Is religion dying?

[dybmh]

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?

No. That's not what you originally said. You originally said "All the jews I know are atheists." Period. End of statement. End of post. Post#16 ---> Link. I know it's been a long debate, but since you have a pattern of misrepresenting, cherry picking, and lying by omission. I think you're being dishonest here. I think you know what you said, and you're trying to weasel out of it.

How?

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

Ciao

- viole

No one can be both an atheist and not an atheist simultaneously.

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.

1) you did not declare all the premises. As you were shown earlier, to use the "logic" you want to use you would need to declare the assumptions, and include the vacuity of your knowledge. Both need to be included.
2) no one can be both atheist and not atheist simultaneously. This is false per the definition of both atheist and jew.

 

[Muffled]

I wonder how long this will be enough. Perhaps indefinitely?

I believe cultural traditions are not holding up. Of course it does not affect people like me who are not believers because of cultural traditions but because I have a personal relationship with Jesus.

 

[viole]

No. That's not what you originally said. You originally said "All the jews I know are atheists." Period. End of statement. End of post. Post#16 ---> Link

Ok, let us use a logical equivalent one.

if I know a Jew, then she is an atheist.

Still true, according to premises. And the truth is confirmed by the laws on conditionals dictated by your book. So, what is your point exactly?

No one can be both an atheist and not an atheist simultaneously.

Of course not. But I am sure you agree that there are Atheist Jews, right?

1) you did not declare all the premises. As you were shown earlier, to use the "logic" you want to use you would need to declare the assumptions, and include the vacuity of your knowledge. Both need to be included.
2) no one can be both atheist and not atheist simultaneously. This is false per the definition of both atheist and jew.

The premises are obvious: I do not know any Jew.

What part of that sentence you do not understand?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Ok, let us use a logical equivalent one.

if I know a Jew, then she is an atheist.

Still true, according to premises. And the truth is confirmed by the laws on conditionals dictated by your book. So, what is your point exactly?

Nope. You're still lying by omission. You need to declare the permises. If you do, then you can make a true logical statement. But if you do that in this case, you'll sound like an imbecile.

One way to form a true statement, and not sound like a fool is "if you know a jew than she is an atheist or not."

But if you want to say what you've been saying, "all the jews I know are atheists", then you need to declare a lot more.

This is what you need to do to make a logical statement in english if you want to go by the book I brought.

Here's what it looks like in the book.

Definition 1.3 Suppose A and B are sets. If every element of A is also an element of B, then we say A is a subset of B, and we denote this as A ⊆ B. We write A ⊈ B if A is not a subset of B, that is, if it is not true that every element of A is also an element of B. Thus A ⊈ B means that there is at least one element of A that is not an element of B.

From this it further concludes that, If A=∅ Then ∅ ⊆ B.

You're stating A ⊆ B because A=∅. But you haven't defined A or B or the assumption that A is an element of B.

Of course not. But I am sure you agree that there are Atheist Jews, right?

Definitely, 100% yes.

The premises are obvious: I do not know any Jew.

That's not the only premise. You're missing "Suppose all Jews are atheists". That's step 1 of making a true statement using the truth table for implication.

What part of that sentence you do not understand?

I understand it perfectly.

In order to make it a true statement it would need to be:

Assuming all jews are atheists, and I don't know any jews, then all the jews I vacuously know are atheists.

You didn't declare the necessary assumption, nor did you declare the vacuity. All you said is: "if I know a Jew, then she is an atheist." You didn't declare that you don't know any jews, you didn't declare

 

[Orbit]

35 pages of arguing about "All the Jews I know are atheist.". Maybe it just so happens that all the Jews she knows are religiously atheist but culturally Jewish. It happens.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Some do, sure. Most things are treated as infallible by some people. Some even see books as infallible. Humans are strange.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

35 pages of arguing about "All the Jews I know are atheist.". Maybe it just so happens that all the Jews she knows are religiously atheist but culturally Jewish. It happens.

One of my best mates growing up was culturally Jewish and religiously basically a deist. Took him ages to work out that my mum wasn't inviting him to dinner because she thought it would be insulting to serve him non-kosher food.

 

[dybmh]

35 pages of arguing about "All the Jews I know are atheist.". Maybe it just so happens that all the Jews she knows are religiously atheist but culturally Jewish. It happens.

Again, you aren't aware of what's been said.

She is saying "she doesn't know any jews at all." And at the same time is saying "all the jews she knows are atheists."

Technically, she didn't even confess that she didn't know any jews until after repeated pressure. To cover up for that, she's trying to use "logic" and a concept known as a "vacuous truth" to claim what she said was true all along. But she cannot distinguish between a vacuous truth ( a bald assertion ) and an actual truth ( from evidence ).

I've shown that it's actually false what she said both using natural deduction and the "classical logic" which she is attempting to use.

 

[dybmh]

35 pages of arguing about "All the Jews I know are atheist.". Maybe it just so happens that all the Jews she knows are religiously atheist but culturally Jewish. It happens.

She is saying she doesn't know any jews at all. But, she's hiding that, lying by omission, by calling it a "premise".

This is a sign of a morally bankrupt person. Is she morally bankrupt in real life? I don't know. But there's no consequences for lying and being deceptive in an online forum.

 

[viole]

Nope. You're still lying by omission. You need to declare the permises. If you do, then you can make a true logical statement. But if you do that in this case, you'll sound like an imbecile.

One way to form a true statement, and not sound like a fool is "if you know a jew than she is an atheist or not."

But if you want to say what you've been saying, "all the jews I know are atheists", then you need to declare a lot more.

This is what you need to do to make a logical statement in english if you want to go by the book I brought.

Here's what it looks like in the book.

Definition 1.3 Suppose A and B are sets. If every element of A is also an element of B, then we say A is a subset of B, and we denote this as A ⊆ B. We write A ⊈ B if A is not a subset of B, that is, if it is not true that every element of A is also an element of B. Thus A ⊈ B means that there is at least one element of A that is not an element of B.

From this it further concludes that, If A=∅ Then ∅ ⊆ B.

You're stating A ⊆ B because A=∅. But you haven't defined A or B or the assumption that A is an element of B.

The premises are very simple: I do not know any Jew. I really do not.

I wonder why you are still confused by something that simple. Should I make a picture, just in case you do not understand English text?

Therefore, both equivalent propositions are true:

1) All the Jews I know are atheist
2) If I know a Jew, then he/she is an atheist.

And both easily provable according to the laws in the book you posted yourself. I can show you how, in case you do not see it.

Definitely, 100% yes.

Cool.

That's not the only premise. You're missing "Suppose all Jews are atheists". That's step 1 of making a true statement using the truth table for implication.

I never set the premise "Suppose all Jews are atheists". LOL. Unless you can show me where I have ever said that. You are back in "making up" mode.

You are making up your own parallel reality, and you arbitrarily tune it in such a way so that your are right.

You know who you remember me of?

understand it perfectly.

In order to make it a true statement it would need to be:

Assuming all jews are atheists, and I don't know any jews, then all the jews I vacuously know are atheists.

You didn't declare the necessary assumption, nor did you declare the vacuity. All you said is: "if I know a Jew, then she is an atheist." You didn't declare that you don't know any jews, you didn't declare

I am not assuming all Jews are atheists. That is, again. a figment of your imagination.

My claim is right independently of that. Obviously. My claim is that since I do not know any Jews, then all the Jews I know are Atheists. Which is, according to to the proof book you posted, easily provable. Actually, yourself proved it without realizing it. Which is embarrassing evidence that you do not even know what you talk about.

Again, you are making up your own deluded world in which the laws of evidence do not count, so that you are right. And you also proved to the entire world that you do not know what you are talking about.

Who does that? And how long are you willing to embarrass yourself with it?

Assuming you are not running for the White House, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

I never set the premise "Suppose all Jews are atheists". LOL.

Correct. That's why you cannot use the truth table for implication. Which truth table are you using?

 

[dybmh]

My claim is right independently of that. Obviously. My claim is that since I do not know any Jews, then all the Jews I know are Atheists. Which is, according to to the proof book you posted, easily provable.

Nope. Not without assuming that all Jews are atheists. If you don't know any, how in the world do you magically produce the true assertion that any of them are anything?

This is how a logical implication works in classical logic. It's in the book you keep referencing. I think it's in chapter 2.

 

[Orbit]

Again, you aren't aware of what's been said.

She is saying "she doesn't know any jews at all." And at the same time is saying "all the jews she knows are atheists."

Technically, she didn't even confess that she didn't know any jews until after repeated pressure. To cover up for that, she's trying to use "logic" and a concept known as a "vacuous truth" to claim what she said was true all along. But she cannot distinguish between a vacuous truth ( a bald assertion ) and an actual truth ( from evidence ).

I've shown that it's actually false what she said both using natural deduction and the "classical logic" which she is attempting to use.

She is saying she doesn't know any jews at all. But, she's hiding that, lying by omission, by calling it a "premise".

This is a sign of a morally bankrupt person. Is she morally bankrupt in real life? I don't know. But there's no consequences for lying and being deceptive in an online forum.

And you've engaged with this nonsense for 35 pages? Forgive me for skimming the thread and missing the second part, but this is just ridiculous.

 

[dybmh]

And you've engaged with this nonsense for 35 pages? Forgive me for skimming the thread and missing the second part, but this is just ridiculous.

No problem. The big picture is, I knew immediately she was being dishonest. And I knew immediately that what she was saying was illogical. This shows that religion is not dying. It's alive and well. My religion teaches people how to think and how to recognize a dishonest person.

Along the way I also demonstrated the hypocrisy in the so-called logic that is being attempted. That's another thing that comes from religion. Identifying hypocrisy.

 

[dybmh]

And you've engaged with this nonsense for 35 pages? Forgive me for skimming the thread and missing the second part, but this is just ridiculous.

One more thing. I've let this thread drop several times. And @viole keeps coming back for more. So, please don't judge me for continuing in this debate. Thank you,

 

[Orbit]

One more thing. I've let this thread drop several times. And @viole keeps coming back for more. So, please don't judge me for continuing in this debate. Thank you,

I wasn't really judging you, just expressing amazement.

Edited to add: Maybe I'm not being clear enough: I'm on your side here.

 

[dybmh]

I wasn't really judging you, just expressing amazement.

Edited to add: Maybe I'm not being clear enough: I'm on your side here.

Wow. Thank you. That means a lot to me.

 

[viole]

Nope. Not without assuming that all Jews are atheists. If you don't know any, how in the world do you magically produce the true assertion that any of them are anything?

This is how a logical implication works in classical logic. It's in the book you keep referencing. I think it's in chapter 2.

You think? Show it to me. But I am not holding my breath, because that is yet another product of your vivid imagination.

Since I do not know any Jew, then it is the case that all the Jews I know are atheist. They also have wings, buy the way. And they all look like Pamela Anderson. And Napoleon, at the same time. Actually, and it is perfectly true, they also look like Donald Trump, and think like him, by creating an imaginary reality, despite all evidence and experts opinion, so that they are right. Heaven forbid.

Yet, the above statement is absolutely true, given the premise that I know no Jews. And in case of the Donald Trump scenario, that would be true too, even if I counted you as the sole Jew I know. Because you are showing here that exact way of thinking.

There is absolutely no need to assume that all Jews are atheists, nor that they have wings, nor that they look like Pamela Anderson, to come to my conclusion. lol. Where did you get that from? You just need to take a look at the truth tables of the book you posted, to see that if I know a Jew, then any property applied to it, renders the sentence: if I know a Jew, then P(x), always true, under the sole premise that the antecedent is false, as it is. And that sentence is, according to the same tables, logical equivalent to my original claim.

The alternative proof of my claim is also still the same. And it is something that you also proved for me, too. Namely, by proving that the negation of the claim is false. And that, therefore, according to the truth table for negation in the book you posted, the original claim is true.

I mean, what do you need more than that?

As I said. Take your time, get prepared by reading the same book you posted, understand it, do all the exercise, and come back when you made your homework. Until that point, I will assume you are indulging in ultracrepidarianlism, or you just suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. And that would a compliment, when compared with the alternative.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Since I do not know any Jew, then it is the case that all the Jews I know are atheist. They also have wings, buy the way. And they all look like Pamela Anderson. And Napoleon, at the same time. Actually, and it is perfectly true, they also look like Donald Trump, and think like him, by creating an imaginary reality, despite all evidence and experts opinion, so that they are right. Heaven forbid.

How do you know if you don't know any?

There is absolutely no need to assume that all Jews are atheists, nor that they have wings, nor that they look like Pamela Anderson, to come to my conclusion. lol.

How do you know they have anything without making an assumption? You don't know any.

And it is something that you also proved for me, too. Namely, by proving that the negation of the claim is false.

I proved that what you're saying violates the defintion of both Jew and athiest.

Show it to me. But I am not holding my breath, because that is yet another product of your vivid imagination.

I already did. I'm not doing it again. It's explained in multiple pages like I said, chapter 2. It's a "promise" that is assumed to be true. The speaker only "lies" if it is assumed to be true. Without the assumption, nothing is being said.

 

[ZoroKing]

I think all religious followers are weak except for Christianity, they have the holy spirit.