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.

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.

I think you must have missed the salient point. Here, I'll repeat it for you:

"You see, it would be worth the time to create rebuttal were the target someone who had demonstrated the ability to actually consider opinions other than their own.... but in this, you fail rather abysmally."

Every one of your debates fall back on this method of ad honimem and derogatory treatment of those who either disagree with you or refuse to engage with you.

And you wonder why people refuse?

Wow.

Oh, I'm not voting down your arguments, but thank you for telegraphing that's what you are doing. Hypocrite, much? Big surprise (not).