Positive Atheism

[Violet]

"I think, therefore I am" was a very skeptical view. All he could prove was that (at least to all appearances) he was a self-conscious individual.

So if all you know is that you don't know, than you know something, don't you? Now that hurt.

-Pip

Actually... if anything has an 'essence': it absolutely must posses an existence. 'I think, therefore i am'... is no less correct than 'the table is brown, therefore it is.'.

I'm really not much of a fan of Descart.

[fr0d0]

You possess an essence, and you exist. The essence of you exists but how?

[Violet]

You possess an essence, and you exist. The essence of you exists but how?

A table posses an 'essence' because it is so 'table-y'. Essence is entirely based upon perception. However, for something to be perceived: it must first exist.

Take a brick wall for instance. To me, it is a brick wall... it is solid, I can't walk through it, it has specific colors and defining features that all help me describe what it is.

To a small neutrino though... the atoms of what I call a 'wall' are mostly empty space... are likely colorless, and are likely without many features by which the neutrino can use to define it.

To the player of our video game... the wall is a special wall that his main character must walk through to reach the next save point. The wall that is red/orange/brown colored to me... is a green wall to his perception. His entire perception of our world could be far different than our perception of it.

The essence (the description of how something exists) is preceded by the fact that it exists. Essence is completely subjective to the perception point, circumstance, and how able the perception point is able to perceive. Existence on the other hand, is the single objective reality of all things (that all things exist). Even non-existence exists.

That is why existence precedes essence.

Edit: Richard Dawkins said it very well (among other things):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

[tackattack]

You possess an essence, and you exist. The essence of you exists but how?

A table posses an 'essence' because it is so 'table-y'. Essence is entirely based upon perception. However, for something to be perceived: it must first exist.

Take a brick wall for instance. To me, it is a brick wall... it is solid, I can't walk through it, it has specific colors and defining features that all help me describe what it is.

To a small neutrino though... the atoms of what I call a 'wall' are mostly empty space... are likely colorless, and are likely without many features by which the neutrino can use to define it.

To the player of our video game... the wall is a special wall that his main character must walk through to reach the next save point. The wall that is red/orange/brown colored to me... is a green wall to his perception. His entire perception of our world could be far different than our perception of it.

The essence (the description of how something exists) is preceded by the fact that it exists. Essence is completely subjective to the perception point, circumstance, and how able the perception point is able to perceive. Existence on the other hand, is the single objective reality of all things (that all things exist). Even non-existence exists.

That is why existence precedes essence.

I think you put that really well. So let me ask you a question. Do you posses and essence and if so please describe your percetion of it as best as you can.

[Violet]

I think you put that really well. So let me ask you a question. Do you posses and essence and if so please describe your percetion of it as best as you can.

I'm not fully sure of what you're asking me here Do you mean 'What do i perceive myself to be?'... or 'Because I exist... I have an essence?'... or what?

[fr0d0]

You didn't answer how your essence exists Sae. Do you think it doesn't? Essence is perceived and only follows being.. is observable. Can 'nothing' have essence? Why not?

[theVOID]

You didn't answer how your essence exists Sae. Do you think it doesn't? Essence is perceived and only follows being.. is observable. Can 'nothing' have essence? Why not?

I don't totally agree with (or for that matter fully understand) what sae was talking about, but as for 'nothing' and by that i assume you mean absolute nothing - it is defined conceptually as something that has no attributes at all (does not exist), which at first sounds like an attribute it's self - but this is only an attribute of the concept of nothing, and since concepts exist and everything that exists has at least one attribute, the concept of nothing must have an attribute, even though what it is defining has none.

[tackattack]

I think you put that really well. So let me ask you a question. Do you posses and essence and if so please describe your percetion of it as best as you can.

I'm not fully sure of what you're asking me here Do you mean 'What do i perceive myself to be?'... or 'Because I exist... I have an essence?'... or what?

Do you have an essence? Does it exists or is it percievable? Explain it's origins, how it's percievable and what's it's use please and thank you.

[Eilonnwy]

Sure sounds like you are saying that only those that have searched and come to agree with you have done “honest questioning”. Again, similar to the True Scotsman Fallacy.

When have I stated that specifically because you believe in the Bible and God (i.e. Disagree with me) that you haven't "truly" studied it? Have I actually ever said it? Please point out where I have specifically made that exact statement and I will correct myself.

I am talking about the fact that you simply dismiss legitimate questions and contradictions in the Bible because you've decided the Bible is true. You've said that yourself...in fact...

My world view begins with the presuppositions that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. I think this world view provides a better explanation for the reality that we exist in and answers more questions than a natualistic world view that says that man can determine how the reality that we exist in came to be. Given my world view and presuppositions, it follows that when there is some conflict between a conclusion drawn by man and the Bible, I will go with the Bible.

You have clearly stated you have decided God and the Bible are true and that you ignore evidence that contradicts your presuppositions. So what I have stated seems to be spot on. Honest inquiry means you accept the conclusion based on the evidence, not based on what you like and just ignore what evidence you don't like. This is completely contradictory to a skeptical, pragmatic, scientific mind. Science bases it's conclusions on the evidence, not the other way around. How can you possibly determine what is true about the world if you are so dogmatic about what you believe? When you determine what must be true and make the evidence fit what you believe, then you're not being truly honest in your inquiries. My calling you out on statements you have said is not a "true scotsman fallacy".

Oh, you believe the Earth was created before the sun? Cute.

I do. Why do you believe that the sun came to be before the earth?

Because good reliable science has shown us that this is how our solar system came to be! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_a...lar_System Not an ancient book written by men completely ignorant of astronomy!

(edit: Lol, I just noticed my last statement rhymes)

[rjh4 is back]

When have I stated that specifically because you believe in the Bible and God (i.e. Disagree with me) that you haven't "truly" studied it? Have I actually ever said it? Please point out where I have specifically made that exact statement and I will correct myself.

I didn't say that you specifically stated that. I said that that is what it "sounds" like you are saying. If you were not really saying that I was giving you the opportunity to clarify. Maybe you need to read these posts more carefully.

I am talking about the fact that you simply dismiss legitimate questions and contradictions in the Bible because you've decided the Bible is true. You've said that yourself...in fact...

You have clearly stated you have decided God and the Bible are true and that you ignore evidence that contradicts your presuppositions.

You might want to go back and read what I said again or quote me because I do not think I said that I simply dismiss or ignore evidence. I may very well not accept it with reasons but that is quite different from dismissing or ignoring.

Honest inquiry means you accept the conclusion based on the evidence, not based on what you like and just ignore what evidence you don't like.

You say that as if there is only ever one possible conclusion given a body of evidence. That is seldom the case, especially when one is considering historical science as it pertains to origins where conclusions are always made based on evidence and some assumptions/presuppositions because history is not repeatable or testable in the same way as is done in operational science.

Science bases it's conclusions on the evidence, not the other way around.

And assumptions/presuppositions when we are talking about historical science as it pertains to origins.

How can you possibly determine what is true about the world if you are so dogmatic about what you believe?

I think the question applies equally well to you.

Because good reliable science has shown us that this is how our solar system came to be! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_a...lar_System

In view of the fact that you sound so authoritative in making such a statement I must ask: On what basis have you concluded that science cited on the wiki article is "good" and "reliable"? Did you carry out the science? Did you read all the articles cited? Even if you read them, did you understand them?

Given that you have admitted to not understanding any more than basic physics and that the kind of science in that article probably involves quite advanced physics, I would guess that you did not carry out the science, you did not even read all the articles cited, and even if you read them, you did not understand them (other than possibly the conclusions made). If I am correct, then I doubt you are qualified to make the statement that the science is "good" and "reliable". If that is true then at best you seem qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it. Now I do not think there is anything wrong with that if that is the case. In fact, I think that is where most of us are on most issues. But I do think if that is the case, i.e., that you are only really qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it, you should be honest about it and say so instead of portraying yourself as some sort of authority on such issues.