TheMawn: I resonate strongly with your later comments about the presence of ethics and morals which have nothing to do with religion. The subject of morals without religion has been discussed before on this forum, for example [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10206"]here[/URL]. Those who think that non-religious people have no reason for any regard for the welfare of others really should get out more.:smile:

However I, as someone who does not identify with any religion at all (though I would cautiously call myself agnostic in the same way that chalsall calls himself that, and perhaps you do too?), find myself agreeing with the "Catholics" in what you write earlier in your last posting:

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343338]The Agnostic then asks a Catholic what they would do if presented with the proof of the existence of NO god. I have asked this to many people and EVERY SINGLE Catholic replies "There is no such proof." I ask if presented with some hypothetical proof which shows, beyond the shadow of ANY doubt, AT ALL, 100.0000000% infallibly that no god exists, what would they do? "There is no such proof. You couldn't ever come up with something like that." Right, but [B]WHAT IF[/B] I did? "You wouldn't."[/QUOTE]
A question for you: what form could such a proof of the non-existence of god possibly take? I can't think of any such proof.

So while it may be true (actually, it's undoubtedly true!) that some Catholics and other religious people fall into the category typified by your summary...
[QUOTE]I've found that Catholics are virtually unable to consider their beliefs being incorrect. They simply cannot imagine that they are wrong. They cannot even begin to imagine anything that exists outside the realm of what they believe to be true. God and the Bible and everything else is carved so deeply into their heads that they cannot function without whatever it is they gain from the religion.[/QUOTE]...I still don't think it's quite fair to assume this characterisation of someone if you're basing it only on their inability to conceive of a proof that there is no god.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343338]I've found that Catholics are virtually unable to consider their beliefs being incorrect. They simply cannot imagine that they are wrong.[/QUOTE]

I have found that this inability to imagine that one might be wrong is not limited to the religious.

People don't like being wrong -- although I would argue it is the most important thing one must accept is possible. And to admit if one is.

And, actually, it is fundamental to the Scientific Method....

[QUOTE=chalsall;343426]I have found that this inability to imagine that one might be wrong is not limited to the religious.[/QUOTE]Thouhg, presumably, you may be wrong in coming into that conclusion?

I know I'm wrong. SWMBO often reminds me of that fact. A man's place is in the wrong.

[QUOTE=xilman;343437]Though, presumably, you may be wrong in coming into that conclusion?
I know I'm wrong. SWMBO often reminds me of that fact. A man's place is in the wrong.[/QUOTE]

If a man says something in this thread, and no woman reads it,
is he still wrong?

[QUOTE=xilman;343437]Thouhg, presumably, you may be wrong in coming into that conclusion?[/QUOTE]

Of course. Thouhg I might Though...

[QUOTE=xilman;343437]I know I'm wrong. SWMBO often reminds me of that fact. A man's place is in the wrong.[/QUOTE]

We men all know this...

It's the simplest path to next having intercourse (without paying immediate money)....

[QUOTE=Brian-E;343366]A question for you: what form could such a proof of the non-existence of god possibly take? I can't think of any such proof.[/QUOTE]

And there it goes again. It doesn't matter what the proof actually is. I'm giving you some mystery box. Nobody knows what is inside, but what I can say is that it proves the non-existence of God.

Does it really matter, for the sake of the question? Really the question is "What if you are wrong?" but I find this more active approach to actually posing the question is helpful.


EDIT: Is it just me or is the name of this topic constantly changing? I saw paraplegics the first time, then paralegals, and today it's paramagnetics. Am I just completely losing my mind?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343445].....
EDIT: Is it just me or is the name of this topic constantly changing? I saw paraplegics the first time, then paralegals, and today it's paramagnetics. Am I just completely losing my mind?[/QUOTE]

This is normal. The snakes, trolls, and gerbils are just yanking your chain. To put it another way, some people have a very intimate relationship with the forum server, and can tickle it as they fancy.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343445]
EDIT: Is it just me or is the name of this topic constantly changing? I saw paraplegics the first time, then paralegals, and today it's paramagnetics. Am I just completely losing my mind?[/QUOTE]
More bluntly: our forum administrator, Xyzzy, likes to have fun changing the titles of threads.

I've started taking the precaution of including, in the first post's text, the exact original title of any thread I start. (Of course, Xyzzy could change that, too, if he wished.)

Lol okay well if it's all in good fun. I've been a bit tired lately (it's my first week of going back to the pool for forty minutes at lunch) and I'm being dyslexic. I saw "Atheism for paranoiacs" (don't ask how) which was kind of disturbing.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;343455]Lol okay well if it's all in good fun. I've been a bit tired lately (it's my first week of going back to the pool for forty minutes at lunch) and I'm being dyslexic. I saw "Atheism for paranoiacs" (don't ask how) which was kind of disturbing.[/QUOTE]

It's been changing quite a lot. You may really have seen that. As I write, it says "paresthesia".

Often it's feedback-driven; the more everyone comments on how wacky the thread titles are, the more often they change.