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

[Final-Fan]

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:
1.  If you take your conclusion of one argument and use it as a premise in another, that doesn't change the explanation I gave.  If your conclusion statement changed, then so would the memory of your premesis for it, or you'd notice it wouldn't fit.

2.  Yes, of course if you assumed they worked in the first place, then you'd be able prove things.  I've already said that there's no problem assuming our judgements of sense data is correct or even generally correct.  My contention is there is absolutey no good reason to assume them, like any other method of truth one could have or use, and thus the empiricist is as unfounded as a theist.

1.  How would you notice without relying on memory?  Look at it this way:  Let's say you're doing a math problem.  Did you accidentally divide by zero five steps back?

2.  So you concede that argument but not that it affects your original point? 

The reason to do so is that if you do not accept any input as useful, then what are you left with?

1.  For your example; If I had divided by zero, that would have been an error of my use of logic, not memory, so that doesnt relate to this example.   And I don't need to not rely on memory; if my memory has different premesis remembered, then 'd notice that they wouldn't fit my conclusion, and would have to change accordingly.

2. That's my contention this entire time; "Concluding that the moon is made of rock is just as much a fantasy as concluding it's cheese", that conclusion is a fantasy, an assumption.  I think you went of track with your last post.  And your left with assumption if no input (input here, I take it, is any method of truth) is useful (true). You can only assume your method is correct.

BUT HOW WOULD YOU NOTICE?

Okay, sorry.

1.  Ah, but what if such an error was implanted into the work you only think you did but in reality was given to you half-complete by an unknown agency?  (By which I mean the work is incorrect, not just that there's a wrong number but the following stuff doesn't have the problem.)  Then if you go back into what you remember as your work and say "OK, everything checks out" then you'd have to rely on your MEMORY of what your conclusion was and the work you did to get there.  How do you know that that's valid?  Do the work again?  Certainly you remember it being valid, but is it really?  You could chase your tail for eternity and be no more assured of correctness. 

2.  If you responded to my first question here, I didn't get it.

As for the rest:  Some sort of interpretation of sense data is necessary for anything other than the zen contemplation of nothing.  What you call empiricism is simply Occam's Razor or what might be called "the path of least faith".  Other views, including theism, involve accepting sense data but not at face value, rather putting their own spin on it for whatever reason. 

It's not that that empiricism involves NO assumption, but theism certainly requires more. 

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"