When does it become immoral to not concede a point?

[notachance]

My Are there Prophecies in the Bible has been online for almost 6 months, has received 327 responses, and has been read by thousands. Several other threads along the same lines also exist.

Dozens of theists tried to make the case that prophecies which are evidence of the supernatural exist in the Bible, or tried to contest the criteria by which the validity of the evidence is determined, and every single one has failed.

Yet, not a single one has conceded.

Everybody either abandons the thread when cornered into admitting his/her position is indefensible and is never seen again, or forgoes rational debate and descends into random proselytizing and Bible-quoting to the point that they are multiple times reprimanded by moderators.

Some will post a thread about prophecies, get utterly pulverized by the responses, ignore everything, and simply repost the same concept a few weeks or months later, again ignoring the responses destroying their arguments.

I understand stubbornness, and an emotional attachment to one's core beliefs, but at what point does refusal to admit you're wrong become immoral?

[catalyst]

My Are there Prophecies in the Bible has been online for almost 6 months, has received 327 responses, and has been read by thousands. Several other threads along the same lines also exist.

Dozens of theists tried to make the case that prophecies which are evidence of the supernatural exist in the Bible, or tried to contest the criteria by which the validity of the evidence is determined, and every single one has failed.

Yet, not a single one has conceded.

Everybody either abandons the thread when cornered into admitting his/her position is indefensible and is never seen again, or forgoes rational debate and descends into random proselytizing and Bible-quoting to the point that they are multiple times reprimanded by moderators.

Some will post a thread about prophecies, get utterly pulverized by the responses, ignore everything, and simply repost the same concept a few weeks or months later, again ignoring the responses destroying their arguments.

I understand stubbornness, and an emotional attachment to one's core beliefs, but at what point does refusal to admit you're wrong become immoral?

It is difficult for people to admit they are wrong about something, and usually, it has zero to do with what someone else will think, but more so about admitting it to THEMSELVES first. Stubbornness, ego....that's the stuff lying to one's self is made of. That is why addictions are so hard to break and frankly, I see religious "faith" as a form of addiction. Now you probably know that I would go on with some long-winded explanation for the whole religious faith is a form of addiction , but I will save some bandwidth and finish with this:

Lying is considered immoral, whether it be to someone else or to yourself and that includes any "lie of omission", which I see as a refusal to admit you're wrong, to be.

Cat.

[1213]

You should know that prophesies are for those who believe, so that they can be prepared to what is coming.

If you don’t believe, they have no meaning. Even if there were prophesy that fulfilled accurately, you could always say, it was coincidence or something like that. This is why it is not usually reasonable to prove anything with prophesies.

[Wootah]

I re-read your first post and realised you didn't give any examples of prophesies that match your criteria. What works of text satisfied your criteria?

[fredonly]

I understand stubbornness, and an emotional attachment to one's core beliefs, but at what point does refusal to admit you're wrong become immoral?

It's never immoral to one who has faith. You can never prove somebody wrong who's "knowledge" is rooted in faith rather than reason, assuming the faith is sufficiently strong. The line of "reasoning" is: I know I'm right, but it is a personal failing that makes me unable to demonstrate this.

[Wootah]

It's never immoral to one who has faith. You can never prove somebody wrong who's "knowledge" is rooted in faith rather than reason, assuming the faith is sufficiently strong. The line of "reasoning" is: I know I'm right, but it is a personal failing that makes me unable to demonstrate this.

How does your sentence make sense in light of the idea that faith implies doubt?

What you are probably actually saying is that since there are known unknowns then even if the evidence now does not support a belief one can maintain their belief. Only dogmatists don't have faith in their beliefs.

[bjs]

My Are there Prophecies in the Bible has been online for almost 6 months, has received 327 responses, and has been read by thousands. Several other threads along the same lines also exist.

Dozens of theists tried to make the case that prophecies which are evidence of the supernatural exist in the Bible, or tried to contest the criteria by which the validity of the evidence is determined, and every single one has failed.

Yet, not a single one has conceded.

Everybody either abandons the thread when cornered into admitting his/her position is indefensible and is never seen again, or forgoes rational debate and descends into random proselytizing and Bible-quoting to the point that they are multiple times reprimanded by moderators.

Some will post a thread about prophecies, get utterly pulverized by the responses, ignore everything, and simply repost the same concept a few weeks or months later, again ignoring the responses destroying their arguments.

I understand stubbornness, and an emotional attachment to one's core beliefs, but at what point does refusal to admit you're wrong become immoral?

One could argue that the theists have made their point and it is the non-theists who are acting immorally by refusing to concede the point.

Or we could say that in debate people bring different points of view and different understandings of the available evidence, and while we might continue to disagree we can still learn from each other, treat each other with respect and sharpen our minds.

I favor the second choice, but to each his own.

[fredonly]

It's never immoral to one who has faith. You can never prove somebody wrong who's "knowledge" is rooted in faith rather than reason, assuming the faith is sufficiently strong. The line of "reasoning" is: I know I'm right, but it is a personal failing that makes me unable to demonstrate this.

How does your sentence make sense in light of the idea that faith implies doubt?

I read a lot of William Lane Craig's works. In his book, Reasonable Faith, in the chapter, How Do I Know Christianity is True, he writes:

We know Christianity is true primarlily by the self-authenticating witness of God's spirit. We show Christianity is true by presenting good arguments for its central tenets. What, then, should be our approach in using apologetics with an unbeliever? It should be something like this.

My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it is true, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing....Now to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue....

The "knowing" that Christianity is true is faith. If the faith is tinged with a bit of doubt, I don't see that this would change the thinking, since faith is not the product of rationality. People lose their faith when they start demanding rationality, and don't find it. (that's the way it worked for me, anyway). But while faith is dominant (as it remains with most believers), faith will always win out over rationality.

[Flail]

My Are there Prophecies in the Bible has been online for almost 6 months, has received 327 responses, and has been read by thousands. Several other threads along the same lines also exist.

Dozens of theists tried to make the case that prophecies which are evidence of the supernatural exist in the Bible, or tried to contest the criteria by which the validity of the evidence is determined, and every single one has failed.

Yet, not a single one has conceded.

Everybody either abandons the thread when cornered into admitting his/her position is indefensible and is never seen again, or forgoes rational debate and descends into random proselytizing and Bible-quoting to the point that they are multiple times reprimanded by moderators.

Some will post a thread about prophecies, get utterly pulverized by the responses, ignore everything, and simply repost the same concept a few weeks or months later, again ignoring the responses destroying their arguments.

I understand stubbornness, and an emotional attachment to one's core beliefs, but at what point does refusal to admit you're wrong become immoral?

As with the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, it's all a matter of intent. You can't label an act as immoral if the person accused is not of rational mind. So, forgive them, they know not what they do. Indoctrination, it seems, clouds reason and turns the minds of otherwise intelligent people into a mushy repository of dogmatic religiosity.

[notachance]

One could argue that the theists have made their point and it is the non-theists who are acting immorally by refusing to concede the point.

Sure, one could argue that, but you'd only be able to do that if you were in the business of making fact-free arguments.

Heck you could argue that the earth is flat and that it's immoral for "global-earthers" not to concede. As long as we have an understanding that it's a counterfactual and illogical argument which fits none of the facts, you're allowed to argue whatever you want.