'...And I'm an Atheist'

[jonb]

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

It is not that I personally am unfamiliar with academic liatin, but I do not care to use it because it gets right up my jaxi. Have you once improved or made one of you statements more clearly using your tosh formulas? No you haven't; you seriously deranged twerp! You like to pretend that you are in some way intellectual, but you don't even have the capacity to converse in plain prose. If you have an insufficient grasp of the concepts you are toying with that you don't know how to convey them in simple clear english what hope have you in any other medium. Grow up, what your doing is not big and its not cleaver, it just makes you look like a prat that is trying to pretend he is better than everybody else.

[CliveStaples]

It is not that I personally am unfamiliar with academic liatin, but I do not care to use it because it gets right up my jaxi. Have you once improved or made one of you statements more clearly using your tosh formulas? No you haven't; you seriously deranged twerp!

Well, that's just an insult.

Symbolic logic doesn't improve statements; it does make them more concise. I assumed that people know what "p => q" means. It's shorter than writing "p implies q" or "p implies that q is true".

There's a reason people use symbolic logic. Usually, once you're familiar with the system, it makes analysis easier.

You like to pretend that you are in some way intellectual, but you don't even have the capacity to converse in plain prose. If you have an insufficient grasp of the concepts you are toying with that you don't know how to convey them in simple clear english what hope have you in any other medium. Grow up, what your doing is not big and its not cleaver, it just makes you look like a prat that is trying to pretend he is better than everybody else.

I assumed that people here were familiar with basic, elementary symbolic logic. If that's not true, I'm comfortable using conversational English. It just takes longer.

And for some reason, you've got a big chip on your shoulder. Apparently, since I used them fancy symbologies, I think I'm 'intellectual', that I'm doing something 'big and clever', and that I'm 'pretending I'm better than everybody else'.

Of course, I don't believe any of those things--of course, I'd like it if I were clever and intelligent--but your knee-jerk reaction that I think I'm better than everyone else because...I use basic logic symbols and terminology that high school freshmen should be familiar with?

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

[jonb]

Well, that's just an insult.

Oh I wish it were, but it seems in your persistence, to use meaningless formula it is proven.

[CliveStaples]

Well, that's just an insult.

Oh I wish it were, but it seems in your persistence, to use meaningless formula it is proven.

"p => q" isn't meaningless. It means "p implies q".

[Jackalope]

I assumed that people here were familiar with basic, elementary symbolic logic.

Yeah, let's just lump everyone together! That's what a reasonable person does!

Pot, meet kettle.

[jonb]

"p => q" isn't meaningless. It means "p implies q".

So have you once in five pages of mad rambling nonsense defined what 'p' or 'q' stand for?

So tell me what is the use of a formula that has no definitions?
Now are you again going to assert I do not understand basic logic?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I assumed that people here were familiar with basic, elementary symbolic logic.

Yeah, let's just lump everyone together! That's what a reasonable person does!

Pot, meet kettle.

Sorry mate tu quoque. Hate to say it,but Clive was correct in his comment about Brain's post.

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

When I took logic,I was taught that for the sake of argument,argument, the premise is always assumed to be true. "If p then q" is also known as 'the first rule of inference' . To use it here as Clive has done is simply pretentious. However, to simply dismiss it because one does not understand comes across as ignorant and defensive.

[CliveStaples]

So have you once in five pages of mad rambling nonsense defined what 'p' or 'q' stand for?

Propositions; statements that are either "true" or "false".

So tell me what is the use of a formula that has no definitions?
Now are you again going to assert I do not understand basic logic?

???

You don't know what "p" and "q" stand for? Those are incredibly common variables representing propositions in symbolic logic--like "x" represents a number in mathematics.

Do you know basic logic?

Is the statement "1+1=3 implies Barack Obama is president" true, where "implies" refers to material implication?

---

I assumed that people here were familiar with basic, elementary symbolic logic.

Yeah, let's just lump everyone together! That's what a reasonable person does!

Pot, meet kettle.

Uh, what? This place characterizes itself as a place of logic and reason. It isn't 'lumping everyone together' to think that people here will know basic logic. I'm just surprised that some people here are actively hostile toward symbolic logic.

[Jackalope]

Pot, meet kettle.

Sorry mate tu quoque. Hate to say it,but Clive was correct in his comment about Brain's post.

Didn't claim he wasn't correct (he was), nor do I particularly care if my comment was tu quoque (it was).

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

Add argumentum ad hominem to my list of sins. I'm so going to hell.

[CliveStaples]

When I took logic,I was taught that for the sake of argument,argument, the premise is always assumed to be true. "If p then q" is also known as 'the first rule of inference' . To use it here as Clive has done is simply pretentious. However, to simply dismiss it because one does not understand comes across as ignorant and defensive.

It isn't being pretentious to say that the system of inference you're using is standard logic. It's being rigorous.

---

Didn't claim he wasn't correct (he was), nor do I particularly care if my comment was tu quoque (it was).

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

Keep the ad homs up; I can safely ignore them, since they're irrelevant. I'm still waiting for Ben Davis and downbeatplum to respond to my actual argument.