Skepticism

While I do not disagree, I shall have to probe further with this issue in my mind. As a further question, I am wondering as to the nature of belief. Does everyone who holds a position must provide a justification for such beliefs, or is the insufficiency of the opposite position adequate to justify belief? As we are both atheists (or I assume), the inadequacy of the religionists' view is adequate justification for myself that atheism is correct. But involving this specific scenario, I find it to be a differing case in some respects. I do admit the following: *I essentially MUST act in accordance with my sensory perceptions (or die in hysterical proportions, trying to hug a train, for example) *My perceptions are theoretically flawed, thus doubt creeps in As for these, I wholeheartedly agree with your previous statement. But does the fact that I cannot prove beyond a doubt that what we all consider reality is not absolutely certain mean that I should rightfully doubt it all? As for a criticism of your response, I think that the fact that I do obey all the apparent circumstances of this reality has little positive evidence that I do not, in fact, doubt that what I consider to be real could be imaginary or something. I hope I sound coherent, as this is a pretty unusual thing for me to be thinking about (I don't normally attach myself to positions like this so fully). This is the second time a purely philosophical idea has really made me obscessive about solving it.