Are Lies Immoral? If so, Why?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Is lying inherently wrong? If so, why?

Christians believe God is perfect and that God doesn't lie. Is this simply a choice, is it necessary for us lesser beings to be able to trust, is it itself a deception, or is it an inherent part of perfection that a being should not lie?

Is it possible that lying is wrong for us, but not God, or vice-versa?

Is it uniquely or especially wrong to lie to a child? Or perhaps uniquely or especially permissible?

[Purple Knight]

Why someone should consider themselves as "incorrigibly wicked" is beyond me!

The more I think about it, the more I blame Puritans for everything. The way I understand it, they were the main group persecuted by the Church of England who fled to America. And they were persecuted because they were blorking crazy. Everything was a sin.

When non-religious people expect religious people to be offended by everything, that's the Puritan legacy and it's strong in America.

When non-religious people expect that religious people think everything and everyone is incorrigibly wicked, again, you can probably blame Puritans.

Even I expect that if you polled Christians, and asked them, "Which best describes your best guess about what percent of people will be saved?" and had these choices:
A) 70% - 100%
B) 40% - 80%
C) 10% - 50%
D) Under 10%
...You would get a lot of "under 10%" answers.

A secondary reason is that extreme freedom produces a kind of blame-game denouncement culture where everybody has their own opinion about what's right, people get pretty polarised, everybody screams that everybody else is evil, and if you're slightly conscientious you start to think they're collectively right because no matter who you are and what you think, you're probably on 90% of people's irredeemably evil list.

I've even kind of accepted that being too smart makes you, if not evil, effectively evil. If regular people see two moves into the future and I see three moves into the future, and end up doing or saying something that I think is right but it appears to everyone else to be very, very wrong, then it kind of is. People have these beliefs about immediacy and morality, and the best example I can think of is eugenics. You can't sterilise someone now for less pain later.

[Diogenes]

"Atheistically speaking", Christians are a bunch of morons. Do I need to now write me a book to get that slur past the mods?

There is no such thing as "atheistically speaking." You are saying that. Make it into a religion first then we will talk.

Sure there is. "Atheistically speaking" is just as valid as "Musically speaking," or "Biblically speaking." Each modifier is an adverb clumsily used in each case, but there is no necessity for the adverb to be used exclusively to represent a religion. Besides, haven't we heard the constant drumbeat "atheism is a religion" from linguistically challenged 'Christians' since the inception of this forum?

Not to mention that (tho' I do not personally hold this view) from some atheists' point of view; that is, "atheistically speaking," "Christians ARE morons..." or at least deluded into believing something crazy (the supernatural) actually exists.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #75]

Moderator Clarification

I closed it. I consider "wicked" and "ignorant" as standard religious lingo used in their holy book. We have to give Christians some slack when they are "biblically speaking."

______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

"We must be accommodating the insults of the Christian, cause they took em the time to write a book" is the single stupidest argument I've ever heard in my time on this planet.

"Atheistically speaking", Christians are a bunch of morons. Do I need to now write me a book to get that slur past the mods?

Has someone complained about your slurs?

I would like to know, can truth be called a slur? If truth is a slur, should we embrace lies? Is truth actually immoral in this case?

The problem is that what you see as 'truth' others see as a lie. Christians think all claims of the existence of other gods are lies since they are not based on reasonable evidence; therefore, they are willful or reckless untruths = "lies."

[1213]

The problem is that what you see as 'truth' others see as a lie. Christians think all claims of the existence of other gods are lies since they are not based on reasonable evidence; therefore, they are willful or reckless untruths = "lies."

I don't think all claims of other gods are necessary lies. I just think people should not keep all possible things as their gods, even if they would exist. But, if you think something is a lie, it would be nice, if you could prove that. I believe it would help many people.

And by the way, I think it is unfortunate that JoeyKnothead seems to be banned. I think that was not necessary.

[JehovahsWitness]

I've even kind of accepted that being too smart makes you, if not evil, effectively evil.

Morals has little to do with one's intellect if not that intelligence (like money, power and beauty) can make one more susceptible to pride. An intelligent person, instinctively knows he can use that intelligence to get what he wants and may wrongly think he has nothing to new learn, at least about something he has considered in the past.

Scripture say God reveals his truth to those with humble hearts; some may have an extra layer to breakdown before they are humble enough to begin putting their intelligence to good use.

[brunumb]

And by the way, I think it is unfortunate that JoeyKnothead seems to be banned.

OH......NOOOOOO!!!

Joey always made my day. Maybe time to pull up stakes and move on too.

[Bust Nak]

Sure there is. "Atheistically speaking" is just as valid as "Musically speaking," or "Biblically speaking." Each modifier is an adverb clumsily used in each case, but there is no necessity for the adverb to be used exclusively to represent a religion. Besides, haven't we heard the constant drumbeat "atheism is a religion" from linguistically challenged 'Christians' since the inception of this forum?

Yeah, that's exactly why I am dumping on any message that paints atheism as anything other than a "none-of-the-above." Atheism has no creed, it doesn't have any teachings.

Not to mention that (tho' I do not personally hold this view) from some atheists' point of view; that is, "atheistically speaking," "Christians ARE morons..." or at least deluded into believing something crazy (the supernatural) actually exists.

For the same reason I gave above, they are speaking as someone who happens to be an atheist, not as an atheist. You want to speak as an atheist, say this: "I don't believe in any gods" or "I believe there are no gods."

[Diogenes]

And by the way, I think it is unfortunate that JoeyKnothead seems to be banned.

OH......NOOOOOO!!!

Joey always made my day. Maybe time to pull up stakes and move on too.

Joey was an important feature, not to mention 'person' for the forum. There ought to be a way to bring him back (again) as just that, a 'feature' with a special status. Joey's infractions were never mean spirited; they just had a special flavor.

Join me at "BRING JOEY BACK," viewtopic.php?t=40936

[Purple Knight]

I've even kind of accepted that being too smart makes you, if not evil, effectively evil.

Morals has little to do with one's intellect if not that intelligence (like money, power and beauty) can make one more susceptible to pride.

Not only that, but a highly intelligent person will often see a particularly nasty truth normal people don't: All options are bad. All options hurt somebody. All options break a moral rule. That's where there's a direct connection, unlike beauty, power, and money.

An intelligent person, instinctively knows he can use that intelligence to get what he wants and may wrongly think he has nothing to new learn, at least about something he has considered in the past.

Scripture say God reveals his truth to those with humble hearts; some may have an extra layer to breakdown before they are humble enough to begin putting their intelligence to good use.

The Big Question I think a smart person faces, even assuming those hurdles are clear (which they probably aren't, but point is, there's something remaining) is whether to let stupid people stumble or try to help them. Both options are bad. You can either ignore a cow straying away, as most people believe you shouldn't, or try to sideline someone's free will, which you probably shouldn't do either. Finding a middle way involves being exceptionally tactful, which not everyone is even capable of. If the cow is loose because you've already told them eleven times that the bloody gate is not closed, and how to close it better, and they won't do it... it probably hurts them just as much, if not more, to keep bringing the thing back.

Even regular people can face off against this dilemma if they have a friend or loved one who is plagued by exceptionally poor choices.

People also don't trust anyone smarter than they are, and they shouldn't, because 99% of the time, trusting that person means they'll be scammed and exploited. And there's a particular perniciousness to this kind of trust barrier: No one can ever overcome it. No one can prove they are trustworthy if they're smarter. Because that last guy who turned out to be a scammer? Well he proved he was trustworthy. He proved it absolutely. He laid it all out in a way that made them see he was right. Only he was lying. When someone is smarter, their argument can appear sound even if it isn't. They can seem to have proved they are trustworthy, when they are not. This means that no matter how much a smarter person has proven their trustworthiness to you, you still can't actually trust them.

So we have these masses of regular people who have been scammed so hard, that just to survive, they have to have these sky-high walls against taking anybody's advice. And we have a few smart people who would like to help them, but can't, because they're precast as the villains in life.

[JehovahsWitness]

An intelligent person, ...may wrongly think he has nothing to new learn, at least about something he has considered in the past.....

The Big Question I think a smart person faces, even assuming those hurdles are clear (which they probably aren't, but point is, there's something remaining) is whether to let stupid people stumble or try to help them.

It seems this something you have considered in the past so you have nothing to new learn at least when it comes to this topic.



Enjoy


JW