Lies

[BVZ]

In another thread, we discuss a list of websites. Now heres the question, (and it is a yes or no question).

In the following situation:
You say something, and unknowingly, you don't tell the truth. Someone informs you about your mistake. You say the same thing you already said, KNOWING IT IS NOT TRUE. Can this be considered a lie?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In another thread, we discuss a list of websites. Now heres the question, (and it is a yes or no question).

In the following situation:
You say something, and unknowingly, you don't tell the truth. Someone informs you about your mistake. You say the same thing you already said, KNOWING IT IS NOT TRUE. Can this be considered a lie?

I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe the person who informs you of your mistake. Some people just can't believe they are wrong no matter how much evidence is provided.

F.B.

 

[Mystman]

Depends on wether you believe the other person.

If person A tells me that statement X is not correct, I may not believe person A, and repeat statement X without being a liar.

edit: too slow T_T

 

[Nooj]

You say something, and unknowingly, you don't tell the truth. Someone informs you about your mistake. You say the same thing you already said, KNOWING IT IS NOT TRUE. Can this be considered a lie?

Knowing that it is not true but still saying it=setting out to decieve.

But if the person totally believed that the mistake that you pointed out to them is true, no matter what, then I don't see how it could be a lie. They could just refuse to accept that they are wrong and continue to believe in their rightness. There's a difference between knowing it is wrong but still going ahead and doing it, and believing in your cause no mater what.

 

[chaoschristian]

In another thread, we discuss a list of websites. Now heres the question, (and it is a yes or no question).

In the following situation:
You say something, and unknowingly, you don't tell the truth. Someone informs you about your mistake. You say the same thing you already said, KNOWING IT IS NOT TRUE. Can this be considered a lie?

If you speak something false without realizing that it is false, then that is simple ignorance. Any and all of us are liable to that.

If you speak something false and you know that it is false, yet present and represent it as a truth, then you are engaging in a willful act of deception.

The gray area occurs when determining what is truth. We could go round and round here all day about whether or not Christianity is truth.

But that is not the point of this thread, I believe.

This thread is asking us to look at things that are more concrete, more narrow and less open to interpretation.

Saying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution is wrong because you heard someone else say it whom you respect is an act of ignorance.

Continuing to say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution wrong after being shown a clear demonstration as to why this is not the case is a sign of either an inability to comprehend the refutation or a desire to be willfully deceptive.

 

[Edx]

You know Id like to know the answer to this because in another thread Im being told off by Calminian for saying Hovind is a liar and deliberately dishonest, who says....

"Where is your evidence that he doesn't even believe what he himself says? " - Calminian

So in my last post Ive asked him how anyone is meant to be able to tell is someone is lying or not, if Hovind apparently isnt a good enough example. Im sure if he were to do so I could easily find an example of it with Hovind.

 

[Dannager]

In my mind the distinction between believing the correction to be true and continuing to deceive, and not believing the correction to be true and continuing to use the same claim is unimportant. In the former situation the person in question is being deceitful. In the latter situation, the person in question is too close-minded to critically evaluate the evidence. Both of those situations are morally undesirable (and in many cases, straight-out reprehensible) in a debate.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

I'm tempted to give Creationists a little credit on this, as many of these Creationists here are simply ignorant. People like Hovind who are refuted and corrected have no excuse, however. Although I would also add that there are certain things - like transition fossils - that are relative to perception.

For example, for Hovind to quote a scientist out of context and then be told he's quoting the scientist out of context and continue to do so, is lying. For Hovind to say that no transition fossils exist fully depends on how he views the fossils that other scientists might term transitions. In the transition fossil argument, no watertight argument can be made that it is a transition, whereas a quote being questioned in context is watertight when evaluated as to what the person said.

 

[Dannager]

In the transition fossil argument, no watertight argument can be made that it is a transition, whereas a quote being questioned in context is watertight when evaluated as to what the person said.

It should well be noted that no watertight argument can be made for the transitionals not being transitional fossils, yet that is what a very large number of creationists claim as certain truth. I don't think we're trying to convince anyone that we're 100% certain that transitional fossils are what we think they are, but rather that claiming that there are no transitional fossils out there is a pretty foolhardy claim to make in light of all the evidence.

 

[random_guy]

I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe the person who informs you of your mistake. Some people just can't believe they are wrong no matter how much evidence is provided.

F.B.

This is exactly right. Some people are so wrapped up in this debate, they may completely block off any thinking when it comes to viewing corrections. For example, there was a thread where one poster wrote that BB was satanic. Another poster asked why, and the original poster denied it was ever written, even though it was quoted by everyone, it was very easy to read it. It's denial of the amazing form.

 

[tocis]

http://www.christianforums.com/t3120764-dangers-of-creation-science.htmlYou say something, and unknowingly, you don't tell the truth. Someone informs you about your mistake. You say the same thing you already said, KNOWING IT IS NOT TRUE. Can this be considered a lie?

Is there actually any other word for that except "lie"?

 

[Q]

Delusion

(or simply not believing the other person)

I find it unpolite and judgemental talking about other people calling them names.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

It should well be noted that no watertight argument can be made for the transitionals not being transitional fossils, yet that is what a very large number of creationists claim as certain truth. I don't think we're trying to convince anyone that we're 100% certain that transitional fossils are what we think they are, but rather that claiming that there are no transitional fossils out there is a pretty foolhardy claim to make in light of all the evidence.

Yes, didn't mention that, but you are right on. Neither side can make a watertight argument so one cannot dismiss a transition fossil in a watertight way as well.

Thank you for adding that.

 

[Dannager]

I find it unpolite and judgemental talking about other people calling them names.

I don't find it impolite or unfair to call a liar a liar. Do you?

 

[JohnR7]

I don't find it impolite or unfair to call a liar a liar. Do you?

In psychology they call it projecting, when you accuse others of the very thing you are guilty of. That is why we need to be very careful what we accuse others of. Actually here on this forum it is against the rules to accuse others because it is seldom that any good comes out of that. How can good come out of it, when people need to be judgeing themselves and not trying to judge others.

 

[steen]

And we see creationists claim that Natural Selection is not evolution. Then, 15 posters and 10 websites worth of evidence to th contrary later, the same claim is made. Is that a lie?

 

[Henaynei]

In another thread, we discuss a list of websites. Now here's the question, (and it is a yes or no question).

In the following situation:
You say something, and unknowingly, you don't tell the truth. Someone informs you about your mistake. You say the same thing you already said, KNOWING IT IS NOT TRUE. Can this be considered a lie?

on what do I predicate "knowing it is not true?" on the word on another, on "Proof" from a source that is known to be strongly antagonistic to another pov? How do I "know" it is "a mistake?"

This poll strikes me as similar to one of those questions where the answer is presupposed and no alternative is permitted: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - only allowed answer is Yes of No - either answer puts you in an untenable position: if you put "No" then why are you still beating her, if you put "Yes" then how long were beating her before you stopped?

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[Hydra009]

In psychology they call it projecting, when you accuse others of the very thing you are guilty of.

Keep that in mind the next time you see "Evolution is unfalsifiable!" or "Scientists believe in evolution dogmatically, not because of evidence, which contradicts their claims!".

 

[Henaynei]

And we see creationists claim that Natural Selection is not evolution. Then, 15 posters and 10 websites worth of evidence to the contrary later, the same claim is made. Is that a lie?

now see - this is a problem on both sides - natural can easily be said to be a form of horizontal evolution, but many would not agree that it is a form of vertical evolution

ok, now that is something that can possibly be disputed but it is unlikely that it can be disproven - saying someone is lying because they say that natural selection is not evolution is inaccurate and unfair and inflammatory

there are numerous issues on this topic where the dice fall similarly - neither side will profit from claiming the other is lying when such divergences in POV apply to an issue or question

 

[steen]

now see - this is a problem on both sides - natural can easily be said to be a form of horizontal evolution, but many would not agree that it is a form of vertical evolution

The Scientific Theory of Evolution includes natural Selecdtion and Mutations as mechanisms. All the distraction about vertical and horizontal is irrelevant stuff not dealing with the actual science. Does the Scientific Theory of Evolution include Natural Selection as part of it? The answer is yes. Claiming otherwise, despite evidence, that is a lie. Claiming that "Natural Selection is not Evolution" is a false claim. Repeating that claim after loads of evidence from multiple sources would make that repetition an outright lie.

ok, now that is something that can possibly be disputed but it is unlikely that it can be disproven - saying someone is lying because they say that natural selection is not evolution is inaccurate and unfair and inflammatory

But repeating that claim about Natural Selection after solid evidence to the contrary from multiple sources and posters, makes the repeating it an outright lie.

there are numerous issues on this topic where the dice fall similarly - neither side will profit from claiming the other is lying when such divergences in POV apply to an issue or question

Ah, but we are not talkign about PoV. We are talking about the actual fact, about WHAT the Science is and says. Science is not opinions, it is evidence and facts.

It seems that you are saying that a board like this is not able to handle a Scientific Discussion? Guess we should shut down the C&E forum?