@ 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?

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

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.

Not worth responding to this, I was speaking generally and atheism and agnosticism really have nothing to do with the point I'm making now anyways.  I illustrated that by making the point entirely without the terms atheism or agnosticism in my last post.

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.

As I've said in this post and the last I can simplify my point by just removing the term atheism and all of its associated arguments over definition and instead go to the heart of belief and be more specific.  If you believe that god does not exist then it still includes you though...but I'm not trying to avoid including you any more than I am trying to include you.  I simply do not care who is included because feelings are irrelevant to a logical point.

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 point on your behalf would have more meaning if my point actually relied on the term atheism (even the old form didn't actually rely on it which is proven by my making the same fundamental point without relying on it at all).   I changed the shape of my argument to more accurately reflect the concept I intended to convey, so you should in turn stop addressing old portions of that concept.  I never claimed to have given a perfect argument from the beginning.

With that said I would still contend that my point applies to all true atheist as stated, but that is a discussion for another time and unnecessarily complicates this discussion.

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.

Again, focused on the use 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 wasn't saying that agreeing on definitions was pointless and irrelevant...I was saying that the definitions we were arguing over were pointless and irrelevant to the discussion...I was making that very point throughout the last half of my last post actually.  To reiterate yet again...the last post was dropping the atheism terminology to avoid the unnecessary discussion of what atheism is and is not...it is unnecessary because "belief that god does not exist" explicitly explains the position without the extra (again unnecessary) baggage.

As for the rest of this ...yeah..it all relies on atheism specifically being a part of my argument to mean anything at all to this discussion.

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."

What atheism is and is not has nothing to do with my argument.

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?

I could actually say the same about your preconceived notions but it serves no point similar to your having said it.  The bottom line is I'm dropping the atheism and agnosticism aspect because I know that we will never see eye to eye on it.  And I'm not interested in never ending debates.  I had hoped my dropping it would elicit some acknowledgment from you though...instead you seem to have made your entire response centered around atheism.

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.

This is not a logical argument so much as a speculation that maybe...possibly...something is wrong with my logic.  Perhaps, rather than speculating, you could point out a problem that you do, in fact, see? 

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.

I'm blunt to a fault myself.  I think it is probably evident in this post.

Why not quote and respond to this bit:

"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."

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.

It sort of explained that your entire atheism oriented reply was pointless.

Just to be clear I already see where this whole things is headed which is why I'm actively attempting to speed it along to that end.  We have an irreconcilable difference on 2 pieces of terminology and I have zero interest in hammering it out to be completely blunt (12 months ago I might have had the time, but I don't anymore).

With that said my original point I was attempting to make still remains, specifically that a belief that god does not exist or cannot exist is demonstrably one of faith.  If you agree with that then we actually have arrived at that end already.  If you indeed do agree with that then signify it as part of your next post and I'll let you have the last word on the subject to wrap up any points you want to make.

I'd love to say a simple yes to the but I always feel their some ambiguity to avoid.

Although that third one you posed seems more clear on that than the others: "Sense data does not 'argue' for any particular interpretation". 

Clarifying further: Sense data is certainly knowledge but we can admit it comes in distinct separate little bits to us (various areas of colors, sounds, etc.) which we attempt to interpret to be, say, a whole object. As I also am able to confess an array of possible interpretations for any moment of sense data it follows to say that, yes, those bits of sense data don't 'argue' for any interpretation. They just... "stare me in the face" and leave me with all my equally possible interpretations.

We'll need a different method of truth if we want to know anything more about the world than the sense data received. Sense data doesn't offer anything more than itself (a blaze of colors and sounds with no inherent objects/relationships).

I thought I did quote and respond to that bit?

I don't know what more I can add to that?

I was trying to respond to all of your post; I thought, for you to take the time to write it, it must be worth responding to.  Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry been in a rush the last few posts, and I'm sure it shows. This is part of my reason for trying to keep things simple actually.

Honestly, I just thought that when you brought up the blurb from dictionary.com, etc., that you were interested in the terminology, and that the meaning of "atheism" mattered to our discussion.  Again, my mistake.

No, I admit I started down that path. But I'm trying to simplify and keep the whole thing focused on my main point rather than trying to debate every single branch topic of a topic with endless branches.  Some of the branches are admittedly mine or my fault...I don't claim my argument was perfectly articulated from the start though.  And as I said I think we have a very strong disagreement in terminology on those 2 words and it would probably be fairly fruitless and frustrating for both of us.  So if I can make my basic point without it I think it is more than worthwhile. 

Well, really, I don't know if I agree with it or not.  I know that there are several people who make the claim that they can logically prove that god cannot exist, but I'm not one of them, and I don't know their arguments very well.

Absent a specific logical argument against the possibility of god to critique, I think I'd find you hard-pressed to demonstrate that such a logical argument could not be made.

I'm not approaching it from that direction though.  I'm saying that if a person cannot make a logical argument for a belief then it has faith as its basis.  Because if they can't make the argument, whether it exists or not, they are making it based on faith.  This goes back to the part where I said "Its not actually an option".  This was a comment about what I said next, and was in essence saying you either have a logical argument to support a belief or you don't, and if you don't your argument is based in faith.

Going back to your list of 10 points (with the understanding that we're talking about those who claim that god cannot exist, "anti-theists" for convenience), your point 9 deals with such logical arguments this way:

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.

But that only says that an anti-theist who is unable to present the logic for the basis of his belief is guilty of "intellectual dishonesty."  It doesn't mean that there cannot be an anti-theist who can demonstrate the logic of his beliefs, does it?

Well I want to be careful because demonstrating logic in a belief and demonstrating that a belief is supported by logic are slightly different.  This is perhaps a big source of confusion between us.  An argument is supported by logic as I stated in my numbered points before... but the logic of a belief doesn't actually have to be logically consistent as long as it is logically consistent from the perspective and information available to the believer. 

And so, unless you can offer some logical proof as to why all such logical proofs must, by their nature, fail, then I don't know how you can say that an anti-theist with an airtight logical argument cannot exist.

And if you can't rule such an anti-theist out, then I don't think I can agree that "a belief that god does not exist or cannot exist is demonstrably one of faith."

Well I could very simply point out that any omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being that doesn't wish to be proven will not be proven.  So no matter what argument is made any god with these attributes (ie pretty much god in every major religion) will remain out of the reach of any logical proof by virtue of his claimed imnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.  Discovering the origins of our universe, the beginning of time, anything can be simply explained away through the abstraction of one more layer of wrapping around reality.  No matter how many layers are peeled back another can be immediately assumed because of the limitless power, wisdom, and information he is defined to have.

So while it may be possible to disprove gods without those nifty abilities (although I think even that is a tall order), the gods that do have those abilities will remain possible.

But even so my original point was never to show that someone could or couldn't prove God, but to say that those who haven't done so (ie probably everyone) owe their belief about the existance of God to faith.  I touched on this earlier with this comment "I'm not making any demands on the way people reach a belief...only taking issue with how they characterize them to others...or specifically mischaracterize them to others." 

I'm saying that many non-theists characterize their belief of god to be a logically supported conclusion when it actually is not logically supported.  The reason I make this point is because I believe theists and non-theists are on equal footing at the opening of a debate in terms of burden of proof.  They both have to make their case, it's not the responsibility of one to prove their case and failing that the other wins. 

I'm not approaching it from that direction though.  I'm saying that if a person cannot make a logical argument for a belief then it has faith as its basis.  Because if they can't make the argument, whether it exists or not, they are making it based on faith.  This goes back to the part where I said "Its not actually an option".  This was a comment about what I said next, and was in essence saying you either have a logical argument to support a belief or you don't, and if you don't your argument is based in faith. 

Well I want to be careful because demonstrating logic in a belief and demonstrating that a belief is supported by logic are slightly different.  This is perhaps a big source of confusion between us.  An argument is supported by logic as I stated in my numbered points before... but the logic of a belief doesn't actually have to be logically consistent as long as it is logically consistent from the perspective and information available to the believer.

Well I could very simply point out that any omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being that doesn't wish to be proven will not be proven.  So no matter what argument is made any god with these attributes (ie pretty much god in every major religion) will remain out of the reach of any logical proof by virtue of his claimed imnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.  Discovering the origins of our universe, the beginning of time, anything can be simply explained away through the abstraction of one more layer of wrapping around reality.  No matter how many layers are peeled back another can be immediately assumed because of the limitless power, wisdom, and information he is defined to have.

So while it may be possible to disprove gods without those nifty abilities (although I think even that is a tall order), the gods that do have those abilities will remain possible.

But even so my original point was never to show that someone could or couldn't prove God, but to say that those who haven't done so (ie probably everyone) owe their belief about the existance of God to faith.  I touched on this earlier with this comment "I'm not making any demands on the way people reach a belief...only taking issue with how they characterize them to others...or specifically mischaracterize them to others." 

I'm saying that many non-theists characterize their belief of god to be a logically supported conclusion when it actually is not logically supported.  The reason I make this point is because I believe theists and non-theists are on equal footing at the opening of a debate in terms of burden of proof.  They both have to make their case, it's not the responsibility of one to prove their case and failing that the other wins.