Verified answer

Sure Des, Now if I dont believe in something that does exist but I choose to ignore it...is that dishonest?

If I dont know somethng does that mean it does not exist?

If I were born blind would it be okay to assume those who claim sight are liars?

Is that dishonest or ignorant?

Yes to the first question. Of course, it also works in reverse...that if you believe something is false because you're ignoring evidence in favor of it, you're also deceiving yourself.

No to the second question...deliberate ignorance is not the same as deliberate dishonesty. Dishonesty involves saying something that you KNOW is not true...but if you are honestly deceived, then it is not dishonest to say what you believe just because it is incorrect. For example only, if a person ignores all the warning signs that indicate a problem with alcohol (e.g., drinking alone)...if he or she doesn't believe that those signs really indicate a problem...then he or she is NOT being deliberately dishonest when they claim not to have a problem...instead, they are sincerely deceived about the nature of alcoholism and their belief that they don't have a problem is equally sincere.

"Ignoring the evidence" is a form of self-deception.

However, your statement 'every time your mention your beliefs which are the result of deliberate ignorance' - is loaded with supposition. My beliefs are not the result of 'deliberate ignorance.'

I would argue that you (I believe that I've seen you give responses on here indicative of an atheist - true?) are deceiving yourself when you say there is no God.

For example, if there is no God then what is the meaning of your life when you are dead? (Just a thought. . .)

It's highly unlikely that someone would believe anything simply because they're unwilling to consider evidence against it. I find it far more reasonable to think that a person who rejects contradictory evidence is making the choice based on how important the belief is, compared to the value of the evidence against it.

For example, religious faith isn't just a set of information to be proven or disproven -- it's a body of tradition, a bond with a caring congregation, a support system and a set of guidelines for dealing with many challenging issues in life. It's something to trust -- a source of meaning and purpose, and a comfort in times of sorrow. A few derogatory facts aren't going to dissuade someone who wants to believe, especially when those bits of information do nothing to supplant all the benefits the belief system offers.

No, it's not deliberate dishonesty for a person to be stubborn about holding onto their beliefs -- it's a psychological coping mechanism. In their frame of reference, the challenges to their faith are to be faced with courage. Some take that to mean they must argue valiantly, others feel they must evangelize, while others simply refuse to hear any arguments against what they believe.

Each of us holds onto faith of one sort or another, and we're entitled to our beliefs. I think it's unfair when some think they hold the only truth and try to impose it on others, but it's just as unfair, I believe, to insist that someone else's beliefs are wrong. If the evidence against a certain belief convinces you that it's meaningless or invalid, then that's your criterion for making a choice, but don't insist that someone else hold the same values you do.

If you sincerely believe that someone is being misled by an attachment to a belief system, in order to persuade that person to change their thinking you must offer more than simple intellectual arguments. You have to demonstrate how a different perspective would benefit them -- socially and emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. Until you have that to offer, don't concern yourself with undermining someone's faith.

can u prove a negative, hot shot? no, u cant. u cannot prove the non-existence of anything OUTSIDE of this physical realm or universe. it is not ignoring "evidence against", rather, it is placing faith in the obvious-- what u an see vs. the existence (or non-existence) of what u cant.

it case u didnt get it, u just got leveled. oh wait, i'm sorry, did u have evidence of how all this matter and energy and such ever came about to begin with that I might b ignoring? dont bother faking it, either. even einstein, plato and hawking leave their genius at what they can predict or prove. they dont attempt 2 provide "evidence" against a supreme entity.

You can only answer this question through self observation. You must find a time in your life when you clung to an idea that was precious to you, beyond when you had any excuse to believe it was true.

From observation of myself when I chose an action I had previously determined was not reflective of what I knew to be true, I came to the conclusion that no one messes up on purpose. At the moment I make the undesirable choice, I am consumed by an impulsive thought arising out of fear/ego and I have completely forgotten for that moment who I have chosen to be.

I challenge you to notice, in your recent questions, an emerging need to demonize the frail mental processes of your fellow beings as you begin to perceive them as enemies. I will grant you some excuse to think so. I've seen the way they pile abuse on your head instead of addressing your questions. It's their fear talking. They are entirely wrong, as usual.

Therefore, their bad behavior must be overlooked and forgiven, if only to insure that the good you're trying to do won't be hidden by responding to it.

No one messes up on purpose.

Yes it would be however everyone does that so your going to have to be more clear on who your talking about with this ambiguous "you."

The answer to this question is based on who the "you" is your talking about so your going to have to elaborate.

Unless of course you want a bunch of answers from people who are basing their response on the assumption you are talking to or about them.

I can only assume you mean theist because otherwise this question would have been asked in the psychology or law section.

But because of the ambiguity of the question I am really unclear who you are actually talking about here in this hypotheitical.

So in order for me to be able to answer this question properly I need you to be straight up.

Say who you are aiming this question at so I can give an answer that isn't based on an assumption.

Peace and Blessings = )

Truth beat me to the correct answer.

Evilutionist need to open their eyes to the truth and stop trying to ignore the evidence against their faulty logic.

I never ignore evidence. How would I benefit from that? I want the truth, even if it is harsh.

If I believe something is true, Its because I do so, in spite of the so called evidence against it. After all, if something is true, it cannot also be false, now can it?