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

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

The source of my definitions (where I got the idea of things to define) is of no consequence.

I disagree.

I submit to you that, according to the views you've espoused, there's no way to distinguish between the judgements that you claim to be able to make with certainty (definitions, logic, and so on) and a judgement such as "the sky is blue."

Why can't definitions, logic, et al., come from the same place as my determination that the sky is blue?  Why is there any particular reason to parse it out into two different camps, one certain, the other nothing but assumption?

You can't question definition without using it. 

I'd also say that you can't question judgements on sensory data without making them.  It is via sensory data that we are aware that there is such a category.

I wish I could do your quotebox thing.

Anyways, if logic and definition were themselves questionable, then they wouldn't be questionable(and then would be, and so on).  They have to be true; that's how we can call anything true or false.  Perhaps this can be better answered with the next part here.

"I'd also say that you can't question judgements on sensory data without making them.  It is via sensory data that we are aware that there is such a category".

For one thing, this is already false; our judgements of sense data must be questionable because we know they sometimes are wrong (dreams, hallucinations).  The distinction here is that definition and logic are apart from sense data judgement, so it can be questioned with logic (well, everything is, but you see my point).  Nor am I questioning the idea that one can make judgements on sense data; it's just that they'll be arbitrary.