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

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

Meaning and language are not necessarily concepts derived from our experiences (as I gave the possibility of meaning and language simply being present already (which is not impossible)).  And while I do agree that sensation is itself an unavoidable axiom, it's not sensation I'm questioning, but what we make of them.

Hmm... it's a different discussion perhaps, but I believe that language is derived from our experiences.  As for saying that its being present already "is not impossible"... well... "is not impossible" doesn't give me any confidence, or lead me to wonder if it's true.  By that same rationale, the Tooth Fairy is not impossible--I'm not ready to give the Tooth Fairy any credence, however, and I'm sure you don't either.

For now, I'll just go where I think the evidence points, and I think that at the moment the evidence points away from Plato's theories of knowledge and towards learning language.

As for this: it's not sensation I'm questioning... well... what the hell are we arguing then!? :)  I thought you were questioning the validity of sensation.

But, if you're not, if instead you're questioning "what we make of them"... well... then what are you questioning, exactly?  Maybe I just don't fully grasp your argument.  (For which I apologize.)

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, "what we make of our sensations" forms the basis of, like, every other possible argument.  So I don't understand a general argument over what we make of our sensations, but rather particular instances of it, like whether we believe that God exists, or butter-side-up vs. butter-side-down (and anyone who thinks down is a freak... just saying).

Sensation is our data--and I don't believe that sensation, as such, can be argued against--how we interpret that data, however... now that's the stuff of horse races.

 

Language and meaning could simply be put into a mind from an outside source (read: God), so it's not necessarily true that they must be derived from senses.  And, I think I may have been misuderstanding you there on that point; are you saying we get words from our senses, or from our judgements? 

Oh, I'm questioning our judgement of our sense experiences (sorry 'bout the confusion :)  ).  And I'm saying that our judgements cannot be trusted because there is no reason to interpret our sense data in any particular way.  Therefore, to use empiricism one must assume (without any indication for it) that one's judgements are correct, and as such, the empiricist is on the same level of unfounded thinking as the theist.