[QUOTE=Brian-E;386534]
Surely we can believe in the nonexistence of a purple crow (but be unable to prove or disprove it) or we can take a don't-know position.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://carolinabirds.org/Daniels/SanDiego/SanDiegoLG/Crow,_American_SanDiego.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;386534]Surely we can believe in the nonexistence of a purple crow (but be unable to prove or disprove it) or we can take a don't-know position.[/QUOTE]I think that is a false dichotomy. I see no reason why we could not say: "I believe <X> is true but I don't know for sure". And the converse seems possible also: ""I believe <X> is false but I don't know for sure".

[QUOTE=xilman;386540][URL]http://carolinabirds.org/Daniels/SanDiego/SanDiegoLG/Crow,_American_SanDiego.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]
Ahah. That's pretty good evidence.:smile:
[QUOTE=retina;386543]I think that is a false dichotomy. I see no reason why we could not say: "I believe <X> is true but I don't know for sure". And the converse seems possible also: ""I believe <X> is false but I don't know for sure".[/QUOTE]
I didn't actually intend it to be a dichotomy - think of it as an inclusive 'or', not an exclusive one. I share your viewpoint, and your converse describes my own atheio-agnosticism perfectly.

[QUOTE=retina;386543]I think that is a false dichotomy. I see no reason why we could not say: "I believe <X> is true but I don't know for sure". And the converse seems possible also: ""I believe <X> is false but I don't know for sure".[/QUOTE]

Isn't it possible to say: I believe with certainty that something is true, even if I can't prove it to someone else's satisfaction?
Do you need absolute mathematical proof to attain certainty on something?
Can't one attain certainty prior to having the ability to prove the point?
Maybe not in math, I'd agree there, but in any other field, such as atheology?

I still challenge the agnostic claim that lacking a proof either way makes them righter to believe neither POV.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;386545]Ahah. That's pretty good evidence.:smile:[/QUOTE]Unless the photo is a fake. Or the lighting hue was deliberately skewed. Or someone sneaked in and adjusted your monitor. Or <some other possible way you may have been tricked>.

I think that for the topic of this thread that the term "agnostic" by itself is a poor description of how many people feel. By analogy we might also say that one is agnostic about the existence of the electron. Fully acknowledging that it has been "proven" to probably something like 20 sigmas or more, we will never be able to completely arrive at a 100% confidence level. So we "must" take the path of: "We are agnostic about the existence of the electron". So saying one is agnostic about the existence of god (or gods) is poor wording IMO and fails to convey one's beliefs/assumptions on the matter.

[QUOTE=davar55;386548]Isn't it possible to say: I believe with certainty that something is true, even if I can't prove it to someone else's satisfaction?[/QUOTE]Yes, of course. If you wish to.[QUOTE=davar55;386548]Do you need absolute mathematical proof to attain certainty on something?[/QUOTE]Well that is the problem isn't it. What is "proof"?[QUOTE=davar55;386548]Can't one attain certainty prior to having the ability to prove the point?[/QUOTE]Yes, it is merely a state of mind. And we can convince ourselves that anything is true beyond all doubts if we wish to. That doesn't make us right though, it only makes us right in our own mind.[QUOTE=davar55;386548]Maybe not in math, I'd agree there, but in any other field, such as atheology?[/QUOTE]Yes, in anything.

Truth and certainty can't simply be states of mind. The "truth" is "out there", and
knowledge of it is what is "in here". Proof is logical/mathematical in nature,
but the factuality of something like God (or rather the unfactuality of it) can certainly
be discussed, argued, maintained - so why inherently not proved? Just as we
can't YET prove your favorite too-large Mersenne number to be prime, so perhaps
we WILL eventually prove non-existence of God. Perhaps by proving that the
contrary IS impossible. Or by another sequence of steps. I'm not saying to
an agnostic: believe in atheism because it's right, but rather disbelieve in theism
because it's wrong.

[QUOTE=retina;386549]Unless the photo is a fake. Or the lighting hue was deliberately skewed. Or someone sneaked in and adjusted your monitor. Or <some other possible way you may have been tricked>.

.....[/QUOTE]

Actually, the photo shows a plausible shade for a number of black birds. Also, that shade would not appear at all angles of view and lighting. This is an effect of iridescence. Among common grackles in some books it even divides them into a "green race," and a "purple race."

[QUOTE]Appears all black at a distance but is actually highly iridescent, with colors varying from blue to purple to green to bronze, depending on the light.[/QUOTE][URL]http://birds.audubon.org/birds/common-grackle[/URL]

[QUOTE=chappy;386516]Just exactly whose advocate are you playing? :)[/QUOTE]

Just that of another alleged deity. ;)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;386534]Could you use a similar argument saying that about 5 billion humans believe in a deity and have never been proved wrong as evidence of a deity's existence? Is that weaker than what you wrote?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is weaker than what I wrote because "belief" is not evidence. Aside from that (and I think your 5 billion humans estimate is low) Those 5 billion humans certainly don't believe in the same deity. And in fact each and every one is an atheist toward all deities they don't believe in. So even were I to allow your argument (which I don't) there is equal and opposite weight of belief applied by those humans.

[url]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/07/american-bible-thumper-travels-scandinavia-freaks-out-discovering-secular-video/[/url]

"A Georgia-based fundamentalist pastor had his mind blown when he took a recent trip to Scandinavia and discovered, to his horror, that nobody hated gay people or believed God created the Earth in a week."