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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Confusion

    I hope you don’t think I’m doing this on purpose but again, I really can’t understand what you’re trying to communicate much of the time. E.g.

(that is, at least ONE of the TWO beliefs in his belief set is clearly incorrect as they contradict one another). 

    What does ‘one of the two beliefs’ refer to here? And what does contradictoriness have to do in relation to the point I was making using the example… if it relates to my point.

This is not a rebuttal to your point but (once again) me using your example to illustrate an example of my own. 

    Ok so apparently you’re not addressing the use of my example in relation to the point I was making. Well, I still don’t understand what you’re using the example for.

    Other things that confuse me are below.

 

My Fundamental Issue

    You still seem to be making a point about a belief(s) and a belief on sense data contradicting each other. Still. And I don’t know why. I really don’t.

    I thought I was clear that my point was about legitimately establishing a belief (method of truth). And that since you seemed not concerned with that, you were establishing something else (input/output, regular belief… I still don’t know what that means). I needed to understand what you mean still.

    So not only do I not understand what you’re trying to establish in terms of “illegitimate belief” but I can’t find the relationship it would have with your point of showing how you can contradict an (illegitimate) belief with an (illegitimate) belief on sense data. (You made it clear that these were illegitimate beliefs, in my terms, when you emphasized “arbitrarily”.)

    What I just said here should clear up what my problem is but just to address your specific statement with reiteration:

“how can you deny that belief sets exist that can be contradicted by sense data?”

    Again I never denied you can have illegitimate beliefs (from arbitrary assumption or of sense data) that contradict each other. I was speaking of legitimate beliefs (method of truth) or what you call absolute knowledge. Everytime I said "it wasn't possible" I was referring to legitmacy. Thus your point was always irrelevent to me as I was under the impression we were talking about estblishing legitmate beliefs.

 

Now A Side Note – My Fundamental Issue

    Again, as I’m under the impression that you’re not addressing legitimate beliefs I still am hoping you did see the point I was making for empiricism. And it seems you did in regards to the math example: that a person could be shown how he was wrong to believe that only 4 could represent Y. Yes, when someone writes this equation for you (whether related to something in life or not) and has a specific number in mind, you have no way of figuring it out by itself. Truth is in his mind (like reality) and the evidence of it presented to you can represent, certainly clearly in this case, an infinite number of possibilities.

 

B.

    Here it almost sounds like your dealing with legitimate beliefs again. I don’t know how to respond if you’re not because again I still haven’t understood what exactly you’re trying to establish if not legitimate beliefs. I can’t help but think you are inevitably speaking of legitimate beliefs because… well you’re explaining the reality of the matter in regards to whatever point you’re trying to make.

    I did hear one familiar response that, if you were discussing legitimate beliefs, would make sense in an argument on empiricism. You said in effect that sense data reveals it’s own trick with the piano by power of observation and time. I’d respond to that but I’m too nervous I’ll hear “I’m not talking about the ‘really real truth’ ” again, which sends me into that dark corner of monopolized confusion. lol

 

Conclusion
    Please explain clearly what you are trying to establish if not legitimate beliefs (method of truth). And also explain how whatever you’re trying to establish relates to arbitrary assumptions (illegitimate belief) – and why I would be “interested” with what you can do with arbitrary assumptions.

"Confusion"
Belief 1: "4 was the only answer to X times 0 equals 0"
Belief 2: that he was abiding by "the rules of mathematics as we know them"
But you know what?  Forget it.  Don't worry about it.  It's only an example. 

"My Fundamental Issue"
"Again I never denied you can have illegitimate beliefs (from arbitrary assumption or of sense data) that contradict each other. I was speaking of legitimate beliefs (method of truth) or what you call absolute knowledge. Everytime I said "it wasn't possible" I was referring to legitmacy. Thus your point was always irrelevent to me as I was under the impression we were talking about estblishing legitmate beliefs."
     Well then I am VERY ANGRY AT YOU for not specifying that.  When I say "Belief sets exist that can be contradicted by sense data" and you say "No they can't" when you really mean "Not certain TYPES of belief sets" then you have NOT SAID WHAT YOU MEANT AT ALL. 
     I have specifically said many MANY times that this part of the discussion was about my disagreement with your assertion that sense data can support ANY I repeat ANY belief set.  So when you now say you meant only SOME belief sets you have in fact conceded my point COMPLETELY.  It boggles my mind that you went THIS far without making such a basic realization, but whatever. 
     Also, I think you were being tautologous, because if I'm right you are defining legitimate beliefs by the fact that they are consistent with sense data. 

"Side Note to MFI"
You may have to remind me what "the point I was making for empiricism" is.  We've talked about many things but I don't recall what you could have been illustrating with the math example in that regard.  It seems to me that you're making an analogy to sense data and belief sets, as in "X times 0 equals 0, solve for X" has infinite solutions, just as there are infinite belief sets compatible with our sense data.  Is this correct?
     But however true it may be that sense data is equally compatible with infinite numbers of belief sets, I assert that there is still a reason that empiricism should be treated more highly than all the others:  practicality.  Note that practicality is not the same as legitimacy. 

"B." 
Again:  PRACTICALITY IS NOT THE SAME AS LEGITIMACY (as I understand you to mean it).  I do not enjoy repeating myself but you do not appear to have understood me in past posts and I do not know how to make it any more clear.  Perhaps using the word "really" threw you off or something, but I was only talking about one's observations.  Just like when you said, "it appears to be a piano but when you walk around it, it’s just a jumble of disjointed objects" -- that didn't make me think that suddenly you admitted it was the absolute reality that the fake piano existed and you were walking, only that you observed it. 

"Conclusion"
I am not trying to establish that empiricism is the only LEGITIMATE or most legitimate belief set, by which I understand you to mean a true path to absolute knowledge.  I am trying to establish that the world posited by empiricism is the only world that can be interacted with (and thus empiricism is "practical" while others are not).  It's like you had a billion video game systems, each with a billion games, but only one of them has a controller.  Which one does it make the most sense to buy?  You can believe in the Matrix but you can't do anything about it.  (Or would it be better to say the controller only works with one game?)

There is no connection I am attempting to make with the other discussion, which completely revolved around your "ANY" statement and my disputation of it. 

Perhaps when you understand the thrust of my argument you will be more prepared to understand the particulars of it.