'...And I'm an Atheist'

[Tempus]

Sorry, I assumed the atheists here would be familiar with the basic terminology of elementary logic.

Why would you assume that You don't need to know anything about logic (nor science, religion or philosophy in general for that matter) to be an atheist after all.

Symbolic logic doesn't improve statements; it does make them more concise.

Although it doesn't really matter how concise a statement is if it can't be understood. I guess it depends on how wide an audience you want to reach. I understand some of the basics of logic, but I'm not familiar with much of the symbolic representation of it. What may seem simple to you will likely go over my head until I do some more looking into the subject.

I use basic logic symbols and terminology that high school freshmen should be familiar with?

Depends on the high school you went to I suppose. I've never had a compulsory philosophy / logic / critical thinking class before. The maths classes I had were often loud and full of distractions. You seem to be using your own experiences as a model for what others should / would know. It may be that they 'should' know, but the fact is many don't.

I thought people here liked reason and logic. I had no idea there was so much ignorance here on the topic of logic.

You're the one who's ignorant (how's that for provocative!) if you think that the people singing the praises of reason and logic necessarily know (or want to know) something about either.

[Jackalope]

Keep the ad homs up; I can safely ignore them, since they're irrelevant.

By all means, do so. I find it quite humorous when people are quick to find fault in others while lacking sufficient introspection to see their own.

It's not often one can find quality, free entertainment.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"I just thought that "Pot, meet kettle" was a lot more polite than "My, Clive, what a sanctimonious, hypocritical prick you are".


OK. However,far less accurate and much less satisfying. You have much higher standards of behaviour than I. But then, I suffer from "online disinhibition effect"

PS still having trouble with the quote and smilie functions. (they don't work)



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disi...ion_effect

[Jackalope]

Uh, what? This place characterizes itself as a place of logic and reason.

Does it? Where? As a member of the staff, I'm unaware of any such mission statement. Perhaps you can cure me of my ignorance.

I see individuals who characterize themselves as logical and reasonable (some rightly so, others not so much).

---

OK. However,far less accurate and much less satisfying. You have much higher standards of behaviour than I. But then, I suffer from "online disinhibition effect"

PS still having trouble with the quote and smilie functions. (they don't work)

Perhaps your browser has Javascript disabled?

[CliveStaples]

Does it? Where? As a member of the staff, I'm unaware of any such mission statement. Perhaps you can cure me of my ignorance.

I see individuals who characterize themselves as logical and reasonable (some rightly so, others not so much).

I suppose I should have been more pedantic: The membership here often characterize themselves as valuing logic and reason.

---

By all means, do so. I find it quite humorous when people are quick to find fault in others while lacking sufficient introspection to see their own.

It's not often one can find quality, free entertainment.

I'm not the one claiming a high ground, though. You guys are supposed to be on the side of science, logic, and reason; if you haven't taken the time to actually learn logic, that's your own lookout.

[Jackalope]

However, the person who did not understand the meaning if "p=>q", as far as I am aware, has never made any such claim.

If you can't see how you're making broad generalizations and characterizing individuals based on the statements of others who happen to share one characteristic (a lack of belief in deity), then I really can't help you.

P.S. Just so we're clear, I claim no high ground, moral or otherwise. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

[CliveStaples]

Why would you assume that You don't need to know anything about logic (nor science, religion or philosophy in general for that matter) to be an atheist after all.

I agree, but if you value logic and reason, I'd think that you'd take some time to learn about logic and reason. I like to learn about things I'm interested in.

Although it doesn't really matter how concise a statement is if it can't be understood. I guess it depends on how wide an audience you want to reach. I understand some of the basics of logic, but I'm not familiar with much of the symbolic representation of it. What may seem simple to you will likely go over my head until I do some more looking into the subject.

If I thought I was talking to a crowd of average people, I'd have written my arguments differently, that's for sure. It has been my experience that atheists who argue on the internet tend to be highly conversant in logic and science.

Depends on the high school you went to I suppose. I've never had a compulsory philosophy / logic / critical thinking class before. The maths classes I had were often loud and full of distractions. You seem to be using your own experiences as a model for what others should / would know. It may be that they 'should' know, but the fact is many don't.

I knew about symbolic logic because I read about it. My high school education sucked.

You're the one who's ignorant (how's that for provocative!) if you think that the people singing the praises of reason and logic necessarily know (or want to know) something about either.

That seems like quite empty praise, doesn't it? Isn't that like Christians who don't know the Bible, but praise the God it claims exists?

---

However, the person who did not understand the meaning if "p=>q", as far as I am aware, has never made any such claim.

If you can't see how you're making broad generalizations and characterizing individuals based on the statements of others who happen to share one characteristic (a lack of belief in deity), then I really can't help you.

I'll make sure to provide very precise definitions when I use symbolic logic in the future. I didn't know that people here were so against it...

---

P.S. Just so we're clear, I claim no high ground, moral or otherwise. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

That's pretty much my attitude, too. Which is why it irritates me that your ideological compatriot assumed I was being high-and-mighty.

[Jackalope]

P.S. Just so we're clear, I claim no high ground, moral or otherwise. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

That's pretty much my attitude, too. Which is why it irritates me that your ideological compatriot assumed I was being high-and-mighty.

Ouch. My "ideological compatriot"? Clive, you really know how to insult a guy. I'm not overly fond of the gentleman in question and find his reasoning to be quite deficient.

[MountOlympus]

Clive, I get it. You're an intelligent prick. I apologize that being an atheist does not require of someone to be an intelligent prick.

[jonb]

So the mad ramble was to explain the standard formula for basic logic without reference to atheism at all, and you took how long to say that? Sorry I did not recognise you were talking at such a basic level.
So has your definition for your version of what atheism is any validity to any body other than you?