HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 24 Dec 92 05:00:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


Time to do some deconstruction:

/(skinner)
/The difference for him lies in the extent of agreement.
/He notes is that, for example, we "agree on the [validity of]
/Euclidean building blocks," while we do not agree on the validity of
/Christianity's premises.  Evidently for Mr. Sandvik to find logic in
/an argument we must begin with universal agreement on the premises.

If you want to sell the argument to anyone else, that is correct.



/(skinner)
/I suggest that this refined standard leads us to a contradiction:
/Valid arguments can be labelled "illogical".  While valid arguments
/may be false, they cannot be illogical, by definition.

Wrong.  

Correctly constructed arguments can be both false and illogical.

This is an example which parallels yours closely:

  1.  Dragons exist and like to eat people
  2.  Silver has been blessed by the gods; that is why it shines so bright
  3.  Dragons hate the metal silver
  4.  SO:  it is good to wear silver

The argument is false because the science doesn't back it up (dragons
don't exist).

The argument is illogical because there is no demonstrated cause-and-effect
between the steps.  Instead of a logical principle like:

    a.  All dogs have tails
    b.  That animal is a dog
    c.  THEREFORE:  that animal must have a tail also

what we have instead is a growing list of unproven assumptions that must be 
simply accepted, without any logical formula to show *why* they must be
accepted.  That is why it is not logical. 

Arguments which are composed soley of take-it-on-faith axioms are not 
logical arguments.


/(skinner)
/(Mr. Sandvik may be in error in suggesting that we agree on the
/validity of the axioms Euclidean geometry.  I have encountered no one
/who has seen an one-dimensional object (a "line").  I am skeptical
/that such a thing exists.  

Seeing a line is _not_ the criteria that is used to determine if it exists.
There are indirect ways of proof.  

And, in spite of no one else ever having seen a line either, damn near 
everyone agrees that the critter exists anyhow.

The same cannot be said of your claims.



/(skinner)
/If I apply Mr. Sandvik's test for logic, I must declare Euclidean geometry 
/illogical.)

Don't be deliberately stupid.  
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:27:41 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>If we can't agree on
>the premisses, how could we then agree on the logical conclusions?

The issue here is not agreement on the truth of the conclusions.  The
issue is the existence of logic in the arguments.  One can start with
any premise; it can be as "metaphysical" as one likes.  If we use the
premise to form a conclusion following the rules of logic, we have all
the ingredients for a valid argument.  We say that the logic of the
argument is valid.  For instance, the following is an example of valid
logic.

     Premise:
	  1. A is B.
	  2. C is ~A.  (where ~ represents negation)
	  3. D is true.
	  4. if D, then E implies ~C.
	  5. F implies E.

     Propositions:
	  a. C is ~B.  (From 1 and 2)
	  b. if D, then E implies B. (a and 4)
	  c. E implies B. (b and 3)

     Conclusion: F implies B. (c and 5)

We need know nothing about A, B, C, D, E and F to determine that the
logic is valid.

A question for Mr. Sandvik then: Is the above valid logic?  If not,
please explain concisely the criteria you used to reach your
conclusion.

(I am not trying to lay a trap; I expect the answer will be negative.
I have removed religious references from the argument in hopes of
clearing the waters.)



                             Gregg Skinner
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:27:35 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec28112115@lludd.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-271292170443@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>    >Now, if someone else says this is bogus, how could they verify
>    >that my logical conclusions are false when I defined the ground rules
>    >and these are based on metaphysical definitions that may or may not
>    >be ever verified?
> 
>   It may well be that it is quite impossible for us to either verify
> or falsify or even to make sense of your conclusions or premisses.
> This is compatible with your reasoning being perfectly logical, and
> verifiably correct.

So the prime issue is then when do we define that a building block
is valid for constructing logical statements? If someone has 
a good rule, let me know. I'm mostly relying on the classical
greek style of agreeing that something exists, and use this one
as the building block. If we use Christianity-based elements, we
are already on thin ice, because we can't agree that these elements
exist/are real or not.

>   Of course we are unlikely to find in Christianity any logical
> reasoning in a strict and formally defined sense. But the point is
> that your complaints about the premisses of Christianity being
> unverifiable or arbitrary, the conclusions being untestable, and so
> on, are not even relevant to the question whether there is logical
> reasoning from premisses to conclusion to be found in Christianity.

Well, we might disagree on this issue - and that's fine. I maintain
that in order to understand if a statement contains logical elements
you need to agree upon the building blocks. That works fine in 
mathematics, astronomy, physics and other sciences. In the case
of soft sciences this also works astoundingly well. However, in the 
case of religion and theology I see problems appearing due to the
'faith'-factor. For instance I have a hard time justifying that 
logical conclusions based on reincarnation are valid, mostly because
we can't agree if reincarnation is true or not. Same with trinity,
or any other similar construct.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 07:09:41 GMT

joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
: >
: >From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
: >supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
: >also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
: >would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
: >Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.
: 
: Isn't the full text "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man
: cometh to the father but through me."?  I don't have a bible handy
: to check it.  Sounds awful exclusive to me.

Only as to going to Christian enlightenment. It says nothing about it
being wrong for people to worship other gods - just that they would
not receive the Christian "reward".

Bill
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:53:31 GMT

In article <BzJsx1.9B7@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>It doesn't matter to me what the word "pagan" connotes to you, and
>that's the point of this discussion.  It resonates for us as a way to
>connect to the ancient people, though I have no illusions that we are
>practicing the same religions they did.  We are interested in self-
>definition, not PR, when we take this name.
>Same thing with the word "witch."  ...

But then what happens if someone else uses the word the old way?  If you see a
movie which shows witches as devil-worshippers, should you complain about it?  
If you do, you're now complaining that the old use of the name gives you bad
PR; you're no longer engaging in self-definition.  You can't have it both
ways--say you didn't pick the name for PR, but complain about the PR you got
from it anyway.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: On similarities between creation accounts...
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:00:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec23.015134.12558@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) wrote:
> It has been shown that there are many creation accounts that are
> similar to the Genesis account.  I do not think this can be used to
> critique its credibility, however.  If the Genesis account is the one
> handed down to men by God, then the fact that it has influenced other 
> accounts is not suprising.  If it is not, and none is, then all such
> stories are so much drivel.  If it is not, and some other is, then
> God has not been able to keep the correct one in the mainstream,
> which makes one wonder why He told us in the first place...

The issue is also if the Nordic and Finnish (and other cultural)
creation stories are just drivel, even if they are recorded and 
still believed by a group of people.

Or if the scientific way of analysing and drawing conclusions based
on the evidence is a bad way to define theories.

Or if God didn't tell the whole story for the Jews/Christians.

Or that are creation stories from ancient cultures based on
mythological sequences, and in what way the Biblical one should 
be different in this sense? 

Today, when astronomers are watching stars and planets being formed
out there in universe, I sometimes wonder how many generations it
will take before mankind would suddenly realize that creation happens
all the time -- out there.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: PAGAN, was You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 21:04:13 GMT

markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.015331.2890@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <BzJsx1.9B7@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> joann@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Jo Ann Malina) writes:
>>>It doesn't matter to me what the word "pagan" connotes to you, and
>>>that's the point of this discussion.  It resonates for us as a way to
>>>connect to the ancient people, though I have no illusions that we are
>>>practicing the same religions they did.  We are interested in self-
>>>definition, not PR, when we take this name.
>>>Same thing with the word "witch."  ...
>>
>>But then what happens if someone else uses the word the old way?  If you see a
>>movie which shows witches as devil-worshippers, should you complain about it?  

>Yup. 

>>If you do, you're now complaining that the old use of the name gives you bad
>>PR; you're no longer engaging in self-definition.  You can't have it both
>>ways--say you didn't pick the name for PR, but complain about the PR you got
>>from it anyway.

>No, you're complaining about the misuse and misdefinition of the word. Tell
>me, should Jews change the name for thier religion, since for 1500-odd years
>the Jews were accused (whenever convienient) of killing xian babies?

Judaism is the name of a religion.  That is what the word has always meant.  The
use of Witch for religious identification is brand new.  I think it is perfectly
appropriate for people to use the word witch (no caps) for any practitioner of
folk-magic.  I, who am a Witch, use witch to mean that.  If, however, they 
refer to Wicca as something other than what it is, then I will complain.  Also,
if they are trying to imply that Witches are Satanists I will get annoyed even
if they don't use the word Wicca.

A witch is not the same as a Witch, and the word witch is much older than Witch.
If people have trouble with this distinction, I will point you at the 
distinction between Catholic and catholic.  The meanings of the words are 
completely different.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Date: Wednesday, 23 December 1992 11:31:20 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: The age of miracles!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <fWYDiEs@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)  wrote:
# In article <NICHAEL.92Dec22093750@kariba.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com writes:
# >Can you cite some evidence for this?
# 
# Evidence for the find of a copy of LXX at Qumran? No, I can not. Why?
# Because I was wrong, I made a gross error.

  Quiz time: when was the last time you read someone on the Net
  come right out square and 'fess up to a goof?

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: World Views: Vedic vs. Western
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:29:49 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

> >calling the Ramayana a myth are significant. First there is the problem
> >of saying that Lord Ramacandra lived in Ayodhya in the Treta-yuga. This
> 					 ^^^^^^^
> I think if you followed the news lately, you'd be tragedy struck that
> people would be willing to kill each other (and destroy a whole country)
> because of religious sentiments, if you know what I mean.

No, I do not know what you mean. I understand your point that religious
sentiments can sometimes be the cause of unnecessary suffering, but I do
not understand what this has to do with the sentence you quoted above.
Kindly explain.

> >is ruled out by the Darwinian theory of evolution, which says that in
> >that time period, more than 864,000 years ago, 
> 
> I think you are missing a couple of years.  It is really, 864,014 years ago.

No. If you had read more carefully, you would have noticed the qualifier
"more than" which precedes the figure 864,000. Actually, if precision is
what you demand, it is known that Kali-yuga began at midnight (Ujjain
time) February 18, 3102 B.C., and the dates for treta-yuga can be
calculated from that.

Furthermore, it is known that Lord Ramacandra appears in more than one
catur-yuga.

> > there were no humans of the modern type.
> 
> Please count me out.

Again, I do not know what you are talking about here. Please be more
lucid and constructive in your comments.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:18:56 GMT
	<TORKEL.92Dec25003925@lludd.sics.se>
	<ksand-271292170443@wintermute.apple.com>
	<1992Dec29.222741.26530@csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<ksand-301292172352@wintermute.apple.com>
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <ksand-301292172352@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >As you see we had a fully logical construct, but then someone
   >might ask what is SchlackerDunkGestalt. By which I answer, that's
   >not relevant in order to show that we had a logical statement!

   You're catching on, except that we are not talking about "logical
statements" but about the logical validity of arguments. An argument
about SchlockerDunkGestalt may indeed be verifiably logically valid
although the terms involved make no sense to us. Your trouble seems to
be that you have some halfbaked ideas about "logical statements" and the
like, and a vague conception of the meaning of "logic" and "logical
validity", that do not in fact accord with the standard and pretty
well-defined sense of logical terms. Gregg Skinner, on the other hands,
invokes these terms in their standard sense. So I suggest you either
learn about a bit about logic or else simply drop this invocation of
"logic" in your criticism of Christianity.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bill@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (William E. Johns;S23015)
Subject: Re: God etc
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 03:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.180430.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.215451.2019@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM 
>(John Emery) writes:
>
>> The observed fact that humankind has always searched for something 
>> outside of himself points to the conclusion that we are incomplete in
>> ourselves.  
>
>From the Charge of the Goddess:
>
>"And know that all your seeking will avail you not if you do not know the
>mystery: That if you do not find what you seek within, you will surely not find
>it without.  For I have been with you since the beginning, and I am thatwhich
>is attained at the end of desire."

Yeah, what he said!

Ride Free,

Bill
________________________________________________________________
johnsw@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu  prez=BIMC 
AMA #500924   DoD #00314   WMTC #0002  SR= 3 
Yamabeemer fjgs1200pdr100 740GLE  KotV KotRR KotD #0001  :-)
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Guilt is the love of staying stuck.

                                          Hugh Prather
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5955 alt.alien.visitors:9450 sci.skeptic:21776
From: doug@testsys.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Tunnels #1.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 23:34:54 EST
Reply-To: doug@uuisis.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: DistNet Technical Support

In article <RICE.92Dec18175704@hpp-ipc-2.stanford.edu> 
(James Rice) writes: 

> As an aside, it may be of interest to readers in the Commonwealth
> that there are more differences between the U.S. and the U.K. than
> their Suns.  The most insidious one I have found is with the word
> "Quite".  In American, this means "very".  In the U.K. it means
> "slightly" (unless with sarcasm).  Thus, in the U.S., you might see
> someone say that McElwain is quite full of shit.  In the U.K. you
> may not find this sufficient and would be forced to think he was
> an arch-wanker.

And in Canada "quite" means "moderately".  We have quite a few tabloid
newspapers called the Sun.  There is the Toronto Sun, the Ottawa Sun, the
Edmonton Sun, the Vancouver Sun.

The BOLD CAPITALS HEADLINES are liable to be of the sort: 400 DEAD or
NDP DROPS AXE (meaning that the government increased taxes).  Of
course, turn to page three for the "Sunshine Girl" of the day.

As for an arch-wanker, well Canadians are just too polite. Quite
polite actually :-).  In referring to someone whom an American would
unabashedly declare to be full of shit and whom a Brit would denounce
as a wanker, a Canadian would shake his (or her) head, look a little
embarassed and shy and venture "it makes you wonder, eh?"

The "eh?" is all-important, and represents a request for permission
from the Imperial masters to possess an opinion.

Silly you say?

Quite, eh?

=Doug


---

uuisis!testsys!doug
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5987 alt.alien.visitors:9511 sci.skeptic:21889 talk.bizarre:43265
From: satan@wpi.WPI.EDU (Matthew James Meyer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: No laughing matter.
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:22:50 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1hvt92INNgmc@agate.berkeley.edu> kuritzky@wheatena.berkeley.edu (Eric Kuritzky) writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.232253.16809@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>[I know that it was a while ago, but I've just started reading TB]
>|In article <BywuMA.Btr@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
>|  boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:
>|>In article <70999@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>|>> You think you've got problems. I'm now getting E-mail from Satan.
>|>So where is Satan apparently mailing from?
>|>I'm surprised I'm the first one to ask this question.
>|
>[stuff deleted]
>|
>|2. Have you considered sending mail to his sysadmin?
>|
>|% mail root@hell.edu
>[humorous portion of post deleted]
>
>   root@hell.edu bounces.  Have you tried root@hell.gov?
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>
>                              kuritzky@math.berkeley.edu
>                              Eric Kuritzky






to think he would do such a thing....



-- 
*******************************************************************************
* satan@wpi *
*           * my lips may promise, but my heart is a whore - nin
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5984 alt.alien.visitors:9507