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

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

By skepticism, I take it you mean the idea that one denies everything because there is no proof of anything.  In that case, no, I'm not a skeptic, because a denial is just as much a position as an advocacy.  What I am saying, however, is that any statement I make about reality would have to be an assumption.  My recognition of that would not be contradictory because it's not a statement about reality: it's one of definition.  I do not say you cannot use logic or make judgements, but that you cannot make judgements on reality with certainty.

The uncertainty in your exampe would be that we do not know if it's actually the sky that eminates the blue, or if there is even a sky.

What I mean by uncertainty is assumption; I do not know if the sky exists, and I cannot know, and to say it does or doesn't would be an assumption. The only thing that is certain (not an assumption) is the existence of sense data; what it means or represents is completely unknown, of course.

If that didn't really clear anything up, see my previous response to Final;  I may have misunderstood your last part.

I reject "definition" as being a category outside of "reality." :)  I think reality is bigger, and fairly all-encompassing.  Or, if it's not, then how do you know that definition is something different from reality?  How can you be certain of it?

But yeah, my contention is that, whether you call it "denial" or whatever, your statements are "just as much a position as an advocacy."  After all, I'm saying that you are advocating a position--the position of skepticism.

If you're uncomfortable with the label "skeptic," that's fine, though I don't see why you should be.  Skepticism is a philosophical position with a long and proud tradition (I just happen to believe it to be wrong).  Check this out, as I think it mirrors many aspects of our conversations:

http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43798

Or, there's this: (It becomes fairly dense, but you might at least give it a read until the author brings up The Matrix. )

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

This one is possibly the clearest:

http://skepdic.com/skepticism.html

When we talk about reality, we already accept that reality is encompassed by definition ("What do we mean by reality?" "We mean...").  Logic and meaning are fundamental, and necessary even to have the term "reality". Our understanding of reality is only within definition.  If that's at all clear (I'm not sure I said much coherently).

To say "A bachelor is an unmarried man" is not an assumption; it's definition, and it's true, because that's what you mean by it.  Whether or not bachelors, men, or marriages exist is a different question.  So when I identify statements about reality to be assumptions, it's true, because of the definition of assumption.

I think the critical distinction is that I think all statements about reality are assumptions.  That idea does not defeat itself, as it deals with statements concerning reality, not reality itself.

I'll check out those links nonetheless :)