Welcome to Gaia! ::

bump?

I appreciate the reply and understand what you are getting at, however the notion that "it doesn't matter" is irrelevant to what I was getting at. (Though still agreeable to an extent) You see, the question was asked not because I am concerned with whether or not I really exist, but it was asked because I am concerned with about my intellectual consistency.

Though as of lately, I have realized that such prevalent consistency in the universe's laws and my perception of such actually counts as a form of relatively reliable and empirical evidence, and to a far greater magnitude than that of religious experiences due to its greater level of prevalence and consistency.

Yes, if you take empiricism to its logical conclusion, yes, doubting the very existence of the universe outside your mind is demanded. Because empiricism states that we can only know what has happened before, and not what will happen in the future, however, it is incompatible with the modern world. No doubt empiricists find some refuge in quantum level nonsense, but the fact is this: If I fire a gun, it will work because we know how to make guns, we know how to make the bullet fit the barrel, how t put enough powder in the bullet to propel it without blowing the gun apart, and how to do that reliably and consistently. If, by some chance, the gun doesn't work as expected this only proves the inadequacy of empiricism further, because upon investigation we can find the cause of the malfunction, and prevent it from happening again.

Empiricism denies all this. Only that which has happened has been proven, not that which will happen. The empiricists love to cite the black swans at Perth. Swans were white, everyone knew it, until upon reaching Perth they saw black ones. And yet... For all the supposed intellectual failings of the materialist world view, it is empiricism that is unable to account for the progress of modern industry. Every time something goes as expected they cry out "but maybe not next time!" like those religious types who admit that while, "yes, this miracle was proven to be a hoax, or to have very knowable material causes, nevertheless, not all miracles have been proven to be such!"

I look at it this way: In any environment, you're going to need a few core assumptions that make reasoning possible. For example, in math I must assume that 1=1. I can't really prove it, but if I don't assume it to be true, I can't do calculus, or even addition. One of the core assumptions of atheism is "our reality is real". For reasoning to be possible, we must make that assumption. I'm not saying our perceptions cannot be mistaken, they can. I'm saying that there is a reality that we can perceive.

So, yes you are asserting something without any evidence, but it's little more than assuming 1=1. If others want to live in a world where they can pretend 1=2, that's their problem. Since it's a implied assumption, there's no burden of proof.