Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[Hermit]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

[JimC]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

One could make that philosophical point, depending on one's definition of "meaning"

However, it would be absurd to claim that at least some ancient writings have no effect on the present...

[Exi5tentialist]

This is getting beyond a joke. The very point of the written word is to convey ideas.

I agree that is the predominant ideological take on the phenomenology of the written word. But hey, we're atheists, we're skeptical of predominant ideologies because they mostly come from religion, which has dominated western philosophy and favours the continuation of social hierarchies. And this one is essential to religion: if the masses stop believing that the scriptures we claim are messages from the distant past, our religion, or more to the point, the ideologies that are derived from it, become unenforceable. Ultimately, this philosophy primarily favours capitalism, of which religion is a mere handmaiden.

So the counter-arguments to my position on the total and utter death of the meaning of scripture are all circular and depend on a variety ideas that are inter-dependent but completely wrong. We talk of "transmitting information", "conveying meaning", "passing on ideas" and a whole lot of other inventions that we use to explain away the fact that the only thing that can create meaning is the brain itself. This form of denial is primarily religious in origin.

Let me ask you a relevant question: do you believe that any aspect of the consciousness of a human being can outlive that human being's death?

[pErvinalia]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

Whether the author is alive, dead, or mummified has no relevance to whether the ideas in a text can influence people and transfer knowledge.

[pErvinalia]

Let me ask you a relevant question: do you believe that any aspect of the consciousness of a human being can outlive that human being's death?

no

[Exi5tentialist]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

One could make that philosophical point, depending on one's definition of "meaning"

However, it would be absurd to claim that at least some ancient writings have no effect on the present...

Why would it be absurd? All I'm saying is that every person is completely responsible for their own actions. The only reason you want to hang on to this antiquated philosophy that messages can be transmitted across 1,300 years is that you want to have a guaranteed source for the criticism of islam. The Quran, to you, is that guaranteed source. I don't doubt you feel threatened by the suggestion that it isn't guaranteed at all, in fact, it has no status in meaning, no influence, no meaning and all the evil actions of those muslims you love to criticise are entirely their own invention.

Funnily enough the last time I was arguing all this stuff on the internet was when I was banned from Atheism Plus. Ultimately their islamophobia ran deep, but then they were a top-down hierarchy too.

[Exi5tentialist]

Let me ask you a relevant question: do you believe that any aspect of the consciousness of a human being can outlive that human being's death?

no

So how can the ideas they've invented be their ideas, 1300 years later?

Are ideas not dependent on consciousness?

[pErvinalia]

Who said they are "their" ideas?

[Exi5tentialist]

Whether the author is alive, dead, or mummified has no relevance to whether the ideas in a text can influence people and transfer knowledge.

"Transmit Information", "transfer knowledge", "inherit ideas from the past". It's all the same mumbo-jumbo. All the same supernatural woo.

[pErvinalia]

Like most of Exi's nonsense ideas, they can be easily debunked by the very posts that expound those ideas. If the written word couldn't convey ideas, like he claims, then his reply to Hermit (or anyone) wouldn't make the least bit of sense.

To be fair, Exi5tensialist did say writings stopped being meaningful not long after the death of whoever authored them. Exi is not dead yet. Which is more than I can say about his propositions, though.

One could make that philosophical point, depending on one's definition of "meaning"

However, it would be absurd to claim that at least some ancient writings have no effect on the present...

Why would it be absurd? All I'm saying is that every person is completely responsible for their own actions.

Dualist nonsense. Behaviours are the result of genetics and environment (i.e. includes written text). There is no "person".

[Exi5tentialist]

Who said they are "their" ideas?

You think ideas can float in space, unconnected to the human brain that owns them? You think ideas have a life of their own?

It's essential to believe that if you're going to maintain the predominant ideology.

[pErvinalia]

Whether the author is alive, dead, or mummified has no relevance to whether the ideas in a text can influence people and transfer knowledge.

"Transmit Information", "transfer knowledge", "inherit ideas from the past". It's all the same mumbo-jumbo. All the same supernatural woo.

If two people have an agreed set of rules for decoding text, then ideas and knowledge can be transferred. To suggest otherwise is wibble.

[pErvinalia]

Who said they are "their" ideas?

You think ideas can float in space, unconnected to the human brain that owns them? You think ideas have a life of their own?

It's essential to believe that if you're going to maintain the predominant ideology.

Bollocks. When axioms underpin data, some objective meaning can be derived from them.

[Exi5tentialist]

Dualist nonsense. Behaviours are the result of genetics and environment (i.e. includes written text). There is no "person".

Genetics, environment and written text are physical. Ideas are physical too - they occur as biological processes inside a single brain. What makes you think they can be transmitted across generations? A beating heart can't. What makes ideas so special?

In order to transmit ideas - these physical mental processes - you would need a second medium other than the human body. That medium would have to be non-physical, i.e. a second realm of reality, like telepathy or a spirit. I don't believe in second realms of reality - that comes from my atheism, which means I am not a dualist.

In that case, how is what I say "dualist nonsense"?

[Exi5tentialist]

Whether the author is alive, dead, or mummified has no relevance to whether the ideas in a text can influence people and transfer knowledge.

"Transmit Information", "transfer knowledge", "inherit ideas from the past". It's all the same mumbo-jumbo. All the same supernatural woo.

If two people have an agreed set of rules for decoding text, then ideas and knowledge can be transferred. To suggest otherwise is wibble.

Again, you are drawing on the predominant ideology. What you call "decoding text" is the projection of prior knowledge by a human brain onto the medium in which the text is held. The communication does not transmit the other way, any more than the word of God does, or the words of Jesus or Mohammed. If two people, as you say, "agree", it just means that they have projected their prior knowledge in a way that enables outcomes that appear similar. It's a happy confluence of the actions of two human brains.

To believe in the "transfer of knowledge" is the same as believing in telepathy. Woooooooooooooo!!!!