[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’ll tell you what, why don’t you give me some data? You’re talking about quantities, so why don’t you give us a body count from the respective religions, since the truth claims of the respective religions don’t matter to you, the philosophy major who spends his time studying various philosophical truth claims.
[/quote]
Here is a translation:
A universally quantified statement is “All roses are red.”
An existentially quantified statement is “There is a rose that is not red.”
A negation of an existentially quantified statement is “There is no rose that is not red” which is equivalent to the universally quantified statement listed above.
(A) “The history of Christianity includes violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity” is an existentially quantified statement.
(B) “Christ did not lead an army” is a negation of another existentially quantified statement.
To prove that the first statement is false, you would have to negate it, which would be (C1) “The history of Christianity does not include violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity,” or (C2) “there exists no event such that it was both violent and perpetrated in the name of Christianity.” Proving B does not prove C1/C2.
(A) “The history of Christianity includes violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity” is an existentially quantified statement.
(B) “Christ did not lead an army” is a negation of another existentially quantified statement.
To prove that the first statement is false, you would have to negate it, which would be (C1) “The history of Christianity does not include violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity,” or (C2) “there exists no event such that it was both violent and perpetrated in the name of Christianity.” Proving B does not prove C1/C2.[/quote]
Thanks.
A and B are both true, but B deals with the core doctrines of the religion itself. Jesus, the “author and perfector of our faith,” was not a man of violence. If the doctrines of Christianity itself, as contained in the Bible, reject the use of violence to propagate it, then while A may be true, Christianity itself doesn’t promote such a thing.
Really, since his intent was to equate Christianity with Islam in terms of the bloodiness of it’s adherents, he needs to back this up somehow to prove that it’s true, since he doesn’t want to deal with what Christianity actually teaches.
At the real heart of this discussion is his interest in making statements like these:
“the quantifies are implicit. it is not my fault that you cannot pick out implicit quantifies… do you even know what i mean when i use the word?”
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
A and B are both true, but B deals with the core doctrines of the religion itself. Jesus, the “author and perfector of our faith,” was not a man of violence.
If the doctrines of Christianity itself, as contained in the Bible, reject the use of violence to propagate it, then while A may be true, Christianity itself doesn’t promote such a thing.
[/quote]
I understand your point, I just thought it would be helpful to make the terminology used more explicit. But yes, I see where you are coming from.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
At the real heart of this discussion is his interest in making statements like these:
“the quantifies are implicit. it is not my fault that you cannot pick out implicit quantifies… do you even know what i mean when i use the word?”
[/quote]
then i will address this.
I have two reasons for unapologetically making statements like this. first, when i do not rigorously form statements using precise terms, my arguments are misconstrued. thus to avoid people misconstruing my arguments and building straw-men, i use the proper jargon.
second, i make statements like this because this is after all suppose to be a discussion about philosophy and religion. And, when discussing philosophy and religion, it is nice to use the appropriate technical language.
besides, while my talk about things like “quantifiers” is part of formal logic, its really basic stuff thats taught in any critical thinking or foundation of math class in college.
Really, since his intent was to equate Christianity with Islam in terms of the bloodiness of it’s adherents, he needs to back this up somehow to prove that it’s true, since he doesn’t want to deal with what Christianity actually teaches.
[/quote]
no, that was not my intent. i’m no fool… obviously, there are marked and important differences between the violence perpetrated by Christians and the violence perpetrated by Islam.
this thread started as a quote from a British bishop about how British culture could only be saved by a Christian revival. Though the thread took many twists and turns before coming to this minor point, the heart of my argument has been this: A Christian ethical system is not at the heart of western civilization nor it is needed to maintain western civilization.
I did not point out that Christians have their own long history of violence to somehow show that they are no morally better then Muslims, but rather only to show that Muslims arn’t the only one’s with a history of violence. (note that i said Muslims and Christians, not the teachings of Mohammad and the teachings of Christ).
Humans have a violent history stoked. It has been a repeating theme throughout history that when confronted with a given set of circumstances people have responded with violence.
ie In cases of adultary it is not uncommon for a jilted partner to kill someone. In Judaism it was okay to kill in such circumstances, which was popular. Jesus came along and refused to give his sanction to such violence, which was unpopular. Mohammad came along and said Jesus was wrong it is okay to kill adulterers.
The flaw in your analysis is you are blaming human nature taking over peoples behaviour upon the religions equally. Despite one religions founder (Jesus) refusal to give a religious justification for engaging in such behaviour.
While another religions founder (Mohammad)taught his followers that there is not only a religious justification for many acts of violence but there is also a religious duty to respond with violence.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote: Humans have a violent history stoked.
Well, that’s the thing! Isn’t Jesus some kind of deity to you folks?[/quote]
The first commandment states I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me
I got bored 3/4 of the way through this thread but…
Sifu, a few points:
If you want to be taken seriously I’d suggest you stop referring to anything written in the Daily Mail, and stop regarding it as fact. It’s a garbage-filled bigoted newspaper that’s about as reliable as the National Enquirer.
If you bother to do some research on the Irish referendum on the EU Treaty you’ll find that the two main issues people were most concerned about were…abortion, and Irish neutrality, neither of which had anything to do with the content of the Treaty (which no one had actually read, because, you know, it’s about 300 pages long).
[quote]ninearms wrote:
I got bored 3/4 of the way through this thread but…
Sifu, a few points:
If you want to be taken seriously I’d suggest you stop referring to anything written in the Daily Mail, and stop regarding it as fact. It’s a garbage-filled bigoted newspaper that’s about as reliable as the National Enquirer. [/quote]
I haven’t read the Dailymail for much more than two years. What I have seen from their content is they have no problem pointing out some of the sheer idiocy that is going on over there. I have seen articles in the mail covered by other papers, so I don’t think the problem is their accuracy. I think the problem is people don’t want to face up to what is happening to the UK.
Bigotry is an accusation that is so wildly thrown around Britain these days that it has no meaning. It is a convenient excuse for not dealing the big problems Britain is having with immigration and race relations.
Ever since the end of world war 2 the liberals have been treating Britain just like it is the United States when it comes to immigration. The problem is Britain isn’t like the US in some important ways. First is size, Britain has 60 million people crammed into an area the size of Michigan. It does not have a lot of room to be a melting pot like the US was.
Plus America being a melting pot is a bit of a myth. The majority of the people in the American melting pot in were white, European, Christians whose ancesters had been part of the Roman empire so they had a lot in common, that expedited matters greatly. What the liberals have forced Britain into is much more complicated and they have irreperably fucked it up by discouraging people from assimilating into the culture.
There is a sizeable indigenous population that is being forced to accept foreign communities being setup in their midst. The English are being driven off of their land just like what happened to the American Indians. If someone says something about it they are a bigot.
They have been given the ultimatum that if they don’t like what is happening to their homeland then they should leave, because they are bigots and they are not wanted there.
Personally I don’t think it is bigotry to question why the labour party thinks it is such an imperative to bring in as many immigrants as possible. There are three million unemployed and over eight million on some kind of welfare. It is not like the extra population is needed for the economy.
Many immigrants don’t have a job to go to. Instead they just go right onto welfare. Taxes are some of the worlds highest but they have to hock their childrens futures to pay for welfare and the NHS as a result. But if anyone points out what is happening or asks difficult questions about it, they are a bigot.
But maybe you can prove me wrong ninearms. Since you want to accuse the Dailymail of bigotry why don’t you bring up some examples for us to examine and debate if they are bigoted or if you are unfairly accusing the mail in order to discredit them.
[quote]
2) If you bother to do some research on the Irish referendum on the EU Treaty you’ll find that the two main issues people were most concerned about were…abortion, and Irish neutrality, neither of which had anything to do with the content of the Treaty (which no one had actually read, because, you know, it’s about 300 pages long). [/quote]
Those were two of the big issues for the Irish, they are a catholic country and neutrality makes sense for such a small country. However speaking as a person who is half Irish I would have to say don’t underestimate the Irish will for self determination.
We didn’t fight the British for four hundred years just to turn it all over the the EU which is dominated by big counries like Britain a mere eighty years later.
Then there is the constitution/ “amending treaty”. There is a saying, “the devil is in the details”. With over three hundred pages writen in the legal language thick enough that even a lawyer could barely understand it, there was plenty of room for devilry.
When the American founding fathers wrote their constitution many of them were lawyers who could have laid on the legalese across hundreds of pages, but they didn’t. It takes intelligence to pare something down to it’s most essential elements. Which is why the American constitution was an inspired act of genius and the EU treaty was an uninspired load of crap.
The Irish are smart enough to instinctively not trust the treaty. [quote]
Don’t tase me bro! [/quote]
Uuuhhhmmm the taserrrrrr, why did you have to mention that…
i think you and i have many of the same views on social issues. i just don’t understand how or why religion must factor into it so often.
Because all Muslims are terrorists. Duh![/quote]
Finally some honesty from you. You see guys Lixy isn’t so bad after all. Habibi you have justified my new years resolution to try and be nicer to you. I’m feeling so stoked by this unprecedented success I think next year I will resolve to try and get a sense of humor.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I haven’t read the Dailymail for much more than two years. What I have seen from their content is they have no problem pointing out some of the sheer idiocy that is going on over there. I have seen articles in the mail covered by other papers, so I don’t think the problem is their accuracy. I think the problem is people don’t want to face up to what is happening to the UK.
[/quote]
You really have no idea what is going on in the UK. Everything you say is so far removed from fact (and usually at least 5 years out of date) because the only place you seem to be able to obtain your information is the Daily Mail, the most right-wing newspaper in the country which regularly prints stories based on guesses, wishful thinking, or plain deception. Half the time the headline says something that (A) isn’t true, and (B) is subsequently disproved by the story itself. The fact that you can’t see anything wrong with what they publish speaks volumes.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Bigotry is an accusation that is so wildly thrown around Britain these days that it has no meaning. It is a convenient excuse for not dealing the big problems Britain is having with immigration and race relations.
[/quote]
Britain doesn’t have a problem with immigration or race relations.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Ever since the end of world war 2 the liberals have been treating Britain just like it is the United States when it comes to immigration.
[/quote]
What? Eh?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The problem is Britain isn’t like the US in some important ways. First is size, Britain has 60 million people crammed into an area the size of Michigan. It does not have a lot of room to be a melting pot like the US was.
[/quote]
There is plenty of space. 1/4 of the UK population is crammed into the South East corner. Scotland is fucking empty.
I assume you have no problems with immigration into the US, seeing as away from the coasts the entire country is pretty much empty.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Plus America being a melting pot is a bit of a myth. The majority of the people in the American melting pot in were white, European, Christians whose ancesters had been part of the Roman empire so they had a lot in common, that expedited matters greatly. What the liberals have forced Britain into is much more complicated and they have irreperably fucked it up by discouraging people from assimilating into the culture.
There is a sizeable indigenous population that is being forced to accept foreign communities being setup in their midst. The English are being driven off of their land just like what happened to the American Indians. If someone says something about it they are a bigot.
[/quote]
(1) There is no indigenous population. The UK is a mongrel nation comprised of the descendents of the numerous other nations which have invaded it, and 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. The number of foreign born people in the UK: under 5 million, or just over 8% (the top 3: India, Ireland and Poland). There have been immigrant communities in the UK for the past 40 years. Nobody is “forced” to accept them. (2) The idea that the English (I guess you don’t count the Scottish and Welsh, right?) are being driven off their land like the Native Americans is beyond ridiculous. The fact that you think it’s fine to compare a Polish deli opening down the road with the systematic genocide of an entire population again speaks volumes.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They have been given the ultimatum that if they don’t like what is happening to their homeland then they should leave, because they are bigots and they are not wanted there.
[/quote]
Who has delivered thus ultimatum? Is it the mysterious “they” figure people love to refer to?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Personally I don’t think it is bigotry to question why the labour party thinks it is such an imperative to bring in as many immigrants as possible. There are three million unemployed and over eight million on some kind of welfare. It is not like the extra population is needed for the economy.
[/quote]
(1) The Labour Party and the Labour Government are not the same thing. (2) The Labour Government doesn’t think it’s imperative to bring in as amny immigrants as possible. (3) I suggest you check your stats. They’re from the Thatcher era it would appear. Current UK unemployment is 1.62 million. The number of people employed in the UK is 30 million, the highest since comparable records began in 1971.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Many immigrants don’t have a job to go to. Instead they just go right onto welfare. Taxes are some of the worlds highest but they have to hock their childrens futures to pay for welfare and the NHS as a result. But if anyone points out what is happening or asks difficult questions about it, they are a bigot.
[/quote]
(1) This isn’t true. If you look at the largest group of immigrants over the past few years, the Polish, you’ll see that they actually have a higher employment rate than British-born people (cue the “stealing British jobs” rant), and under the terms of their entry into the EU are not allowed to claim benefits. (2) “Hocking their children’s futures”? Education is free here you know. We don’t have to pay tens of thousands of pounds in tuition fees. (3) You think the NHS is a bad thing???
[quote]Sifu wrote:
But maybe you can prove me wrong ninearms. Since you want to accuse the Dailymail of bigotry why don’t you bring up some examples for us to examine and debate if they are bigoted or if you are unfairly accusing the mail in order to discredit them.
[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Those were two of the big issues for the Irish, they are a catholic country and neutrality makes sense for such a small country. However speaking as a person who is half Irish I would have to say don’t underestimate the Irish will for self determination.
We didn’t fight the British for four hundred years just to turn it all over the the EU which is dominated by big counries like Britain a mere eighty years later.
[/quote]
Britain dominates the EU? Really? You should probably check you copy of the Mail there.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Then there is the constitution/ “amending treaty”. There is a saying, “the devil is in the details”. With over three hundred pages writen in the legal language thick enough that even a lawyer could barely understand it, there was plenty of room for devilry.
[/quote]
Good reasoning. Let’s vote against something we haven’t read because of something that might be in there. Of course, non-morons could actually read it…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
When the American founding fathers wrote their constitution many of them were lawyers who could have laid on the legalese across hundreds of pages, but they didn’t. It takes intelligence to pare something down to it’s most essential elements. Which is why the American constitution was an inspired act of genius and the EU treaty was an uninspired load of crap.
[/quote]
Er…but it’s had 27 amendments…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The Irish are smart enough to instinctively not trust the treaty.
[/quote]
