Please read and comment.?

I asked a while back whether or not someone can believe in something without evidence for it but not only that can someone rationally still believe something even though the facts may say otherwise or n fact do say otherwise. Can you still hold a belief if it's been proven false. The obvious answer is yes you can still hold the belief and i get that, but then you can no longer at the very least call it knowledge or say you KNOW this or that. This ties into what knowledge is and so far all we have of what knowledge basic components or requirements are that Knowledge= a justified true belief. In short meaning that if one knows something that person (i) believes it (ii) it's true (iii) and one is justified in believing it. This is the traditional account of knowledge. There are two types which i leave out presuming that you know of them but ill scan them quickly there is also a know how and an acquaintence know. Examples are a basketball player who knows how to dunk b/c he can do it and the diff. b/w him and say a coach who knows how to dunk but only b/c of fundamentals. Or better put think of a young child who is a natural at skiing and then the adult ski instructor. The adult knows how to skii and can explain but likewise the prodigy child knows how to ski but couldn't even begin to explain it to us. Then the Know of acquaintence is diff. too b/c thats' lie do you know President Obama? and the answer is yes ( i guess it could be put better as do you know of .... Obama etc.) but really do you know him know him. Or even closer to home do youo know your mom. And it's like yeah sure; well i ask do you REALLY know your mom like what about your mom when she was young and a teen or your mom as the co-worker you know. So those are the others essentially but those are not our concern we are speaking about knowing something or other about the world. So i say i know there's a table in front of me. How? And these are some very good epistemological questions. Mine has to do with the whole traditional analysis of knowledge or TAK. TAK says that knowledge is justified true belief.

So back to what i was saying up at the top if one knows that there belief is false or has been falsified can they still rationally hold that belief. So my question is more so about the rationality of holding the belief. That's my concern. Basically boiling down to the belief in GOD and also how many like to say I KNOW GOD ( either personally or something else i don't really get that ) and furthe I KNOW GOD EXISTS. My question is usually ok well what religion do you follow. There best answer should be none b/c it is rational to be a theist or deist ( believe in an greater entity not necessarily a religion though ) but i beg to differ that it is rational to believe any of OUR religions. I must point out further though that i myself do not believe in anything higher but this is of no consequence. My question is focused more so on the fact that people tend to believe thier religions sacred texts to be the true word of GOD. Now if that's the case then it must be all true and accurate you cannot pick and choose which parts you want to believe you either believe it all or you don't. This is not the same with sciences i should point out too. Meaning that i can pick and choose which parts of a theory can be kept or that i want to keep but not b/c i want to or like them nest but b/c they can be proven or have been so huge difference there. So like i may not take all of newton's theory of time space and gravity but i will keep parts of it maybe not all of it. But this is a man's writings known to be fallible as we are which is also a diff. God is not fallible and so if this is the word of GOD then it must all be true. So i go further without having the argument b/c none is needed that there are parts of the Bible that are just plainly false please if you need examples then you haven't read it, nevertheless here are a few: the great flood to me very doubtful b/c then the whole noah's ark story and how we are still here and all the other animals etc., but mostly the world is no older than five thousand years old, some say ten thousand ( who cares both are false ) , the fixation of species ( they don't change [false] ) and etc.. My question then to them is how do you still rationally belive it (ALL of it i'm assuming b/c like i said seems odd to believe only parts seems to do GOD an unjustice if you're a true follower ) if it's been proven to be false in many instances? Can one still say rationally i believe the world is flat or in other words and this must be true ONE CANNOT HOLD A FALSE BELIEF. In other words once something is known about a certain proposition or statement or situation there cannot then be a belief that contradicts that knowledge. In other words since i know women are equal to men b/c all humans are equal ( putting aside abilitites and such and mainly in terms of rights ) can i still hold the belief that women are inferior to men and so sh