Is religion dying?

[viole]

Like this:

View attachment 76643

Maybe how YOU teach it's a circus, and if YOU teach this YOU are acting like a clown. Yeah. I don't doubt it. You are acting like a liar who doesn't have the guts to simply admit their methods fail each and everytime.

Yes, and tour beliefs leads to the conclusion that God is, in fact, D. Trump.
evidence: none.

evidence that I come to contradicting conclusions: none.

so, I am perfectly entitled to claim that Judaism entails Trump to be God. Lol

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Like this:

View attachment 76643

Maybe how YOU teach it's a circus, and if YOU teach this YOU are acting like a clown. Yeah. I don't doubt it. You are acting like a liar who doesn't have the guts to simply admit their methods fail each and everytime.

And by the way, it is ”to its conclusion” not to “it’s conclusion”.

we should not confuse verbs with possessive pronouns, either. in the interest of logic, again, of course. I am just here to help.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Nope. Not at all.
where in all that I wrote shows a claim, a single claim, that is true nd false at the same time?

just show it to me. You claim i made claims that both true and false at the same time. But where are they? Please, please, show me where I ever came to anything like that.

it would be like claiming your theology led to the conclusion that God is Mariah Carey, without providing any evidence, whatsoever. Same thing..

so, please show me where I ever came to the conclusion of a claim that is false and true at the same time. Where?

ciao

- viole

Right here: Everytime you make a positive claim on an empty set it is both true and false. You simply do half the proof, and then stop thinking. It's a stupid method that fails everytime:

This results in both true and false based on your own method:

 

[dybmh]

Yes, and tour beliefs leads to the conclusion that God is, in fact, D. Trump.
evidence: none.

evidence that I come to contradicting conclusions: none.

so, I am perfectly entitled to claim that Judaism entails Trump to be God. Lol

ciao

- viole

Based on your method, you can claim anything you want. But no one should trust that it's logical.

My methods reject if there is a logical contradiction. Yours ignores them and happily laps up whatever nonsense spews from a set of lying lips.

 

[viole]

Right here: Everytime you make a positive claim on an empty set it is both true and false. You simply do half the proof, and then stop thinking. It's a stupid method that fails everytime:

View attachment 76644

This results in both true and false based on your own method:

View attachment 76646

Those claims are not contradictory at all. It is definitely not the case that they are true and false at the same time.

where do you get that from? can you slow down and show us how?

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Those claims are not contradictory at all. It is definitely not the case that they are true and false at the same time.

where do you get that from?

ciao

- viole

The claims are not contradictory. Claiming they are true is contradictory. You are saying they are both true claims. THAT is the lie.

The claims, each one,

P1 is evaluated as both true and false which means it should be rejected.
P2 is evaluated as both true and false which means it should be rejected.

Any positive claim about an empty set evaluates as both true and false which means it should be rejected.

Each time you say that P1 is true, even though you KNOW you have no knowledge, is contradictory. It is absurd and by your own admission, it is false. You're done. You've lost.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let’s go veeeery slow.

premise: I know no Jews
claim: all the Jews I know are atheists
...

- viole

Well, you can't know no Jews and know any Jew as 1 or greater as that is case of a sense as no and not no as a contradiction, so the claim is false if the premise is sound.
Where as if the premise is not sound, then the claim could be true as sound , as all the Jews I know is true or false as per sound or not sound for epistemology.
You forget that a premise has to be sound and not just valid if it is a claim of knowledge.
You treat the premise as sound, but that is unknown and thus the clam can try out be false or could be true, depended if the premise is sound or not. The reason sound is needed is because of I know. That is not just about valid, but also a case of sound.

You seem to forget that know is epistemology and not logic.
So yes, let us go very slow and read all the word including know and thus sound. Thus both valid and sound.

 

[viole]

The claims are not contradictory. Claiming they are true is contradictory. You are saying they are both true claims. THAT is the lie.

I claim that they are both true. Yet, there is still no contradiction in sight.

P1 is evaluated as both true and false which means it should be rejected.
P2 is evaluated as both true and false which means it should be rejected.

False, they are both evaluated to be true and NOT false. So, no problem. actually, totally conaistent.
when did I ever conclude that they are false?

Any positive claim about an empty set evaluates as both true and false which means it should be rejected.

Which you failed to prove, that this is the case.

Each time you say that P1 is true, even though you KNOW you have no knowledge, is contradictory.

Utter nonsense. i can claim anything, and if that claim leads to a contradiction, then I know it is false. that does not mean that if I cannot produce a contradiction it is true, though.obviously.

again, basics.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

I claim that they are both true. Yet, there is still no contradiction in sight.

Only if you close your eyes real tight.

False, they are both evaluated to be true and NOT false. So, no problem. actually, totally conaistent.
when did I ever conclude that they are false?

WRONG! Read it again:

Which you failed to prove, that this is the case.

You are deeply in denial. Maybe you should talk to someone about this obvious problem.

Utter nonsense. i can claim anything, and if that claim leads to a contradiction, then I know it is false.

Brilliant! So, find a flaw in the logic above. If you can't then your claim that P1 and P2 are both true is a contradiction.

Again, since you seem to be completely in denial: Claiming P1 is true is a contradiction. Claiming P2 is true is a contradiction.

that does not mean that if I cannot produce a contradiction it is true, though.obviously.

You can, but you won't. You stop evaluating half way through. You do half the proof, and ignore the rest. That is confirmation bias, a cognitive fault, I think you know this, but aren't the sort of person who can openly admit it.

again, basics.

Yup. A gnostic know-it-all basically cannot admit when they are beaten.

 

[viole]

Well, you can't know no Jews and know any Jew as 1 or greater as that is case of a sense as no and not no as a contradiction, so the claim is false if the premise is sound.
Where as if the premise is not sound, then the claim could be true as sound , as all the Jews I know is true or false as per sound or not sound for epistemology.
You forget that a premise has to be sound and not just valid if it is a claim of knowledge.
You treat the premise as sound, but that is unknown and thus the clam can try out be false or could be true, depended if the premise is sound or not. The reason sound is needed is because of I know. That is not just about valid, but also a case of sound.

You seem to forget that know is epistemology and not logic.
So yes, let us go very slow and read all the word including know and thus sound. Thus both valid and sound.

Oh dear. Should I consult Aristotles, to find out if i have Jews among my acquaintances?
anyway, this a premise. I do not need epistemology to set a premise, do i?

i could make my argument equally valid even if I knew thousands of Jews, while postulating that I do not know any.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Oh dear. Should I consult Aristotles, to find out if i have Jews among my acquaintances?
anyway, this a premise. I do not need epistemology to set a premise, do i?

i could make my argument equally valid even if I knew thousands of Jews, while postulating that I do not know any.

ciao

- viole

Nope. It's completely invalid, it's completely absurd to claim knowledge of something if you KNOW you have no knowledge. It leads to both true and false conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh dear. Should I consult Aristotles, to find out if i have Jews among my acquaintances?
anyway, this a premise. I do not need epistemology to set a premise, do i?

i could make my argument equally valid even if I knew thousands of Jews, while postulating that I do not know any.

ciao

- viole

Well, you do if you claim knowledge. Logic is not epistemology and that know you use, is epistemology.
I mean I can find an entry level book on logic, that explains that premises about the world both have to valid and true.
I know no Jews, is about the world and thus only sound if true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, you do if you claim knowledge. Logic is not epistemology and that know you use, is epistemology.
I mean I can find an entry level book on logic, that explains that premises about the world both have to valid and true.
I know no Jews, is about the world and thus only sound if true.

@viole

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

It says the premises, not the premise. So in effect your claim is a premise and the 2 premises lead to a contradiction. It is that simple. You can't do deduction on only one premise. Learn your basic logic. So there is that too.

 

[viole]

Nope. It's completely invalid, it's completely absurd to claim knowledge of something if you KNOW you have no knowledge. It leads to both true and false conclusions.

View attachment 76649

Let me repeat the standard proof with more details and structure. I hope that will help you, and help me to understand what is the real issue.
At present, I still don’t know what bothers you.

First, some definitions to reduce minimize typing:

Q = ”I don’t know any Jew”
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”
~P (negation of P) = “I know at least one Jew who is not an atheist”
C = “I know at least one Jew AND I don’t know any Jew”

Let’s, start:

1. Q is true (Premise)
2. C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
3. P is either true or false (exclusive or)
4. P is true if and only if ~P is false
5. ~P is either true or false (exclusive or)
6. If ~P were true, then C would be true
7. Therefore ~P is false. Because of 6), 5) and 2)
8. Therefore P is true. Because of 3), 4) and 7)

So, the conclusion follows from the premises: P is true, and it is therefore the case that “All the Jews I know are atheists”.

The premise is just a fact. Since I know no Jews.

So, you can defeat the necessity of the conclusion, only if you find a step that is fallacious. Or Unjustified.

I cannot exclude a typo, a mistake, or that a step requires more sub steps. And, if you find more of those steps, tell me please only the one with the smallest sequence number, so that we can focus on it, and move to the next.

Failing to do that, will compel you to accept the conclusion. Unless you admit to operate outside the boundaries, and the rules of logic.

So, which one would that be?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

As an academic study and due to religion permeating much of our worlds cultures, I'll suggest it will continue to rise if only as an academic in sociology and maybe human psychology. The effects have been massive and filled with controversy. There's no way religion and its effects will be left un-studied.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me repeat the standard proof with more details and structure. I hope that will help you, and help me to understand what is the real issue.
At present, I still don’t know what bothers you.

First, some definitions to reduce minimize typing:

Q = ”I don’t know any Jew”
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”
~P (negation of P) = “I know at least one Jew who is not an atheist”
C = “I know at least one Jew AND I don’t know any Jew”

Let’s, start:

1. Q is true (Premise)
2. C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
3. P is either true or false (exclusive or)
4. P is true if and only if ~P is false
5. ~P is either true or false (exclusive or)
6. If ~P were true, then C would be true
7. Therefore ~P is false. Because of 6), 5) and 2)
8. Therefore P is true. Because of 3), 4) and 7)

So, the conclusion follows from the premises: P is true, and it is therefore the case that “All the Jews I know are atheists”.

The premise is just a fact. Since I know no Jews.

So, you can defeat the necessity of the conclusion, only if you find a step that is fallacious. Or Unjustified.

I cannot exclude a typo, a mistake, or that a step requires more sub steps. And, if you find more of those steps, tell me please only the one with the smallest sequence number, so that we can focus on it, and move to the next.

Failing to do that, will compel you to accept the conclusion. Unless you admit to operate outside the boundaries, and the rules of logic.

So, which one would that be?

Ciao

- viole

Q and P can't both be true, and Q is not true, just because you say so. Q and P added up are a contradiction for know and is a case of C as I know no and not no jews.
Both Q and P are premises and as such contradictory.
A premise is not true, just because you treat it as true.

 

[viole]

Q and P can't both be true, and Q is not true, just because you say so. Q and P added up are a contradiction for know and is a case of C as I know no and not no jews.
Both Q and P are premises and as such contradictory.
A premise is not true, just because you treat it as true.

Since P follows from the premises, you have to show me the first step that is inaccurate. Or breaks some laws of logic. Or just confess that you operate outside of them.

and I can assume whatever premise I want. In this case, it is indeed the case that I do not (personally) know NY jews.

ciao

- violw

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since P follows from the premises, you have to show me the first step that is inaccurate. Or breaks some laws of logic. Or just confess that you operate outside of them.

and I can assume whatever premise I want. In this case, it is indeed the case that I do not (personally) know NY jews.

ciao

- violw

Yes, you can use a premise and assume it is true. Then you add another and then you check if they contradict each other and they do.
P doesn't follow from Q and Q is not the premises. It is one premise. Nothing follows from one premise alone.

The problem is that P is in contradiction to Q and C is the case as between P and Q. You don't need non-P. You only need to check P and Q as premises in a logical relationship and that amounts to a contradiction.

 

[viole]

Yes, you can use a premise and assume it is true. Then you add another and then you check if they contradict each other and they do.
P doesn't follow from Q and Q is not the premises. It is one premise. Nothing follows from one premise alone.

The problem is that P is in contradiction to Q and C is the case as between P and Q. You don't need non-P. You only need to check P and Q as premises in a logical relationship and that amounts to a contradiction.

P is not a premise. It is the desired result. Q is the premise, and the rest are just logical steps.
if you find a mistake in any of them, I would be happy to correct it. But you have to give me a number In the sequence.

and P is not in contradiction with Q.

if it were, and i committed no mistake, that would be sensational. It would destroy the reliability of millions of theorems.
so, I need more evidence than that.

ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 guess it depends on how you measure it and what you mean exactly with "religion".

From my own experience in my own country, I'ld say that over here, it at least is definitely waning in popularity, power, importance, relevance...

I see it in every aspect. One church after another is closing down simply because there is no attendance anymore.
Even catholic schools no longer organize communion. If as parents you want your kids to go through communion, you have to go organize it yourself directly with the pastor. Back when I was still in grade school some 30 years ago, it was as-good-as obligatory in catholic schools. If as parents you didn't want your kid to go through it, you had to actually go through an official procedure to exempt your kid from it. And chances were quite high that the school principle was going to want to have you come in an and explain why not and motivate your choice. 10 years ago, it was the exact opposite: you had to go through a specific procedure to make your kid attend. And today, it's not even an option anymore to have schools organize it.

Also, these past 15 years or so, I don't remember attending a single marriage that also had a service in a church. +20 years ago, the church service was "the main event".

So really in just about all aspects, I see catholicism (the main / dominating religion here) drift of into total irrelevancy among the general population.
3rd generation muslims (3rd generation as in, the grandkids of immigrants from islamic nations) also don't seem to take religion as seriously as their grandparents either. They drink, smoke, screw around, eat pork,...

Can't talk about other religions as those are such small, and usually closed, communities that I don't have any affinity with them at all.

But as far as catholicism, the dominating religion in Belgium, goes... it is most definitely on the decline and on a road to complete irrelevancy.
Today, you are quite the outsider if you take catholic religion seriously. A bit of a laughing stock, to be honest.