>>18584860
What's with the lit stick of dynamite at the bottom of the panel to the right of the door?

>>18584860
>lying can never not be wrong
nice loaded question, faggit

>>18584863
I never noticed that before. Das crayzayyy.
>>18584867
Non-responsive. Try again?

>>18584860
Lying is wrong when it causes harm to the person being lied to. It can cause them to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't if they had been told the truth. Generally, I wouldn't want to be treated this way so I try not to treat others this way. This is of course just my opinion. Whether it is justified to lie to someone is going to depend on who you ask. For example, if someone asked you your opinion on their new haircut, you could tell them it looks like shit, but you might think telling them that would upset them, so you lie and say it looks fine. Alternatively, you could argue they might not want to look like shit, and would be better served if you told them it looked bad so they don't walk around looking like shit.
Why do you think lying is wrong OP?

>>18584897
>Generally, I wouldn't want to be treated this way so I try not to treat others this way.
So you define morality as treating people the way you want to be treated. Fair?
>Whether it is justified to lie to someone is going to depend on who you ask.
So you don't think there is an objective standard for morality. Fair?
>Why do you think lying is wrong OP?
King James Bible.

>>18584860
Because I don’t like being lied to and as a behaviorally modern human being, I can see that others don’t want to be lied to as well. It’s so strange that religious people seem to think they need an omnipotent hall monitor to be decent people.

>>18584922
>a behaviorally modern human being
So morality is to some degree social convention in your view. Fair?

>>18584930
Yes. Social mores absolutely impact perceptions of morality and ethics.

>>18584934
>>18584922
If morality then is an interplay between what you personally like and what society expects of you, how do you resolve contradictions between those two poles?

>>18584905
>So you define morality as treating people the way you want to be treated. Fair?
I wouldn't define morality that way, I think morality is an internal system people use to determine how they and/or other people should or shouldn't act. My own personal morality is partially based on how I would want to be treated, but also on how I think other people would want to be treated. There are things I find acceptable that people I know don't so I avoid acting in that way around those people. For example, I swear a lot, but I avoid swearing around people who I know are uncomfortable with that.
>So you don't think there is an objective standard for morality. Fair?
Yes. Unless you can demonstrate there is an objective moral standard, subjective morals are all we've got.
>King James Bible.
But this can't be the only reason. Are you bothered when people lie to you? Would it not bother you if the Bible said lying was okay? How would you explain to someone who had no knowledge of the Bible, Christianity, or God as a concept, that they shouldn't lie?

>>18584860
You aren't getting your christian revival gop-bot. Atheists are the biggest nothing burger ever you seethe because they don't follow desert schizo shit from 3000 years ago lmao

>>18584953
>lmao
>>>/trash/
>>18584944
>I think morality is an internal system people use to determine how they and/or other people should or shouldn't act.
Okay. So if someone enjoys lying and doesn't care about the consequences then lying is moral for them. If they are neutral to lying and decide that it's okay to lie selectively to accrue benefits then you can't tell them that lying is categorically wrong. Your morality becomes
>Just do what feels good man
and in fact is completely worthless and not enforceable on a universal basis. Fair?
>>18584944
>But this can't be the only reason.
It is the only reason.
>Are you bothered when people lie to you? Would it not bother you if the Bible said lying was okay?
Sometimes. It would, and that's irrelevant because I don't define morality as "IF IT MAKES ME FEEL BAD IT'S BAD"
>How would you explain to someone who had no knowledge of the Bible, Christianity, or God as a concept, that they shouldn't lie?
I would tell them the Gospel. In fact it's specifically useful in the context of lying since I always use that as an example sin that everyone has committed and for which we deserve to burn.

>>18584964
>you can't tell them that lying is categorically wrong
Well like I said I don't think lying is categorically wrong. Some lies are arguably good. I would go even farther and say in some circumstances lying is the only moral option. Perhaps someone could make an argument about why it is always wrong but I wouldn't.
>and in fact is completely worthless and not enforceable on a universal basis. Fair?
Morality, even in your world view, could only possibly be enforced by either laws or social consequences. Telling someone "actually it's objectively wrong to lie" isn't going to get past the "what if they don't care?" barrier either. And again, you may not like subjective morals but that's all there is unless you can prove otherwise.
>Sometimes. It would, and that's irrelevant because I don't define morality as "IF IT MAKES ME FEEL BAD IT'S BAD"
Why would it bother you? Try to forget the objective right/wrong thing for a second. If the Bible was neutral on lying, you just personally disliked it, would you discourage others from lying? If so, why?
>I would tell them the Gospel. In fact it's specifically useful in the context of lying since I always use that as an example sin that everyone has committed and for which we deserve to burn.
This sounds more like you're just threatening them out of the behavior. Not that I have an issue with this in abstract, laws are themselves essentially threats, I just don't see how this is significantly different. It's not really an argument about why it is wrong to do the thing, just "something bad will happen to you if you do it". It's actually a little bit worse since laws, and even social consequences, can be seen and felt. If they think your stories about men coming back from the dead and burning lakes are fiction, they're left with no reason not to lie.

>>18584987
>I would go even farther and say in some circumstances lying is the only moral option.
You don't believe in morality though. Correct me if I am wrong but I understand you to be saying that morality is something that each person generates internally, and that they don't have to align. If that's true then there is no objective mechanism by which you can argue that something is right or wrong. Therefore there is no morality, just preference.
>Why would it bother you? Try to forget the objective right/wrong thing for a second.
You're an idiot.
>If the Bible was neutral on lying, you just personally disliked it, would you discourage others from lying?
No.
>This sounds more like you're just threatening them out of the behavior.
No, because I'm not trying to convince them to live moral lives in that scenario. I wouldn't expect a brand new saved person to start caring about following God's laws.
>If they think your stories about men coming back from the dead and burning lakes are fiction, they're left with no reason not to lie.
Great, that's not my problem.

>>18584860
Lying isn't always wrong. For example, if your mother asked me if there was any hope for you to get your life together while you were beating off in her basement, I would lie and tell her yes, so she wouldn't blow her brains out.

>>18585005
>You don't believe in morality though.
I feel like it was implied by me saying it that it was my opinion. As in, there are scenarios in which I would think less of a person if they didn't lie.
>If that's true then there is no objective mechanism by which you can argue that something is right or wrong.
You still haven't demonstrated that this exists at all.
>You're an idiot.
>No.
Why not? You said it would bother you, though you mysteriously didn't elaborate on why. There are things I don't necessarily think are morally right/wrong that I would still encourage/discourage people from doing.
>No, because I'm not trying to convince them to live moral lives in that scenario
That's what I asked you though. How would you convince them it's wrong? If your answer is "I wouldn't" then I don't know what we're talking about. I can make an argument to that person about why they shouldn't, which they may or may not accept. You seem to be telling me you can't and you wouldn't even try. How valuable are your morals if they cannot be taught or even communicated?
>Great, that's not my problem.
I appreciate that your gimmick is to be as aggressive and offputting on this topic as possible. Assuming you are not engaged in a weird long form of trolling to make Christians look bad(something I am increasingly thinking is likely), and to round all this out, I don't think this behavior is morally wrong, but I do think it makes you unpleasant and would encourage you to stop.

a society where everyone lied about everything would have uncountable problems and inefficiencies, therefore it's probably advisable to tell the truth unless doing so would somehow put you in danger

File: Every-lie-we-tell-incurs-(...).jpg (152 KB, 720x405)

152 KB JPG

>>18584860

>>18584860
I find that to lie is to tell a story that is untrue and therefore denying reality which is bad for you. Everyone should accept reality.

File: Humanitys-greatest-weapon(...).jpg (73 KB, 720x405)

73 KB JPG

>Human beings rely on lies to survive. We lie to our enemies. We lie to our friends. We lie to ourselves. Lying is among the most sophisticated task a brain can perform.

>>18584937
Thought? Morality is complex. Some of the most fraught judgments people are forced to make are those that come from a conflict between social norms and personal values. People have died and killed over these conflicts. I’m fortunate in that the worst I’ve had to deal with are petty social sanctions when I’ve had such a conflict. Incidentally as an atheist, I still think that philosophy of doing unto others as I would have them do unto me is a solid foundation for resolving those conflicts.

Christians think telling lies for Jesus is okay

>>18584860
Christians: why do you lie through your teeth every single day when you claim you will burn forever in hell fire for doing so.

>>18584873
A 3 year old has a fungating brain tumor. In 2 weeks it will get so bad that even the most advanced painkillers won't be able to help. After that the 3 year olds life will be nothing but agony and nausea and puking until they eventually expire.

Do you tell the 3 year old all this or do you tell them they're going to be fine?

Christians, without appealing to consequences like God hurting me forever, or me being denied eternal blisss, etc

Why shouldn't I lie?

>>18584860
You need honesty to make cooperation possible.

>>18585096
I never understood how people think that lying somehow makes it better. There are things that people may want to do when they know that they are about to die.

>>18585150
You reckon 3 year old is going to cash out their 401k and take that big blowout vacation to Vegas they always wanted?

>>18584860
People will trust you less if you tend to lie.

>>18585153
How does lying make it any better.

>>18585220
>How does not telling a 3 year old they're going to suffer immensely with nothing to ease their pain until they die in agony make things better?

>>18585389
So you would rather they be surprised and and feel betrayed?

File: illusions3.jpg (17 KB, 420x215)

17 KB JPG

>>18584860
>Atheists: Why is lying wrong?
It isn't. Deception is how civilization was founded.

"After providing several illustrations of this claim, [Adam] Smith takes up the example of the ‘poor man’s son’ who, ‘enchanted with the distant idea of’ great wealth, sets himself to significant labor and anxiety in order to distinguish himself from others and to acquire the goods that he so desires. Yet at the end of life, with ‘his body wasted with toil and diseases, his mind galled and ruffled’ he discovers that the goods for which he has sacrificed ‘are mere trinkets of frivolous utility’ that produce no tranquility or happiness (TMS IV.1.8). It also turns out that the recognition of spectators, whose very attention appealed so greatly to this ‘poor man’s son’, focuses less on the utility of the goods produced than on ‘the numberless artificial and elegant contrivances for promoting this ease or pleasure’ (TMS IV.1.8). The moral that Smith draws is that we tend to construe the pleasing fit or contrivance of means to end as if it were the pleasure of the end product. But, he adds, this ‘deception’ serves an important purpose: it ‘rouses and keeps in continual motion the industry of mankind’ (TMS IV.1.10). ==This ‘deception’ has motivated the founding of cities== and the development of knowledge and industry, brought distant lands into communication, and developed agriculture so that ever greater numbers can be supported."


Also, heuristics (pic related). Suboptimal oversimplification helps you lessen cognitive strain on your brain.
Like, if instead of carefully scrutinizing everything, you just believed in some Sky Daddy's decrees from some book of ancient jewish fables. It *might* even be a workable strategy in a stable unchanging environment (be a bugman, follow the instructions, don't think too much: you don't need no brain to survive and multiply)

Also, placebo effect.

>This pamphlet is blank
apophatic theology much?

>>18584860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya#Parable_of_the_burning_house

>>18584860
Society can't function very well with wide spread dishonesty. One of the reasons why religions are bad.

>>18585429
>Society can't function very well with wide spread dishonesty
-"Hello, how are you/how's your day?"
-"[begins honestly describing exactly the sequence of events, instead of 'fine, thank you']"


-"Do I look pretty in this dress, Chud?"
-"I think, that you are a fat ugly cow."

>>18585433
First example isn't a matter of honesty or dishonesty because the phrases have different meanings than their face value. It's a translation issue.

Are you dating a fat ugly cow?

>>18585433
>-"Hello, how are you/how's your day?"
-"[begins honestly describing exactly the sequence of events, instead of 'fine, thank you']"
A good majority of people would enjoy listening to what another person has to say. You're just an introverted autistic retard

>>18584860
My neighbor has a nice car and a pretty wife. When he leaves for work tomorrow I'm going to have sex with his wife and take his car.

File: rebellious-bird.jpg (35 KB, 720x876)

35 KB JPG

>>18584860
>Atheists: Why is lying wrong?
You tell me. Why is lying wrong? Because YHWH said so? I don't think "lying is wrong" is generally true. It's a contextual matter.

>>18585433
>It's fine to lie about some things but not some other things
woooooooooow

>>18585393
So youd rather then spend their last days in abject terror as well as pain?

>>18584860
Lying is generally considered to be wrong because it is deceptive, antisocial behavior that tends to have worse outcomes than honest, prosocial behavior. There are of course situations where lying can be permissible but as a rule of thumb it is a bad thing.

>>18585712
>Lying is generally considered to be wrong because it is deceptive, antisocial behavior that tends to have worse outcomes than honest, prosocial behavior.
No, it's generally considered to be wrong because """prosocial""" """""people"""""" (aka normies) lie through their teeth constantly but they do not like being lied to.

>>18585736
Your frustration with normal people is completely irrelevant to my argument.

>>18585746
You didn't make an argument, you just made a false claim. Normies lie too frequently and with too much ease to have a genuine belief that lying is wrong. They just think lying to THEM is wrong, even in situations where misleading them leads to a better social outcome.

>>18585633
>terror
That is their choice to make. They can easily come to terms and accept it

>>18585749
>Normies lie too frequently and with too much ease
You have proof of your wild claim?

>>18585749
I did make an argument. My stance is that lying is generally wrong because it's antisocial behavior which leads to worse outcomes compared to prosocial behavior. The fact that some people may lie with varying levels of frequency or severity is completely irrelevant.

>>18585754
>My stance is that lying is generally wrong because it's antisocial behavior which leads to worse outcomes compared to prosocial behavior.
That's just your dubious opinion and it's also distinct from the claim "generally considered to be wrong because..."

>>18584860
Consistent behaviors over time provide benefits. When people are trustworthy you can depend on them. If someone isn’t you can’t. If you want to work together as a group to achieve more than you could on your own then you should be trustworthy and be able to trust other people, Nothing is perfect and the world isn’t either.

>>18585751
Normalgroids go nuts when you catch them lying. It's so satisfying. :^)

>>18585755
Of course I am arguing for my opinion, why would I argue for someone else's? What makes my opinion dubious?
>and it's also distinct from the claim "generally considered to be wrong because..."
When I say generally I mean it is wrong in most, average, general cases. I'm not arguing that I am correct because I think the general population reasons this way, though if you pressed them on it then they would probably have a similar opinion.

>>18585768
Then why did you take the care you change your statement? From "X is generally considered to be wrong because..." to "I consider X to be generally wrong because..."? Clearly, you understand that these are two different claims with different implications.

>>18585779
>Then why did you take the care you change your statement?
To clarify my position.
>Clearly, you understand that these are two different claims with different implications.
Clearly not, since I had to make the clarification. Now that you hopefully understand my position better, what is dubious about it?

>>18585756
That doesn't tell me anything about why lying is wrong. At most, it implies I should avoid liars and avoid getting caught lying.

>>18584953
the world was much better when we could stone unbelievers. daily reminder atheist goytoy Alex O'Connor backed down from a group of Muslims.

>>18585757
I notice this too

>>18584860
I bet you don't know either. Let me explain to you why lying is wrong:

If you lie, you're defending yourself against truth, and if you do that, you'll not be able to recognize truth; you'll be deluded thinking this world is reality.

>>18585785
>Clearly not
Normies literally can't stop lying.

>what is dubious about it?
For starters, "X is wrong because it's antisocial" or "X is wrong because it leads to worse outcomes" are both nonsequiturs.

Now, the definition of prosocial behavior is:
>intended to help or benefit another person or group
Many prosocial people lie with the intention of helping society. Take any institution, cause or ideology with 'social' in its title and good intentions at its core and you will find a bunch of shameless and highly motivated liars.

If there is no negative consequences to tell a lie, and I want to do it

Why shouldn't I lie?
Christians and atheists both feel free to answer

>>18585805
If you keep repeating falsehoods you start to believe them yourself. But that is a negative consequence, so whatever. Your hypothetical sucks.

>>18585805
>If there is no negative consequences to tell a lie, and I want to do it
>Why shouldn't I lie?
Because you're too stupid to actually tell apart this hypothetical scenario from real life situations (where lying almost always has negative consequences) so you better stay on the safe side.

>>18585810
>>18585810
>If you keep repeating falsehoods you start to believe them yourself.
Retarded normie projecting (and he DID have breakfast).

>>18584897
Lying is always wrong by the morality of God.

>>18585810
>>18585813
Cool, so it's the consequences that makes it bad, not the lie
Lying itself is irrelevant, could be any action, as long there are consequences we dislike

>lying almost always has negative consequences
empirical claim, what's the evidence for this?

>>18584922
When a lie really benefits you I don't see why you would justify not saying it of you're your own morality. But when you fear the rigtheous God then you will not lie even if it greatly benefit you doing it at that moment.

>>18585821
Why should I care that God dislikes lying?

>>18585822
>so it's the consequences that makes it bad, not the lie
That's neither stated nor implied. My point was simply that theory and practice diverge even if your consequentialist thinking is accepted.

>>18585799
>Normies literally can't stop lying.
Is immoral behavior no longer immoral if people engage in it? Are there not degrees of immorality, influenced by the consequences of actions and intent of actors? Someone saying "yeah you look great" despite not thinking so when asked by their friend if they look good in their new clothes is completely different than "I intentionally made someone wait out in the raid for an hour because I constantly kept stalling them about a date I never had any intentions of showing up for"
>For starters, "X is wrong because it's antisocial" or "X is wrong because it leads to worse outcomes" are both nonsequiturs.
I don't see how they are. I think it's self-evident that both personal relationships and society as a whole benefits if people are generally honest in important matters. If I ask my partner if they turned off the oven before leaving our apartment then I want a truthful answer. If I enter into a contract with someone I want them to uphold their end of their bargain and they want me to uphold my end of the bargain.
>Many prosocial people lie with the intention of helping society. Take any institution, cause or ideology with 'social' in its title and good intentions at its core and you will find a bunch of shameless and highly motivated liars.
Can you provide a concrete example of this?

>>18585824
Because he is the one who will decide if you live or you die, if you get to have eternal joy or eternal suffering.

>>18585831
>Is immoral behavior no longer immoral if people engage in it?
What do you know about moral behavior? Lying is so ingrained in your normalgroid psyche you tried lying to me right off the bat and didn't even notice it.

>I don't see
>I think it's self-evident
Not an argument.

>Can you provide a concrete example of this?
There's no need to. They are so plentiful and so accessible that if you can't think of them yourself, you are simply one of those people.

>>18584860
lying = confusion = chaos = instability = suffering

>>18585834
This is not morality. This is carrot and stick

>>18585826
Okay. So answer my original question without talking about consequences
I already told you there were no consequence

>>18585835
>What do you know about moral behavior?
Asking this is relevant how?
>Lying is so ingrained in your normalgroid psyche you tried lying to me right off the bat and didn't even notice it.
How do you know whether that was a lie or simply someone (perhaps someone who does not speak English as their primary language) unintentionally phrasing something in a confusing manner? I made an effort to clarify my position afterwards, as I continue to do despite your hostility.
>Not an argument.
Ok.
>There's no need to. They are so plentiful and so accessible that if you can't think of them yourself, you are simply one of those people.
They're so plentiful and accessible but you can't give me a single one?

>>18584860
>Atheists: Why is lying wrong?

"Right" and "wrong" are human perceptions that only mean something to human beings. Lying is percieved as "wrong" because it disrupts the human social fabric. One has an interest in not lying because it's in the interest of every human to live in a functioning society.

>>18585834
How do you know this lmao.

>>18585865
Because holy prophets have been warning us for thousands of years to be afraid of the God who hates evil and has sworn by his own name that by no means will be ever let the wicked go unpunished.

>>18585841
You were born a few dacades ago, you do not understand morality better than the One who has been alive forever.

>>18585845
>How do you know whether that was a lie
Because when I pointed out that you made two different statements (without specifying the difference), you didn't need any elaboration. You understood immediately and went like "well, of course I was only speaking for myself (but I think everyone agrees with me, by the way)". Your social tumor literally hijacked your brain in the middle of your lie, causing you to reaffirm the implications of your initial statement (that your opinion is the social consensus) while trying to disown it. Normalgroid psychology is nuts.

Either way, I just don't care about your trite virtue signalling. Personally, I have no qualms about lying to people I'm not involved with, about things that don't concern them, when I know they'll exact a toll on me for being given the truth the supposedly wanted. I'm antisocial at the core and I enjoy conflict, so I used to tell just about anyone the truth about whatever they wanted to know, but this attitude causes more trouble than it's worth in polite society. Lying is the prosocial thing to do. Lying is expected. If you think that's "wrong", go ahead and prove it, faggot.

>>18585872
God isn't real, buddy, he hasn't been alive forever.

>>18584860
>OP: Why is lying wrong?
>Replies: Um, it isn't. How dare you.
lmao I guess you owe that "book of lies" an apology then, geniuses. Atheism really is a contrarian ideology.

>>18585873
>Because when I pointed out that you made two different statements (without specifying the difference), you didn't need any elaboration. You understood immediately and went like "well, of course I was only speaking for myself (but I think everyone agrees with me, by the way)". Your social tumor literally hijacked your brain in the middle of your lie, causing you to reaffirm the implications of your initial statement (that your opinion is the social consensus) while trying to disown it. Normalgroid psychology is nuts.
I never did this. There were never two different statements, feel free to provide proof of it.
>I'm antisocial at the core and I enjoy conflict, so I used to tell just about anyone the truth about whatever they wanted to know, but this attitude causes more trouble than it's worth in polite society.
If you enjoy conflict and your attitude caused trouble then why not continue it? Are you afraid?

>>18585887
>I never did this.

Are the following posts yours?
>>18585712
>Lying is generally considered to be wrong

>>18585754
> My stance is that lying is generally wrong

>>18585768
>Of course I am arguing for my opinion, why would I argue for someone else's?
>the general population [...] if you pressed them on it then they would probably have a similar opinion

>>18585896
I am only two of those posts, are you sure you're responding to the right person?

>>18585900
Then why did the "other" poster disappear and why are you filling in for him? Normalgroids are legit mentally ill when it comes to getting caught lying.

>>18585902
In what way was I filling in? Our arguments were completely separate, no? Read through them again.

>>18585906
Thanks for demonstrating my point. If someone uses the word "social" with positive connotations, it's most likely some kind of scumfuck. If they use the word "prosocial" unironically, they're almost guaranteed to be suffering from NPD/BPD/sociopathy.

>>18585910
I never used the word "prosocial", what the fuck are you even talking about?

>>18585757
So no proof that normies lie 100% of the time? Gotcha

>>18585822
>empirical claim
Just like your claim that all normies always lie

>>18585919
>So no proof that normies lie 100% of the time?
Quote where I said normies lie 100% of the time. I like how you can't even respond without immediately lying about what I wrote.

>>18585916
>amateur normie gaslighting and kvetching
Either way, I just don't care about your trite virtue signalling. Personally, I have no qualms about lying to people I'm not involved with, about things that don't concern them, when I know they'll exact a toll on me for being given the truth the supposedly wanted. I'm antisocial at the core and I enjoy conflict, so I used to tell just about anyone the truth about whatever they wanted to know, but this attitude causes more trouble than it's worth in polite society. Lying is the prosocial thing to do. Lying is expected. If you think that's "wrong", go ahead and prove it, faggot.

>>18585930
Your post got all messed up, you accidentally just copy pasted a part of this >>18585873 post.

>>18585876
May he allow you to know him.

>>18585938
There is nothing accidental about it. It's the bottom line for this entire discussion and those who disagree with it are entitled, hypocritical liars (aka normalgroids).

>>18585945
You can disregard the other guy posting, I don't know why he decided to impersonate me.
>Lying is the prosocial thing to do. Lying is expected. If you think that's "wrong", go ahead and prove it, faggot.
If you buy a car from someone and sign a contract with them to exchange X amount of dollars in exchange for the car is the expected, mutually beneficial outcome for both parties to lie to each other and do their best to prevent the deal that they both want to take place from taking place?

>>18585955
>If you buy a car from someone and sign a contract with them to exchange X amount of dollars in exchange for the car is the expected, mutually beneficial outcome for both parties to lie to each other and do their best to prevent the deal that they both want to take place from taking place?
Notice how your deeply ingrained normalgroid lying instinct caused you to quote a small fragment of my post, present it out of context and then pretend you're "refuting" me with a completely irrelevant counterexample.

>>18585973
Where did I do that? I refuted your examples point by point.

>>18585978
>I refuted your examples
What examples? Quote them. I'm starting to think you're a genuine psychotic patient.

>>18585981
>What examples?
You can't even remember your own arguments?
>Quote them.
I have, twice. I won't do it again.
>I'm starting to think you're a genuine psychotic patient.
Ad hominem, and right back at you.

>>18585985
>retarded normalgroid is genuinely losing it
Good. Moving on.

>>18585930
>I have no qualms about lying to people I'm not involved with, about things that don't concern them, when I know they'll exact a toll on me for being given the truth the supposedly wanted.
This. It's usually the people who whine about muh morality and demand that you be truthful with them who constantly create incentives for lying

>>18585750
>The 3 year old can just come to terms that she's going to die in agony in a few weeks

>>18585821
This goes back to the same question I asked the previous Anon
>Are you bothered when people lie to you? Would it not bother you if the Bible said lying was okay? How would you explain to someone who had no knowledge of the Bible, Christianity, or God as a concept, that they shouldn't lie?
And just to avoid repeating things, "God will punish you for it" isn't really a reason why it's wrong to do it, just why it might be unwise to do it. At that point whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

>>18585988
>anon discovers that the outcome isn't to his liking if one person decides to be intentionally dishonest instead of exchanging accurate information in a good faith attempt to reach a common understanding
So is lying generally good or bad :^)

>>18585096
>A 3 year old has a fungating brain tumor. In 2 weeks it will get so bad that even the most advanced painkillers won't be able to help. After that the 3 year olds life will be nothing but agony and nausea and puking until they eventually expire.
>Do you tell the 3 year old all this or do you tell them they're going to be fine?
If the kid is fine right now, it's not gonna ask me about two weeks from now, so I don't tell it anything. Easy peasy. If they're already dying in agony, I don't think it matters a whole lot what I say one way or another.

>>18586022
>i'm hearing voices
Tell your tard wrangler.

>>18586025
So you lie by omission?

>>18586031
Are you lying by omission by failing to tell me which psychiatric hospital you're posting from?

>>18586028
For real though you should chill, it's not healthy to become so unreasonably mad at trivial things. You seem to harbor a lot of anger, frustration and resentment.

>>18586039
>the voices are getting angrier
That's concerning. Ask your tardwrangler to up your dosage.

>all these eChristians who lie every single Historical Evidence for Jesus thread, talking about how bad lying is

>>18586034
>if you think it's bad you tell a 3 year old she's going to die squealing and there's nothing to stop it, you're mentally ill

>Lying is wrong.
>Also Paul said I don't have to follow Torah law so I can eat pork whenever I want.
Enjoy burning fake christians.

>>18586063
If you're not mentally ill, why are you addressing that incoherent word salad to me when I'm simply pointing out your retarded false dichotomy?

Literally all of Christianity is lies.

>>18585043
>You still haven't demonstrated that this exists at all.
True, and irrelevant.
>Why not?
Because I don't think it would do anything. I would ostracize them instead.
>>18585047
>>18585429
Am I correct to understand that you think morality can be defined as that which makes society efficient?
>>18585055
That's a statement, not an argument.
>>18585061
>Everyone should accept reality.
Why?
>>18585094
>Christians think telling lies for Jesus is okay
Lying / Adhominem. Not an argument.
>>18585177
So am I correct to understand that you are defining "right" as that which accrues resources such as social capital to oneself? And "wrong" is that which is deleterious?

>>18586126
Maybe learn what "ad hominem" means before having debates with grown-ups, okay?

>>18586143
Your brain is worthless. I recommend you kill yourself.

>>18586014
A dog doesn't have to understand why he can't shit on the carpet, he just has to trust his master when he tells him not to. If a dog is in charge of his own morality he would bark all night, all your shoes and bite everyone around him. And in his mind he has done nothing wrong.

Your morality is light-years behind God's. By obeying the Wisest One one becomes wise ourselves. You will never understand what is right end wrong, you just have to trust the one who does.

>>18584860
Mystical spirit beings told me so in dreams

>>18586126
>Am I correct to understand that you think morality can be defined as that which makes society efficient?
Nah, the basic requirement for a moral system is that it creates a society that works at all. That's not trivial.

Once you got that far you can talk about creating a system that enables people to flourish in terms of health, intellectually and "pursue happiness", reproduce to keep the system going and all of that. Some efficiency would be nice-to-have.

>>18586155
Damn, THAT was enough to make the christcuck give up on arguments?

>>18586270
See >>18586155

>>18586224
I'm repeating myself a bit because you're going through all the same motions as the previous guy. Are you saying "There is an entity that doesn't want you to lie and he will harm you if you do" should be a sufficient reason not to lie to someone who has never heard of the Bible or God, and you would just give up on them if they said "well I don't believe you"?
You also didn't answer if it would bother you if someone lied to you, and if it would still bother you if the Bible was neutral on the subject.
The dog analogy is kind of strange. I understand why it would be appealing to a Christian, but the reality is human brains can actually have things explained to them in a way a dog can't. You can give reasons to a person as to why they should or shouldn't do things, whether those reasons are for their own self interest, societal benefit, an appeal to empathy, or something else. Every atheist in this thread has given an explanation as to why they think lying is or isn't wrong, while the Christians say "it just is" and then hem and haw when pressed to elaborate. I am not asking you how God would justify why lying is bad, I am asking how you would justify it if you had to convince someone not to do it. If your answer is in fact "I'd tell them about God and let them figure it out" that's fine, I just(another repeat here) don't know how you think your morality has value if you can't teach it to people.

>>18586301
You're two steps above a dog and the Most High is a billion steps above the gods who are a billion steps above you.

The God who fixed the stars in the skies and put limits to he ocean said lying is wrong, that's all a smart person need to know to consider lying wrong.

A humble person will accept that something is correct even if they don't see how because they don't believe to have the most superior intellect. But the proud will not accept the truth if they cannot understand it because they think so highly of themselves that if offends their ego that the truth can be so beyond their comprehension.

They think God just just a superman and they're not that infeiror to him. A thousand years before th creation started God had already prophecied exactly how it ended. And there's trillions of angles and holy ones in heaven who have been witnessing him being correct time and time again.

God says so it's the most valid of reasons to believe something.

>>18585823
Because it’s harmful to someone else? Empathy. The ability to identify with or understand another's situation or feelings. I do not need a supervisor threatening me with revenge to refrain from harming another person through deception. It’s somewhat concerning that you seem to have no compunction against hurting others for personal gain so long as you are not held accountable. Is that normal for god botherers? If you didn’t believe that someone was watching you, would you steal the cancer treatment charity jar stores sometimes have? I’ve been in the position to steal money like that. I didn’t do it because it would hurt people, not because I’d be punished.

>>18586085
>not telling a 3 year old she's going to die squealing in a few days is incoherent word salad

>>18586387
Perhaps God should show himself so we know that he exists before people like you posit that texts written in the far past are an objective measure of morality. Again, if i don't believe in God since I can't see any convincing evidence for his existence, your argument of "Follow the rules written in this book because a cosmic entity will punish you if you don't, and if you try to think for yourself, don't bother, as this cosmic entity is unfathomable in his insight and wisdom, so you should blindly follow everything written here"

>>18587053
A moral man can remain moral before 90% of temptations, but only a god- fearing man can face the 10% of temptations crafted by Satan himself to make you fall.

Sure you can pass many an opportunities to not steal money, but if Satan puts you in a dire situation when you're desperately in need and smack you around a bit so that you're angry and disappointed in life and have your empathy depleted, and then puts you in front of $1000 dollars from someone you don't like very much, only the fear of God can make you remain in your integrity and rather continue suffering than to steal it.

And I'm not saying this as someone who is completely God fearing and has never fallen or lied or stolen something, cause I have. But as someone who has been made to understand through painful falls why my will power is not enough and I need God to remain standing.


Empathy can make you good enough in your own eyes but only God can make you perfectly blameless in his.

>>18587102
God is wise enough to know that those who refuse to believe him are doing so out of pride and malice and not out of genuine ignorance.

>>18587053
>Because it’s harmful to someone else? Empathy.
"Devise me, then, the love which not only beareth all punishment, but also all guilt!
Devise me, then, the justice which acquitteth every one except the judge!
And would ye hear this likewise? To him who seeketh to be just from the heart, even the lie becometh philanthropy."

>The ability to identify with or understand
"The entire economy of my soul and the balance effected by 'misfortune', the breaking open of new springs and needs, the healing of old wounds, the shedding of entire periods of the past - all such things that can be involved in misfortune do not concern the dear compassionate one: they want to *help* and have no thought that there is a personal necessity of misfortune; that terrors, deprivations, impoverishments, midnights, adventures, risks, and blunders are as necessary for me and you as their opposites; indeed, to express myself mystically, that the path to one's own heaven always leads through the voluptuousness of one's own hell. No, they know nothing of that: the 'religion of compassion' (or 'the heart') commands them to help, and they believe they have helped best when they have helped most quickly! Should you adherents to this religion really have the same attitude towards yourselves that you have towards your fellow men; should you refuse to let your suffering lie on you even for an hour and instead constantly prevent all possible misfortune ahead of time; should you experience suffering and displeasure as evil, hateful, deserving of annihilation, as a defect of existence, then you have besides your religion of pity also another religion in your hearts; and the latter is perhaps the mother of the former - *the religion of snug cosiness*. Oh, how little do you know of the *happiness* of man, you comfortable and good-natured ones! For happiness and misfortune are two siblings and twins who either grow up together or - as with you - *remain small* together!"

>>18585823
>But when you fear the rigtheous God then you will not lie even if
"'Only when you repent does God have mercy on you' - to a Greek, that is an object of ridicule and an annoyance; he would say, 'Maybe slaves feel that way.' What is here being presupposed is a being who is powerful, supremely powerful and yet enjoys revenge: his power is so great that no harm whatsoever can be done unto him except in matters of honour. Every sin is an injury of respect, a *crimen laesae majestatis divinae* - and nothing further! Feeling spiritually crushed, degraded, wallowing in the dust - that is the first and last condition of his grace; in sum, restoration of his divine honour! Whether the sin has done any other harm; whether it has planted some deep, growing calamity that seizes and strangles one person after another like a disease; this honour-craving Oriental couldn't care less: sin is an assault on him, not on humanity! He gives those to whom he grants his grace also this same nonchalance about the natural consequences of sin. God and humanity are here conceived as so separate and opposite that there can basically be no sin against humanity - every deed is supposed to be considered *only with respect to its supernatural consequences*, not with respect to its natural consequences; that is what Jewish feeling, to which everything natural is indignity itself, demands. The Greeks, by contrast, were closer to the thought that even sacrilege can have dignity - even theft, as in the case of Prometheus; even the slaughter of cattle as the expression of an insane envy, as in the case of Ajax: in their need to incorporate into and devise some dignity for sacrilege, they invented
*tragedy* - an art form and a pleasure that has remained utterly and profoundly foreign to the Jew, despite all his poetic talent and inclination towards the sublime. "

>>18587136
How do you know this?

>>18587192
By you become aquatinted with his word long enough you start to know him.

>>18587252
Translation: muh feefees

>>18587268
>Translation: muh feefees
"The relation between Protestantism and esotericism is quite peculiar. On the one hand, there can be no doubt that due to their insistence on strict biblicism and the absolute exclusivity of the Christian revelation, Protestants have often been far more extreme in their rejection of pagan heresies’ and the alleged dangers of ‘the occult’ than their Roman Catholic counterparts. But on the other hand, it is precisely in Protestant - more precisely, Lutheran - contexts that the most creative innovations in Western esotericism during the early modern period have taken place. There are reasons for this. <...> Roman Catholics tended to think in terms of ‘Tradition’: the venerable truths of Christianity had already been anticipated in the inspired writings of ‘pagan’ sages far before the birth of Christ <...> For Protestants, however, such an essentially conservative approach had become highly problematic, because **the very authority of ‘Tradition’ as a source of true knowledge had been called into question by the events of the Reformation. The true Christian message had been corrupted at least since the institution of the Papacy <...> If the very Tradition of Christianity had lost its authority for Christians, and its self-appointed custodians had been unmasked as deceivers leading the deceived, then where should one look for the truth instead? There could be only one answer: one needed to turn to God himself.

One way of doing so was by focusing on the Bible.<...>
A second way one could listen to God directly was through personal religious experience.
A third way towards knowing God’s will <...> that we nowadays tend to associate with esotericism. Inspired by alchemical models <...> Paracelsus, the Book of Nature’ came to be seen as a major source of knowledge next to the other book, the Bible. God revealed himself <...> also through a mysterious language of ‘signatures’ inscribed in the natural world."

>>18587252
Walk me through it
How did you come to know that other people are not ignorant of God, but deny him out of malice?

>>18587274
God is just and fair. Those who are genuinely ignorant of him and are humble about it find his compassion and he reveals himself to them. The proud resist him because they think they know better than him and hate what he stands for. They love sin and hate being corrected and told they're wrong. So they rather deny he exist despite his existence being obvious.

>>18587281
>God is just and fair. Those who are genuinely ignorant of him and are humble about it find his compassion and he reveals himself to them. The proud resist him because they think they know better than him and hate what he stands for. They love sin and hate being corrected and told they're wrong. So they rather deny he exist despite his existence being obvious.
How do you know any of this?

>>18587055
Notice how your severe psychotic illness causes you to hallucinate things that weren't stated or implied anywhere.

>>18587282
>>>> >>18587252

>>18587282
>How do you know any of this?
Personal religious experience. Try fasting, sleep deprivation and other ascetic practices. Seek signs.

>>18587291
No thanks hon, I don't have time to spend becoming aquatinted with the words of some old Jewish desert religion. If you can't directly point out how you know any of this then I'm just going to assume you're a raving schizo like all the other homeless people who try to get me to believe in things I can't know or see.

>>18587292
>Try fasting, sleep deprivation and other ascetic practices


>Try putting your body in a state that it will start hallucinating and giving you paranoid delusions. This is surely a good way to find the truth!

Christians are truly the most retarded people on earth right after mudslimes

>>18587295
That's fine with me.

>>18584860
Because trust is easier to destroy than build, and societies where trust is the norm are more pleasant to exist in for the law abiding, and ironically, easier to exploit for the less so.

That's a purely practical reason to encourage people not to lie, beyond ruining their own personal reputation.

>>18584863
the authors faith makes him crave violence

>>18587281
Did God tell you this?
Or did a person tell you, maybe you read it somewhere?

>>18587272
All that yapping and zero attempt at proving "those who refuse to believe him are doing so out of pride and malice." 2000 years worth of the best theologians btw.

>>18587608
Viper

>>18587631
Larper

>>18585929
Still waiting for proof about then lying. Where is the peer reviewed study hmm?

>>18584860
chaos

>>18585869
You didn’t answer the question

File: 1783384932309811.jpg (199 KB, 1024x904)

199 KB JPG

>>18584953
>Atheists are the biggest nothing burger ever
>looks at Marxist history, french revolution, etc.

>>18586062

>>18586001
if a child is dying of course you fucking tell them. who the FUCK wouldnt? its barbarous to just lie to them even if they cant understand it. YOU TELL THEM. fucking hell i hate lefty scum

>>18587302
non religious people have no reason to live. kill yourself with an overdose of heroin scumbag you are a fucking dead end for humanity