Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @fmf
A "lie" is something untrue stated in order to mislead or deceive. That is not what Ghost of a Duke did on page 1. His error was misleading but that is because what he said was incorrect and not because what he said was a "lie".

A lie is something that misleads. People can be mislead intentionally or unintentionally. Either way they are being mislead by a lie. Read it slowly. Maybe it will sink in.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes, I have no problem with apologizing when I'm wrong. Everyone has lied at some point, lying is part of our sinful human nature.

It's a good thing to acknowledge an error. We both have done that. But you err again in your characterization of an error as a 'lie.' (Especially when unintentional). I agree that not giving factual information can be misleading but you haven't a hope in hell of convincing any rational human being that an unintentional error is the same as a lie. It isn't.

There is also another point that seems to have evaded you. I was trying to explain to Romans that the use of the word 'notion' was the 'language of the thread' (which was the reason I had used it). I responded to a post where you had used the word and wrongly said the word had been introduced by you. - My position, however, was strengthened not weakened by the correction that FMF had, in fact, introduced the word in his OP and corroborated that the word 'notion' truly was the 'language of the thread.' - So my error had weakened my own argument, clearly demonstrating it was unintentional and therefore not a lie.

Originally posted by @romans1009
More like needling dive by infantalizing him.

'Regression is an unconscious defense mechanism, which causes the temporary or long-term reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development (instead of handling unacceptable impulses in a more adult manner).'

Sigmund Freud

Originally posted by @dj2becker
A lie is something that misleads. People can be mislead intentionally or unintentionally. Either way they are being mislead by a lie.

You are completely wrong. A lie is something that misleads, yes true. People can mislead intentionally or unintentionally, yes true. If someone misleads intentionally then it is a lie. If someone misleads unintentionally it is not a lie. "To lie" and "To mislead" are not exact synonyms. The definition of "mislead" is not the same as the definition of "lie". The fact that the word "mislead" can be used to help convey the meaning of the word "lie" does not mean the two words mean the same thing.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
'Regression is an unconscious defense mechanism, which causes the temporary or long-term reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development (instead of handling unacceptable impulses in a more adult manner).'

Sigmund Freud

“A scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.”

Occam’s Razor

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
It's a good thing to acknowledge an error. We both have done that. But you err again in your characterization of an error as a 'lie.' (Especially when unintentional). I agree that not giving factual information can be misleading but you haven't a hope in hell of convincing any rational human being that an unintentional error is the same as a lie. It ...[text shortened]... ad weakened my own argument, clearly demonstrating it was unintentional and therefore not a lie.

Where you lied was in claiming you had no notion of divine law.

Either that or you didn’t understand the definition of “notion.”

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
It's a good thing to acknowledge an error. We both have done that. But you err again in your characterization of an error as a 'lie.' (Especially when unintentional). I agree that not giving factual information can be misleading but you haven't a hope in hell of convincing any rational human being that an unintentional error is the same as a lie. It ...[text shortened]... ad weakened my own argument, clearly demonstrating it was unintentional and therefore not a lie.

If what you are saying is true, how on earth would anyone ever be able to prove a lie? According to what you are saying you could always get away with a lie by saying it was unintentional, is that correct? How on earth do you prove that someone made an error intentionally if you are not a mind reader?

Originally posted by @fmf
You are completely wrong. A lie is something that misleads, yes true. People can mislead intentionally or unintentionally, yes true. If someone misleads intentionally then it is a lie. If someone misleads unintentionally it is not a lie. "To lie" and "To mislead" are not exact synonyms. The definition of "mislead" is not the same as the definition of "lie". The ...[text shortened]... ed to help convey the meaning of the word "lie" does not mean the two words mean the same thing.

If what you are saying is true it would be impossible to prove that someone was lying because they could simply say that it was unintentional.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Obviously I knew [Ghost of a Duke] knew about divine law which is why I thought he was lying when he said he had no notion about it.

So you concede that you knew full well that Ghost of a Duke knew about divine law because you knew full well that Ghost of a Duke studied theology at university. And you knew full well that Ghost of a Duke is an atheist. And, what's more, you knew full well that the words "notion of" are used to mean 'a belief in something', and - just in case there was any doubt about that - you had read the OP, and you'd read the posts on page 1 before you posted, and yet... you are still pretending - even now, as you were back then - that you "thought he was lying"? You appear to be infantilizing no one except yourself.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If what you are saying is true it would be impossible to prove that someone was lying because they could simply say that it was unintentional.

To whom do I have to "prove" it?

Originally posted by @fmf
To whom do I have to "prove" it?

Can a lie be proven? Yes or No?

Originally posted by @fmf
So you concede that you knew full well that Ghost of a Duke knew about divine law because you knew full well that Ghost of a Duke studied theology at university. And you knew full well that Ghost of a Duke is an atheist. And, what's more, you knew full well that the words "notion of" are used to mean 'a belief in something', and - just in case there was any dou ...[text shortened]... k then - that you "thought he was lying"? You appear to be infantilizing no one except yourself.

You don’t understand the definition of “notion” either (or are pretending not to.)

The definition is not believing something is true. It’s having a belief (affirmative or negative) about something.

I don’t believe the theory of evolution is true. Does that mean I have no notion of it?

Your refusal to admit you’re wrong is hilarious. You and Ghost must share some bizarre pathology. You’ll go to your grave denying you’re wrong - even though you know you are.

Sick!

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If what you are saying is true, how on earth would anyone ever be able to prove a lie? According to what you are saying you could always get away with a lie by saying it was unintentional, is that correct?

People get away with telling lies, of course. Some lies can be proved to be lies; some cannot. These facts of life do not alter the definition of the word "lie".

How on earth do you prove that someone made an error intentionally if you are not a mind reader?

This sounds like a line of 'argument' a teenager might pursue to deny to his parents that he'd lied to them. That aside, what does having to "prove" [or being able to "prove" or not being able to "prove"] that a falsehood was intended to deceive have to do with the meaning of the word "lie"

Originally posted by @fmf
People get away with telling lies, of course. Some lies can be proved to be lies; some cannot. These facts of life do not alter the definition of the word "lie".

[b]How on earth do you prove that someone made an error intentionally if you are not a mind reader?

This sounds like a line of 'argument' a teenager might pursue to deny to his parents that ...[text shortened]... "prove"] that a falsehood was intended to deceive have to do with the meaning of the word "lie"[/b]

Some lies can be proved to be lies

Only true if you use my definition and not yours. With your definition it is impossible to prove a lie because the person can simply say it was unintentional. How do you prove that it was intentional if you are not a mind reader?

Originally posted by @romans1009
You don’t understand the definition of “notion” either (or are pretending not to.)

The definition is not believing something is true. It’s having a belief (affirmative or negative) about something.

Ghost of a Duke, on this thread, about this thread's topic, said he has no notion of divine law. This is a true statement. It means he does not believe in divine law. It does not mean he thinks the notion of divine law does not exist or that he doesn't know that there is such a thing as "divine law".

As for me, for example, I have no notion of "sin" because I have no reason to believe that a there is a divine will that I can transgress. Do you think I am telling a "lie"? Do you think me saying I have no notion of "sin" means that I don't realize that billions and billions of people do have a notion of "sin" and that it affects their morality?