[QUOTE=davar55;314563]I agree with most of this, you're describing the opposite of intolerance.

However, accepting that you might be wrong doesn't apply in all cases.
I know with certainty that 2+3=5 and that the angles of any triangle
in the Euclidean plane sum to 180 degrees. There's no way I might be
wrong, and am not open to just any new evidence about these facts.
When it comes to arguments for god or for the possibility of god,
I may be willing to listen, but only a proof that I was wrong would sway
me, and (getting pedantic) no such proof is forthcoming.[/QUOTE]I know with certainty that 2+3=1.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;314567]What chalsall replied. If you say OK to that, then you said OK to "I can't prove there is no god". "I can't prove there is no god" is a direct consequence of the final statement. (I don't know everything => a god might exist and I wouldn't know => I can't prove god doesn't exist)[/QUOTE]
While I'm not sure where chalsall is heading, let's just be clear that the issue is not "Does davar55 know for certain that there is no god?", but "Is the existence or non-existence of a god provable [I]in principle[/I], that is, by any being or machine with sufficient information?" Whether or not davar55 is omniscient is neither here nor there.

OMG this thread is a bit of a goer.
My beloved Dad (after discussing this stuff till say 2 am) invariably quoted Omar Kayam: can't remember it verbatim, but he meant "We've come out of the same door we went into, and it's time for bed".

David

[QUOTE=xilman;314595]I know with certainty that 2+3=1.[/QUOTE]

Maybe with a different definition of 2, 3, 5, and 1.
Or of + and =.

But since I'm not omniscient, as I readily admit,
(now that question was funny),
I don't quite get your formula, serious or humorous as it may be.
(mod 4? But then it would be congruence.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;314565]Do you, then, accept this as an argument that god [I]might[/I] exist?[/QUOTE]

Of course I'm not omniscient, but there are still many things one
can know with certainty.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;314567]What chalsall replied. If you say OK to that, then you said OK to "I can't prove there is no god". "I can't prove there is no god" is a direct consequence of the final statement. (I don't know everything => a god might exist and I wouldn't know => I can't prove god doesn't exist)[/QUOTE]

Not exactly.

I don't know everything --> I'd better do the best I can in proving
what I can and do know --> If someone honest and intelligent
challenges my core beliefs I'd better be prepared to explain them
and if possible from both sides prove them.

And

Non-omniscience does not imply not knowing or being able to
prove the non-existence of god.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;314616]While I'm not sure where chalsall is heading, let's just be clear that the issue is not "Does davar55 know for certain that there is no god?", but "Is the existence or non-existence of a god provable [I]in principle[/I], that is, by any being or machine with sufficient information?" Whether or not davar55 is omniscient is neither here nor there.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Wouldn't want the onus of even the suggestion I'm
omniscient or seriously think it. And my personal knowledge
doesn't change the in principle issue, as you said.

BTW the logical impossibility of any being's omniscience is an
argument against existence of a god who is claimed to have
this property.

[QUOTE=davar55;314629]Maybe with a different definition of 2, 3, 5, and 1.
Or of + and =.

But since I'm not omniscient, as I readily admit,
(now that question was funny),
I don't quite get your formula, serious or humorous as it may be.
(mod 4? But then it would be congruence.)[/QUOTE]Nope, it should be equality, not equivalence. I was performing arithmetic in F_4.

I'm not being facetious. There was a serious and relevant message to be had from my response.

[QUOTE=xilman;314634]I'm not being facetious. There was a serious and relevant message to be had from my response.[/QUOTE]
Something to do with the truth or falsehood of a statement being dependent on its frame of reference? Or something more specific than that?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;314635]Something to do with the truth or falsehood of a statement being dependent on its frame of reference? Or something more specific than that?[/QUOTE]That's a very large part of my message, though it's actually [b]less[/b] specific than that.

Another large part is that it is all too common to make dogmatic statements about truth and falsehood. In my opinion this tendency is so common because the action is so easy to perform before thinking rather than afterwards.

Another part is that in "religious" debates it is a common tactic for opponents to use each others words to make quite different claims and thereby hint that their opponents are lying and/or deluded.

There are doubtless other connotations but those are the three which I had in mind when I posted. A demonstration that even a small and apparently clear and simple statement can have hidden depths.

[QUOTE=xilman;314637]That's a very large part of my message, though it's actually [B]less[/B] specific than that.

Another large part is that it is all too common to make dogmatic statements about truth and falsehood. In my opinion this tendency is so common because the action is so easy to perform before thinking rather than afterwards.

Another part is that in "religious" debates it is a common tactic for opponents to use each others words to make quite different claims and thereby hint that their opponents are lying and/or deluded.

There are doubtless other connotations but those are the three which I had in mind when I posted. A demonstration that even a small and apparently clear and simple statement can have hidden depths.[/QUOTE]

Nice posting. I wouldn't disagree with a word of it, unless humourously.

[QUOTE=jasong;312595]
Obviously, when people talk about atheism, they're talking about something different. I've come up with 2 possibilities, these are probably not the only ones, and of course these two can be combined and both believed. The first is the belief that there are is no intelligent being or beings that watch the human race and are able to intervene at any moment. So this could be a creation god, or maybe super-powerful aliens that have an interest, positive or possibly negative, in our development.
[/QUOTE]
Good point,

[U]Atheism:[/U]

[I][SIZE=4]The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.[/SIZE][/I]
[QUOTE]
The second belief, and again these 2 beliefs could be considered true together or separately, is that there's no absolute morality. This includes people who think there's a god, but that he changes his mind about stuff. It can also include people who think the only absolutes are physics. So, to them, their main consideration would be survival and maybe respect for people's dignity, their rules would tend to be more pragmatic than someone who believed in an intelligent being.
[/QUOTE] [U]Atheism[/U]:
[I][SIZE=4]Believing that if you can get away with it, it must be ok. That includes rape, robbery, murder, torture, pedophilia, tax evasion, racketeering, theft, arson, embezzlement, kidnapping, lying, cheating, etc.
Unfortunately, atheists don’t draw the line at other atheists as they are fair game too. Since there is no “ultimate moral authority” that will make you account for your misdeeds, then their truly is no justice.
Isn’t it wonderful?[/SIZE]
[/I]
Have anyone read "[URL="http://comparativreligion.blogspot.com/2012/10/muslim-re-god-delusion-dawkins-refuted.html"]Blasting the foundations of atheism[/URL]" ?It makes it clear how atheism is a shallow concept of life.

obvious troll is obvious.