Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

mesoteto said:

donathos said:

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:
Hold on, hold on.  appolose, I believe the challenge was proving HOW they work, not THAT they work.  So objecting to the fallibility of our senses being used to observe the results makes no sense.

The challenge (the one I proposed initially) was to prove that our senses work, not how they worked (if that's what vlad's implying).  And that  (the former) cannot be done, because that would involve us using our senses to make observations about our senses, which we couldn't do yet because we haven't proven that they work.

Whoops!  I stand corrected.  But it's pretty self-evident that they do work.  We are communicating; I sense your input and you sense mine (unless you're a figment of my imagination, and even if you are I still sense you).  So obviously I have senses that work.  I see your post.

No problem.  But the question isn't answered by whether or not you have senses, or if you can sense; it's if they are trustworthy, or if they actually can communicate reality (at all).

Everything that our senses communicate is reality.  Our intellectual interpretations of the data from our senses might be faulty (e.g. a hallucination or a mirage) but the data itself is right; there are reasons for hallucinations and mirages, too, and our senses point to them.

what about a blind man, he cant see so is what we are seeing not real?

or a deaf man, he cant hear, are teh sounds not real?

Sanity is defined by the majority. 

@ appolose:  The only way your argument works is to question all of existence outside of good ole cogito ergo sum, which is fun but pointless.  Trusting in the existence of the apparent universe isn't "faith" but "life".