Let me get this straight: If you *think* it's true -- despite evidence to the contrary -- then (details) ?

Question

Let me get this straight:

If you *think* it's true -- despite evidence to the contrary -- then you can continue to say it and you're NOT lying?

Have I got that right?

@ flandargo: This is a poor argument, because:

a) Any insurance company that tries to avoid paying a claim on this basis is going to lose in court _and_ they know it; they're simply trying to intimidate the claimant into withdrawing the claim. An all-too-common tactic, and a despicable one.

b) Nobody is claiming that "fish turn into reptiles." That's not what the theory of evolution asserts and if it's what you've been taught, then you've been misinformed. Again, an all too common occurrence, and very regrettable.

Answer 1

If I say to people, "Hey, Batman is real", that doesn't make it so. If I parroted that to people, they would think I was nuts.

Answer 2

The difficulty is the "evidence".
If you believe the evidence than you must speak accordingly.
But if you believe the evidence to be false, than you can speak other wise.

A number of times I have given as part of an answer here that to prove evolution wrong and the Bible true, that the person should do a web search with the key words "human dinosaur footprints" to see info on places where there are human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock. But I get many responses back quickly saying that that is not true. It does not seem they often have time to even take a glance at any site, no less study them. They have their minds made up and no evidence is going to change it.

But God is the perfect judge, He knows when a person is will fully being ignorant of His truth.

Answer 3

Your question is hypothetical and also a generalization.

But since you are using the word 'evidence', note that evidence does NOT equal TRUTH. The evidence has to be interpreted.

Consider the following facts/evidence about a vehicular accident that actually happened to one of my friends:

John (my friend, not his real name) was driving at about 100 km/h when a cow suddenly stepped into his path. He slammed into it and came to an almost sudden stop. Peter, who was driving behind John, rear-ended John. John's insurance company paid off John (write off) and then turned around and sued Peter's insurance company since Peter HAD rear-ended John. They wanted John to testify that Peter was at fault for rear-ending him. John refused, so John's insurance company threatened to sue JOHN.

Was Peter at fault?

Evidence HAS to be interpreted.

Let us say that numerous 'transition' forms are found between a fish and a reptile. That's the evidence.

Now for the interpretations:

1. The fish gradually transformed into the reptile.
2. All these creatures co-existed but many became extinct because of a change in climatic conditions.

On what basis is one interpretation correct and the other wrong?

Answer 4

Sounds right to me. Lying is purposefully telling something that you know is untrue with the intent to deceive. Ignoring evidence that runs counter to your belief is not lying. It could be great faith or it could be lack of intelligence or something else but technically it doesn't fall into the category of lying.

Answer 5

No it is not true; It is not lying because it is the truth. Jesus is alive sitting at the right hand of God. God Bless

Answer 6

It seems like others holding a contrary opinion of truth from your own rankles you very much...have I got that right???

Answer 7

If you have to "think "it to be true then it is not .
If it is " True" then it can be proven at any time with different witnesses

Answer 8

perception is reality
what I perceive to be the 'truth' may be in direct opposition to what you perceive it to be
which is why we can't trust our own perceptions and should always challenge our own beliefs

(Edit: that should have said 'can't trust' not 'can't not trust')