@Donathos,

Ok you honestly missed some of the most crucial points so I'm going to take a new approach and start from the very basics (which should also help keep the length more reasonable).  Tell me which of these you disagree with and briefly why. Lets see if we can work from here because the other approach was extremely cluttered.

1. Trusting our senses: Society as a whole trusts its senses because we find overwhelming agreement in our preception and utilizing the results of our perception proves itself beneficial on a daily basis.  So at the basis of our reason and logic is this agreement that people need to be able to percieve something to agree on it and accept it.  We can base a discussion of dissimilar views on our senses because we trust our own senses and expect others to present a case that convinces our senses of their point.
2. Logic and Evidence: Logic and evidence are the medium used to present our point of view to others for their assessment.
   
3. Belief or Disbelief in God: Belief/Disbelief can be based in faith, evidence, or logic.  These terms have a heiarchy though.  An argument that utilizes all three is a faith argument because its weakest argument is based on faith.  An argument of logic and evidence is a logical argument because a logical argument is its weakest argument.  In this way Evidence > Logic > Faith.  Note that it is very hard to make an argument using ONLY evidence...usually logic comes into play because humans rely on motive to complete a picture of events.  The hiearchy is this order because a faith argument is supported only by the mind but without a system for isolating errors, then logic because it is based on the mind but has a system for isolating errors, and finally evidence because its existance is independant of the mind.
   
4. Proof: Proof is an argument that, relying on logic and evidence (as the only mediums capable), addresses all relevant points of an issue and shows conclusively where the truth of the issue lies.  A proof, in order to be accepted, must also be open to independent assessment and review by any interested party.
5. Proof for and against God:  Proof for and against god is not special.  It must be a logical and/or evidential argument and must address all relevant points while presenting a conclusive truth that is open to independent assessment and review by any interested party.
6. Logical argument for and against God: A logical argument for the existence of god can consist of both evidence and logic.  The logic and evidence being used must start from an agreeable premise to both parties (the presenter and every listener) and take logical steps towards proving/disproving god until they reach the conclusion.  From there the proof should be reviewed and any skipped step, false premise, or faulty logic that can be demonstrated will corrupt the proof and require them to start from the premise again and work forward from there.
   
7. Evidence for and against God: Such evidence flatly does not exist either way. 
   
8. Lack of evidence is not always evidence: A lack of evidence is not evidence unless evidence is expected.  Or to put it another way, if you expect something to leave evidence when an action occurs and that evidence is missing you have evidence to suggest the event did not happen...but if no evidence is known to be left by an action, and you indeed find no evidence of an action, you still do not have evidence that something did or did not happen.
9. The problem with incomplete proofs: To say that you have "logically" concluded god does not exist without following the rigorous standards of a logical proof actually violates the very first point. Specifically that our ability to reach any agreement is founded on the idea that we can present an argument for the assessment of others.  The discussion of god lacks evidence and thus the strongest possible argument is ruled out.  The only remaining option is logic and failing to present the logic for the assessment of others while claiming that your position is still logical is either ignorance of the terms, abuse of terms, or intellectual dishonesty.
10. Conclusion:  In the absence of proof the only logical position is to be skeptical.  Agnosticism is the default skeptic position because it is the only choice amongst Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism that does not advocate a position of certainty.  

Note that in this debate there are three types of positions like you mentioned in your post:

• Faith Views: Atheism and Theism
• Logical Views: Agnosticism
• Evidential Views: N/A
  

All right, I think I would take issue with (at least) points #9 and 10:

This disagreement is not with the point, per se, but...

I don't know where I've said that I've "logically concluded god does not exist," but it doesn't sound exactly the same to me as what I actually maintain, or what I believe I have written in this thread.

When you say "the discussion of god lacks evidence," I agree, which is precisely why I do not believe in god.  I'm not claiming that I can construct a proof as to why god does not, or could not, exist.  But I also don't think that I have to do any such thing.

I believe it's like anything else: the man who claims that leprechanus or the Loch Ness monster are real has the burden of proving it to the rest of us--much like you say in point #1, we "expect others to present a case that convinces our senses of their point."

Until such a thing is proven to me, I'm not going to believe in it.  God has not been proven to me; I don't believe in god.

I do not agree that atheism necessarily advocates a position of certainty.

And I don't believe that agnosticism is near close enough to my lack of belief in god to be an appropriate descriptor.  Unless we also want to say that I'm also "agnostic" about leprechauns, Nessie, the possibility that ancient aliens are responsible for building the pyramids, water dowsing, and the Tooth Fairy.

I couldn't prove to you that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, but I'm not agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, either.  Actually, I feel as though there's just as much good reason to believe in her as there is to believe in god.  That is to say, there isn't any, which is why I don't.

@ Sqrl

The top of this page speaks to some of the disagreements we appear to be having:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Maybe we agree on all points really, and just contend over the use of the terms?

ETA: Wow... just got looking over that entire page I linked to, and most of it is pretty good stuff.  Echos a lot of the conversation in this thread.

@Discussion of Point 9,

I'm not saying you explicitly stated that here, I'm just laying out my argument.  With that said, from what you're now clarifying, ie that you have not "logically concluded [that] god does not exist", it follows logically and necessarily that your disbelief is an argument of faith from point 3.   

Again my larger position is that atheism is a position of faith not skepticism.  And that it is agnosticism that is actually the position of a skeptic.  If you believe it is simply a difference in terminology then there is no real issue here...and from what you've said I think you probably are agnostic and not atheist.

@Discussion of Point 10,

I'm not sure how to approach this other than to say that atheism is just that.  Consider the word for a moment... atheism is literally anti-theism..the opposite of being a theist (I doubt anyone would deny that theists use faith as the basis for their belief). Atheism is, at its core, rejecting the idea that there could be a god or gods.  Be careful not to confuse the concept of opposites and complements, atheism and theism are complements not opposites...they are counterparts of each other, not each others inverse.

Dictionary.com has an interesting blurb on the subject:

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

It gives a general definition of all 4 terms which it gives as 'disinclined to religous belief'.  It describes atheism specifically as a 'denial of existance of a divine being'. Agnostics specifically as being 'committed not to commit' and skeptics specfically as 'critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds'.  By this it is perhaps a hybrid of agnosticism and skepticism that I would claim myself to be...I don't reject all accepted doctrines and creeds and I'm not strictly opposed to reaching a conclusion...but I don't think a logical conclusion can currently be reached (I actually read a tremendous amount on theoretical physics to keep up on the prospects of finding additional information related to this issue).

The issue with the tooth fairy is where I think we perhaps have one of the biggest miscommunications.  I'm not saying this rigorous standard should be applied to every single belief to show that it is in some small way based in faith.  What I'm saying is that in a case where an atheist (could be you or anyone, whoever) is debating the origin of the universe they do not have a claim to the "default" skeptic position because the atheist position is a denial of divine existance despite having no proof to support it.  And pursuant to the points above a belief without a proof is a belief of faith which would be on equal footing to theism. Despite what "seems" right or wrong this is logic at work, things are or are not in the world of logic and it is that cold binary decision making that facilitates the conclusion of debates of this nature.  That is why I laid out a rigorous standard above (and it isn't really my own but rather my cobbled together version on the backs of numerous great philosophers).

I could simply say that it is in debate scenarios where such scrutiny is valid, but even then it doesn't take much logical scrutiny to realize that atheism is a faith based belief the same as theism.  So in that sense yes the standard is most appropriate for debate where accuracy and detail are priorities.  Having said that it doesn't mean that atheism is only based in faith simply due to some intense scrutiny and a technicality...the fact that it is a firm position on the subject without proof is no technicality or really a small detail.

PS - Technically theism implies a belief in revelation but theism and diesm can essentially be used interchangeably in what I've said thus far.

To use his terminology I would be an empirical agnostic.  But the terminology on what people are is not really the basis of my point here at all.  Regardless of what you want to call it if someone firmly believes that god does not exist they are taking a position of faith unless they can support the position with proof of some kind.  This is the same as for those who firmly believe in god, they also have a position of faith.  We can switch the terms used to anything (and I'm aware many atheist profress upwards of 6 to 8 types of atheism most of which are actually forms of agnosticism) but what I'm talking about stays the same regardless of the name used to describe the person.

As for the link I skimmed it but if there is something specific you want me to address incorporate it into your argument.  I'm keen to avoid trying to debate a link because I have no way of knowing what from the link someone believes or how the linker actually incorporates it into their views.

But your argument seems predicated on this idea that I'm defending a belief that... I don't think I've ever advocated.  This seems to all come down to your definition of "atheism"; you think that, because I describe myself as "atheist" and not "agnostic," that must mean that I am claiming that god does not and can not exist.  But I'm not claiming any such thing; only that I have no belief in any god or gods.

Well, I think that it is primarily a difference in terminology.  However I am quite certain that I am an atheist.  I think that it's at least possible that "atheism" is a bit broader than you're allowing for...

An entymology of "theist"  (from etymonline.com):

Theist: 1662, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation. Theism "belief in a deity" is recorded from 1678; meaning "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism) is recorded from 1711. Theistic is attested from 1780.

Description of the prefixes a- and anti- (from Wikipedia):

Definitions of "atheism":

(from Wikipedia):  Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism.  In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

(from Dictionary.com):  2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

(from infidels.org; the site linked to earlier):  Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

(from askanatheist.org):  An atheist is a someone that does not believe in God (or gods) -- but you already knew that. What you might not know is that most atheists don't think that there is proof that God doesn't exist.

(from atheistfaq.com): The basic definition of an atheist is "Someone who has no god-belief."  That's it.  This is a descriptive definition, specifically a description of an absence. It makes no positive claims of any sort, it simply describes someone in whom divine belief is absent.

(from wiki.answers.com): A (without) + theist (belief in a god) = without belief in a god. An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of a god(s). [...]  By definition, atheism does not exclude agnosticism, because atheism is anything but theism, the expressed belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism and atheism are not separate categories, because atheism is not even a category. It is the exclusion of a single category, theism.

***

Atheism is not necessarily the kind of "anti-theism" you take it to be.  Instead, it is more like "without-theism."

While there are some people, and some sources, who take the position that you seem to argue against--a claim that no god can possibly exist--it isn't the position that I claim or, to the best of my knowledge, have ever claimed.

Such a claim is also not synonymous with "atheism," even though some atheists do make it.

Confusion

I’ve read your response several times and I’m very confused as to what you mean in many cases and what relevancy it has to what I formally made a point of.

In the course of arguing on epistemology I’ve found that people often develop their own terminology throughout. I’ve done my best to conform to your terminology but right when I think I’ve understood, it seems you bring a new phrase or refer to it a little differently. Like the phrase “the concept of ‘belief within belief’ versus ‘knowledge within belief’.” I already didn’t understand what you meant last time when you were dealing with the difference between knowledge, belief, and input/output. Another example would be: “Looking at it from another angle, such a person would have to reevaluate his position if he followed the same math rules”. The meaning or relevancy to what I said eludes me.

Sophistry

Didn’t mean as in insult, sorry it came off that way. Just the status at which I hold such distinctions.

My Fundamental Issue

The only thing that seems fairly clear to me in your post is that you do in fact flatly disagree with my fundamental issue that sense data can represent any interpretation. I get this from your statements:

1. “a person, presuming he trusted his input data, would have to reevaluate either the input data or his breakfast plans upon being corrected”

2. “I think we now agree ‘Belief sets exist that can be contradicted by sense data’.”

   (No I don’t agree… my fundamental point is that sense data doesn’t indicate anything by itself so you’d have to arbitrary choose an interpretation to make it contradict some other belief you’ve taken [for a reason still unknown to me].)

3. “within empiricism the moon is definitely rock.  The sense data proves this (under the assumption that sense data is more or less accurate).”

4. “What I'm saying is that your sense data, taken all together, indicate one general picture of the world.”

Maybe starting over with my fundamental issue will get us back on a course.

Lets say you see the sense data as shown on the left of this image. What does it represent?

   Within certain beliefs: If you’re standing at a certain angle of this, it appears to be a piano but when you walk around it, it’s just a jumble of disjointed objects. Both of those interpretation about this particular portion of reality oppose each other.

   Sense data is reliable and real in the sense that I think you mean it. But my point has always been that we have no way to obtain the correct interpretation of what it represents by it. No, the sense data does not give us a general “picture” – as you meant that in the sense of the objects represented - it gives us millions.

    Looking at that blob of colors a person might believe it represents a real piano (whereas ye philosopher already knows the possibilities of sense data and make no arbitrary judgment from it). The person has this ‘input’ of sense data and he ‘outputs’ a response to it… walking up to sit on what he believes is the bench of the piano and then to play it. But because it’s not a piano and only emitted sense data exactly like a piano, his ‘output’ is not in correspondence with his ‘input’. I call that acting on a false belief, but you may call it something else.

    If I find myself experiencing this sense data in my life, a number of possibilities will come to my mind as to what it represents. And it could be any of them. That’s what I mean by “any”… it could mean any of those possibilities.

    This has no relation to former assumptions (which by introducing, skirt the very question of how they got there). This has no relation to sense data experienced at a later time or former time – which according to the point I’m presenting - would carry the same dilemma anyway.

"Confusion"
The reason I've used varying terminology is to try to avoid misunderstanding; using different words to convey the same idea lowers the chance IMO that a key phrase will cause misinterpretation of meaning.  It would seem that this attempt has failed spectacularly. 

What I meant by the math comment was that the person who thought that 4 was the only answer to X times 0 equals 0 according to the rules of mathematics as we know them would have to reevaluate his position based on the fact that his position can be demonstrated to be wrong (that is, at least ONE of the TWO beliefs in his belief set is clearly incorrect as they contradict one another).  This is not a rebuttal to your point but (once again) me using your example to illustrate an example of my own. 

"Sophistry"
No problem.  The first dictionary I checked said it involved deliberate deception, but the second, more trusted one didn't mention that as necessarily the case, so you're off the hook. 

"My Fundamental Issue"
A.
"(No I don’t agree… my fundamental point is that sense data doesn’t indicate anything by itself so you’d have to arbitrarily choose an interpretation to make it contradict some other belief you’ve taken [for a reason still unknown to me].)"
     And MY point is that (1) a BELIEF is an arbitrary choice.  One can arbitrarily believe that sense data means such and such, and some beliefs would be that a given type of sense data can ONLY mean ONE thing.  (2) Thus, if sense data is inputted to a person with a belief that it means a certain thing, and that certain thing in this instance contradicts another belief they have been holding, then their beliefs contradict each other.  (3) Therefore, their BELIEF SET (beliefs taken together in a system that ought to be internally self-consistent) is self-contradicting and has disproved itself, with the inclusion of the sense data (that can only be interpreted one way by the belief set). 

The only way to deny this IMO is to deny that a person can possibly have a belief that a particular type of sense data can only be interpreted one way. 

Even aside from the above argument however, I am puzzled that you would say you DISAGREE with the statement "Belief sets exist that can be contradicted by sense data" when you have just said, "So yes, of course your scenario is possible in the sense of illegitimate beliefs. I never meant to imply such illegitimate beliefs didn’t exist." 
     If illegitimate belief sets exist (as you agree -- or at least specifically deny implying otherwise) and they can be self-contradictory in the face of sense data (as in my example, which you agree is possible) then how can you deny that belief sets exist that can be contradicted by sense data?  HOW?! 

B.
With the piano example, the empirical belief set includes the possibility of illusion, because the senses are not always 100% accurate.  But they DID detect things that have the appearance of piano keys, etc.  The person did not approach and find that the piano had turned into a bear.  The world did not explode.  You misunderstood what I meant by "one general picture of the world", and I struggle to continue to believe it was a genuine mistake.  How often does a piano really turn out to not be a piano?  The senses are generally reliable, by which I mean they are reliable enough that they form a coherent world.  The fake piano revealed itself in proper parallax, wouldn't you agree?  There was no inaccuracy there? 
     MOREOVER, your reply completely ignores the very next sentence:  "It may not be a correct picture, but the picture exists."  When I said "picture", I didn't mean like a Polaroid.  I meant it more generally, to include the passage of time.  So in fact, the fake piano is consistent with this picture, because as I said it tricks one, and reveals its trick, in a way consistent with the empirical understanding of your senses and powers of observation and time.  I thought you would understand this because I talked about output 'affecting the picture' and the picture 'reacting' which implies successive images, not just one -- and therefore, by implication, the entire observable world from supposed cradle to assumed grave.  (I suppose this assumes the existence of memory but as this part of the discussion is at some point about practicality, that must be a given IMO.) 

Also, this part of the discussion is not about absolute truth.  If you mean possibilities like "this could be a fake piano like the one in that exhibit" then that is a possibility accounted for in empiricism. 

Too lazy to bother with the effort but please imagine that "Hallelujah" soundbyte from certain movies. 

The only thing that seems fairly clear to me in your post is that you do in fact flatly disagree with my fundamental issue that sense data can represent any interpretation.

This is what you did not understand:  sense data can be compatible with any single interpretation absent anything else, i.e. ONE belief.  But belief SETS exist that can be contradicted by sense data. 

Definitions
"I’ve done my best to conform to your terminology but right when I think I’ve understood, it seems you bring a new phrase or refer to it a little differently. Like the phrase “the concept of ‘belief within belief’ versus ‘knowledge within belief’.” I already didn’t understand what you meant last time when you were dealing with the difference between knowledge, belief, and input/output."

I don't know if this is going to work, but I skimmed my posts for the parts where I thought I'd laid out things in a pretty common-sense sort of way.  Maybe having it all together (with some added commentary) will do the trick. 

But this isn't ABSOLUTE knowledge, it's knowledge within the sense data (input) of its own internal consistency with your output.  Do you deny that when you output what you perceive as "pressing Y on the keyboard" a Y appears on the screen?  Do you not expect that if you should output "pull the trigger of a loaded gun that is pointed at your body" you are going to receive input "PAIN"?

knowledge is provable/proven belief.  So we can prove, and thus know, things WITHIN our input/output data, but we can only BELIEVE that said data and knowledge is actually TRUE knowledge of a "really for real" universe.  (Or believe something else, or nothing.)

(One must) differentiate what is true/provable/possible WITHIN a belief set vs. what is true/provable/possible for ALL belief sets.  Thus knowledge is differentiated from absolute knowledge, the latter of which is what you say cannot be derived from sense data (and I don't disagree).  Here you appear to be saying that regular (i.e. non-absolute or KWIB) knowledge is not possible either, but I disagree.

For math, the math data is absolute, so it can produce absolute knowledge.  But sense data only produces relative knowledge.  To illustrate this, let me give some examples from non-self-contradicting belief sets:  within empiricism the moon is definitely rock.  The sense data proves this (under the assumption that sense data is more or less accurate).  Within the Matrix theory the moon we "see" is definitely programmed to be rock.  The sense data proves this (under the assumption that sense data is more or less accurate about telling us about things in the Matrix).  And sense data can produce this relative knowledge.  This is how it is possible for it to disprove a belief set. 

So I have been talking for some time now about knowledge that is not absolute (i.e. would not necessarily be true for any belief set) but which is certain within, or assuming, a belief set.  Within empiricism, we know the earth exists, etc.  So "knowledge within belief" means that once the initial belief set is assumed, it is certain that (whatever) is the case without needing any additional belief.  Something that is not certain without either more evidence/proof or additional belief would be what I meant by "belief within belief". 

This does not mean that KWIB is absolute knowledge ("KWOB", perhaps?), which is something that is certain without needing any initial belief at all.  For math, it may be uncertain whether the rules are there by assumption or by definition, but if it is the latter then it would be absolute knowledge.  (The last italicized quote went by that interpretation.)