^^ and this zoro post is on topic? how?
edit
I did not see that you were already dealing with it
edit
I did not see that you were already dealing with it
Last edited:
Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
- Replies 306
- Views 41K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Lol someone brought forth verses and I asked how they derived their view from the verses and you call that off topic?
As for your claims again, you see, you chose to believe something and you take anything which proves contrary and throw it away. I showed you already that although being a Mod I have yet to delete many a post which have shown better arguements than this thread.
Examples were given earlier, but you fail to see them or chose not to see them.
You have not proved any scripture of the Qur'an proving anything, and Grenville has posted verses and I am discussing that and trying to put forth my view and see his, also the same with Aaron, he posted his verses and proofs, and I responded and asked questions.
What is it you find so worrying about someone asking for proof? Does it worry you?
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
I never written a post as of yet and didn't use chapter or verse . Overstand something and I really don't mean ANY DISRESPECT HERE person like you will never be able to disprove anything I Have posted or will post because you're full of yourself , Your to busy trying to save face , While trying to label me . Like I said before I answer your question you can take it or leave it . Following me around not going to change anything .
To desire security is a sign of insecurity remember this ok
Salaam,
Again,how about unitarians,,are they christian in your book.
thy claim s you claim but disbeleive in trinity.
You choose to say whom is right and whom is wrong and the problem is simple casue you ahve no clear knowledge.
I cna easily say that your opposite is true,and you are wrong,then to who do you base your answer to..the Bible but each of you have your own INDIVIDUAL BIBLE wiht different content.
In response to NoName55 (Post #122) and to Al Habeshi (Post #121), if that post was directed to my Post #119, please permit me to briefly review – in which I’ve taken the liberty to capitalize some quoted words that, to me, were significant.
Starting this thread, “Grenville” asked:
That question contained the premiss that the Bible contains “information”.
“Woodrow” immediately countered with: “We [Muslims] would be [obligated to read the Books of the people who came before them] if they [such books] still existed” but that it is “difficult to find any EVIDENCE that [they] still [exist].”
To me, Woodrow’s post was important in that he recognized the importance of “evidence”.
“Islamirama” stated
“Woodrow” responded with: “That [by Islamirama] is very TRUE.”
“Al Habeshi” added: “We have to BELIEVE that God sent books…”
To me, such posts carelessly used the words “true” and “false” and introduced the word “believe” without commenting on relevant “evidence.”
Complaining about the suggestion (e.g., by Woodrow) that “the Bible has been changed”, “Aaron85” responded: “how is it possible that I believe in the same fundamental christian TRUTH as did christians just after Christ’s death…”
In Post #16, “Aaron85” pointed out that “In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST [his caps] charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified… He said “Since the Qur’an must be TRUE it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are FALSE…”
And so on it went – arguing about what was “true” and what was “false”, displaying conflicting “beliefs”. For example, Al Habeshi made the good point
To me, the intensity with which the arguments raged in subsequent posts (e.g., “shame on you trying to hide the TRUTH”) not only supported Al Habeshi’s point but also stimulated me to submit that, unfortunately, such arguments provided evidence to support Hitler’s assessments.
And of course I would desire that Hitler were wrong, but until people use the scientific method to discard claims to “truth” that have no predictive capability or are untestable (e.g., the claim that any god exists or that there is “life after death”), then I’m afraid that such arguments will continue to rage, but without resolution, even beyond people being “blue in the face”, to the point that “people… die” for their beliefs – even though such “beliefs” can never be demonstrated to be “true”.
So, in direct response to Grenville’s original post, asking if Muslims are obligated to read the Bible: it depends on what’s meant by “Muslim”. If by “Muslim” is meant a fellow human being on this planet who is struggling to understand this universe and his or her place within it, while simultaneously trying to be kind to fellow humans, then of course he or she isn’t “obligated” to read the Bible. The Bible (and all “holy books”) are pre-scientific speculations about our universe that were concocted by ignorant clerics – and substantial evidence is available to support the assessment that the clerics concocted such texts mostly for their own benefit, to gain control over the people.
I would submit, however (and consistent with Aristotle’s assessment that “all people desire to know”), that everyone is obligated to try to understand what “knowledge” means, to learn how knowledge is obtained about the reality external to one’s mind, and to be careful to avoid adopting any “Big Lie” in which “the powers that be” attempt to indoctrinate us – for their own benefit.
Meanwhile, for those of us who want to know what’s “true”, then first and unfortunately, we encounter a principle that has not yet been shown to be false, namely, the best that humans have been able to do is determine what’s false. How to determine what’s false is to test the predictions of any claim: if those predictions can’t be tested (e.g., “all invisible flying elephants are pink”) or can be tested only by dead people (e.g., “if you believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then after you die, you’ll go to paradise”) or can be tested and found to be wrong (e.g., “if you don’t believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then you won’t be able to type another word”), then we should toss all such claims in the trashcan of human mistakes – and move on to the next claim – in search of claims that are closer to “the truth”.
Starting this thread, “Grenville” asked:
That question contained the premiss that the Bible contains “information”.
“Woodrow” immediately countered with: “We [Muslims] would be [obligated to read the Books of the people who came before them] if they [such books] still existed” but that it is “difficult to find any EVIDENCE that [they] still [exist].”
To me, Woodrow’s post was important in that he recognized the importance of “evidence”.
“Islamirama” stated
“Woodrow” responded with: “That [by Islamirama] is very TRUE.”
“Al Habeshi” added: “We have to BELIEVE that God sent books…”
To me, such posts carelessly used the words “true” and “false” and introduced the word “believe” without commenting on relevant “evidence.”
Complaining about the suggestion (e.g., by Woodrow) that “the Bible has been changed”, “Aaron85” responded: “how is it possible that I believe in the same fundamental christian TRUTH as did christians just after Christ’s death…”
In Post #16, “Aaron85” pointed out that “In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST [his caps] charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified… He said “Since the Qur’an must be TRUE it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are FALSE…”
And so on it went – arguing about what was “true” and what was “false”, displaying conflicting “beliefs”. For example, Al Habeshi made the good point
To me, the intensity with which the arguments raged in subsequent posts (e.g., “shame on you trying to hide the TRUTH”) not only supported Al Habeshi’s point but also stimulated me to submit that, unfortunately, such arguments provided evidence to support Hitler’s assessments.
And of course I would desire that Hitler were wrong, but until people use the scientific method to discard claims to “truth” that have no predictive capability or are untestable (e.g., the claim that any god exists or that there is “life after death”), then I’m afraid that such arguments will continue to rage, but without resolution, even beyond people being “blue in the face”, to the point that “people… die” for their beliefs – even though such “beliefs” can never be demonstrated to be “true”.
So, in direct response to Grenville’s original post, asking if Muslims are obligated to read the Bible: it depends on what’s meant by “Muslim”. If by “Muslim” is meant a fellow human being on this planet who is struggling to understand this universe and his or her place within it, while simultaneously trying to be kind to fellow humans, then of course he or she isn’t “obligated” to read the Bible. The Bible (and all “holy books”) are pre-scientific speculations about our universe that were concocted by ignorant clerics – and substantial evidence is available to support the assessment that the clerics concocted such texts mostly for their own benefit, to gain control over the people.
I would submit, however (and consistent with Aristotle’s assessment that “all people desire to know”), that everyone is obligated to try to understand what “knowledge” means, to learn how knowledge is obtained about the reality external to one’s mind, and to be careful to avoid adopting any “Big Lie” in which “the powers that be” attempt to indoctrinate us – for their own benefit.
Meanwhile, for those of us who want to know what’s “true”, then first and unfortunately, we encounter a principle that has not yet been shown to be false, namely, the best that humans have been able to do is determine what’s false. How to determine what’s false is to test the predictions of any claim: if those predictions can’t be tested (e.g., “all invisible flying elephants are pink”) or can be tested only by dead people (e.g., “if you believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then after you die, you’ll go to paradise”) or can be tested and found to be wrong (e.g., “if you don’t believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then you won’t be able to type another word”), then we should toss all such claims in the trashcan of human mistakes – and move on to the next claim – in search of claims that are closer to “the truth”.
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
I have to ask this question . Why are Some muslims afraid of reading the Bible ? What is it that they Fear ?
I am not full of myself I have just asked questions, please keep that in mind. I have no face to save, I have nothing to lose here. You didn't answer if you did then quote the answer instead of saying 'I answered you...' Following you around? Come on man.
Hi zoro;
I have to say that I do disagree with some of your statements, for example:
The Bible (and all “holy books”) are pre-scientific speculations about our universe that were concocted by ignorant clerics – and substantial evidence is available to support the assessment that the clerics concocted such texts mostly for their own benefit, to gain control over the people.
I think that is a discussion within itself.
Though I am please to have someone who seems to want test things and so forth, since all I ask is that if we put forth a theory as to what something means or is then we should show evidences for why we hold this theory true and opposing ones false.
Al Habeshi:
I agree -- and it's a huge topic!
I agree with the spirit of that recommendation, also.
I would prefer, however, if the statement were closer to "if we put forth a theory… we should provide evidence TO SUPPORT OUR ESTIMATES OF THE PROBABILITIES that our theory is true and opposing ones false." That is, I very much wish that everyone would break free from the inappropriate "true/false dichotomy" and realize that the best that we mere mortals can do is estimate probabilities.
I agree -- and it's a huge topic!
I agree with the spirit of that recommendation, also.
I would prefer, however, if the statement were closer to "if we put forth a theory… we should provide evidence TO SUPPORT OUR ESTIMATES OF THE PROBABILITIES that our theory is true and opposing ones false." That is, I very much wish that everyone would break free from the inappropriate "true/false dichotomy" and realize that the best that we mere mortals can do is estimate probabilities.
Well that is what I indicated, as I said 'why we hold this theory true'
As you stated, one of the only things we can but do is estimate the chances and probabilities of a case and the likelyhood of things. This is why I urge and call for the understanding behind beliefs.
I think you have made it clear, and we, in my view, maybe I am mistaken agree, that we should start and investigation and then look into the possible avenues which maybe open, not assume an avenue and then try to prove it.
As you stated, one of the only things we can but do is estimate the chances and probabilities of a case and the likelyhood of things. This is why I urge and call for the understanding behind beliefs.
I think you have made it clear, and we, in my view, maybe I am mistaken agree, that we should start and investigation and then look into the possible avenues which maybe open, not assume an avenue and then try to prove it.
Walter
Elite Member
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Hi Al Habeshi:
There seems to be some misunderstandings that I shall attempt to resolve.
1. Believing without seeing
Your principal point was: “If God tells us believe that he sent a book then we don't have to have the book there for us to believe that He sent it.”
However, this is not what the Koran says. It says:
4:136 - O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.
Therefore it does not say that Muslims are to believe that God sent down Books for Israelites and Christians. However, it does say that they are to believe what is written inthe Books – the scripture.
2. Muslims are to follow the Books
I wrote: “So Muslims are not only instructed to read and believe the Books but to follow them as well.”
Please note that the “them” that I was referring to was not people, but the Books. I am sorry if I misled you.
3. Muslims are to seek instruction from others.
10:94 - If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
This is not concerning a specific matter as you have noted. There are various matters being discussed in the previous verses.
4. Conclusion
Your conclusion that: “None of those verses state to learn, read, or claim the preservation of the Bible” is unsubstantiated. All of the verses that were provided indicate that the Books referred to were accessible, and acceptable for both reading and following.
Regards,
Grenville
There seems to be some misunderstandings that I shall attempt to resolve.
1. Believing without seeing
Your principal point was: “If God tells us believe that he sent a book then we don't have to have the book there for us to believe that He sent it.”
However, this is not what the Koran says. It says:
4:136 - O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.
Therefore it does not say that Muslims are to believe that God sent down Books for Israelites and Christians. However, it does say that they are to believe what is written inthe Books – the scripture.
2. Muslims are to follow the Books
I wrote: “So Muslims are not only instructed to read and believe the Books but to follow them as well.”
Please note that the “them” that I was referring to was not people, but the Books. I am sorry if I misled you.
3. Muslims are to seek instruction from others.
10:94 - If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
This is not concerning a specific matter as you have noted. There are various matters being discussed in the previous verses.
4. Conclusion
Your conclusion that: “None of those verses state to learn, read, or claim the preservation of the Bible” is unsubstantiated. All of the verses that were provided indicate that the Books referred to were accessible, and acceptable for both reading and following.
Regards,
Grenville
Walter
Elite Member
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 63
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Hi Zoro:
Allow me to respond.
1. You noted: "To me, the intensity with which the arguments raged in subsequent posts (e.g., “shame on you trying to hide the TRUTH”) not only supported Al Habeshi’s point but also stimulated me to submit that, unfortunately, such arguments provided evidence to support Hitler’s assessments."
You should not use extraneous banter as "evidence".
2. You wrote: "So, in direct response to Grenville’s original post, asking if Muslims are obligated to read the Bible: it depends on what’s meant by “Muslim”."
A Muslim in this context is someone who follows the Koran. This means submitting to God, etc etc.
3. You wrote: "I would submit, however (and consistent with Aristotle’s assessment that “all people desire to know”), that everyone is obligated to try to understand what “knowledge” means, to learn how knowledge is obtained about the reality external to one’s mind, and to be careful to avoid adopting any “Big Lie” in which “the powers that be” attempt to indoctrinate us – for their own benefit. Meanwhile, for those of us who want to know what’s “true” ..."
You wish to know what is true, and yet you appear to ignore the test that has been provided for millennia. I and many can attest to the truth, but I cannot carry out your test - that you must do for yourself.
An adequate analogy is for me to describe colour to a man who had never opened his eyes. It would be challenging. The man has at least two options. He can either open his eyes and be convinced, or he can keep his eyes closed, continue to argue that there is no such thing as colour, and disqualify himself from a wonderful experience.
It is written: "Oh taste and see that the Lord is Good." I and multitudes can encourage you by testifying that He is indeed good. But you must submit to God to know for yourself. That is the test. Submit to God - please.
Regards,
Grenville
Allow me to respond.
1. You noted: "To me, the intensity with which the arguments raged in subsequent posts (e.g., “shame on you trying to hide the TRUTH”) not only supported Al Habeshi’s point but also stimulated me to submit that, unfortunately, such arguments provided evidence to support Hitler’s assessments."
You should not use extraneous banter as "evidence".
2. You wrote: "So, in direct response to Grenville’s original post, asking if Muslims are obligated to read the Bible: it depends on what’s meant by “Muslim”."
A Muslim in this context is someone who follows the Koran. This means submitting to God, etc etc.
3. You wrote: "I would submit, however (and consistent with Aristotle’s assessment that “all people desire to know”), that everyone is obligated to try to understand what “knowledge” means, to learn how knowledge is obtained about the reality external to one’s mind, and to be careful to avoid adopting any “Big Lie” in which “the powers that be” attempt to indoctrinate us – for their own benefit. Meanwhile, for those of us who want to know what’s “true” ..."
You wish to know what is true, and yet you appear to ignore the test that has been provided for millennia. I and many can attest to the truth, but I cannot carry out your test - that you must do for yourself.
An adequate analogy is for me to describe colour to a man who had never opened his eyes. It would be challenging. The man has at least two options. He can either open his eyes and be convinced, or he can keep his eyes closed, continue to argue that there is no such thing as colour, and disqualify himself from a wonderful experience.
It is written: "Oh taste and see that the Lord is Good." I and multitudes can encourage you by testifying that He is indeed good. But you must submit to God to know for yourself. That is the test. Submit to God - please.
Regards,
Grenville
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
An excellent Analogy-- reps!
Al Habeshi: Yes, it is my view, also, that we agree.
Grenville:
Hello? I was using it as evidence” of banter!
Why so restrictive? Are they not humans, first?!
Of course I “ignore” such a test! It’s unscientific. As Caesar said, “people believe what they want.” But just because you want to believe something is “true” doesn’t make it so. What data does the claim summarize? Is it a succinct summary or can it be shaved by Ockham’s razor? Is it consistent with well-established principles such as those of logic? What testable predictions does the hypothesis provide? What are the results of such tests? I mean, it may make me happy to believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, but if that’s my reason for holding such a belief, then I expect that everyone else will say, “You’re delusional!” – save, of course, for those similarly enlightened by the beauty of all those pretty pink elephants.
One of the most fallacious arguments ever proposed (right up there with the “proof by pleasure fallacy” behind your “belief”) is that argument by analogy is adequate. Witness Aristotle’s analogy “proving” that slavery was justified, “proofs” of the existence of God by the “watchmaker analogy”, and so on.
Your kind request is, unfortunately, meaningless to me. If you (or anyone) would provide even the tiniest shred of reliable data (rather than a bunch of speculations) that any god exists, then I’d be delighted to do whatever that god recommends. But from all data that I’ve found (namely, zip), the existence of invisible flying pink elephants is hugely more likely – and one of the neatest things about those hallowed elephants is that they don’t require that anyone “submit” to them!
Thus, from my perspective, you’ve bought into the really, really BIG LIE – just as Hitler saw.
Grenville:
Hello? I was using it as evidence” of banter!
Why so restrictive? Are they not humans, first?!
Of course I “ignore” such a test! It’s unscientific. As Caesar said, “people believe what they want.” But just because you want to believe something is “true” doesn’t make it so. What data does the claim summarize? Is it a succinct summary or can it be shaved by Ockham’s razor? Is it consistent with well-established principles such as those of logic? What testable predictions does the hypothesis provide? What are the results of such tests? I mean, it may make me happy to believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, but if that’s my reason for holding such a belief, then I expect that everyone else will say, “You’re delusional!” – save, of course, for those similarly enlightened by the beauty of all those pretty pink elephants.
One of the most fallacious arguments ever proposed (right up there with the “proof by pleasure fallacy” behind your “belief”) is that argument by analogy is adequate. Witness Aristotle’s analogy “proving” that slavery was justified, “proofs” of the existence of God by the “watchmaker analogy”, and so on.
Your kind request is, unfortunately, meaningless to me. If you (or anyone) would provide even the tiniest shred of reliable data (rather than a bunch of speculations) that any god exists, then I’d be delighted to do whatever that god recommends. But from all data that I’ve found (namely, zip), the existence of invisible flying pink elephants is hugely more likely – and one of the neatest things about those hallowed elephants is that they don’t require that anyone “submit” to them!
Thus, from my perspective, you’ve bought into the really, really BIG LIE – just as Hitler saw.
Salaam,
i ma afraid the fear lies in you not in any muslim.
In simple term,,WE DO NOT NEED TO READ LIES..when we already have TRUTH.
We do not need to read a book changed by man and whose content are vile and sometime pornographic.
And in Islam we have several holy book,the Suhuf-i-Ibrahim (commonly the Scrolls of Abraham), the Tawrat (Torah), the Zabur (commonly the Psalms), the Injil (commonly the Gospelaccordign to Propeht Jesus as), and the Qur'an.
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
Are their more then one Allah ?
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
Truth will last and false things will vanish in time
Last edited:
Again, believing in a book, I thought went hand in hand with obviously the content of the book. So yes, Muslims are obliged to believe in the Book, not just the cover if that's what you thought I meant, but the whole book.
You stated: He would not tell Muslims to believe something that they simply had no way of accessing. Indicating that if someone says believe IN something that it must mean that the you have to know the ins and outs of it, i.e. if we are told to believe in a book we have to know the content, but if God says, believe that I sent a book and believe in what was in the Book, then would you not believe?
You quoted this verse:
6:155-156 - And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:"
But this doesnt say follow them, it says follow it, read it this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous also, read the rest, what does it say? 'Lest you should say...' this book is given to them lest they should moan and groan and put forth escuses. Nowhere does it says follow the Torah or Injeel of Moses or Jesus.
Like? The verse is clear, if you are in doubt, so that is the condition, if YOU are in DOUBT about what was revealed to you, meaning who? Muhammad, ask those who have been reading the Book before you. This is at most to ascertain the truth of the Qur'an and Muhammad's revelation.
They do not at all, why do we not take a verse one by one, though it has been sufficient doing the above, and clearly show us what they say, you see, noone of them clarify anything, further more the rest of the Qur'an shows they have changed, as the quote of Ibn Abbas shows.
Let us take one by one, bring forth each verse and discuss it without any prejudice, and then let us see both theories.
Regards
Eesa
Balthasar21
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 6
( Belief vs Knowledge )
Belief & Believe" are two of the most deceptive words in religion. Belief is ignorance. Belief is to ignore the facts, intentionally or ignorantly. If one has to believe, it means he or she does not know, and if one does not know, that is ignorance. Anyone can believe anything and this means that a person can believe, and be 100% wrong. But knowledge is knowing and knowledge is correct information. "To know" gives one confidence, but belief infers doubt.
To believe is to accept things that you do NOT know. Either you know or you don't. Once you know - then you no longer have to believe and belief is the fuel of most religions.
Belief = acceptance of things that you don't know .
Knowledge = correct information which is always logical and reasons out.
Knowledge can be checked out by one or more of three test:
1) Experience
2) Evidence
3) Reason
One can not always use the "experience" test, because the experience test is not practical for all knowledge. The evidence & reason test are those test which are more often practical.
You either believe or you know. Belief is accepting things without knowing and knowing is to have knowledge which is correct information. Thus the 3 test can be applied to knowledge as previously stated
A good example of this .
Fact: Snow white lived with 7 dwarfs.
Fact: One of the dwarfs name was dopey
Fact: Snow appears in a move made by Walt Disney
Fact: Snow white is rate G
Fact: Snow white met a witch
Fact: Snow white fell into a deep sleep and was awakened by the kiss
of a prince.
All these are facts. But SNOW WHITE is a fictional story.
One should investigate or don't accept. The choice is up to the individual.
I seek to know and shed beliefs / faith / believe .
Belief & Believe" are two of the most deceptive words in religion. Belief is ignorance. Belief is to ignore the facts, intentionally or ignorantly. If one has to believe, it means he or she does not know, and if one does not know, that is ignorance. Anyone can believe anything and this means that a person can believe, and be 100% wrong. But knowledge is knowing and knowledge is correct information. "To know" gives one confidence, but belief infers doubt.
To believe is to accept things that you do NOT know. Either you know or you don't. Once you know - then you no longer have to believe and belief is the fuel of most religions.
Belief = acceptance of things that you don't know .
Knowledge = correct information which is always logical and reasons out.
Knowledge can be checked out by one or more of three test:
1) Experience
2) Evidence
3) Reason
One can not always use the "experience" test, because the experience test is not practical for all knowledge. The evidence & reason test are those test which are more often practical.
You either believe or you know. Belief is accepting things without knowing and knowing is to have knowledge which is correct information. Thus the 3 test can be applied to knowledge as previously stated
A good example of this .
Fact: Snow white lived with 7 dwarfs.
Fact: One of the dwarfs name was dopey
Fact: Snow appears in a move made by Walt Disney
Fact: Snow white is rate G
Fact: Snow white met a witch
Fact: Snow white fell into a deep sleep and was awakened by the kiss
of a prince.
All these are facts. But SNOW WHITE is a fictional story.
One should investigate or don't accept. The choice is up to the individual.
I seek to know and shed beliefs / faith / believe .