Is religion dying?

[viole]

"At least 1 Jew I know is NOT atheist or is NOT not-atheist." = At least 1 Jew I know is neither atheist nor not-atheist.

Ridiculous claim.

I could know only one Jew who is not an Atheist, satisfying the left part, while not satisfying the right one.

Which shows clearly that not only you make things up, but they lead to ridiculous conclusions. Like equivalence of claims which are not equivalent. Which begs the question: do you actually understand what you post?

Therefore, for the n-th time, your argument is based on logical fallacies and absurd conclusions. And can therefore be dismissed in its entirety.

So, what do you have in mind now? We can't wait.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Ridiculous claim.

Oh it's not that bad. You made a mistake too. Your negation was wrong too.

Which shows clearly that not only you make things up, but they lead to ridiculous conclusions. Like equivalence of claims which are not equivalent. Which begs the question: do you actually understand what you post?

I just made a tiny mistake, and it really doesn't change anything. It's just like when you found a tiny mistake in my proof. That didn't change anything either. And you've made plenty of mistakes in this thread.

Therefore, for the n-th time, your argument is based on logical fallacies and absurd conclusions. And can therefore be dismissed in its entirety.

No, it's perfectly true and you admitted it. See below:

Which is actually expected from any Jew acquaintance. Since Jews, like anyone else, cannot be atheists and not-atheists at the same time.

So.... why do you keep pretending that a Jew CAN be both simultaneously?

And yes, all the Jews I know are simultaneously atheists and theists. There is no contradiction whatsoever, if I know no Jews.

The true statement is "I don't know any Jews that are atheists and theists."

So, what do you have in mind now? We can't wait.

Why did you cherry pick, omit the contradiction out of the wikipedia article?
Why do you continue to deny that the contradiction exists?

 

[viole]

Your negation was wrong too.

It wasn't.

So.... why do you keep pretending that a Jew CAN be both simultaneously?

I am not doing that at all. That I said something so foolish is only in your mind.
What I do, is claiming that set of all Jews that can be both simultaneously is empty. And that is perfectly correct. Since there are no such Jews.

In other words, and equivalently

1) All the Jews I know are atheists
2) All the Jews I know are non-atheists

Are both true if, and only if, I do not know any Jews. That does not mean at all that I maintain that there are Jews that are both. That is exactly the contrary of what I say.

You try to see a contradiction where none exists, and that is why all your attempts fail.

The true statement is "I don't know any Jews that are atheists and theists."

Yes, that too. But that does not prevent me to maintain 1) and 2) without any contradiction whatsoever (if I don't know any Jews at all).

1) and 2) could not possibly be both true only if I knew at least one Jew, which is not the case. Ergo, no contradiction exists.

Why did you cherry pick, omit the contradiction out of the wikipedia article?
Why do you continue to deny that the contradiction exists?

Because they do not make your case, at all, since there is no contradiction whatsoever. In fact, what I maintain can proved very easily with the rules in the book that you posted.

And why do you ignore all the articles, including what you posted yourself (twice), that maintain that the empty set is a subset of every set? For obvious reasons, since it is a very easy theorem?

So, probably best you make your case with your own words, since posting things will always result in you shooting yourself in the foot. Assuming you still have some feet left.

CIao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

It wasn't.

It was. You made a mistake in the negation too. The NOT needed to be distributed per DeMorgan's Laws. You didn't do that. And you've made other mistakes in the thread as well.

I am not doing that at all. That I said something so foolish is only in your mind.

You ARE contradicting yourself. In multiple ways.

What I do, is claiming that set of all Jews that can be both simultaneously is empty. And that is perfectly correct. Since there are no such Jews.

But you didn't admit that the set was empty until AFTER. You confessed after being questioned, that you didn't know any Jews. And later you compared your statement to 2+2=5, something everyone knows is false. So, you intentionally made a false statement, now you're trying to cover for it using... magical-logique.

In other words, and equivalently

1) All the Jews I know are atheists
2) All the Jews I know are non-atheists

No person is both simultaneously. You cannot make a true statement about any person like this.

Are both true if, and only if, I do not know any Jews. That does not mean at all that I maintain that there are Jews that are both. That is exactly the contrary of what I say.

Then you are intending to make a negative assertion. You DO NOT KNOW ANY.

You try to see a contradiction where none exists, and that is why all your attempts fail.

But you can't defeat any of my arguments. Just little irrelevant nit-picks.

Yes, that too. But that does not prevent me to maintain 1) and 2) without any contradiction whatsoever (if I don't know any Jews at all).

You do know a Jew. The set isn't *actually* empty. The Jew you know is the one that is used to establish the definition "A Jew cannot be simultaneously atheist and not atheist." If you don't know ay Jews personally, that means you DO know 1 Jew, and that Jew is a concept, an idea.

All the Jews I know are atheist is false. Because of the definition of a Jew which you *actually* know.

Again, you are confusing ZERO with EMPTY.

If you know zero Jews, that is not the same as an empty set. Using quantity ZERO, the number of Jewish-atheists you know is ZERO, which translates into english "No Jewish atheists" ... "All the Jews I know are not atheist." ZERO atheists means, they are not atheists.

1) and 2) could not possibly be both true only if I knew at least one Jew, which is not the case. Ergo, no contradiction exists.

And you DO know a Jew. It's the Jew that exists as a defintition. That's why my proof works. Because it properly begins with defining the Jew and showing that the positive assertion about non-existent Jews is ALWAYS false.

Because they do not make your case, at all, since there is no contradiction whatsoever. In fact, what I maintain can proved very easily with the rules in the book that you posted.

Yes, the wiki-artile shows the contradiction TWICE, and you omitted that contradiction. And still are in denial about it.

• For every element of ∅, the property P holds (vacuous truth).
• There is no element of ∅ for which the property P holds.
• For every element of V the property P holds
• There is no element of V for which the property P holds

The property NEVER holds for the empty set, but you are imagining that it does.
The way to avoid the contradiction is to include the vacuity and declare the assumptions.

And why do you ignore all the articles, including what you posted yourself (twice), that maintain that the empty set is a subset of every set? For obvious reasons, since it is a very easy theorem?

I'm not ignoring any of them. They all prove my point.

The flying-pig vacuously-is smarter than you are.
The empty-set vacuously-is a subset.
The empty-set vacuously-is a set.
The empty-set is empty.
It's an identity.

So, probably best you make your case with your own words, since posting things will always result in you shooting yourself in the foot. Assuming you still have some feet left.

Nah, I've been doing great. But if you want it in english, here it is. I've stated this several times.

Any positive assertion about the properties of an empty-set is ALWAYS false with one exception, it is empty.
Any negative assertion about the properties of an empty-set are ALWAYS true with one exception, it is not empty.

The concept of a vacuity is negating.
When making a positive assertion about the properties of an empty-set, it must be included in the statement otherwise the empty-set is no longer empty in contradiction to its defintion.
When making a negative assertion about the properties of an empty-set, the vacuity can be omitted because it is redundant.

In, I think, all the soures you have brought the vacuity is included in the positive assertion, though it is tagged onto the end where it is easily over looked. Just as you are overlooking it, or willfully ignoring it.

Your so-called logic ignores evidence, ignores relevance, and has adopted trivialism (everything is true! the empty-set always obtains) when considering a so-called set which cannot under any circumstances obtain anything.

The distinction between postive assertions (ALWAYS FALSE) and negative assertions (ALWAYS TRUE) is in the link below:

Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Permitting a contradiction using a "vacuous-truth" are in the links below:

Empty set - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[viole]

It was. You made a mistake in the negation too. The NOT needed to be distributed per DeMorgan's Laws. You didn't do that. And you've made other mistakes in the thread as well.

Simply not true. Show me where.

ou ARE contradicting yourself. In multiple ways.

Obviously not. And you failed to show how.

But you didn't admit that the set was empty until AFTER. You confessed after being questioned, that you didn't know any Jews. And later you compared your statement to 2+2=5, something everyone knows is false. So, you intentionally made a false statement, now you're trying to cover for it using... magical-logique.

Nonsense. Saying that I do not know any Jew is the same as saying that the set of Jews I know is empty. Don't you think?

And you DO know a Jew. It's the Jew that exists as a defintition. That's why my proof works. Because it properly begins with defining the Jew and showing that the positive assertion is ALWAYS false.

This is just n your mind. I claimed as a premise that I do not any Jew. So, another total fail from your side.

• For every element of ∅, the property P holds (vacuous truth).
• There is no element of ∅ for which the property P holds.
• For every element of V the property P holds
• There is no element of V for which the property P holds

The property NEVER holds for the empty set, but you are imagining that it does.
The way to avoid the contradiction is to include the vacuity and declare the assumptions.

Another nonsense. You say it does not hold for the empty set, and that at the beginning that it holds. If there is someone contradicting oneself, that is your, and blatantly so. You probably do not even read what you post.

The empty-set vacuously-is a subset.

Yes, of any set. And? That is exactly the point. You can also say it is trivially a subset.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Simply not true. Show me where.

Sure.

~(All the Jews I know are atheists and not-atheists) = I know at least 1 Jew that is not atheists and not-atheist.

The NOT needs to be distributed, that would result in NOT atheists OR not-atheist.

Obviously not. And you failed to show how.

I did show it multiple times. You claim to know, but you don't know. You claim they are atheist, but they're not. You claim it's absolutely true, but it's vacuously-true.

Nonsense. Saying that I do not know any Jew is the same as saying that the set of Jews I know is empty. Don't you think?

No. One is quantity zero, and the other is complete non-existence.

This is just n your mind. I claimed as a premise that I do not any Jew. So, another total fail from your side.

No.... that's not true. You made a claim. Then after multiple posts confessed. Then you compared the original statement to 2+2=5.

Another nonsense. You say it does not hold for the empty set, and that at the beginning that it holds. If there is someone contradicting oneself, that is your, and blatantly so. You probably do not even read what you post.

No, I didn't say that. Read it again.

Yes, of any set. And? That is exactly the point. You can also say it is trivially a subset.

vacuously-is means "isn't".

So, you've just confirmed it. So, if you want to make a claim about vacuously-knowing, you need to include that, because vacuous-knowledge is the opposite of knowledge.

 

[viole]

See it? You dropped the second NOT. It's OK. You have primitive training.

"At least 1 Jew I know is NOT atheist or is NOT not-atheist." = At least 1 Jew I know is neither atheist nor not-atheist.

I know, I know, englsh is your fourth language, and you don't pay attention to what words actually mean, you just evaluate like a robot who is uninformed of contradictions.

This probably will get the award as the most epic fail of yours.

"At least 1 Jew I know is NOT atheist or is NOT not-atheist." = "At least 1 Jew I know is neither atheist nor not-atheist" ???????

The funny thing is that you postulate my lack of English language. While it is in fact obvious that it is yourself who does not understand English semantics. Since it is self evident that the left sentence is completely different from the right sentence.

In fact, even a child could seee that. If I knew one Jew who is NOT Atheist, the left sentence would be true, while the right would not. And therefore the two propositions are not equal. And trivially so. In fact, the left is always true, while the left is always false, if I know one Jew.

Thus, it should be self evident by now, that ALL your conclusions are based on either wrong statements, false derivations, inventing contradictions just to make your case, basic misunderstanding of English, arbitrary and made up assertions about the laws of logic, etc

and can therefore be safely dismissed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

This probably will get the award as the most epic fail of yours.

"At least 1 Jew I know is NOT atheist or is NOT not-atheist." = "At least 1 Jew I know is neither atheist nor not-atheist" ???????

Ummmm. You're repeating and ignoring your own failure. Again. I already said it was a tiny error.

Nor = Not-or. I flippy-flopped it and considered Nor= Or-Not. That's all. Just a tiny error.

You made a similar error. You did not distribute the NOT into the statement. As I showed in the previous reply. You asked where you made an error. I showed you. You've changed the subject, probably because you know I'm right.

~(All the Jews I know are atheists and not-atheists) = I know at least 1 Jew that is not atheists and not-atheist.

The NOT needs to be distributed, that would result in NOT atheists OR not-atheist.

The funny thing is that you postulate my lack of English language. While it is in fact obvious that it is yourself who does not understand English semantics. Since it is self evident that the left sentence is completely different from the right sentence.

YOU'RE the one who has repeatedly leaned on lack of english knowledge as a potential source of problems. And you have repeatedly advocated for not thinking and being robotic.

And your method ignores relevance, and evidence. And also makes intentionally false claims and tries to cover up for them. You admitted that the claim you made was like saying 2+2=5.

You cherry picked the one sentence out of the wiki article that agrees with you while ignoring the next sentence, literally the next sentence, that proves you're wrong.

And I've brought beaucoup sources that agree with me, and youve brought intro-videos, and forum posts. You denied needing to read beyond page 12 in the source I brought.

And most important, you cannot find any fault in my proof, which uses classical logic to defeat you. The error is that you never properly defined Jew, and you never properly defined atheist. Once those defintions are included, you are not only wrong in this specific case, but you are wrong in every other proposition, and any other property.

But, you cannot admit openly that you were wrong.

In fact, even a child could seee that. If I knew one Jew who is NOT Atheist, the left sentence would be true, while the right would not. And therefore the two propositions are not equal. And trivially so. In fact, the left is always true, while the left is always false, if I know one Jew.

Well. Yes, I made a tiny error. But no, no one so far has agreed that claiming "All I know" somehow magically equates to "I don't know any". And really, YOU making a claim about "Any child..." "All scholars..." "The entire world...." none of those are true either. They're just exaggerations made by a person who has been proven wrong repeatedly.

At least I have the integrity to admit the small errors ( or the big ones if I make them ), research the mistake and learn. You seem to lack that programming in your brain-places.

Thus, it should be self evident by now, that ALL your conclusions are based on either wrong statements, false derivations, inventing contradictions just to make your case, basic misunderstanding of English, arbitrary and made up assertions about the laws of logic, etc

No. Making a tiny mistake does not invalidate everything I've said. Again, you seem incapable of evaluating relevance.

The mistake of "not-or" with "or-not" is irrelevant. You made a similar mistake.

and can therefore be safely dismissed.

You can dismiss it. Why would I care? No one else seems to care. Your method is nonsensical, worthless, without merit. it's just playing with words, making false claims, lying by omission, making a confession, then deny the confession, deny-deny-deny. Repeat repeat repeat.

You asked for my position in english. Here it is. Good luck finding relevant fault in it and supporting that objection in a way which is credible.

---

Any positive assertion about the properties of an empty-set is ALWAYS false with one exception, it is empty.
Any negative assertion about the properties of an empty-set is ALWAYS true with one exception, it is not empty.

The concept of a vacuity is negating.
When making a positive assertion about the properties of an empty-set, it must be included in the statement otherwise the empty-set is no longer empty in contradiction to its defintion.
When making a negative assertion about the properties of an empty-set, the vacuity can be omitted because it is redundant.

In, I think, all the soures you have brought the vacuity is included in the positive assertion, though it is tagged onto the end where it is easily over looked. Just as you are overlooking it, or willfully ignoring it.

Your so-called logic ignores evidence, ignores relevance, and has adopted trivialism (everything is true! the empty-set always obtains) when considering a so-called set which cannot under any circumstances obtain anything.

The distinction between postive assertions (ALWAYS FALSE) and negative assertions (ALWAYS TRUE) is in the link below:

Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Permitting a contradiction using a "vacuous-truth" are in the links below:

Empty set - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[viole]

Nor = Not-or. I flippy-flopped it and considered Nor= Or-Not. That's all. Just a tiny error.

Sure. Confusing a proposition which is always true with one which is always false, is a tiny error. I wonder how your not tiny errors look like.
anyway, irrelevant. In logic, even the tiniest error invalidates all that follows. As you should know.

therefore, like anyone knows, any error in a derivation, invalidates what follows. Logic 101, really. And, again, you wasted a whole lot of typing, I am afraid.

The NOT needs to be distributed, that would result in NOT atheists OR not-atheist.

Yes, and? No contradiction at all. because it is obvious that if I knew one Jew, she would be atheist or not atheist. And tautologically so.
unless, of course, we invoke your absurd claim that there is a third alternative.

is your entire case based on something that not only is not a contradiction, but it is trivially true?

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Sure. Confusing a proposition which is always true with one which is always false, is a tiny error. I wonder how your not tiny errors look like.
anyway, irrelevant. In logic, even the tiniest error invalidates all that follows. As you should know.

But that tiny error is not included in the proof that your proposition is always false.

And what proved is confirmed on the Stanford University website. I simply formalized it and proved it.

therefore, like anyone knows, any error in a derivation, invalidates what follows. Logic 101, really. And, again, you wasted a whole lot of typing, I am afraid.

Since it's not an error in the derivation, there's no actual problem. The tiny error invalidates nothing.

Yes, and? No contradiction at all. because it is obvious that if I knew one Jew, she would be atheist or not atheist. And tautologically so.
unless, of course, we invoke your absurd claim that there is a third alternative.

That's not the contradiction. The contradiction comes from claiming that a Jew can be both simultaneously. And the fault is resolved by proper defintions.

is your entire case based on something that not only is not a contradiction, but it is trivially true?

No. My case is that you rely on trivialism on but are in denial about it.

Then there's the facts on Stanford's website.

And the proof.

And that you made an intentionally false statement and then after questioning confessed.

If 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims.

are also true. And quite uncontroversially.

So by comparing your original statement to the one above, you have admitted that you combined 2 false statements to create something which you consider true.

"2+2=5" is false
"Jews are muslims" is false

"all the jews I know" is false
"are atheists" is false

 

[viole]

But that tiny error is not included in the proof that your proposition is always false.

And what proved is confirmed on the Stanford University website. I simply formalized it and proved it.

You didn’t. all you did is making a wrong inference. As usual.

Since it's not an error in the derivation, there's no actual problem. The tiny error invalidates nothing.

That was your case to show a contradiction. It is easy to make a case by making up, or getting mistaken. And if it was not relevant, why typing it?

the funny thing is that even if we take your terribly wrong negation, you would still make my case. But I am not holding my breath that you see why.

That's not the contradiction. The contradiction comes from claiming that a Jew can be both simultaneously. And the fault is resolved by proper defintions.

And nobody ever claimed that. So, you are making up things again.

No. My case is that you rely on trivialism on but are in denial about it.

Of course not, lol. Still in making up mode, I am afraid.

So by comparing your original statement to the one above, you have admitted that you combined 2 false statements to create something which you consider true.

"2+2=5" is false
"Jews are muslims" is false

Ach, You are really terribly confused.

What is true is:

if 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims.

what probably confuses you is that you seem to confuse the truth value of the entire proposition, with the truth value of the right part (that all Jews are Muslims), but it is obvious that they are not related at all. One can be true, the other not. Well, obvious to the entire world minus 1

this is a simple application of the truth table about conditional statements contained IN THE VERY PROOF BOOK that you posted.
have you actually read it, before posting it? I have to ask because you contradict it all the time.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

You didn’t. all you did is making a wrong inference. As usual.

Nah. It's proven. The proper defintion begins with the XOR condition. Yours is improper because it ignores the XOR condition. And because the condtion is true for any mutually exclusive set of properties. And any individual property includes a mutally exclusive negation ( like atheist and not-atheist ). That means when you claimed to be talking about All Jews you know, and not knowing any Jews, the method you're using contradicts both the defintion of Jews and atheists.

You simply cannot be talking about Jews at all.

The next problem is, the claim of not knowing any Jews at all. Thats not true. The definition of Jews must have come from somewhere, so, that means the set of Jews in your knowledge-domain isn't actually empty.

That was your case to show a contradiction. It is easy to make a case by making up, or getting mistaken. And if it was not relevant, why typing it?

YOU brought it up.

the funny thing is that even if we take your terribly wrong negation, you would still make my case. But I am not holding my breath that you see why.

No I see it, but that's not the contradiction.

And nobody ever claimed that. So, you are making up things again.

Sure you did multiple times and I've quoted it. You even claim it's absolutely true.

The true statement is:

I don't know any Jews that are ...

All the Jews I know are atheists and not-atheists is false because it's not talking about Jews. By defintion.

Of course not, lol. Still in making up mode, I am afraid.

Like I said, your in denial, inspite of claiming trivial truth.

Ach, You are really terribly confused.

What is true is:

if 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims.

Yes, it's a combining 2 intentionally false statements.

You did the same thing combining 2 intentionally false statements.

All the Jews I know is false.
Are Atheists is false.

what probably confuses you is that you seem to confuse the truth value of the entire proposition, with the truth value of the right part (that all Jews are Muslims), but it is obvious that they are not related at all. One can be true, the other not. Well, obvious to the entire world minus 1

No, it's you that is confused, because the original proposition is not IF THEN. It's AND.

this is a simple application of the truth table about conditional statements contained IN THE VERY PROOF BOOK that you posted.
have you actually read it, before posting it? I have to ask because you contradict it all the time.

ciao

- viole

if 2+2=5, then all Jews are Muslims

1) All the Jews I know are atheists
2) All the Jews I know are non-atheists

Now... please show me the IF ... THEN that exists in number 1 and number 2 above without adding any words.

Since you can't, then its YOU who is making things up. YOU are changing the claim in your mind. YOU are applying the weakest form of logic to it, when the actual statement was not IF ... THEN.

this is a simple application of the truth table about conditional statements contained IN THE VERY PROOF BOOK that you posted.
have you actually read it, before posting it? I have to ask because you contradict it all the time.

No... your propostition as not IF THEN. SO you can't use that weak version of truth that assumes everything is true unless i is proven false.

If you wanted say that, and you wanted to use that truth table. You needed to *actually* use the words IF ... THEN. And even then...

"IF I don't know any Jews THEN all the Jews I know are atheist and not-atheist" is still false because a Jew cannot be both simultaneously and you are not talking about Jews, or atheists, or both. The whole thing is false.

 

[dybmh]

the funny thing is that even if we take your terribly wrong negation, you would still make my case. But I am not holding my breath that you see why.

Actually, no matter how it's phrased you are always going to lose because the proposition is not IF THEN. That's one of the biggest problems. As I said many times, mistranslation of the proposition will render a false conclusion.

In addition to assuming the set is empy when it's not, you're adding IF THEN to the proposition when it isn't there.

You also need to add the words "assuming that ..." to the propostion to use the truth table you're referring to. And the conclusion is a vacuous truth, and you consistently omit that from your statements...

Including omitting from the wikipedia reference when you quoted it.

 

[dybmh]

all you did is making a wrong inference

It's not an inference. It's a proof by contradiction. Technically it's a dis-proof. I disproved your statement because it doesn't properly define Jew and Atheist.

 

[mindlight]

Is religion dying i.e. waning in popularity?

Well, you guys are all old, so maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd...

Haha jk

You guys have a certain perspective.

As the youngins take the places of you lot, do you think religion will be as popular or influential?

Atheism seems to be on the rise. Institutionalized religion has traumatized much of millennials and I'm betting gen z too. I get mixed signals when I try to gauge the populace's ever changing opinion on religion. Will the millennials and gen z let religion be a dominating cultural force, as it has always been?

I think Christianity is dying but spirituality is rising. I don't think religion is dying. But I think it is possible. I think atheism and agnosticism will keep rising, and as a result organized religion will lose its influence.

Globally religion is rising and the number of atheists declined massively with the defeat of communism in Russia. Also atheist demographics are shot to pieces so further decline is expected vis a vis religious nations. The church is growing in places like China and Iran. What has changed in recent years is that Christianity is no longer the imperial tool of dominant Western nations but is rather rising in countries outside the West. This coincides with the relative decline of Western countries as the infertility and sterility of atheistic world views have permeated their societies and chat forums.

 

[viole]

Nah. It's proven. The proper defintion begins with the XOR condition. Yours is improper because it ignores the XOR condition. And because the condtion is true for any mutually exclusive set of properties. And any individual property includes a mutally exclusive negation ( like atheist and not-atheist ). That means when you claimed to be talking about All Jews you know, and not knowing any Jews, the method you're using contradicts both the defintion of Jews and atheists.

You simply cannot be talking about Jews at all.

The next problem is, the claim of not knowing any Jews at all. Thats not true. The definition of Jews must have come from somewhere, so, that means the set of Jews in your knowledge-domain isn't actually empty.

All you have proven is that the negation of my claim is false. Which makes the claim true. A cording to the proof book that yourself posted.
so, what you say is nonsense. and yes, it is XOR condition. Nothing wrong with that.

what you still do not understand, for some strange reason, is that it is perfectly valid to use mutually contradicting propositions in a statement, while the entire statement still being true. Still, according to the book of poof you posted yourself. That you apparently did not read, XOR not understood.

examples:

1) if there is a Jew who is atheist and not atheist at the same time, then Scotland is in Canada. TRUE, according to the laws of conditionals.
2) all the atheists I know are atheists AND not atheists is TRUE (if and only if I know no Jew). So, TRUE. as per premise.
3) 2 + 2 = 4 OR all Jews are atheists and not atheists at the same time. TRUE. Try this one in Bash, if you don’t believe me. True even with XOR.

again, all in perfect accordance with the book you posted, and the laws of logic. I can show you every individual page, if you want. it is quite easy, actually to prove ll above statements using the laws of proof described there.

therefore, my personal recommendation is that you read the book, and try to understand it. It is pretty well written, and easy to understand. I am quite positive even you could understand it.

Until you reach that point in knowledge, you cannot be considered competent in basic logical reasoning, and that also explains all your non sequiturs, errors, foot shooting exhibitions, etc. that you showed until now. You would just be someone indulging in ultracrepidarianism. Like the average creationist believing to know biology and science better than anyone else, when it takes two seconds to realize he has no clue.

good luck, with your study

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

if there is a Jew who is atheist and not atheist at the same time, then Scotland is in Canada. TRUE, according to the laws of conditionals.

You did not phrase your statement as an If, then. Not a valid example.

all the Jews I know are atheists AND not atheists is TRUE (if and only if I know no Jew). So, TRUE. as per premise.

This violates the defintion of Jew.

2 + 2 = 4 OR all Jews are atheists and not atheists at the same time

Not a valid example, you did not phrase your statement this way.

 

[viole]

You did not phrase your statement as an If, then. Not a valid example.

I did.
If there is a Jew who is atheists and not atheist at then same time, then Scotland is in Canada.

Where do you miss the "if" and ""then" in it?

Do you need help reading English too?

This violates the defintion of Jew

How?

Do you think Jews who are atheists are not Jews, anymore?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Muffled]

Is religion dying i.e. waning in popularity?

Well, you guys are all old, so maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd...

Haha jk

You guys have a certain perspective.

As the youngins take the places of you lot, do you think religion will be as popular or influential?

Atheism seems to be on the rise. Institutionalized religion has traumatized much of millennials and I'm betting gen z too. I get mixed signals when I try to gauge the populace's ever changing opinion on religion. Will the millennials and gen z let religion be a dominating cultural force, as it has always been?

I think Christianity is dying but spirituality is rising. I don't think religion is dying. But I think it is possible. I think atheism and agnosticism will keep rising, and as a result organized religion will lose its influence.

I believe it will never die in me. So I will be a Christian in my next life as well so being young will not be yours forever and I will take your place as a young believer.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not convinced atheism is really on the rise. I think apathy, agnosticism and non-religious spiritualism are all more on the rise than atheism in any specific sense.

I've tried to make atheism sexy (I mean, just look at me) but some of the more religious-types within the atheism community undermine my efforts.

Half-joking.

I believe there is always science. Some people treat it like a god.