Is atheism cac shyt?

[Paradoxx]

No, I provided a correlation, not blame.
​

There seems to be a bunch of gaps but meh, I hope you have a good Sunday morning though.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

There seems to be a bunch of gaps but meh, I hope you have a good Sunday morning though.

I got a bowl of Gelato 45 and about to take a walk to the beach, sit on a jetty, and read this.....

 

[invalid]

Right. Panthers weren't rocking with any type of religion and were getting mad shyt done. Didn't need to follow "gods word" to lead them. They saw what was needed and formed a plan and had people followed.

I was gonna mention that. The 70s black panthers were the antithesis to the MLK Civil rights movement and they were such a threat that the government actively sought to assassinate them. Word to my brother Fred Hampton. Any black leaders with organizational skills, bravery, charisma and education would've atrracted the black attention.

These are the words of Kat Cleaver, Eldridge’s ex-wife.

"We were a bunch of kids," recalled Kathleen Cleaver (who divorced her husband after he became born-again) many years later. "We didn't understand the energy required to make real revolution. We discounted the organizing power of the black church, and we didn't understand the spiritual commitment that would be necessary to achieve our goals."

 

[TEH]

Praise white Jesus brehs
Practice the same religion as your oppressor brehs
Follow a tool used to keep you passive brehs

These cacs don’t believe in God officer. Plus nothing white about the Middle East. They were black people in ancient times.

 

[Reflected]

​

That video is nauseating.

Atheist, as recognized by most philosophers, who have all taken formal logic is simply negation of P. "P" being the proposition which is x exists.

So if presented to him, Buddha exists. He rejects, he takes the hardstance, thus assumes negation of P and is an atheist in the formal sense. I'm not seeing how he gets out not being an atheist in that sense, if he wants to call it another thing, whatever, but to reject a god, any god, is negation of p. So we can go through every god that is not the god he holds to and he will assume that position until we reach his god.

Sure in its informal sense it can be seen as a bit of a witty retort, but in the formal sense, written out, it holds to basic logic, which is ironic because that guy brought up "sound logic" over and over again logic, w/e that means. These days logic = whatever I agree with. How often do you run into anyone that can hold to formal logic?

Reference:

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists.

And when they do the philo* surveys, the people holding to "atheist" are holding to a negation as opposed to agnostics holding to neither negation nor affirmation, so they as atheist should do, maintain the burden.

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842

And the graph:

I can understand why he wouldn't want the word "atheist" associated with him, but if he is going to reject a god, he is no different than an atheist in his realm of "sound logic".

 

[the cac mamba]

nah. but the "king james bible" is

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm not seeing how he gets out not being an atheist in that sense, if he wants to call it another thing, whatever, but to reject a god, any god, is negation of p.

You don't see how because it isn't an argument regarding the negation of p, but how both value skepticism of claims.

But, to your point, the claim that a 'g-d' exists opposes the claim that no 'g-ds' exist, therefore, claiming a theist is the same as an atheist is categorically false and requires redefining terms in order to be coherent in the manner the statement is given.​

 

[tuckgod]

A lot of believers exploit the fact that colonialism destroyed a lot of black history to ascribe your theistic beliefs to the entire black race. it's galling to hear the hubris from black theists that for a millennia prior to crossing paths with the white race that no black person has ever rejected the idea of deities.

I wholly reject the idea that black people are a race of natural-born worshippers.

Yeah that’s because you got the devil in you.

 

[MarcP]

Aint no god letting 19 kids gets shot up.

 

[tuckgod]

Aint no god letting 19 kids gets shot up.

“God” is not an old bearded white man watching over you like Santa.

Your body is made up 30 trillion cells.

More than 19 died before I finished typing this.

How do you feel about it?

 

[Reflected]

You don't see how because it isn't an argument regarding the negation of p, but how both value skepticism of claims.

But, to your point, the claim that a 'g-d' exists opposes the claim that a 'g-d' does not exist, therefore, claiming a theist is the same as an atheist is categorically false.​

I'm simply sticking to formal position on atheism, if the guy is going to introduce logic, atheism is formally recognized as a negation to the proposition. It is the case that an individual that rejects a god (buddha or zeus) is holding to the same proposition (similarly structured) as an atheist that rejects the Abrahamic god, thus making it the case that a Christian can be atheistic towards a god. Now, I understand not wanting the stigma of the word but that's how it's recognized in the SEP in its formal sense.


To your second point, I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, are you referencing the graphic I posted? There are no issues with that graphic at all, you input the arguments into a truth table and they will all hold. In that chart, each "p" is being defined above each venn diagram.

edit: I think I see what you are getting at in the second point, correct me if I'm wrong. In that venn diagram, it was made for the atheism vs christian debate, so God is referring to the Abrahamic god. So the believer will approach this position as a "theist". So in that venn diagram within "p" replace "God" with Zeus, now the believer of Zeus holds the the theistic approach and the Christian that rejects Zeus* holds to the atheistic approach. The Christian must assume that exact structure if they are to reject Zeus, making their rejection of Zeus no different than the atheist rejection of the Abrahamic god structurally, we simply changed the "god".

I'm a charitable person, if I'm missing something let me know in the simplest sense and I will work with it. I'm not going through that video again though. lol

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm simply sticking to formal position on atheism, if the guy is going to introduce logic, atheism is formally recognized as a negation to the proposition.

I'm sticking to the formal definitions of atheism and theism which follow formal logic....

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

They oppose one another.​

 

[Reflected]

I'm sticking to the formal definitions of atheism and theism which follow formal logic....

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

They oppose one another.​

I see, yeah its within the context of the Abrahamic god. So when that is brought up, they have to be opposed as one is affirmation, one is negation, and neither affirmation or negation on the position is agnosticism.

But I'm saying, a Christian is presented with the proposition, "Zeus exists", if the Christian says "Zeus does not exist", they hold to the negation of the proposition. If atheism is formally recognized as negation of p (god exists), the Christian is acting as an atheist when they reject Zeus since they are holding to the negation of p. I'm not seeing any way around that.

edit: To further explain my not seeing a way around it.

I see this:

p = Abrahamic God exists

Atheist = ¬p
Christian = p

p = Zeus exists

Christian = ¬p
Zeus believer = p

So in those two arguments, the christian and the atheist act in a similar matter, they negate p. I'm not seeing how you can get around that.

 

[Mensch Fontana]

Praise white Jesus brehs
Practice the same religion as your oppressor brehs
Follow a tool used to keep you passive brehs

No one believes Jesus was white, you just telling on yourself that you already believe white lies

 

[NotAnFBIagent]

These cacs don’t believe in God officer. Plus nothing white about the Middle East. They were black people in ancient times.

No one believes Jesus was white, you just telling on yourself that you already believe white lies

This is where y'all place your faith.