Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[...]How could you prove that they hadn't forgotten it?

[...]

How could you prove it wasn't unintentional?

[...]

How would you prove that they hadn't suffered memory loss?

[...]

How could you prove that they are pretending and that they hadn't genuinely forgotten the discussion?

"Prove" to whom? And anyway, even if an instance of a person telling a deliberate falsehood cannot be "proved" to be a lie to the satisfaction of a court and a judge and a jury, for example, using the rules of evidence and cross-examination - or to your satisfaction for that matter, whatever the specific details of a given scenario - it does not alter what a lie is. Your red herring about "proof' does not change or affect what the definition of a lie is.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don't like the definition I quoted take it up with Merriam-Webster.

One comes across taken-out-of-context and unreliable stuff taken from the internet all the time. Here are some reliable and relevant definitions - the sort you or I might use to teach a young child what the meaning of the noun "lie" is - to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone (Cambridge) An intentionally false statement (Oxford) A lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is untrue (Collins) an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive (Merriam-Webster) a false statement made with the intention of deceiving (Chambers) something that you say or write that you know is untrue (Longman) something that you say or write that is not true and that you know is not true (Macmillan).

Originally posted by @dj2becker

Definition of lie
1 b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer the lies we tell ourselves to feel better historical records containing numerous lies

According to b it is still a lie even if the intention is not to deceive.

I went back and had a look. Your easily-taken-out-of-context Merriam-Webster "1 b." definition would work in phrases with an idiomatic nuance like this: the lies we tell ourselves to feel better; all their married life she had been living a lie; these figures give the lie to the notion that people are spending less; I have 20 dollars on me - wait, no, I tell a lie - I have 30 dollars. Clearly, this specific sense and occasional usage of the word does not apply to what happened on page 1 of this thread. You have made the sort of error a non-native speaker or an EFL student might make.

Originally posted by @fmf
I went back and had a look. Your easily-taken-out-of-context Merriam-Webster "1 b." definition would work in phrases with an idiomatic nuance like this: the lies we tell ourselves to feel better; all their married life she had been living a lie; these figures give the lie to the notion that people are spending less; I have 20 dollars on me - wait, no, I tell a ...[text shortened]... this thread. You have made the sort of error a non-native speaker or an EFL student might make.

After all this time you finally went back and checked that you were in fact wrong and that an unintentional error can in fact be called a lie.

Ghost: dj brought up the word - wait, no, I tell a lie - it was in fact FMF.

Still too proud to admit you were wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
After all this time you finally went back and checked that you were in fact wrong and that an unintentional error can in fact be called a lie.

Ghost: dj brought up the word - wait, no, I tell a lie - it was in fact FMF.

Still too proud to admit you were wrong?

Ghost of a Duke didn't tell any lies on this thread.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ghost: dj brought up the word - wait, no, I tell a lie - it was in fact FMF.

But Ghost of a Duke did not use this idiomatic expression when he realized his inadvertent error and neither did you when you referred to that error as a lie.

Originally posted by @fmf
Ghost of a Duke didn't tell any lies on this thread.

He told a lie when he said he had no notion of divine law. Either that or he expressed himself very poorly. The fact he won’t admit it is hilarious given his alleged profession.

Originally posted by @romans1009
He told a lie when he said he had no notion of divine law. Either that or he expressed himself very poorly. The fact he won’t admit it is hilarious given his alleged profession.

Ghost of a Duke didn't tell a lie. He expressed himself perfectly. He has no notion of divine law because he is an atheist. Read page 1 again. Look at what the thread topic is. Read the OP. Read what dj2becker wrote. Read Ghost of a Duke's reply. You are being a buffoon.

Originally posted by @fmf
Ghost of a Duke didn't tell a lie. He expressed himself perfectly. He has no notion of divine law because he is an atheist. Read page 1 again. Look at what the thread topic is. Read the OP. Read what dj2becker wrote. Read Ghost of a Duke's reply. You are being a buffoon.

For him to claim he has “no notion” of divine law is absurd on its face - especially since he claims to have studied theology. Either he was lying or he expressed himself very poorly. There’s no other alternative.

The fact that you are siding with a fellow atheist is hardly surprising.

Originally posted by @romans1009
For him to claim he has “no notion” of divine law is absurd on its face - especially since he claims to have studied theology. Either he was lying or he expressed himself very poorly. There’s no other alternative.

Actually, the other alternative is that you are simply acting the fool. And it wasn't even funny when you first started doing so on pages 1 and 2 and then sporadically on this thread ever since.

Originally posted by @fmf
Actually, the other alternative is that you are simply acting the fool. And it wasn't even funny when you first started doing so on pages 1 and 2 and then sporadically on this thread ever since.

It’s not meant to be funny. Ghost either lied or he expressed himself very poorly. It really is hilarious that he won’t admit it. You would argue about anything so I hardly expect better of you.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Ghost either lied or he expressed himself very poorly.

You are mistaken. Ghost of a Duke both told the truth about himself and did so in a way that was crystal clear. Even if you had not known already - as you did, of course, which makes your buffoonery all the more dreary - that he was both an atheist and a theology graduate - the way he alluded to his atheism in the context of this thread's OP and the post he was replying to, the way he expressed himself and what he meant was completely clear.

Originally posted by @fmf
You are mistaken. Ghost of a Duke both told the truth about himself and did so in a way that was crystal clear. Even if you had not known already - as you did, of course, which makes your buffoonery all the more dreary - that he was both an atheist and a theology graduate - the way he alluded to his atheism in the context of this thread's OP and the post he was replying to, the way he expressed himself and what he meant was completely clear.

<<Even if you had not known already - as you did, of course, which makes your buffoonery all the more dreary - that he was both an atheist and a theology graduate - the way he alluded to his atheism in the context of this thread's OP and the post he was replying to, the way he expressed himself and what he meant was completely clear.>>

That’s why I thought he was lying. For a theology student to claim he has no notion of divine law is ridiculous. It’d be like an astronaut claiming he has no notion of outer space.

Originally posted by @romans1009
That’s why I thought he was lying. For a theology student to claim he has no notion of divine law is ridiculous. It’d be like an astronaut claiming he has no notion of outer space.

I don't believe for one moment that you actually "thought he was lying". He has been discussing "divine law" here for three years and has discussed "divine law" on threads that you have personally been involved in numerous times during the 2-3 months you've been active on this forum. In terms of your integrity, you are squandering your credibility here for no apparent good reason.

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't believe for one moment that you actually "thought he was lying". He has been discussing "divine law" here for three years and has discussed "divine law" on threads that you have personally been involved in numerous times during the 2-3 months you've been active on this forum. In terms of your integrity, you are squandering your credibility here for no apparent good reason.

Obviously I knew he knew about divine law which is why I thought he was lying when he said he had no notion about it.

I see you’re back to posting in the Debates forum so I won’t deter you from railing about white racism.

Night!