as more confident, more impressive, which could, eg, win you business opportunities. And it is well known that so-called situational awareness is very beneficial. The single most powerful element told to women, eg, if walking alone somewhere, is be aware. Don't walk with your head in the clouds. Attackers relish the element of surprise.
can you though?
I hear what you are saying, and it does seem just like saying "think before you act" (if I can bastardize your point a little), so I don't disagree entirely, I just don't tend to think more conscious awareness of things is really that beneficial.I understand what you're saying, and again, some systems as a rule you can leave to themselves with no ill effect. As an extreme example: a yogi can control his heart beat...which would be advantageous if trapped in a tiny clear, airtight box. But as a rule, it's not something you want to take conscious control of.
Originally posted by inimalistSome habits are good, and again the idea is not necessarily to break them, just not be bound by them, so that one can have a choice.
For instance, in terms of habitual behaviour, you are just as likely to intellectualize why the habits are good than judge them impartially, if not moreso.
I'm also talking largely about what some psychologists might call the consensual trance: the common/shared schema of "how the world is" which is often expressed via what people say to themselves (their inner dialogue). Much of how we view the world, ourselves, how it all relates is dictated by this autopilot inner dialogue, and often it's not pleasant (people are, after all, their own worst enemies). By bringing these mentations to awareness, we can evaluate them, see if they ring true or not, and if so inclined, take steps to change them, or at least let them blow by without attaching to them, ie, w/o letting them determine our self-worth.
Another extreme example can be taken from the mystical texts. By detaching from our inner machinations, we get to see reality more clearly. But this is debatable in its own right (as is the idea of "choice"😉, since many do not ascribe to the mystical POV.
Originally posted by ADarksideJediIt's probably better that you're not. In this case, it would be better to draw from the heart, so to speak, than go for technical accuracy.
No but that would be interesting also I am not a good drawer.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonAre you saying that if something is supernatural it is fiction or just beyond all natural comprehension?
Clarification: if you put aside the myth, then the fact that something has a name means it is that. Did that help? No. If you didn't know what a dragon was, and I told you about a Komodo dragon, then you would think that dragons do exist? Did that help? If not, lets just move on.Supernatural is detached from natural. To find a definition for something that is supernatural, you cannot go to nature. Instead you have to go to mythology. So, if we talk about demons or gods, we are stuck with mythology as our only source for information. If something we think is supernatural is found in nature, then it is no longer supernatural, and not longer connected to mythology.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Are you saying that if something is supernatural it is fiction or just beyond all natural comprehension?
The thing is if you look at mythology there is time travel as well. Time travel is clearly supernatural because it has its roots in mythology.
I could have sworn there are Greek myths with people going to other planets, but don't quote me on that.
Originally posted by Deadline
I know but if something in mythology turns out to exist it doesn't neccsarily change anything. Supernatural is also something that seems to defy natures laws.
Mythology is not always supernatural. Mythology talks about people flying. Now a days, people fly all the time. Supernatural by definition always defies natural.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mythology is not always supernatural. Mythology talks about people flying. Now a days, people fly all the time.
So why do gods, angels and demons have to be inherently supernatural then? It's like you're picking and choosing.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Supernatural by definition always defies natural.
No it doesn't.
http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural
1.Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2.Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3.Of or relating to a deity.
4.Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5.Of or relating to the miraculous.
You also agreed its a logical defintion.
Originally posted by Deadline
So why do gods, angels and demons have to be inherently supernatural then? It's like you're picking and choosing.No it doesn't.
http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural
1.Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2.Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3.Of or relating to a deity.
4.Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5.Of or relating to the miraculous.You also agreed its a logical defintion.
A natural god would not be supernatural. However, most gods that humans believe in are supernatural.
1. There is nothing outside of the natural world. This is just a definition, and not proof there is anything outside of the natural world.
2. The appearance of supernatural is not always supernatural. For example, a magician can appear to have supernatural powers, but we all know they do not.
3. All gods are supernatural, except for natural gods.
4. see #3
5. see #2
There is nothing I have said that disagrees with this definition, under the context of the topic.