In the first place it is perfectly possible to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.
— charleton

Make it. — Noble Dust

In short
Belief is a thing which you wish to be true or take to be true for emotional reasons or reasons of tradition, emotion and particularly because of Faith.
Knowledge is that taken to be true based on evidence and reason. All knowledge is subject to revision and is contingent on that evidence. It is demonstrably true. Knowledge is true anywhere in any culture, and not dependant on cultural preferences.

You see a dog, you believe in the dog. — TimeLine

You are just abusing language. If I see a dog I have no need of any belief, I know.

It is impossible to have no beliefs: an atheist still has a belief that nothing exists — TimeLine

Total rubbish.
In the first place it is perfectly possible to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.
And in the second place atheists do NOT have a belief in God. Atheism says nothing about 'nothing existing'.

A bit snooty. Where do you need to go but good? — T Clark

It's boring, predictable and formulaic.

What about Radiohead? — Janus

They were great. Where are they now?

Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock — jamalrob

There is no 'natural tendency', here. King Crimson continued to change and evolve. I do not see why a genre would necessarily have to do that.

Fame corrupts the mind — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed.

I know writers that kept getting better, though many run out of ideas.
And on the matter of composers of the past such as Beethoven it was progress all the way.
Genre musicians as you say 'bluegrass[, "country' there is no where to go.

No. I refuse to allow myself to succumb to any belief.
I have aspirations that we can improve as a species politically and socially, but not not hold these things to be natural or self evident. It all takes work.
When you allow yourself to believe is the moment that you stop thinking. Faith destroys progress.

no. I have that reasoned. It is an axiom I have brought into knowledge and is continually subject to revision.

Can we not simply improve them, or at the very least have the will to become conscious of what these beliefs are and to formulate our own? — TimeLine

You cannot polish a turd.

Belief is the death of reason.

He never escaped the cell of belief in the eternal psyche, for which no evidence could be possible.

The paradox is that you have to be stupid enough to buy, and clever enough to sell before the balloon bursts, as it inevitably will.

All crypto currencies are balloons.
Balloons can get very big. The skin of these balloons is as thick as the participant's greed and stupidity. The more thick the bigger the balloon can get.
But no one's stupidity is thick enough to sustain an ever larger balloon.

If Socrates can do without one, anyone can — aporiap

Not every one is like Socrates. But there is no doubt that, despite his skepticism, he and everyone around him was subordinated to the cultural norms all around them.
No one can completely divest themselves of endemic assumptions.
We simply cannot operate without taking for granted a string of givens. Out entire lexicon demands that we structure our understanding and interests through a filter of pre-given loci of meaning.
All this amounts to an invisible ideology.
Socrates held many such assumptions that do not ring to in the modern day. Other cultures, other language communities are all prey to their milieu, and even if individuals within those cultures think themselves observers of society free from its influence we are all in the thick of it.

Horses for courses. Sharks think better than humans when it comes to doing the calculations for swimming and eating fish in the ocean.
But they do not know how to start a computer.
Two humans. One quickly finds the answer to a problem (such as a maths one) whose solution is irrefutable; the other never finds the solution.
QED Some people think better than others.
The same pair of people being quizzed on a matter of emotional intelligence the result might find the maths failure can find the solution whilst the maths whizz fails even to understand the emotional problem.
QED Some people think better than others.
The point is clearly made.
NP

Since we do not have unfettered access to the universe; that our perception of the universe is necessarily partial - we could never recognise a universal if one hit us in the face like a large wet fish.

It is better to have lived and never worked at all.

Are you asking if the knowledge is within the subject? Yes, knowledge is always in a subject, for only subjects can know things. However, the knowledge is about objective moral goodness. — Samuel Lacrampe

Knowledge is not related to moral goodness, just veracity. Morality and goodness are wholly subjective.

Do you believe in transubstantiation?
— Sapientia

Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation. — Agustino

Own it, Agustino.

It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality. It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation. This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.

In law, a verbal contract confers a substantial obligation. — unenlightened

What you offer is not relevant. I was offering to the thread that which is claimed by the Catholic Church. Law is not apposite.

I'm not suggesting that transubstantiation is this exactly, but that ritual functions in a substantial though non physical way in ordinary secular life. — unenlightened

Transubstantiation is a nonsense. The question here is what nonsense is believed by Catholics.

In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[34]

Obviously Wiki knows more than Agustino.
"Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharistic offering bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.[1] The reaffirmation of this doctrine was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215"

I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed.
— Agustino

I recommend you stop being so rude. Since you know more about this, educate us, don't just sneer at our ignorance. — unenlightened

Insults can also be a response to being confronted with your own ignorance with a valid challenge

Aristotle said nothing about it, as it had not been invented in his time, living 100s of years before Xist. Aristotle would have called it bollocks too.
The fact was that the blood was taken totransform in substance. the clue is in the word DUH.
There is not one scrap of evidence to think that Luther ever took that to be true.

No I do not understand what

"literarily" — Agustino

means...
But I do understand what 'literally' means.
Can you explain what all the fuss was about when Luther rejected the sacraments or should he also go back to smoking weed?

I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of Christ
— Sapientia
Why? That's not what the doctrine claims. — Agustino

That is exactly what the doctrine claims. That the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement.

Why do you think that Luther was so angry?
Why do you think the Anglicans wish to preserve the empty ritual decided to call it "consubstantiation"? And thereby implying that the bread and wine somehow coexisted in with Jesus?

Fair enough.
Have you tried Adorno?

Calling self-knowing reality God and insisting that the cruelty in history is necessary for God to become God is far from ordinary theism. — ff0

It's still arrogant and lacking in skepticism. He's just inventing his own conceptual certainties by talking about that which is not evident.

If you are a woman, I am sorry for whatever experience you had that made you feel this way. If you are a man, stay away from the people I care about. You should stay away from everyone. — T Clark

Stupid! I was talking about nature in the wider sense, and was a quip in response to the silly statement "Sexual assault can be about sex".
I've never assaulted anyone at anytime for any reason.

Unspent libido is easy as fuck to channel away into something productive, and it could always be masturbated away. Sexual violence and domination can be sublimated in any number of ways, or framed as an accceptable game within willing partners. — Akanthinos

But you are reducing nature to just an ejaculatory reflex, when I've made clear, had you read the whole of my post that violence and power-over is also closely linked to the male sex drive.
Wanking is not enough it's what chimps have to do when in captivity.

How come ataraxia?

Though if you gloss the Pyrrhonian school as having 'given up' and as full of 'angst' and 'apathy' — PossibleAaran

I'm not saying that. I am saying that you are saying that about their attitude to skepticism, which is about enquiry or it is about nothing.
What seems to be happening is that Pyrrhonianism is declaring enquiry useless. That is a political position, and one that few who had not given up on could ever aspire to. I assume they are supposed to reject all reason and enquiry and substitute Faith?

Pyrrhonian school practiced suspension — PossibleAaran

That's just a point of view from people who had written themselves off from the world.
Its not the most common, nor typical, nor accurate.
Skepticism is the fuel of science and the progress of humanity.
What you are presenting is "giving up."

Since the title of the thread is "What is skepticism" you are failing to offer any useful insight.

Why would any kind of innate knowledge be objective?
Anything innate has to be, definitively the subject of all basis of knowledge.

the present is a time of no dimension. The past is negative, the future positive (or vice verse) whilst the present of the zero on the timeline.

I am using the word the way it is used in contemporary academic philosophy. I reject the doctrine that there is a 'typical' meaning of the word 'scepticism' outside of philosophy. Indeed I reject the doctrine that there is a 'typical' meaning of most interesting words. — PossibleAaran

Whilst I agree that there might not be a typical meaning, there is no doubt that yours so flies against the basic definition that it is definitely idiosyncratic to the point of an abuse of language.
Inside and outside philosophy it maintains the meaning of systematic doubt.
You have chosen to characterise that in a negative way, when our entire world of reliable knowledge relies on skeptical enquiry, and always has.
Your view is angst followed by apathy.
Skepticism is literally "enquiry". No knowledge is available without it.

Sexual assault can be about sex. — Akanthinos

I think we might need to have a few weekly prizes awarded on the Forum.
This one gets my vote for "Bleeding Obvious Comment of the Week".

Sexual assault is what sex is most about.
Sex is a natural reward provided by evolves responses of survival, in that animals who seek out sexual pleasure are more likely to provide the species with progeny. Nature, being dispassionate and disinterested, cares not how and when such pleasure is gained, so much so that the link between reproduction and the pleasure of sex is not well forged.
To the degree to which the orgasm is accompanied with the production of the elements of preproduction (semen) is the limit of this connection. Many animals do this much better even than humans in that ejaculation and oestrus is also the stimulus for the pleasure. Most mammals have limited interest in sex and this is most expressed seasonally when at particular times the males and females are brought together with pheromones. Violence is the common outcome of such meetings, with males often forcing themselves on females often having fought off other males.
Sex then is naturally linked with violence, and pleasure.
For the primates this seasonality is less marked with several species demonstrating sexual behaviours which are not directly related to the fertilisation of the egg. But violence is a common accompaniment to these practices which also relate to hierarchy.

Culture prevents us from acting like animals, but this is a denial of our nature.
As i said above, every man wakes up every morning and has to deny his natural sexuality. There are two sides to every balancing act. On the one hand society provides us with rules of behaviour, and on the other there is man's natural tendency to insert his penis into something warm and soft to leave his semen, preferably a woman (in the case of a heterosexual).
Each man is his own unique set of scales.
For some, complete sexual repression would work to emasculate the individual completely, though i think the tension would emerge in other ways, such as rampant oppression of others. For others it would make them more devious to seek out others willing to participate willingly or otherwise in sexual practices. This is the Victorian model - every thing swept under the table; including covering table legs incase they inflamed the desire of men; apparel contra onanism were sold to prevent a man from touching his own genitals at night.
There again in a world were sexual repression were minimised or ended would work in a number of ways for different people. For the abuser it would be the licence they were always looking for to use their power to more freely impose themselves onto others. Although the wider knowledge would 'protect' some against the vile advances of a Weinstein, there would always be submissive females who would continue to be abused.

Is this the original version of Danny Boyle's Sunshine