Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

Respect or admiration for the principles and history behind that bit of socrates is all fine and well. Of course, down the rabbit hole we go. How could he then know that he didn't know anything? Unproductive, no, not even unproductive; counterproductive nonsense. Perfectly understandable for a person living in a time where the only tool one had to try and discover anything with was their mind. We have better explanations for the limitations of our minds and thought processes, better explanations of the sorts of bias and fuzzy thinking that we engage in (and why we would do such a thing), and importantly much better tools than our own minds, and still people are quoting ancient philosophy as though it were gospel?

You've missed the whole point of my argument two pages back. Everything is based on at least one fundamental assumption. That assumption cannot be proven (axiom). If it can't be proven then we can't know it's truth, we only see it as self-evident.

I do agree that by knowing we know nothing we would know at least one thing - it fails by contradiction. However, the point is much deeper than a simple contradiction of definition.

For example, right now we're using language - something that is a product of our conscious minds - to apply reason - something that is a product of our conscious minds - to an idea - something that is a product of our conscious minds.

If we can't prove (as truth) that we exist then we don't have consciousness - at least not in my original argument. If we don't have consciousness then nothing in the previous section matters, as it all relies on consciousness existing.

We have nothing usable to prove that we exist. We have nothing. We know nothing.

But this doesn't follow, as we are sitting here right now, thinking. Or are we? I can't answer these questions for you, which is why I assert that philosophy is the study of the self.