Believe it or Not?

Options
BiblicalAtheist
BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited April 2012 in R & R (Religion and Race)
Do you think its "Seeing is believing" or rather "Believing is seeing"?

Comments

  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Neither. Seeing is knowing.

    For example, if I come to you with a closed fist and tell you "I have a diamond in my hand". You would have to choose to believe or not believe. But you would not KNOW. When I opened my hand and revealed the truth, believing would stop because you would then SEE. You would then KNOW. Once you see, you no longer believe.
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Nah, seeing is seeing, and believing is believing.
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Some things I had to see to believe, other things I had to believe to see. How can that be?
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    I don't know. You tell me. Give examples of what you're talking about.
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    Options
    You know when people say "If I hadn't of seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't have believed....." or when people say "I never 'saw' ? until I believed in him"
  • fiat_money
    fiat_money Members Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    Some things I had to see to believe, other things I had to believe to see. How can that be?
    You can separate the two.

    If I see a magician "saw a woman in half", I will not believe that the magician actually sawed her in half. If I then deduce that there must've been an additional woman involved in the trick, that is what I'll believe; even if I didn't see the "Masked Magician" reveal the secret to the trick.

    Seeing can serve as support for a belief, and believing may cause someone to see something; but seeing is not believing.

    Seeing is seeing, and believing is believing.