Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism" isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides. Yesm something like what creationists say when they say they believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. If you can bring yourself to understand critical thinking, yku will know there is no difference between philosophical and practical skeptocism. You just don’t like where philosophical skepticism leads you. It trashes too many of your dearly held fantasies. You also need to understand what empirical evidence is. You need to be ready to give up on impossible ideas. You are apparently not ready and may never be, just like YECs. I don’t think you understand. There is a big difference between practical and philosophical skepticism. Philosophical skepticism is throwing EVERYTHING out since the methods used to obtain them are flawed, again (they tell neither true nor do they lie). That evidence can be found for either side and is subject to interpretation (reason being motivated by desire). It’s suspending judgment indefinitely. It’s not at all what you are suggesting. The reason why I hate it is that it threatens to negate everything and I can’t beat its logic.
The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely
The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely It's just life. you can't know everything and you don't know everything. Perfectly logical. Pyrho says you can't know anything, which is extreme, and no way to live.
The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely It's just life. you can't know everything and you don't know everything. Perfectly logical. Pyrho says you can't know anything, which is extreme, and no way to live. Well according to what the links say, saying that you can’t know anything is dogma so they don’t do that. It’s more like continuously suspending judgment on anything in order to achieve tranquility
The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely It's just life. you can't know everything and you don't know everything. Perfectly logical. Pyrho says you can't know anything, which is extreme, and no way to live. Well according to what the links say, saying that you can’t know anything is dogma so they don’t do that. It’s more like continuously suspending judgment on anything in order to achieve tranquility You are just using more words to say exactly the same thing. I'm not making a claim about how much you know or don't know. "can't know anything" is just colloquial. You have to decide how accurate your own knowledge is, not some 5th century BC philosopher.
There is a big difference between “can’t know anything" and suspending judgment on everything. I’m not saying the same thing here.
There is a big difference between “can’t know anything" and suspending judgment on everything. I’m not saying the same thing here.I don't care. I'm not going to argue this detail with you. It will not change your life of you don't work out whatever puzzle you think you need to work out.
“Man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world."
― Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays
I think Camus was more interested in the meaninglessness of life. But in the case of the skeptics they would not hold assent to his view.
The detail is very important. There is one thing to say you can’t know anything (which they don’t say becuaee they consider a statement dogma), but they just suspend judgment on everything. That by doing so they achieve peace and tranquility, and that makes it feel like everything else I do is inferior as long as I don’t follow their words. Like I’m refusing the truth and choosing to live in a fabrication.
Yeah well, just don't. They weren't that smart back then. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PyrrhonismLOL :-D They are not much better now.
I think Camus was more interested in the meaninglessness of life. But in the case of the skeptics they would not hold assent to his view. The detail is very important. There is one thing to say you can’t know anything (which they don’t say becuaee they consider a statement dogma), but they just suspend judgment on everything. That by doing so they achieve peace and tranquility, and that makes it feel like everything else I do is inferior as long as I don’t follow their words. Like I’m refusing the truth and choosing to live in a fabrication.If you accept this truth, you will refuse a million others. Refusing one ancient philosophy could not possibly result in you living in a fabrication.
Yeah well, just don't. They weren't that smart back then. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PyrrhonismLOL :-D They are not much better now. HOw do you know? Also they said the stuff about him walking into traffic and the like aren't very reliable and that it was likely an attempt to besmirch his points without argument.
I think Camus was more interested in the meaninglessness of life. But in the case of the skeptics they would not hold assent to his view. The detail is very important. There is one thing to say you can’t know anything (which they don’t say becuaee they consider a statement dogma), but they just suspend judgment on everything. That by doing so they achieve peace and tranquility, and that makes it feel like everything else I do is inferior as long as I don’t follow their words. Like I’m refusing the truth and choosing to live in a fabrication.If you accept this truth, you will refuse a million others. Refusing one ancient philosophy could not possibly result in you living in a fabrication. It feels like it. Especially because some of their points are true so how can I refuse the conclusion? Beliefs and opinions do tend to cause suffering and our methods for gathering truth can't tell us the true nature of what we are observing. I don't know how to not accept their conclusion of perpetual suspension of judgment to achieve tranquility, especially since the reliable accounts of Pyrrho state how calm he was.
You were trying to argue against it before, now you are arguing for. You troll yourself. Do whatever you want. That’s been my advice from day one.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought that philosophical skepticism contradicts itself. If ALL human knowledge is suspect, and therefore you cannot trust ANY conclusion you come to, wouldn’t that also mean that you can’t trust your conclusion that NO conclusions can be trusted? That automatically means that SOME of your conclusions must be trustworthy. 
I’ve run into Christians who use a similar argument. Human reason is flawed, they say. Human beings ALWAYS come to the wrong decision about EVERYTHING. Therefore the only truth that exists is what you read in the Bible. BUT… if ALL human reason is flawed, then how can you trust your conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy? Isn’t that by definition a flawed conclusion, too?
So basically all you can do is keep in mind that human knowledge is not perfect, that you have to be skeptical even of your own conclusions. But that doesn’t mean you just toss them all out and refuse to come to ANY conclusion at all. SOME human reason is flawed. But SOME human reason is trustworthy. The trick is figuring out which is which.
Hope you don’t mind me formalizing the formatting 
For what it's worth, I've always thought that philosophical skepticism contradicts itself. If ALL human knowledge is suspect, and therefore you cannot trust ANY conclusion you come to, wouldn't that also mean that you can't trust your conclusion that NO conclusions can be trusted? That automatically means that SOME of your conclusions must be trustworthy. :) I've run into Christians who use a similar argument. Human reason is flawed, they say. Human beings ALWAYS come to the wrong decision about EVERYTHING. Therefore the only truth that exists is what you read in the Bible. BUT... if ALL human reason is flawed, then how can you trust your conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy? Isn't that by definition a flawed conclusion, too? So basically all you can do is keep in mind that human knowledge is not perfect, that you have to be skeptical even of your own conclusions. But that doesn't mean you just toss them all out and refuse to come to ANY conclusion at all. SOME human reason is flawed. But SOME human reason is trustworthy. The trick is figuring out which is which.Big thumbs up on that. Nicely said and worth repeating.
You were trying to argue against it before, now you are arguing for. You troll yourself. Do whatever you want. That's been my advice from day one.I'm not arguing for it, but the information that rational wiki links to says it. I don't know why they didn't include it. I want the negatives to be true, but if the source isn't reliable I can't take it into account.
For what it's worth, I've always thought that philosophical skepticism contradicts itself. If ALL human knowledge is suspect, and therefore you cannot trust ANY conclusion you come to, wouldn't that also mean that you can't trust your conclusion that NO conclusions can be trusted? That automatically means that SOME of your conclusions must be trustworthy. :) I've run into Christians who use a similar argument. Human reason is flawed, they say. Human beings ALWAYS come to the wrong decision about EVERYTHING. Therefore the only truth that exists is what you read in the Bible. BUT... if ALL human reason is flawed, then how can you trust your conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy? Isn't that by definition a flawed conclusion, too? So basically all you can do is keep in mind that human knowledge is not perfect, that you have to be skeptical even of your own conclusions. But that doesn't mean you just toss them all out and refuse to come to ANY conclusion at all. SOME human reason is flawed. But SOME human reason is trustworthy. The trick is figuring out which is which.I would like to believe all that, I truly do. The bit about figuring out which is which is just what gets me. Isn't the logic behind that "turtles all the way down"? How do we decide what is the proper way to sift between all of this? What about the Trilema?
I would like to believe all that, I truly do. The bit about figuring out which is which is just what gets me. Isn't the logic behind that "turtles all the way down"? How do we decide what is the proper way to sift between all of this? What about the Trilema?How do you decide anything? How do you decide that the sun is going to come up tomorrow? If you can't answer that question, then you need help. If you don't accept help, you need more help. There are people who can't leave their homes because they are afraid of what could happen. They are irrational. There are people who walk out of their homes with no clothes on in the freezing rain. Unless you are stating that you are suspending judgment and doing a thought experiment, you know why those extremes are irrational. If you don't, you should have people watching you and making sure you are not a danger to yourself and others. If you want to discuss philosophy, you have to choose a place to begin. You have to define existence, unless you are talking about existence itself. And if you are talking about that, you can't switch back to trying to decide what to have for breakfast based on some philosophical conclusion that we can't prove we exist. You don't want to discuss anything. You want to play the child's game of "why?".
Probably better to give a list of what they are saying.
According to the Pyrrhonists, it is one’s opinions about non-evident matters that prevent one from attaining eudaimonia.
The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification.
And this:
These tropes or “modes” are given by Sextus Empiricus in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism. According to Sextus, they are attributed only “to the more recent skeptics” and it is by Diogenes Laertius that we attribute them to Agrippa.[15] The tropes are:
Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.
According to the mode deriving from dispute, we find that undecidable dissension about the matter proposed has come about both in ordinary life and among philosophers. Because of this we are not able to choose or to rule out anything, and we end up with suspension of judgement. In the mode deriving from infinite regress, we say that what is brought forward as a source of conviction for the matter proposed itself needs another such source, which itself needs another, and so ad infinitum, so that we have no point from which to begin to establish anything, and suspension of judgement follows. In the mode deriving from relativity, as we said above, the existing object appears to be such-and-such relative to the subject judging and to the things observed together with it, but we suspend judgement on what it is like in its nature. We have the mode from hypothesis when the Dogmatists, being thrown back ad infinitum, begin from something which they do not establish but claim to assume simply and without proof in virtue of a concession. The reciprocal mode occurs when what ought to be confirmatory of the object under investigation needs to be made convincing by the object under investigation; then, being unable to take either in order to establish the other, we suspend judgement about both.[16]
With reference to these five tropes, that the first and third are a short summary of the earlier Ten Modes of Aenesidemus.[15] The three additional ones show a progress in the Pyrrhonist system, building upon the objections derived from the fallibility of sense and opinion to more abstract and metaphysical grounds.
And their ten points:
The ten modes of Aenesidemus[edit]
“The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences in animals.”[3]
The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among human beings.[4]
The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among the senses.[5]
Owing to the “circumstances, conditions or dispositions,” the same objects appear different. The same temperature, as established by instrument, feels very different after an extended period of cold winter weather (it feels warm) than after mild weather in the autumn (it feels cold). Time appears slow when young and fast as aging proceeds. Honey tastes sweet to most but bitter to someone with jaundice. A person with influenza will feel cold and shiver even though she is hot with a fever.[6]
“Based on positions, distances, and locations; for owing to each of these the same objects appear different.” The same tower appears rectangular at close distance and round from far away. The moon looks like a perfect sphere to the human eye, yet cratered from the view of a telescope.[7]
“We deduce that since no object strikes us entirely by itself, but along with something else, it may perhaps be possible to say what the mixture compounded out of the external object and the thing perceived with it is like, but we would not be able to say what the external object is like by itself."[8]
“Based, as we said, on the quantity and constitution of the underlying objects, meaning generally by “constitution” the manner of composition.” So, for example, goat horn appears black when intact and appears white when ground up. Snow appears white when frozen and translucent as a liquid.[9]
“Since all things appear relative, we will suspend judgement about what things exist absolutely and really existent.[10] Do things which exist “differentially” as opposed to those things that have a distinct existence of their own, differ from relative things or not? If they do not differ, then they too are relative; but if they differ, then, since everything which differs is relative to something…, things which exist absolutely are relative.”[11]
“Based on constancy or rarity of occurrence.” The sun is more amazing than a comet, but because we see and feel the warmth of the sun daily and the comet rarely, the latter commands our attention.[12]
“There is a Tenth Mode, which is mainly concerned with Ethics, being based on rules of conduct, habits, laws, legendary beliefs, and dogmatic conceptions.”[13]
Superordinate to these ten modes stand three other modes:
I: that based on the subject who judges (modes 1, 2, 3 & 4).
II: that based on the object judged (modes 7 & 10).
III: that based on both subject who judges and object judged (modes 5, 6, 8 & 9)
Superordinate to these three modes is the mode of relation.[14]
The five modes of Agrippa[edit]