|
twodot posted:It seems really awkward to directly acknowledge this. What possible reason do you have to insist on a definition that is totally useless for this discussion (and I suspect in general)? No one is disputing that religious texts physically exist. How do you expect people to take you seriously if your reply to "The bible isn't a historical document" is "Have you considered that the bible is composed of words that were at one point written"? If by "historical document" you mean, "a document from history that accurately portrays contemporary events" or "a factual account of history" then no, the Bible is not that, and you should be aware that using these definitions may confuse people when discussing historical controversies. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 17, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm realizing that it might seem like I'm being a sperg because "historical document" means different things to different people. In academic history, the definition that I have been using, it really does refer to any document from a specific time in history (as opposed to a forgery or secondary source.) The Kingfish posted:There is no document from history that is not a historical document.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You did not, you merely restated that consciousness takes part wholly in the brain without giving an argument for this or explaining further what you mean by this. It's not so much that we know 100% that consciousness takes part in the brain as it is that there's absolutely zero reason to believe it doesn't. We don't have a single reason to believe that consciousness comes from anything other than the functioning of the brain, and many reasons to believe it does comes from the brain. The fact that altering the brain alters consciousness and destroying the brain prevents consciousness* is pretty solid in terms of an Occam's Razor argument for why consciousness almost certainly does, in fact, come from the brain. Like I mentioned in another post, it isn't really possible to disproven the claim that consciousness stems from something other than the brain, but since there's zero evidence pointing towards this being true it is negligible. If you can give any evidence indicating that the brain isn't the source of consciousness, I would love to hear it. *Just to preemptively address a potential argument here, yes - I suppose it's technically possible that consciousness somehow continues to exist in some form after the brain is destroyed. But since we have zero evidence of such a thing, it makes no sense to take such a suggestion seriously (and the fact that altering/damaging the brain severely alters our consciousness is an extremely strong argument against the idea that there's some sort of persistent consciousness that exists outside of our physical bodies). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you can give any evidence indicating that the brain isn't the source of consciousness, I would love to hear it. Doesn't it say so in a book? Or maybe a pamphlet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'll post it again, since you obviously didn't go back and check: I'm not claiming that any part is 'out of the brain', nor is any part 'in the brain'. Such talk is nonsense. Space and time present themselves as modes for cognition to the mind. Then it makes no sense to identify the mind with spatio-temporal structures such as the brain. The mind is prior, immediate to itself. This in no way denies that acting on the brain effects the mind, but so does acting on things outside the brain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I'm not claiming that any part is 'out of the brain', nor is any part 'in the brain'. Such talk is nonsense. Space and time present themselves as modes for cognition to the mind. Then it makes no sense to identify the mind with spatio-temporal structures such as the brain. The mind is prior, immediate to itself. Just so I get this like when I teach you something you will learn something without me actually rewiring your neurons with my bare hands? Or are you saying something akin to the Chewbacca defence?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Uhh except your mind is inextricably linked with your brain. Like, 100% of your experience is dependent on things which are immediately linked with your brain. If you destroy the brain then the mind, to all appearances, goes with it. If your mind isn't a function of your brain I should be able to shoot you in the head and you, as a person, will be fine. Unless you believe in invisible ghosts that would seem to be eminently wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I'm not claiming that any part is 'out of the brain', nor is any part 'in the brain'. Such talk is nonsense. Space and time present themselves as modes for cognition to the mind. Then it makes no sense to identify the mind with spatio-temporal structures such as the brain. The mind is prior, immediate to itself. So, instead of saying, as you did earlier, that there are parts of consciouness that exist outside of the brain, you are now saying that the brain and the mind are entirely separate things, acted upon by different forces. Did I get that right? Not asking sarcastically, legit trying to follow your train of thought. Okay, what are the differences? What distinction exists between mind and brain? Is the brain the storage for the mind, or a parallel structure, or a separate concept? How are they interconnected? And what are these forces effecting things outside the brain?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:So, instead of saying, as you did earlier, that there are parts of consciouness that exist outside of the brain, J.A.B.C. posted:you are now saying that the brain and the mind are entirely separate things, acted upon by different forces. Did I get that right? Not asking sarcastically, legit trying to follow your train of thought. Unlike the mind with its immediate reality, the brain is an abstract concept, an assemblage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:I'm not claiming that any part is 'out of the brain', nor is any part 'in the brain'. Such talk is nonsense. Space and time present themselves as modes for cognition to the mind. Then it makes no sense to identify the mind with spatio-temporal structures such as the brain. The mind is prior, immediate to itself. No, you fundamentally (possibly purposefully) misunderstand what I'm saying because of your biases. I did not say that the self is part of the brain in a spatial sense, but rather that self is an emergent property of the brain processing electro-chemical reactions within it. A thought not a tangible thing, but it is created through tangible processes. You denied that self comes from the brain. Show me your counter-argument to this. Edit: The Belgian posted:Unlike the mind with its immediate reality, the brain is an abstract concept, an assemblage. The brain is a physical lump that sits inside your skull, it is in no way abstract.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
The mind is not immediately real, other than in the sense that your own mind is, I suppose, immediately perceived as real to you. But if you're trying to articulate "real" in any sort of objective way or if you're speaking about the concept of the mind as it presumably applies to all humans, the assertion doesn't hold up. If you're taking a perception-based view of the world then yes, your mind is immediately real and everything else is abstract because it lacks that immediacy but that's kind of a dumb viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The mind is not immediately real, other than in the sense that your own mind is, I suppose, immediately perceived as real to you. But if you're trying to articulate "real" in any sort of objective way or if you're speaking about the concept of the mind as it presumably applies to all humans, the assertion doesn't hold up. Yes, as you say, I'm not talking about minds in general at first. But, my mind is immediately real to me, as yours is hopefully to you. (of course we run into difficulties of language here. My mind is immediatly real because there is no 'distance' between me and my mind). Hence, it is immediate and the rest subsequent. EDIT (you added this later): OwlFancier posted:If you're taking a perception-based view of the world then yes, your mind is immediately real and everything else is abstract because it lacks that immediacy but that's kind of a dumb viewpoint. The Belgian fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I take issue with that way of looking at things because it's, frankly, incredibly basic to the point of being obstructive. To be honest it sounds like the kind of outlook you'd have if you had some sort of dissociative disorder or something. Communicating with other people and generally being a functional human being requires at least the comprehension, and ideally the internalization, of a more objective viewpoint. It is preferable to view one's own mind as lacking reality and also acknowledging that other minds may exist and may have validity, than to be stuck viewing the entirety of the world as extensions of your own mind and that being the only "real" thing. If your concept of reality is limited to that which has the immediate realness of your own mind, that suggests a rather nasty degree of disconnect from everything else. I would expect it to carry a rather potent sense of general dysphoria. Not to mention making it rather difficult to actually talk to anyone. Interpersonal interaction necessitates, to a degree, the understanding of things which exist outside your head, because obviously people can't see into your head and you can't see into theirs, but you can both see the things which exist outside. That's a much better basis for what constitutes reality for such a socially dependent creature as a human. The better you internalize that belief, the better you communicate. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Communicating with other people and generally being a functional human being requires at least the comprehension, and ideally the internalization, of a more objective viewpoint. It is preferable to view one's own mind as lacking reality and also acknowledging that other minds may exist and may have validity, than to be stuck viewing the entirety of the world as extensions of your own mind and that being the only "real" thing. Why would it be preferable to view my mind as lacking realness when the evidence for its realness is the most overwhelming thing. I'm not denying that anything else lacks realness only that my mind is more immediate and yours is to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Because reality as a function of "things which instinctively appear important to me" isn't a very useful concept. Reality is a function of "things which can be agreed to exist by consensus" is more useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because reality as a function of "things which instinctively appear important to me" isn't a very useful concept. Reality is a function of "things which can be agreed to exist by consensus" is more useful. Sure, the consensus stuff is much more useful. But people wanted to know why I understood the mind as primary to the brain and not the other way around, so I gave the explanation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Sure, the consensus stuff is much more useful. But people wanted to know why I understood the mind as primary to the brain and not the other way around, so I gave the explanation. So it's really just "I think it's this way because I like it better". Why, exactly, should we give a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Sure, the consensus stuff is much more useful. But people wanted to know why I understood the mind as primary to the brain and not the other way around, so I gave the explanation. Still you haven't answered the question: Do you believe that human mind is purely natural phenomena, or is it (at least partially) of supernatural origin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Chrungka posted:Still you haven't answered the question: Do you believe that human mind is purely natural phenomena, or is it (at least partially) of supernatural origin? Phenomena are mental, the natural is an abstraction from this. I have said nothing of the supernatural.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Phenomena are mental, the natural is an abstraction from this. I have said nothing of the supernatural. This is the second time you've used abstraction wildly incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Phenomenalism is very cool. Almost as cool as phenomenology or process philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Why not just save time and be a solipsist if you're going to pretend that things don't actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Phenomena are mental, the natural is an abstraction from this. I have said nothing of the supernatural. Are you being intentionally obtuse? In that case, let me clarify: I was asking about natural phenomena in a sense that, at its basic level, it can be observed and explained by laws of physics, chemistry or other natural science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:There is no document from history that is not a historical document. Contrary to what you believe, the bible is not a loving biography. And that's not just the fact that it contains impossible events, but because there are several, incredibly contradictory versions, all of which are written in a narrative style. Is loving Hansel and Gretel a biography? According to your logic, it is, and we can then deduce that it must describe, if not perfectly, actual events. "I dunno, this seems more like a story than anything else" "ARE YOU SAYING CHILDREN COULDN'T PLAY TOGETHER AND GET LOST IN THE WOODS? Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, reddit athiest!". Mate, I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but you're the one claiming the bathwater still has value. The Bible may be useful to study, it's a piece of culture after all - what it is emphatically not is evidence for any event that actually occurred in history. You can't say that about crusader's letters, even if they tend to exaggerate! You can't say that for ancient tax records, even if they're boring as hell, or probably manipulated because someone wanted to cheat out of paying their share. A first hand account is not, and never will be, comparable to a mythology that only gets popular if its entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong! Historical documents are not just any piece of written information that you find, they are documents that are capable of serving a historical purpose. When you perform an archaeological dig, you don't just rip everything up and say 'ah ha, look at all this loving loot I found', you have to record where/how deep you found it. You know why? Because you have to put it in a loving context mate. If you can't, you automatically lose some historical value, by virtue of not being able to place it into history. Yes like how the Bible talks about Jerusalem being sacked and we find it was indeed sacked. But I forgot you don't like Christians so we cannot count it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
We know Jerusalem was sacked because of the loving foundation stones, that you can see right now. Doesn't mean any of the rest of it can serve as a, what, biography? Hell, Hansel and Gretel has a loving forest in it, and I guess we can see forests today, gingerbread house confirmed!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes like how the Bible talks about Jerusalem being sacked and we find it was indeed sacked. But I forgot you don't like Christians so we cannot count it. 9/11 happened in the Marvel Universe and happened in real life too. Is Thor: 'Nuff Said a historical document of the highest caliber of accuracy and reliability now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Is anyone in this thread willing to admit to being Christian or even believing in God, or would that be putting yourself on the spot?The Kingfish posted:Sedan chair was posting ad homs so I made fun of him. Then he melted down. It's not an ad hom to say that religious people deal poorly with facts and logic, or to say that theologians are no more than bible chiropractors. I'm attacking what they are doing, not them as people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong! Historical documents are not just any piece of written information that you find, they are documents that are capable of serving a historical purpose. When you perform an archaeological dig, you don't just rip everything up and say 'ah ha, look at all this loving loot I found', you have to record where/how deep you found it. You know why? Because you have to put it in a loving context mate. If you can't, you automatically lose some historical value, by virtue of not being able to place it into history. I can hardly believe how cocky you are for not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. The bible is not a biography. The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. There is historical evidence in the Bible because it is made up of a series of historical documents. gently caress you. Learn to read. You don't have to have an opinion on things you know nothing about. The entire Bible isn't mythology. Learn what words mean. Ect
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
 We're not anything like Reddiot Athiests "Studying the bible makes you no different then someone promoting vaccine denialism"  (We really need to modify smugbert so it van have a neckbeard, a che shirt and a trilby.) Who What Now posted:9/11 happened in the Marvel Universe and happened in real life too. Is Thor: 'Nuff Said a historical document of the highest caliber of accuracy and reliability now? You know maybe you should talk to some actual historians about the Bible rather than just copy and paste stuff from Dick Dorkins. Also lol at Sedan Chair refusing to consider Bart Ehrman. But once again this thread was destined to degenerate into Euphoria laden fever dreams. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
What the gently caress? There's nothing wrong with studying the bible, but there is a big problem pretending it's something it's not. It cannot act as evidence for the events it contains, it's just can't.The Kingfish posted:The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wait I thought: Let me try a different, simpler approach: calling something a "historical document" is not making a judgment about the truth of the document's message; it's a primary source. All it means is that the document was written a long time ago. Secondary sources and forgeries CAN also be a primary sources if the historian is studying historiography or old forgeries. I don't know what you mean by requiring a specific time. Historians have a pretty good idea when each of the books of the bible were written however, Job being the earliest and Revelations being the youngest. The bible is an example of a primary and secondary source but this isn't really unusual, particularly with ancient sources where true primary sources accounts are profoundly rare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What the gently caress? There's nothing wrong with studying the bible, but there is a big problem pretending it's something it's not. It cannot act as evidence for the events it contains, it's just can't. Do you think biography is a value added word or something? You honestly think that calling something a biography means that it must be a factual scholarly work? Do you think that biographies were invented post-enlightenment? And that nobody has ever written a biography as a story? Do me a favor, pick up ANY introductory level book on the New Testament and search the index for the phrase "biography" or "Greco-Roman." Or just loving google it you lazy piece of eurotrash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know maybe you should talk to some actual historians about the Bible rather than just copy and paste stuff from Dick Dorkins. Wait, I'm confused because I didn't copy-paste anything about being molested as a child and how it wasn't so bad, so I have no idea what you think could have come from Actual Cannibal Dick Dorkins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:"Studying the bible makes you no different then someone promoting vaccine denialism" No studying the bible wrong makes you no different than a chiropractor. Or a vaccine denier promoting natural cures, whatever. Only people who haven't been to seminary can be trusted to study it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
A biography is a work that an account of someone's life, by someone else. They absolutely can be dramatized, and contain false information, because aggrandizement is as old as human beings are! But there's a categorical difference between a story, where the fictionality doesn't actually matter, and a biography, where it definitely does! And the great hypocrisy here, is that while you're trying to blur the lines here, you're using that understanding as evidence that it describes actual events. If biographies aren't accoutns, then on what basis are you saying that Jesus was a historical person, and not just a fictional character? You're shifting definitions based on how convenient it is for you, and no amount of arrogant self-righteousness on your part is going to change that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Like the only reason this is a debate, is ~Because Christians~. You get exactly the same poo poo with every other religion, where their works somehow have a special significance, a real truth if only you could find it, and anyone who bursts that little bubble of delusion is an rear end in a top hat. Why are you such a Bad Guy, applying critical thinking to my cherished beliefs, why do you want to hurt me?!?! No idiot, I'm trying to help you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
So, to review: The Kingfish has no idea about the definition of historical documents, literally contradicts himself within sentences of each other, and then blames other people for not understanding his meaning. Crowsbeak is still going 'hey, REDDIT! hahahah I have the high ground trillby wearing idiot!' and generally being a poo poo. The Belgian is continuing his 'No, You!' streak, and is currently on a tangent about how the Mind and Brain are two separate entities, despite being asked to show any correlation about these things and refusing to do so. Good to know. Ok, fine. You want a 'reddit atheist'? You guys are the definition of the chess-playing pigeon. Currently you've moved past the 'first move' phase, and are currently stuck in a 'making GBS threads on the board' loop. Once people stop listening to your stupid, repetitive bullshit then you'll be in the full 'strut around in victory' phase, and then the thread will get gassed. This isn't even a debate any longer. You latch onto the smallest, simplest fallacies in the counter-argument and blow them completely out of proportion to mask the fact that you can't answer the basic questions or respond to the counter arguments of people debating you. You've moved the goalposts so far out of the original arena that they're currently sitting a few counties apart. So, a little personal attachment: The Belgian: If you believe that the mind can experience things outside the brain, then please show us proof. Otherwise your argument has no basis to form itself on, and should be revisited. Crowsbeak: Actually spend some time on r/atheism, or r/truechristianity, and see just how bitter, vitrolic and asinine people can get. who what now, rudatron and sedanchair have all at least tried to put some substance into their arguments before they called you raving idiots. Opening your mouths only helps prove their points about being raving idiots. The Kingfish: The meaning 'historical document' that you have and that rudatron has are different. You say it's any document from the past; rudatron says it's a document that has a historical purpose. Honestly, your definition would also put tales of Atlantis and the Epic of Gilgamesh as historical documents, which does nothing to prove their veracity or value to historians outside of cultural trends. Also, when you post sentences in direct contradiction, like: The Kingfish posted:The bible is not a biography. The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. There is historical evidence in the Bible because it is made up of a series of historical documents. Then it undercuts your arguments. Can we please stop this poo poo now and get onto a topic that actually moves forward? How about a new topic, here we go: Belief is influenced by culture and upbringing. So, if a person's beliefs change, what do you think are some of the factors in that change?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:A biography is a work that an account of someone's life, by someone else. They absolutely can be dramatized, and contain false information, because aggrandizement is as old as human beings are! But there's a categorical difference between a story, where the fictionality doesn't actually matter, and a biography, where it definitely does! And the great hypocrisy here, is that while you're trying to blur the lines here, you're using that understanding as evidence that it describes actual events. If biographies aren't accoutns, then on what basis are you saying that Jesus was a historical person, and not just a fictional character? You're shifting definitions based on how convenient it is for you, and no amount of arrogant self-righteousness on your part is going to change that! So you accept that biographies can contain dramatization and false information. Do you also accept that the gospels were written in the style of other contemporary biographies, including the fantastical elements? I already explained earlier in the thread that the gospels themselves don't provide proof for the historical Jesus, but that an analysis of their content does suggest that he was a historical person. E:^ how is any of that contradictory? Historical documents are historical documents. The phrase doesn't suggest anything about whether the document can be trusted to accurately describe historical events. Cultural history is massively important for understanding factual history because it helps provide a lens through which other historical documents can be read. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Nope. Also, I hate to point this out genius, but you didn't explain anything early, you asserted. And contrary to what you believe, there is actual disagreement over this claim that the gospels are biographies!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 05:24
|
|