Meaning and language are not necessarily concepts derived from our experiences (as I gave the possibility of meaning and language simply being present already (which is not impossible)).  And while I do agree that sensation is itself an unavoidable axiom, it's not sensation I'm questioning, but what we make of them.

@rath

That's what axiom means; an unfounded assumption.  The example you gave would be of logic, which is uncontestable. 

I see Godwin's law has already been fulfilled.

Thread over?

Not really. In fact I'd go as far as to say that during a religious argument asking if Hitler was fulfilling "Gods will" is a perfectly valid question.

thank you, im glad someone saw my point, maybe they didnt answer because they do believe he was fulfilling gods will?

I've read through all the posts in this thread and I just made a stunning discovery/observation!

Atheists and Secular Users is focusing on empiricism in defence of science, while almost every religious user in here is 'fighting' for their own identity.

Interesting.

Theoretically....Yes, HItler was following Gods will.

Let us focus on the fact that the main opposition in the debate so far has been Christian (EDIT - which is why i have focused on the idea that the "Christian" God was guiding him, as opposed to the Hindu Lord Brahma or the MUslim Allah).

Let us also remember that despite alot of talk that Hitler was an Atheist he:

Was raised as a Catholic

Taught in a Catholic School

Consistently referred to "God guiding him to create the Third Reich"

Was NEVER denounced by the Pope/Church for his actions against the Jews.

(EDIT - HE also refused to believe that Christ was a Jew, which is pretty funny, but also in line with common religious thinking at the time)

Now then. God is an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent being who would have known at the moment of creation exactly how it would all turn out. If he didn't know that then he wouldnt be the ultimate life form.

So, God knew what would happen, it was preordained. SO yes, hitlers work was Gods will.

So is every murder, rape, assault, robbery, car jacking and parking ticket.

Hmm... it's a different discussion perhaps, but I believe that language is derived from our experiences.  As for saying that its being present already "is not impossible"... well... "is not impossible" doesn't give me any confidence, or lead me to wonder if it's true.  By that same rationale, the Tooth Fairy is not impossible--I'm not ready to give the Tooth Fairy any credence, however, and I'm sure you don't either.

For now, I'll just go where I think the evidence points, and I think that at the moment the evidence points away from Plato's theories of knowledge and towards learning language.

As for this: it's not sensation I'm questioning... well... what the hell are we arguing then!? :)  I thought you were questioning the validity of sensation.

But, if you're not, if instead you're questioning "what we make of them"... well... then what are you questioning, exactly?  Maybe I just don't fully grasp your argument.  (For which I apologize.)

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, "what we make of our sensations" forms the basis of, like, every other possible argument.  So I don't understand a general argument over what we make of our sensations, but rather particular instances of it, like whether we believe that God exists, or butter-side-up vs. butter-side-down (and anyone who thinks down is a freak... just saying).

Sensation is our data--and I don't believe that sensation, as such, can be argued against--how we interpret that data, however... now that's the stuff of horse races.

Language and meaning could simply be put into a mind from an outside source (read: God), so it's not necessarily true that they must be derived from senses.  And, I think I may have been misuderstanding you there on that point; are you saying we get words from our senses, or from our judgements? 

Oh, I'm questioning our judgement of our sense experiences (sorry 'bout the confusion :)  ).  And I'm saying that our judgements cannot be trusted because there is no reason to interpret our sense data in any particular way.  Therefore, to use empiricism one must assume (without any indication for it) that one's judgements are correct, and as such, the empiricist is on the same level of unfounded thinking as the theist.

Perhaps my question should have been:  why do you think that "judgments made on sensory data are not necessary and are avoidable"?  I just don't see how that's true at all, at least when you're talking about a judgment as basic as "the universe is at least vaguely similar in actuality to how I perceive it". 

Also, to respond to the part I reinserted into the above quote:
Not a better idea than anything else?  I presume this is connected to the statements you made which are substantially the same as "flipping a coin to decide what is true is just as good and likely to be true as empiricism".  But that's not true at all!  The most obvious thing that comes to mind for me is that flipping a coin will not produce the same answer to the same question consistently, which empiricism will.  This leaves alone the question of how you'd even flip the coin, let alone tell the result, without empiricism.    Again, if you don't trust your senses at all, I don't see how that leaves you with anything more than cogito ergo sum. 

Secondly, I don't think that the possibility you mentioned is a valid counterpoint.  Any sort of input into your mind could IMO be considered to be "sensed" and even if that's not the case, non-sensory input isn't inherently any more likely to be true than sensory input.

As far as I can tell most Christians believe god gave people free will.

So how would hitler being doing god's work?   He never claimed he was doing it.... infact he was a lapsed catholic who was likely an atheist.  He was like this close from killing the pope.

He saw religions and occultism as nothing more then propaganda.

People didn't respond to you because it's a stupid question.

If everyone was doing god's will... then nobody would have free will.  Making free will pointless.

Edit: Also actually the Pope did denounce hitler in private.  To which Hitler said he would kill the pope if he denounced him in public.

Hitler only claimed to still be a catholic because roughly 33% of Germany was catholic.  He wanted to unite all of germany under a state run relgiion much like Englands... but really could of cared less which religion it was.  He gave the goahead for use of everything from Christianity to Astrology to Norse mythology to Occultism to be used for the Reich.