Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Lies and the Assorted Types Who Tell Them
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  11:49:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Liar.....

That's an accusation I rarely make on these boards, although I will go after the professional liars in government and the media. The simple reason is that this is merely an unofficial, public forum and a certain amount of prevarication is to be expected from certain human beings who consider themselves to be well out of nose-punching range, and therefore to have carte blanche.

Really, it's a lot more effective to simply pick apart the lie for all to see without the accusation. The lesson is passed on, the liar gets pissed, and there's not a damned thing he can do about it but either make a retraction or lie some more. The latter option seems to be the most popular.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  12:23:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I agree, I feel uncomfortable calling someone who believes the lie, a liar.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  14:19:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by Ricky

Sorry to bring up so many issues. So just to be clear, for this thread, the word "lying" does not imply a deliberate intent to spread a known falsehood. Is that correct?
That illustrates the difficulty of the issue under consideration, I think. I would prefer to think of "lying" mainly as being deliberate and conscious, but it's not completely wrong to consider the innocent, ignorant transmission of falsehoods to be "lying" as well, since the result is the same. People really ought to be held responsible for getting the "facts" they disseminate right. Then there are all the mind-bending positions that are between "innocent" transmission of falsehoods and deliberate lying.

I'm sorry that it's so hard for me to answer your question clearly with a yes or a no. The whole matter makes my head spin.


Since I don't see much disagreement on the types of "liars" and where Creationists mostly fall, perhaps this is something worthy of discussion?

The problem with the use of liar to refer to someone who spreads misinformation is that information, knowledge, and science change with the times. We certainly wouldn't call Lamarck a liar. You've also stuck ignorant in there which is perhaps more accurate. But there are often times when we don't know how truly ignorant we are, and ignorance itself is a relative term.

If someone who knows they are ignorant on a subject spreads falsehoods about it which they believe are true, I think this would fall under lying. It is because they misrepresent their level of knowledge that they are committing deceit, whether what they say is true or not. I also believe a lot of evangelical Creationists fall under this category.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  14:29:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by moakley

Originally posted by marfknox

I think the vast majority of creationists fit into the first category.
I agree. How many individuals believe, or think they know, something about evolution who are simply parroting what they have heard from the pulpit. Even my mother, who at 80 years old and still represents the best example of what it means to be a decent person, has made statements about evolution that were clearly not her own.
Yes, I believe Marf is correct about the first category, the Simple Ignoramus, being the most populated.

These are the main people we should be trying to educate. Without an ignorant base, the Creationists would fade into humorous obscurity, along with the Flat Earthers.

Also, "Simple" is clearly the bottom of the Creationist food chain. It's not so clear to me that the other positions fall into any kind of dominance ranking, though. I represented Willful Ignoramus with with billionaire Howard Ahmanson's photo, though that was just a guess on my part as to his motivations. And that doesn't mean that the Dembski and Falwell types boss him around.

When I started the list, I'd thought to have five types, but I found that I could only imagine four. I still have yet to imagine a fifth. I find that kind of odd. Certainly many Creationists' positions fall between my categories, but why could I only describe four? Could it be that these are some kind of logical "quantum" types?


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/02/2007 15:31:04
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  14:39:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

I agree, I feel uncomfortable calling someone who believes the lie, a liar.
And the tough part is, it's damned near impossible to know if the person believes it. Perhaps an approach such as this may be appropriate:

"What you are saying is a falsehood. That lie originated with (Ken Ham/Bill Dembski/Kent Hovind). Before you spread that lie, you should check it out carefully. Here's a link that should clear this up. I don't assume you are lying deliberately, but if you don't care enough to check your 'facts,' are you really any more honest than the false witness who invented the lie in the first place?"


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/02/2007 14:49:40
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  14:41:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ricky, you bring up an interesting point:

Is it possible to unintentionally lie?

If you claim that "lying" is simply stating that which is false then clearly no intent to deceive is necessary; however, most people would say that one must be aware that the statement or implication is not true.

You can say that if you claim something is true, but you're not sure of its veracity, you'd be lying. That, however, brings a whole new ball of wax into the mix. I can say, "I left my sunglasses in my car." Since I did leave them there, it is not a lie. If I say, "my sunglasses are in my car," then is it a lie? I haven't been in my car for several hours, somebody could have moved my sunglasses. Am I lying then?

I would be nice if I could be so judgmental that I can call "LIAR" at everybody who claims something for which they cannot provide sufficient evidence, but I can't. Some people are liars; some people are simply mistaken, not liars. Without the ability to read somebody's intent, I tend to withhold that particular epithet.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3733 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  14:51:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
BPSmurf wrote:
I agree, I feel uncomfortable calling someone who believes the lie, a liar.
Me too.

In response to Ricky's last post, a lot of people will just parrot whatever they think is common sense, and if they think it supports closely-held beliefs and/or values, they will push it, whether ignorant or knowledgeable of what they are talking about. Sometimes I cringe when I think about the fact that 100 is the average IQ. And I don't know how many times in college I had a conversation in a public arena (usually the oval of Ohio State U where we had a lot of campus preachers) with another student whose eyes just glazed over when I started talking about the finer points of physical anthropology.

The biggest problem with the creation/evolution debate is that it shouldn't be so damned politicized! No plain scientific inquiry about the nature world should be subject to this kind of social and moral controversy.

I heard an interview yesterday with a climatologist who has a theory that in addition to global warming increasing the number of and power of hurricanes, those hurricanes themselves are causing even further climate change. The guy spoke so humbly about his own theory, carefully pointing out in a neutral tone his reasons as well as his critics' reasons for disagreeing. The interviewer asked him what he thinks about how the scientific debate is brought into the public and political arena, and he sounded rather annoyed and explained how the media made it sound like he and the other scientists who disagreed hated each other, when in reality scientific disagreements are quite amicable since everyone is primarily interested in uncovering the true facts.

Oh that the curiosity of laypeople concerning facts about the natural world were so simple, straightforward, and honest! Let the scientists do their damn jobs first, and once they are sure, do your philosophizing and theologizing about it later!

Whether intelligent design or evolution is true doesn't tell us what our worldviews should be. Hell, even if Biblical creationism turned out to be true, the same number of philosophical and religious questions pop up. Maybe the gnostics were right and there is a god but he's evil - oh my! Or perhaps some powerful intergalactic jokesters are having fun with us humans?

Okay, so if evolution is true it destroys so-called literal Biblical interpretations of the Bible, but those are stupid anyway because they are neither entirely literal nor are they traditional since Christian theology has been all over the place right from the start. Just 'cause the early established church burned up all the evidence of its competitors doesn't mean it gets to be the only version recognized by history, and goodness knows plenty of splintering has happened since then!

Modern Christian fundamentalism is just so dumb. It is theologically unsophisticated, emotionally immature, and intellectually stunted. Such people do not have the excuse of living in a tribe in the outback after generations of oppression from invading Westerners. I am clueless as to what their distrust in mainstream science is, so I suspect many of them are simply ignorant of the fact that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists. I don't think we can know for sure what percentage of Americans fit into this category, especially considering how many people never really think deeper than a puddle about it and just go with the flow of where they come from. I have such a hard time believing that more than 10% of a literate population could be so stupid on so many levels (I am not saying all people who believe in creationism are stupid BTW, I'm talking about people who actually form a full and complete worldview around the tenets of modern Christian fundamentalism. A lot of people are creationists by default 'cause nearly everyone around them is and they just think it is common sense.)

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2007 14:53:36
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  15:04:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Fine post, Marf! I especially liked this part:
The biggest problem with the creation/evolution debate is that it shouldn't be so damned politicized! No plain scientific inquiry about the nature world should be subject to this kind of social and moral controversy.
And to this...
Modern Christian fundamentalism is just so dumb. It is theologically unsophisticated, emotionally immature, and intellectually stunted.
... I would add: And it is politically ambitious, in a really frightening way.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

marty
BANNED

63 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  15:26:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send marty a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

The biggest problem with the creation/evolution debate is that it shouldn't be so damned politicized! No plain scientific inquiry about the nature world should be subject to this kind of social and moral controversy.



I think you are missing a great deal of human history, or is this just wishful thinking.
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  15:32:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marty

I think you are missing a great deal of human history, or is this just wishful thinking.
I assume the use of the word "should" indicates that it is "just wishful thinking." Note that she follows that statement with an example that it is possible.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3733 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  17:23:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Mooner wrote:
... I would add: And it is politically ambitious, in a really frightening way.
Meh. I tend to think that only a few scattered factions though some have a lot of money and political power behind them, and that IS scary! of modern fundamentalist Christianity is politically ambitious. I also tend to think that some of that political ambition, especially among the followers opposed to the leaders, is fueled by fear. After all, the small American towns that support their culture are dying and disappearing, and in the last few decades American culture has become even more secular and progressive than in the preceding century. Just like Muslim extremists, they are reacting defensively because they see their way of life and everything that they value going extinct. That's why they invent contemporary mythos against enemy groups: the gays are destroying marriage, the Liberals are out to destroy decent, simple folk, the godless commies, the Catholics, the list could go on. Nobody is actually intentionally trying to destroy their way of life. Things are just going that way and they so desperately want to know who to blame so they can stop it.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 08/02/2007 17:25:03
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3733 Posts

Posted - 08/02/2007 :  17:27:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
marty wrote:
I think you are missing a great deal of human history, or is this just wishful thinking.
You are going to need to be way more specific than this if you don't want me to start attributing strawman arguments to you. I have a couple guesses of how to interpret this, but I'm not sure, so I don't want to go anywhere yet. Put some meat on dem bones!

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2007 :  20:17:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox


Sometimes I cringe when I think about the fact that 100 is the average IQ.

Why? What's your favourite number?

Did you know that nearly half of people all are less intelligence than the median?

Yes, I am messing with you, a little. Sorry. (a little!)


John's just this guy, you know.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2007 :  21:19:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What really gets my goat is that half of the population has an IQ over 100!


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Zebra
Skeptic Friend

USA
354 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2007 :  21:31:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Zebra a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Modern Christian fundamentalism is just so dumb. It is theologically unsophisticated, emotionally immature, and intellectually stunted. Such people do not have the excuse of living in a tribe in the outback after generations of oppression from invading Westerners. I am clueless as to what their distrust in mainstream science is, so I suspect many of them are simply ignorant of the fact that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists.


Modern science is a slippery slope for them, so their leaders do what they can to limit their exposure to it, & to undermine any controversial areas of science in case the flocks encounter it outside the church. Teach 'em a little science, & they'll stop believing the Bible literally, & from there it's a one-way ticket to HELL for eternity. Which scares the shit out of them.

Living as they do, as if the story they believe in is true, distrusting modern science makes alot of sense for their eternal well-being.

I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney

*some restrictions may apply
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.75 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000