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

[appolose]

Final-Fan said:

"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. 

Confusion

   Look I’ve had this argument with a lot of people and I don’t think I’ve ever had this much difficulty in maintaining relevancy and communication with someone. Don’t take me wrong, not saying it’s your fault, I just don’t know why it’s happening.

   We are having an incredible amount of misunderstanding and my attempt has been to conform to your terminology from the start. I’ll try to explain any confusion throughout.

 

My Fundamental Issue

    Again, I only now began using the term “legitimate’ in place of “arriving at absolute knowledge through a method of truth”. I thought this discussion had started out pretty clearly in that direction and I thought that’s what I was clearly trying to communicate – a method of truth to establish absolute knowledge (I think I used “method of truth” several times previously).

    I was never involving arbitrary beliefs (aka illegitimate beliefs). (Regarding the “any” statement issue: ) So it was never relevant for me to address how an arbitrary belief can be made of sense data (the gray/hard moon is made of rock) that can contradict another arbitrary belief (the texture of cheese).

   So we’re not talking about legitimate beliefs as you say, so moving on.

 

Confusion 2

   “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. “

    No, if that’s what you think I mean by legitimate beliefs we have a misunderstanding. First, my understanding is it that both illegitimate beliefs and legitimate beliefs can be consistent with the same blob of sense data. The question has been (in regards to my issue of legitimate beliefs), how do you figure out which belief is the legitimate one, that is to say, the truth? Thus by legitimate belief I mean the one gained from a method of truth that grantees truth and leaves no possibility of being wrong. 0_o does that help?

 

Side Note to MFI

    I think here is an example of a term you’re using that’s switching the way it’s presented to me somehow. The distinction you seem to be making at this point is between absolute knowledge and “practicality”. I’ve heard a whole thing on input/output, regular beliefs, beliefs within beliefs, knowledge within beliefs, etc. and I haven’t been able to tie them together just by seeing you introduce them at different points. I’m gonna go out on a limb here… are you trying to soley establish what you mean by the term “practicality”? I mean, would that embody your issue with empiricism – to arrive at ‘practicality’? If you answer yes, I have a clear issue with it. I just need to know what it is you’re trying to establish altogether still.

    As for the math issue I think you understood the point I was making with it, yes. There is one truth and we are looking at it through an infinite list of possibilities and no reason to take one or the other in terms of ‘absolute knowledge’. You contend for practicality though (I think), so I’ll leave that to be confirmed before I address that point.

 

B.

   Too much to untangle here. I think still the issue remains that I need to just know that you’re aiming for practicality and not ‘absolute knowledge’.

 

Conclusion

   Confused still but I think if you can simply tell me you are trying to establish “practicality” and not absolute knowledge through the method of empiricism I’ll have direction.

 

   About the  Fundamental issue: I’m sorry if I’ve upset you if I didn’t make my fundamental issue clear enough from the start; it was completely unintentional to be confusing about that J