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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

Preliminary reaction
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).

In that case, according to you, legitimate beliefs about the world do not actually exist, since no such belief set can derive absolute knowledge through a "method of truth" without assuming things. No?

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?

And now it sounds as if you mean "legitimate belief" to be a synonym for absolute knowledge. 

I'm going to read your posts very, very carefully indeed, but I think we're headed to a strange place. 

Just noticed this post of yours. Thought I’d take a stab at it. Maybe some last minute clarity.

 

And now it sounds as if you mean "legitimate belief" to be a synonym for absolute knowledge. 

 

Yes legitimate belief is what I mean by absolute knowledge. A belief that has been gained through a method of truth that guarantees it's not false.

 

In that case, according to you, legitimate beliefs about the world do not actually exist, since no such belief set can derive absolute knowledge through a "method of truth" without assuming things. No?

 

   You keep using "belief set" like this and I never understand it. "A belief set that can derive absolute knowledge". Beliefs are derived from a method. If the method guarantees truth, the beliefs I would call “legitimate”.

   And no I don't say that you can't have legitimate beliefs. Only that you can't have them through the method of empricism. There are other methods proposed.

1.  YES!!! YESYESYESYES!  AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FINALLY!
I have a feeling this could allow for substantial progress.  Even if not, at least we've gotten somewhere. 

2.  I think at this point you need to define "method" and "method of truth".  You have used the phrase "method of truth" many many times, and I do not recall you ever defining it, and I want you to now.  Probably I should have asked this some time ago. 

Also:  "Other methods".  I suppose you refer to something based on revelation, correct?  (If not, then what?  Or, if "yes, but there is a third possibility", then what is that?) 

Is there any input possible besides "sense data" and "revelation"?  (I leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether those two are even separate.)  And would you agree that any legitimate belief about the world must eventually hinge on some form of input?