Which would do little to alleviate the problem, for now we can't know whether or not our interpretations of our sense data are correct.

Have you ever taken a MENSA test? Basically it is the easiest test in the world, if you can read you will pass it. It's only easy to get more on board, even though they say it is only the top 2%... it's not.

That said, I do defend peoples rights to join MENSA. It's not that a lot of them want to get in to prove they are intelligent, but more want to get in so they can be in a mentally stimulating environment every now and again because they don't get that at home.

Why is that?

Well, that's what we have. :)

I mean, our interpretations of sensory data are tested all the time--we see an apple, we go to pick it up and the sensations of touch agree with our sight, which we take as confirmation.

Now, it might all be hallucinatory, sure.  We ask others if they see and feel the apple, too, and they say "yes" and we take that for what it's worth. 

In real life, there are hallucinations.  But we come to know those because they fail our "confirmation" checks (sight versus touch, or others say "what apple?").  In other words, the potential shortcomings of the interpretation of sensory data is remedied by more sensory data.  We don't just throw it all out.

Might it all be a house of cards?  Perhaps.  But if it were, there'd never be any way for us to determine it (because all of the evidence we'd collect to "prove" that it was a house of cards would rely on other sensory data).

So, anyways, it is "reality" because really there is no other possible kind; all of our theories, conjectures, arguments, beliefs, etc., are all based on the validity of sensory data.  If we reject the senses, we're left with absolutely nothing, and certainly not this conversation.

I don't see the point to your parting insult, or agree that it's true.

Not agreeing with you =/= "intolerant."

And, with that, I think I'll bow out of our discussion (feel free to have the last word); once we reach the point of "well, it's a matter of faith" then there's nothing more to argue, because faith by its nature cannot be communicated from one person to another.  It's a completely personal phenomenon and, “in my opinion, a bad basis for belief and action.”

Like I said you are intolerant of my beliefs b/c they are based on faith, when you read that did you not think in your head, oh he is using that well that holds not water with me, there are levels of intolerance and I am sorry b/c I assumed you would understand that and did not mean it  as any type of parting jab. I did not want to imply that you will come after us with pitchforks and torches

Usually when I get into this type of debate I have noticed the majority of people tend to take a “ohh one of those” when the matter of faith comes up, and I wasn’t mistaken from all appearances you took that very action and instantly distanced yourself from this discussion?  Did you not?

Again I really want to stress it wasn’t meant as “parting insult”

Yes, all the sensory data would be relying on other sensory data (making it useless).

And we certainly wouldn't be left with nothing (even if we were, that does not at all detract any of the assumption out of it).  For instance, you could decide that flipping a coin can determine truth (while operating under the assumption that there is a coin and you can tell which side it lands on).  Which, as a method of truth, is no less founded as empiricism.

Because it's so basic.  In the same way, I wouldn't say that I beat my heart; my heart just beats.  Every single thinking thing in the universe operates on the assumption that the universe exists at a level that I think is not equivalent to religious "faith".

I thought that religious people were supposed to be a majority vs. nonbelievers, even on the Internet?

And you still seem to be saying that disagreement means intolerance, and I really think you're using the word wrong.

Okay.  I'll take you at your word that no insult was intended--thank you for clarifying.

But I continue to insist that what I am is not "intolerant" of your beliefs.  Instead, I disagree with them.

My reason for "distancing myself" from the discussion is because I believe that "faith" is a personal matter--you cannot give me faith in something, can you?  So if you're saying that your entire argument comes down to a matter of faith... then... I just don't know how the discussion can benefit me, or anyone else who doesn't already have faith in what you're saying.

However, if you think that you can somehow show that "having faith" is good, or necessary, or something like that, I'm certainly willing to hear you out.  Though I suspect that the reason, ultimately, that you believe that faith is a good thing is because... you have faith in it. :)

 And how do you know that?  By your senses?  :p

It's not basic, nor is it necessary, and even it were both of these things, it would not make it true (at all).  For instance, you could decide that flipping a coin can determine truth (while operating under the assumption that there is a coin and you can tell which side it lands on).  Which, as a method of truth, is no less founded as empiricism (this sentence was copied from above).  You don't even have to do anything.