would you rather change your beliefs every now and then based on evidence. It would mean that you would have to admit that you were once wrong. And if you admit that you were once wrong, you would have to admit that you may still be wrong about some things. Still, it’s better than just believing in fiction.
2007-04-07 18:34:28 · 9 answers · asked by A 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I was for many years Baptist. Then I admitted that I was wrong and changed to The Worldwide Church of God after about a year of studying that church. They worship on Sat. If I were to believe the bible I would still be in that church. It is the only one that I have found that truly teaches the bible as correctly as possible. But even then I had "issues''. I have been an Atheist for about 9 years. This is where I will stay. There will be no more changes for me
2007-04-07 18:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there were solid proof that a God existed and that one of the many religions were true I would admit I was wrong. I see being proven wrong as a good thing, it's a learning experience. In order to be open-minded you have to be willing to admit that you could be wrong and I have no problem with that.
2007-04-08 01:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by HighOnFireSlays 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would definitely have to change beliefs when confronted with the evidence. It is always a possibility that one is wrong, so we must make our decisions on the probability of where the evidence points.
Studying theology has made me rethink previous assumptions and presuppositions that I once had, and I am sure I will continue to refine my beliefs over time.
2007-04-08 02:00:07 · answer #3 · answered by AntiPlato 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Once humans learn language, discourse becomes the medium through which everything in social space is ultimately conceived, shared, and interpreted. For humans “there is nothing outside the text.” The fact that every object is constituted as an object of discourse has nothing to do with whether there is a world external to thought, or with the realism/idealism opposition. An earthquake or the falling of a brick is an event that certainly exists, in the sense that it occurs here and now, independently of my will. But whether their specificity as objects is constructed in terms of ‘natural phenomena’ or ‘expressions of the wrath of God’ depends upon the structuring of a discursive field.
2007-04-08 01:39:34 · answer #4 · answered by Habitus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think it is right to be so closed minded. My religion doesn't say we need to believe blindly and instead asks us to seek knowledge about the world. Before I understood evolution, I thought it was "just a theory" and believe what my parents had taught me about creation. But after I took a class I couldn't say that it was false and after looking at the verses again I realized that it didn't really conflict with evolution. I dont think God would want to decieve us and turn us away so instead of hiding from everything it is better to step forward and look at it more closely. My faith is still strong, even stronger now but I dont believe in closing my eyes and covering my ears when I dont agree with something
2007-04-08 01:42:56 · answer #5 · answered by E.T.01 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Admitting I'm wrong doesn't change the truth. Jesus Christ is my savior and I can be wrong about a lot of things but he is never wrong.
2007-04-08 01:48:57 · answer #6 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would have to change my beliefs if i found evidence that proved it wrong because then i would be lying to myself if i didnt
2007-04-08 01:37:14 · answer #7 · answered by Dmb Blonde321 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I follow the truth. I have been maturing up in years.
2007-04-08 01:40:52 · answer #8 · answered by Nina, BaC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a scientist. Enough said.
2007-04-08 01:38:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋