HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:39:12 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.93Jan6022217@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <lkk7j6INN59g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
> (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
>    >Given this, your not likely
>    >to be doing much to support _your_ integrity by using personal attacks
>    >(as above) as a form of argument. 
> 
>   I can see no argument whatever in the passage you quote. The arguments had
> been presented in earlier articles. The personal attack was of course
> prompted by Kent's failure to consider those arguments.

Sorry, but I really considered them,  and that was the reason I posted
the logical bomb about GestaltDunkerDammerung (or whatever I called it),
showing that just by defining things we can't be sure if we could
automagically
measure the logical content. This is on the borderline of radical
relativism where the logical context is relative to the agreements 
between parts. In other words Christians happily accept that something
is logical, because they have done an agreement using information exchange.

And that is one of the points I've been trying to make, and yes I agree
I don't have a degree in philosophy (and I expect that 99% of the
readers/writers in this newsgroups don't have as well). So we are all
amateurs anyway, and calling someone ignorant is a very classical
ad hominem attack if you can't clearly show that the other end is wrong.

>   Please try to distinguish between personal attacks and arguments. It
> isn't all that difficult.

Calling someone a babbler is a classical ad hominem attack style.

-------------------
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
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Christianity and Logic, take 2
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<lkk7j6INN59g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:22:17 GMT

In article <lkk7j6INN59g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM 
(Eric Marsh) writes:

   >Given this, your not likely
   >to be doing much to support _your_ integrity by using personal attacks
   >(as above) as a form of argument. 

  I can see no argument whatever in the passage you quote. The arguments had
been presented in earlier articles. The personal attack was of course
prompted by Kent's failure to consider those arguments.

  Please try to distinguish between personal attacks and arguments. It
isn't all that difficult.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Thank you for your responses  :) 
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:51:46 GMT


Wow!  I didn't expect to get so many responses and on so many varying levels of
opposition.  I expected the opposition to my stated beliefs, but not so many.
I would like to thank all of those netters who have responded.  Since there have
been so many responses to my posts, it may take me some time to get back to you
but rest assured that I will.

And, oh yes, I've figured out and have been told quite vehemently how NOT to
post to the alt.atheism group.  It seems that I've riled them up quite a bit, but 
I honestly can't say that I'm bothered by it.  However, I won't abuse the net
any further by posting to them that don't want to hear.

I am especially thankful for those with whom I've been able to have some
constructive dialog.

Thank you all once again, and I'll be back!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:53:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <TORKEL.92Dec31061142@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) wrote:
> In article <ksand-301292172240@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
>  (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> 
>    >So we have established a point where we all agree on Eucledian
>    >geometry premisses.

>   Actually this talk about agreeing on the premisses of Euclidean
> geometry, apart from being irrelevant, is either false or devoid of
> content.

If we don't take into account the way to define alternate geometrical
universes, I would like to know what parts of mathematics reject
Euclid's premises concerning 2-D... This is a very important thing,
and we should not just push it beneath the rug... In other words
I would like to know your propositin why agreements on premises
are irrelevant. Note that most of science would fall apart as well :-)
if this was the case.


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
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25964 alt.pagan:15288
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Churches taxed on property value?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:42:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) says:

>Once upon a time, some folks in a tiny frontier town built a modest
>church in a location that was, to them, a convenient distance from
>the town.  The town boomed and became a city.  The members of the
>congregation upgraded the building a bit (put in electricity back
>in 1960) but the building remained pretty much the same.
>
>Not so the property value, however.  What was once "out of town" is
>now a hot new neighborhood for young upwardly-mortgaged professional
>people.  Condo developers have offered the congregation millions for
>the little plot of land the church sits on.
>
>Now, if we restore the taxation of churches, should this church be
>taxed on the inflated value of its land?  Something to think about
>next time a pagan group purchases a quite plot somewhere out in
>the countryside to serve as a site for rituals.
>
Unfortunately, I've never heard of a pagan group NOT paying it's property
taxes.  They *shouldn't* have to but most do.
-- 
When subtlety fails us we must make do with cream pies.
                                                    --David Brin
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:42:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <SCG.92Dec30222227@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >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.
> 
> Um, I seem to understand that any proposition whatsoever can be part
> of an argument.  I don't think propositions are necessarily
> decomposable into elements, although they can be classified (true,
> false, contingent, and so forth).
> 
> Of course, not all sentences represent a proposition, many sentences
> represent more than one proposition, and in many cases two people will
> have different ideas what proposition is being represented by a given
> sentence...

I'm trying to push for the important issue that how could we judge
that something has a logical element, when we can't even agree
upon the premises.

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
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:45:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.221050.13176@newsgate.sps.mot.com> weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver) writes:
>> However, it does not seem to be the definition used when I point out something
>> some Christian did, and the reply is "they're not a _real_ Christian".
>> How can I tell a "real Christian" from someone who's merely a Christian?
>The answer is that you can't tell. Nor can I. 

OK, then.  If neither of us can tell, why do I get people saying "they
weren't _real_ Christians"?  _They_ seem to be able to tell....
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:00:22 GMT

In article <ksand-060193121045@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> Because "logical validity of the outcome" does not mean that the outcome is
>> true or false.
>OK, we have maybe a different view of the outcome, I assume this means
>that the outcome from a logical truth table does not need to produce
>any logical results? Or in other words, do we disagree that a logical
>construct should produce an true/false conclusion, or is it OK to 
>assume that the outcome could be undefined. This is maybe where we
>differ -- I don't see any validity in producing a logical construction
>that does not result in a clear outcome. Is this the problem I don't 
>realize?

If you have
1) A
2) A implies B,
then the result 
3) B
may be logically deduced.

Whether or not this means that the outcome has a truth value depends on what
you mean by outcome.  If by outcome, you mean "if you assume A and if you
assume A implies B, then you may conclude B", the outcome has to be true.  If
by "outcome" you mean the result "B". the outcome does not have to be true.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
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: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:29:08 GMT

I am at a loss to understand what either of Mr. Sandvik or Mr. Sarver
means when he uses the term, "valid argument".  Each has objected
strongly to the standard meaning: If the premise is true, then the
conclusion must be true.  In order to help clarify, I ask them to
define "valid logical argument" and answer the following questions.

Is the following a valid logical argument?  If not, please explain.

     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)

Is the following (taken from a logic text) a valid logical argument?
If not, and if the reason differs from the one given above, please
explain.  (The texts says it's valid.)

     Premise:
          1. p
	  2. p implies q
          3. ~q or r

     Conclusion: r

---

Mr. Sandvik asks me whether the following is logical.

     Let's give an example, now I establish a premiss called
     SchlackerDunkGestalt -- and a couple more, and just to honour the
     tradition to use weird foreign/german names, I do the same:

     SchlackerDunkGestalt is the ultimate PrippsMacht of
     DunkerLangerung. If DunkerLangerung has a NichtVerlangen, then
     PrippsMacht will unterlangetize SchlackerkDunkGestalt!

For brevity, I substitute A for SchlackerDunkGestalt, B for
PrippsMacht C for DunkerLangerung, and D for NichtVerlangen.  The
argument takes the form:

     1. A
     2. A is the ultimate B of C.
     3. If C has a D, then B will unterlangetize A.

Mr. Sandvik says this is a "fully logical construct", so I must assume
there is a premise and a conclusion.  As it is not specified, I will
assume the conclusion appears last.  The argument is then as follows.

     Given "A" and "A is the ultimate B of C", 
     it follows that "if C has a D, then B will unterlangetize A."

The premise makes no statements about C or D; however "if C has a D"
might be trivially true, so we must continue.  "B will unterlangetize
A."  There is nothing in the premise that indicates this is the case,
regardless to whether or not C has a D.  The argument as it stands is
not logically valid, for the truth of the premise does not imply the
truth of the conclusion.

Mr. Sandvik may object (he has in the past) that it makes no sense to
apply the tools of logic to such an abstract statement.  I disagree.
This is a skill learned in elementary logic courses.  I cite an
exercise from an elementary logic text:

     Analyze these arguments for logical validity.
     ...
     7. All fields are rings.  Some rings are integral domains.  Some
     integral domains are not fields.  Therefore some rings are not
     fields.


                                  Gregg Skinner
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Straight talk on free will. Only for the brave.
Date: 9 Jan 1993 21:05:05 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> So here it is, the Last Word on free will: It doesn't exist! So forget it!
> If you think you have free will, that's your delusion.

Is it a matter of free will to accept or deny this delusion?  ;-) 

Walter

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: ISLAM REVEALED #2 - The Origin of Allah
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:47:21 GMT


THE ORIGIN OF ALLAH
 
_Encyclopedia of Religion_, ed. James Hastings, I:117
  "`Allah' is the pre-Islamic name...corresponding to the Babylonian Bel."
 
_Encyclopedia Brittanica_, I:643
  "Allah is found...in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam."
 
_Encyclopedia of Islam_, ed. Houtsma, I:302
  "The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped...a
supreme God called allah."
 
_Encyclopedia of Islam_, ed. Gibb, I:406
  "Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arabs; he was one of the Meccan
deities."
 
_The Bible and Islam: or, The Influence of the Old and New Testament on the
  Religion of Mohammed_, Smith, pg. 102
  "Allah was already known by name to the Arabs."
 
_Islam: Beliefs and Observations_, Caesar, pg.28
  "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to
the Muslims from the Christians and Jews."
 
_The Islamic Invasion_, Morey, pg. 50
  "In Arabia, the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as
the male god....the moon god was called by various names, one of which was
Allah!"
 
_The Islamic Invasion_, Ibid., pg. 51-52
  "Archeologists have dug up numerous statues and hieroglyphic inscriptions
in which a crescent moon was seated on top of the head of the deity to
symbolize the worhip of the moon god....The Quraysh tribe into which
Muhammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon god....This,
in part, explains the early success of Islam among Arab groups that
traditionally had worshipped the moon god."
-- 
Frank
....
"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: "LOVE" vs. "HATE"
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:00:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec31.053218.20356@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-301292174650@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >> >This argument suggests that God is capable of sinning.
> >> If you mean that if God is capable of what we're capable of...I believe 
> >> He is.  Jesus was tempted in the desert. If He wasn't capable of sinning,
> >> then His temptation was bogus. 
> 
> It is my understanding that "X is capable of Y" means that there are
> circumstances under which X would do Y.  This means that God is not capable of
> sinning.

I guess this is me, logic and Christianity again :-). Sorry, I didn't 
write this, but I think it's a splendid example of logic and Christianity
once again, an omnipotent being is not capable of everything. Either
the premises are unsure and wrong, or something else. I vote for not
understanding what the real premises are.

Could someone please explain to me how the "God is omnipotent" premise
could be verified, before we could agree on this, how could we agree
upon the end result being true or false???

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
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:09:24 GMT

In article <93012.205512SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>In the soc.religion.christian newsgroup there are two very thorough
>postings on Christian Reconstructionism, one dated 1/7 and the other
>1/8.  Their America would make Orwell's 1984 look like a Roman
>Carnival of freedom, and it is the Christian Reconstructionism which
>is disseminated throughout Christian right wing politics --
>regardless of which demagogue is making the pitch.

I think your analysis of CR is a bit off base. CR espouses a very *local*
government structure, and is rather libertarian in many respects. While
it promotes most of the OT death penalties as just (as maximums, which can
be lessened usually at the victims' discretion). There are the severe
limits of rules of evidence and eyewitness testimony. Thus only public
acts would tend to come under it's purview.

CR also doesn't hold to revolution. It is fully convinced that the moral
renewal of america along theocratic lines will only come by a movement of
the holy spirit and the vast conversion of the majority of the population.

There would be no "thought police" seeking to entrap every citizen.
Many CR's don't even see the legitimacy of punishement for religious
offenses. CRs are opposed to offensive wars, to Prohibition, [some
would even decriminalize prostitution], and to forced conversions.

While I don't agree with all CR positions, I find their interpretation of
the OT to be right on.

paul duggan
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Basics of Islam
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:30:20 GMT

I have some basic questions for our Islamic readers since I haven't seen
anything from them in a while.

1)  What is the basic message of Islam?  I know Islam asserts that both Judaism
and Christianity have distorted the message of God as revealed in the Old
Testament and that prophets such as Jesus and Muhammed came to set the people
straight.  Is this the message or is there more?

2)  Related to the above, is there a specific verse or short passage in the 
Qur'an that summarizes this message?  For example, the message of Christianity
is summed up in John 3:16.  A more extensive summary would be Ephesians 2:1-10.
Are there equivalents in the Qur'an for Islam?  Or is the message drawn out
over the course of the whole book?

3)  What distortions of Islam do we Americans see, for example through the
media portrayal of Islamic fundamentalism in Middle Eastern nations?

I am very interested in Islam and have two translations of the Qur'an at home
thanks to Ahmed Abdalla (probably spelled wrong, sorry).  I haven't been
reading them (don't be offended:  I haven't read the Bible or the newspaper
much either) but I will this semester.  I would just like to know the basics
of your beliefs which would help in my understanding of the Qur'an as I read.
Thank you.

  -- Scott
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:26013 alt.atheism:25828
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I feel threatened by Christianity...
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:55:27 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan12.102730.21302@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes
>
> Also the 60's weren't so bad.  I mean it gave us the Civil Rights
> and it gave us a conscience.  Before we just treated Blacks
> sub-human and we believed any and everything our govenment told us,
> just like the Soviets...Strange isn't it?

I'm glad someone said that.   I've noticed how hard some people
have worked in the past five years to turn "the sixties" into
some kind of synonym for Sodom and Gomorrah, in much the same
way that they have managed to pervert the word "liberal".

Yet the sixties were actually a pretty wonderful time for anyone
who lived through it.   Of course the Mrs Grundies of this world
didn't care for it very much, because a lot of uppity blacks, Gays, 
drug experimenters, poets, rock singers satirists, socialists and 
what-not started to be much more vocal.   Or perhaps they just 
decided not to continue to be quite so quiet.

These folk who hate the sixties so.   What are they nostalgic
for, exactly?   Segregation?   Conformism?    Senator McCarthy?
Laurence Welk?    What?

jon.
From: gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islam at a Glance
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:49:07 GMT
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ

d89-gsk@nada.kth.se (Gani Skepi) writes:

>The Five Pillars of Islam
>-------------------------
>1. The DECLARATION OF FAITH. "I bear witness that there is no one
>worthy  of worship except  God (Allah), and  that Muhammad is His
>servant  and  messenger."  The  Prophethood  of  Muhammad obliges
>Muslims to follow his exemplary life in every respect.

So basically what you are saying is:
There is no other true religion except Islam, and that all other
religions are false.

You claim that Islam is a universal religion. How can it be considered
universal if for one of its stipulations for membership be that you 
submit yourself to it completely while ignoring all other paths to
God? Islam is 'universal' in the sense that the whole world must submit
to ONLY Allah as outlined by the prophet Muhammed. 'Universality' is achieved
once the whole world is converted to Islam, correct?

In other words, why should I limit myself to praying ONLY to Allah?
What if I want to pray to Jesus, Yahweh, Krishna or Buddha? Why are these
manifestations of God wrong? And why is the worship ONLY to Allah the only
correct path to salvation?

Srihari Gopal
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc