Yes. All "knowledge" is based upon assumption and the 'point at which one feels certain' is not the same as 'a certainty'.

The underlying point which remains unassailable is that belief is not knowledge. It is belief. Calling it knowledge is certainly something people will do (and do, etc.) but it doesn't change that the two are not the same, even when they are assumed to be so.

That would be the aforementioned axiom. Try making the same point without it. You'll find it impossible, which is my point. You only 'know' when your assumptions are believed to be true. It is the only way you can know and it isn't really knowing at all, it is believing that you know.

I'm sorry that your reading comprehension seems to be lacking, but that is really no one's issue but your own. If you cannot understand things that are written on higher than a grade school level, I suggest you see to remedial work for yourself.

Actually, if you'd like to imagine something, imagine me pitying you, for I do. Anyone who can come into a topic like this and do nothing better than what you have deserves pity.

There is a belief that something exists. It is a commonly held and easily reinforced belief. That does not make it an absolute certainty.

All systems of belief begin with an assertion that is considered axiomatic. The key word here being 'considered', an assumption that a particular thing or set of things is true. A belief. Specifically, a belief that is treated as if it is knowledge.

That does not, however make it so.

I cannot know it. I believe it. Do you get it yet?

Are you telling me that you truly do not understand that the position that knowledge is not possible makes any statement uttered by one holding the position implicitly a belief?

It is far more important to communicate than to speak. Finding understanding by way of communication is the lynch pin of all beneficial progress by humanity.

If or when there is no interest in being understood, or when the only interest is finding agreement or neutralizing different perspectives, opinions, or beliefs, communication and all benefit that rises from it is stymied.

Agreed.

Considering that the 'standard of living' that we insist is 'good' continues to cost more, require more, and become more complex as well, I'm not sure any of it can be defined as 'beneficial' to humanity overall.

Sure, we're able to have pretty things or helpful things or fun things on demand at the local WalMart, but there are a host of costs (both tangible and intangible) that are really quite lacking in benefit that are a required component of this.

We call these things progress... but over what? Is working a 70 hour week to afford to keep up on the credit debt really better than working a 30-40 hour week on the farm?

WalMart can destroy entire segments of society and culture with impunity so long as they aren't doing it here, right?

That does seem to be the consensus, which frankly, is shameful.... and the most egregious example of how consumerism ignores or denies the things that its hunger demands.

I am reminded of the opening to a movie called 'The Gods Must Be Crazy'. Mind you, the presentation of the Bushman culture is pure fallacy, but the presentation of our 'civilized' consumerism society was, I thought, quite insightful and thought-provoking. I've linked it from Youtube.

Let's just say assumption on your part is insuring my interest in taking the time to rub your nose in the gaps of your argument remains at nil.