'...And I'm an Atheist'

[jonb]

We'll be using standard logic. ,

Oh'WE' will, will 'WE'

[5thHorseman]

I remember laughing whilst in NYC at the amount of 'im a mormon' ad cabs. No wonder Romney avoids tax.

[CliveStaples]

Oh'WE' will, will 'WE'

That's the royal "we". As in, "every system I will bring up will be assumed to use standard logic for its rules of inference."

[jonb]

"every system I will bring up will be assumed to use standard logic for its rules of inference."

By whom?

[ohh EPiC FAiL]

i actually logged on here with the specific intent of posting a thread about the mormon ads and how cool it'd be if there was something like that about atheists to help get rid of the negative stereotype associated with the label.

[jonb]

i actually logged on here with the specific intent of posting a thread about the mormon ads and how cool it'd be if there was something like that about atheists to help get rid of the negative stereotype associated with the label.

Having been a London punk from 75/76, I like a bit of negative stereotyping. who wants to spend their lives being a good boy and singing with the choir, If they can't accept me fuck em.

[CliveStaples]

"every system I will bring up will be assumed to use standard logic for its rules of inference."

By whom?

By me, when I draw inferences. Like if I say, "Oh, p and p->q are true; therefore, q holds", I'm using modus ponens. Or I might use substitution (if P(x) is a predicate statement about x, and x = y, then P(x) <=> P(y)).

The only reason I bother to specify which rules of inference I'm using is to make explicit what reasoning my conclusions are based on, and what it means for something to 'follow from' a previous statement. In general, there are many different rules of inference that could be employed; the standard transformation and substitution rules of propositional/predicate logic are pretty familiar to most people, and I think they're useful for my purpose here.

[jonb]

By me, when I draw inferences. Like if I say, "Oh, p and p->q are true; therefore, q holds", I'm using modus ponens. Or I might use substitution (if P(x) is a predicate statement about x, and x = y, then P(x) <=> P(y)).

The only reason I bother to specify which rules of inference I'm using is to make explicit what reasoning my conclusions are based on, and what it means for something to 'follow from' a previous statement. In general, there are many different rules of inference that could be employed; the standard transformation and substitution rules of propositional/predicate logic are pretty familiar to most people, and I think they're useful for my purpose here.

This is as fine an example of 'Academic latin' as I could hope to read, you deserve an award. This reminds me of a scene from a film I enjoyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIBmc4pn8LY

[MountOlympus]

I second the advertisement idea. Except in a more satirical way.

A fundamentalist christian shows up on screen.

He tells us about the horrible things Atheists are. "Abortionists, demons, sodomizers, hippies, etc..."

And then it fades to black, revealing a bunch of well known atheists, who say:

"You're wrong."

Then a direction to a website where everyone can truly learn what atheists are.

[CliveStaples]

This is as fine an example of 'Academic latin' as I could hope to read, you deserve an award. This reminds me of a scene from a film I enjoyed.

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

Modus ponens refers to the statement "p => ((p => q) => q)".