...makes for a wonderful dilemma for yourself. You see as a Christian you have to renounce all other Gods and worship "the one true God", as such you have just given yourself the burden of proof in regard to every god that has ever been claimed to exist.
I await either your proof of this or your renunciation of Christianity.
I hope that makes it quite clear just how ridiculous your attempt to shift the burden of proof is in this regard (oh can you do Unicorns and Santa while you are at it).
Why would a belief need proof, as it is a belief? You assume that my belief in God is based on rational proof, don't you? But you miss the main point of belief itself, that it doesn't need proof. If it has proof, it is not belief per se, but a fact.
But trying to prove a belief absolutely wrong, with the "proof" being other than just another belief, would need real proof, in the sense of scientific facts. But, as any belief is an absurd question in factual science, beliefs needn't be proved wrong, because they aren't backed up by facts. Like hypotheses needn't be proven wrong because they can just be disregarded until proven. Religious beliefs are disregarded by science because they aren't backed up by facts, but it doesn't necessarily make it false. Science's job is not to prove wrong, but to prove true. If we went the way of trying to prove everything wrong, it would be just a dead end because lack of proof either way.
Hence also scientific theories that aren't completely backed up by facts (ie. have unproven hypotheses as a part of the theory) aren't factual science, they're pretty much inexact. Say, as long as any part of the Superstring theory is not completely supported by (non-self-referencing) facts, seeing it as truth is as irrational as any belief, that just being an example. The hypotheses are just meant for speculation, not for believing. Yet I see many people who describe themselves as "rational" believe in such hypotheses.
Science doesn't prove anything wrong, because as long as there aren't enough facts to back something up, it can be disregarded due to inability to prove it either way. When it is completely backed up by facts, it is proven. There is no wrong in science, there is just right. Anything non-factual is not science; science just disregards belief but it doesn't deny it.
See: if I believe in some hypothesis that later turns out to be right, and it gets factual proof, I am right. However, by current science, should science try to prove anything false, my belief would be false because it doesn't have proof (as by your criteria for religion, for example). Right is false? Not because science proves no belief, no hypothesis false. It just proves some things true.
Except a very good chance exists that he didn't say that at all, its not in any of his works.
Indeed, Socrates didn't write anything, so there are no works by him.
His student, Plato did, though the wording was a bit different, that what I wrote was a common Western simplification. Here's a passage in Greek, from Plato's Apology, about Socrates speaking of his discussion with someone:
"τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ' οὗτος μὲν οἴεται τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οὄιμαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μή οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι"
In English it roughly translates as:
"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
