I think his point was to 'stop fucking' more than the condoms themselves being to blame. More like condoms will tempt people to shag more. Nobody could be that stupid. could they? :S

I think if he'd said "stop fucking" and expected people to do it I would consider that at least as stupid.

Confusion

    I hope you don’t think I’m doing this on purpose but again, I really can’t understand what you’re trying to communicate much of the time. E.g.

(that is, at least ONE of the TWO beliefs in his belief set is clearly incorrect as they contradict one another). 

    What does ‘one of the two beliefs’ refer to here? And what does contradictoriness have to do in relation to the point I was making using the example… if it relates to my point.

This is not a rebuttal to your point but (once again) me using your example to illustrate an example of my own. 

    Ok so apparently you’re not addressing the use of my example in relation to the point I was making. Well, I still don’t understand what you’re using the example for.

    Other things that confuse me are below.

My Fundamental Issue

    You still seem to be making a point about a belief(s) and a belief on sense data contradicting each other. Still. And I don’t know why. I really don’t.

    I thought I was clear that my point was about legitimately establishing a belief (method of truth). And that since you seemed not concerned with that, you were establishing something else (input/output, regular belief… I still don’t know what that means). I needed to understand what you mean still.

    So not only do I not understand what you’re trying to establish in terms of “illegitimate belief” but I can’t find the relationship it would have with your point of showing how you can contradict an (illegitimate) belief with an (illegitimate) belief on sense data. (You made it clear that these were illegitimate beliefs, in my terms, when you emphasized “arbitrarily”.)

    What I just said here should clear up what my problem is but just to address your specific statement with reiteration:

“how can you deny that belief sets exist that can be contradicted by sense data?”

    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.

Now A Side Note – My Fundamental Issue

    Again, as I’m under the impression that you’re not addressing legitimate beliefs I still am hoping you did see the point I was making for empiricism. And it seems you did in regards to the math example: that a person could be shown how he was wrong to believe that only 4 could represent Y. Yes, when someone writes this equation for you (whether related to something in life or not) and has a specific number in mind, you have no way of figuring it out by itself. Truth is in his mind (like reality) and the evidence of it presented to you can represent, certainly clearly in this case, an infinite number of possibilities.

B.

    Here it almost sounds like your dealing with legitimate beliefs again. I don’t know how to respond if you’re not because again I still haven’t understood what exactly you’re trying to establish if not legitimate beliefs. I can’t help but think you are inevitably speaking of legitimate beliefs because… well you’re explaining the reality of the matter in regards to whatever point you’re trying to make.

    I did hear one familiar response that, if you were discussing legitimate beliefs, would make sense in an argument on empiricism. You said in effect that sense data reveals it’s own trick with the piano by power of observation and time. I’d respond to that but I’m too nervous I’ll hear “I’m not talking about the ‘really real truth’ ” again, which sends me into that dark corner of monopolized confusion. lol

Conclusion
    Please explain clearly what you are trying to establish if not legitimate beliefs (method of truth). And also explain how whatever you’re trying to establish relates to arbitrary assumptions (illegitimate belief) – and why I would be “interested” with what you can do with arbitrary assumptions.

"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. 

Supplement:  Here is some older material in the thread that shows I have been talking about the same thing all along for the second currently discussed item: 

"And it is the most "practical" IMO, as it is the only choice that can possibly be acted on practically.  I don't actually see any way to consider empiricism not the most practical choice.  I would be interested in hearing you why you do."

"B.  You know I'm not saying practicality is a method or reflection of absolute truth, right?  Just that acting on sense data as perceived is the only practical path since you can't actually do anything else."

"B.  Think about it.  The only actions you can reliably* take are the ones you perceive the results of, yes?  So empiricism is the only belief that lets you realistically* do anything.  Thus the only "practical" one, thus the most "practical" one. 

"*I do not by these words imply that you actually KNOW "really for real" that you are in ACTUAL FACT doing these actions.  I mean rather that your ONLY MEANS OF INPUT replies to your output in a fairly internally consistent way.  (BTW, this includes dreams to the extent that the inputted world explains the discrepancy.)  And that "doing" anything requires an input/output system.  And that "practicality" by definition refers to "doing" things."

It almost makes me want to cry.

@First point,

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I was making this point at you specifically....  I made a point that wasn't actually addressed to anyone specifically which you responded to. I didn't seek out the discussion with you to make an accusation so I'm not sure why you feel I must have been referring about your position specifically rather than just simply speaking generally.  When I first made the point I was honestly just putting the point out there as an extension of my post prior to having made the initial point.

@Second Point,

Actually it is the idea that atheism is broader than that that I am in fact objecting to.  The multiple facets of atheism is part of the intellectual dishonesty present in the overall debate (to be clear I'm not objecting to the distinctions themselves).  Consider if theists as a whole said "well we're going to add a new category of theism known as weak theism similar to weak atheism, as a result you can no longer describe theism as being a position of faith because this position of theism accepts that we might be wrong and doesn't take the position very strongly at all." Or perhaps their weak theism states "we see theism as the default position because it is really an absence of belief in abiogenesis, and since it is an absence of belief it is not really a faith based belief!".

Regardless of this silly argument theism would still be a position of faith, despite trying to co-opt new ideas into the meaning of the term to shed a label (and no atheist would think otherwise).  This is essentially what atheism has done as counter-punch to an argument that made them feel uncomfortable and unsure (ie that they rely on faith for their beliefs).  This is why the link you gave has a section on this very topic. 

But this is actually pretty moot since I can make the point with equal (and perhaps greater) effectiveness without referring to atheism but instead specifically to beliefs.

@Third point,

The very bottom line is that there is a logical argument I'm making, and it will take an equally logical argument to dismantle it.  Battling over definitions isn't very instructive honestly for either of our points and it leads to more and more irrelevant and pointless discussion (been there, done that).  The points I lay out in posts above explained both why disbelief is more than an absence of belief and why this isn't just a nitpick.

Just to run over it again: Belief comes from one of three places  - Evidence, Logic, or faith.  When there is no evidential or logical arguments that reach the conclusion that a belief is correct the position is unavoidably one of faith.  The issue that this view of belief and faith would result in a million fantasy creatures that would then also be believed to be fiction "merely" on faith is technically correct but doesn't actually rebut the argument, rather it simply objects to a consistent result.  Your response to this point has consistently been that you don't like the result...not that you have a true logical objection to it (or perhaps I missed it). 

The principles of logic simply do not care if a casual use of a word sounds "off" when used to describe its results.  The entire point of logic is to contradict this exact type of casual misconception.  Where the preconception of senses and sensibilities make it hard for people to accept something (see the history of philosophy in general).

This leaves your main logical contention that disbelief is merely the absence of belief, but this to is logically false.  An absence of belief is indifference..you have an opinion on the subject..you have a position that you believe to be true.  A belief in a lack of something is not a lack of belief...you simply believe that there is an absence of some thing...you do not have an absence of belief. Your belief as it pertains to the existence of god, is that he does not exist.  This is not a non-belief...a null position is a non-belief...you have a position and therefor a belief.  I cannot see any reasoning by which this is avoidable, to have a position is to have a belief.

PS - Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been spending my free time on GH: Metallica the last few days =P  I think it might actually be the best GH game evah!~

edit: deleted antagonistic and otherwise useless remark

You said that "agnostics are the only people who are being completely intellectually honest" and that atheism "still comes from faith."

I responded to say that I am an atheist whose beliefs are not based on faith, and you then said that "its not actually an option" for me.

So, yeah... since you're talking about the beliefs that I profess, and we've been responding to one another's posts... I tend to think that my specific beliefs are relevant to the discussion.  Or, maybe you're arguing with phantom "other atheists" who aren't replying in this thread... but if you are, then it's a pretty silly discussion, imo. :)

Maybe we should find an atheist whose beliefs conform to what you think an atheist's beliefs ought to be--then your criticisms might be more on point.

I don't think I've used the word "accusation," but look: if I made a post and said something like "liberals want to butcher the babies of conservatives and drink their blood" you don't think some liberal might respond with something like "hey, wait a second... I'm a liberal, and I'm not like that at all"?

"No, no, Mr. Liberal... I'm just speaking generally, not referring to your position specifically."  ? :)

I say I'm an atheist.  You say that atheism, and subsequently my views, must be grounded in faith.  I'm telling you that you're wrong about that.  That's where we are.

Alright, you seem very keen on the language of logic.  In that case, perhaps you're familiar with the no true Scotsman fallacy?  I am an atheist, but when I explain my beliefs, you respond with (essentially) that I'm not a "true atheist."  Because your arguments must be right (they are your arguments, after all), I must not know what I'm talking about when I describe my own beliefs.

Or, if you're not comfortable with no true Scotsman, as its formulation is a bit more modern than some of the classics, then how about begging the question?  For instance, you advance the idea that atheism is "intellectually dishonest" because it's just as faith-based as theism; but when it's proposed that atheism is broader than your implicit definition of the term--which would mean that it is not necessarily faith-based, and therefore not "intellectually dishonest" by the standards you've set--you respond that such a broadening is part of the "intellectual dishonesty" that you'd supposedly set out to "prove."

In short, atheism is "intellectually dishonest" because it is based on faith, and we know that it's based on faith because attempts to show the contrary rely on its "intellectual dishonesty."  The truth of the conclusion is assumed in the premises.

This is a rehash of some tortured language without showing any understanding of, or respect for, the matter being discussed.  (It is also thus a false analogy, but "false analogy" gets used incorrectly so often by so many that I don't like citing it at all.)

There's nothing difficult or convoluted in how I state atheism (or the definitions I'd provided in my last post):

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Please note how it is not "Atheism is the belief that god does not, and can not, exist."  Please also note how my interpretation is consistent with the breakdown of the word, according to the root and the prefix (a-), and also how it is demonstrably different from the prefix you'd supplied (anti-) which lends itself to your view of atheism.

Um... sorry? :)

Battling over definitions is "irrelevant and pointless" when we're trying to come to agreement over "logical arguments"?  Definition--the meanings of the words we use--is at the basis of all rational conversation, and especially important when it comes to philosophical discourse.

To bring us back to logic, here's my view of your current argument:

Atheism is the belief that god does not and can not exist.  The belief that god does not and can not exist cannot be proven by non-faith-based means.  Atheism cannot be proven by non-faith-based means.  Atheism either cannot be proven, or can only be "proven" by faith-based means.

Well, in a deductive argument, the truth of the conclusion relies on the truth of the premises, and my counter-argument to you is that your first premise "Atheism is the belief that god does not and can not exist" is mistaken.  Currently, your version of atheism is a straw man.  And the "interesting blurb" you used to undergird that premise was cherrypicking, as the specific entry for atheism on the very site you quoted (dictionary.com) had a definition entry that agrees with my view on atheism.

Now, you say "this is actually pretty moot since I can make the point with equal (and perhaps greater) effectiveness without referring to atheism but instead specifically to beliefs," and that's fine.  If you're not talking about "atheism" then we have no beef, because your arguments actually have nothing to do with what I believe, or how atheism seems to be generally defined by the atheist community.   Further, had you not labelled atheists "intellectually dishonest," I wouldn't have responded to your post at all.

But if you want to discuss "atheism," then how you define the term (surprisingly?) matters to the discussion.  Currently, it's as though you're making an argument that Christianity is bunk because Roman Catholics pray to saints; Protestants might be unconvinced, and ask that you not equivocate Catholicism with Christianity. 

I don't know what you specifically mean by "disbelief," but atheism is "an absence of belief."  If your "disbelief" is more than "an absence of belief," then atheism is not defined by "disbelief."

I don't object to a consistent result, I demand one.  You seem to be having a hard time here seeing past your preconceived notions: when I say that I hold god the same way I hold the Tooth Fairy, I mean it.  I am not saying that I believe that the Tooth Fairy does not and can not exist.  Perhaps you hold an anti-Tooth Fairy position--an explicit denial, that you cannot prove, and therefore is based on faith--but I do not.  Nor am I "Tooth Fairy agnostic."  I am a-Tooth Fairy; without a belief in the Tooth Fairy, just as I am without a belief in that million fantasy creatures, including god, and will be without such a belief until that point that there is some good reason to have belief.

So, since I'm sure neither of us is adverse to a consistent result, being both "men of logic," what is your position re: the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, etc.?  Since you've equated agnosticism with the skeptic's position, you would feel that a "true skeptic" would describe himself as being "Bigfoot agnostic" and never say something like "I do not believe in Bigfoot," which would be a faith-based thing to say, and could not simply indicate "a lack of belief," right?

Logic is great because it helps us to understand reality, but what it does not do is define reality.

Suppose you have a word problem involving, I don't know, calculating the number of children in a family (x), and the algebraic equation you use to solve for x involves taking a square root.  Performing that operation will leave you with two possible results--one positive, one negative.  Logically, both will fit the equation, and thus both are solutions.  However, taken in context with the original problem, i.e. reality, the negative answer will not make sense; no family has "negative children."

In this paragraph, you're abstracting terms, running them through (possibly specious) equations, and coming up with a result that, essentially, insists on negative children.  It is true that I have "an opinion" and "a position" and "a belief."  But the belief in question is that I have no belief in god; the position is that I have found no good evidence to support such a belief; the opinion is that god has not been proven.  Unless you, yourself, are a theist, it is likely that you hold the same opinion, position, and belief.

Perhaps it is not I who is agnostic and unaware of it--perhaps you are an atheist.

No problem.  I've been trying not to be too offensive rhetorically (one of my many flaws :), and if and when I do offend, please know that it's not my intent and accept my apologies), but I was starting to worry that I might have overstepped myself.

And I'm glad to hear good stuff about Metallica.  TBH, I've been slightly disappointed in the series since II.  I can't really explain it, except to say that the songs on I & II are just more fun to play for me, somehow.

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

@ appolose

If any belief (illegitimate & legitimate, whatever we take those terms to mean) can be "consistent with sense data," then would it be fair to state your view this way?:

Belief is completely independent from sense data.  (or)  Sense data leads to no particular belief.  (or)  Sense data does not "argue" for any particular interpretation.  (or)  There is no connection between sense data and belief.

Or, if those are unsatisfactory formulations, what do you believe is the relationship between sense data and belief?