Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Immanuel Can]

What's absurd is to think that beliefs that differ from reality are not lies. What's really absurd is to allow lies about the very most important matters that exist.

Lie: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

Here's a different view, from Thomas L. Carson, philosopher, and author of "Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice." (2010)

a lie is a deliberate false statement that the speaker warrants to be true. Two features of this definition are noteworthy. First, contrary to most standard definitions, it argues that lying does not require that the liar intends to deceive others. (The chapter appeals to cases in which one is compelled or enticed to make false statements, cases of lying in which one can benefit by making false statements even if they do not deceive others, and cases of bald‐faced lies in which the liar knows that others know she is lying and therefore has no hope or intention of deceiving them.) Second, the chapter holds that in order to tell a lie, one must make a statement that one warrants to be true. According to the definition, any lie violates an implicit promise or guarantee that what one says is true. The definition makes sense of the common view that lying involves a breach of trust. To lie, on this view, is to invite others to trust and rely on what one says by warranting its truth, and at the same time to betray that trust by making a false statement that one does not believe to be true.

So it seems you're not quoting a universally-accepted definition. And like Carson, I think the important aspect of a lie is its departure from truth. The intention of the liar is a secondary matter, and not necessary to the thing, in itself, being a lie.

Here, we separate between liar and lie. Becoming a liar requires intent: but telling or spreading a lie does not. The former is a character judgment; the latter is a statement of fact.

So if I tell you that you take the train to Washington to get to Brighton, even if I believe I'm telling you the truth, you are going to end up in Washington. And you will have been deceived, regardless of my intention. The thing you have believed turned out to be a lie: that it fooled both of us doesn't make it less a lie.

[Alexiev]

What's absurd is to think that beliefs that differ from reality are not lies. What's really absurd is to allow lies about the very most important matters that exist.

Lie: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

Here's a different view, from Thomas L. Carson, philosopher, and author of "Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice." (2010)

a lie is a deliberate false statement that the speaker warrants to be true. Two features of this definition are noteworthy. First, contrary to most standard definitions, it argues that lying does not require that the liar intends to deceive others. (The chapter appeals to cases in which one is compelled or enticed to make false statements, cases of lying in which one can benefit by making false statements even if they do not deceive others, and cases of bald‐faced lies in which the liar knows that others know she is lying and therefore has no hope or intention of deceiving them.) Second, the chapter holds that in order to tell a lie, one must make a statement that one warrants to be true. According to the definition, any lie violates an implicit promise or guarantee that what one says is true. The definition makes sense of the common view that lying involves a breach of trust. To lie, on this view, is to invite others to trust and rely on what one says by warranting its truth, and at the same time to betray that trust by making a false statement that one does not believe to be true.

So it seems you're not quoting a universally-accepted definition. And like Carson, I think the important aspect of a lie is its departure from truth. The intention of the liar is a secondary matter, and not necessary to the thing, in itself, being a lie.

Here, we separate between liar and lie. Becoming a liar requires intent: but telling or spreading a lie does not. The former is a character judgment; the latter is a statement of fact.

So if I tell you that you take the train to Washington to get to Brighton, even if I believe I'm telling you the truth, you are going to end up in Washington. And you will have been deceived, regardless of my intention. The thing you have believed turned out to be a lie: that it fooled both of us doesn't make it less a lie.

Ok, Humpty Dumpty. However, if we don't accept standard definitions, communication becomes impossible.

For example, I would not consider your profession of Chrisrian faith to be a "lie". But you obviously wish it to be true. So if it is false (as is likely), then by your definition, it is a lie. I suppose you want to consider all religions but your own "lies". That is uncharitable, obnoxious, and demands an idiosyncratic definition of "lie".

[Immanuel Can]

Lie: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

Here's a different view, from Thomas L. Carson, philosopher, and author of "Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice." (2010)

a lie is a deliberate false statement that the speaker warrants to be true. Two features of this definition are noteworthy. First, contrary to most standard definitions, it argues that lying does not require that the liar intends to deceive others. (The chapter appeals to cases in which one is compelled or enticed to make false statements, cases of lying in which one can benefit by making false statements even if they do not deceive others, and cases of bald‐faced lies in which the liar knows that others know she is lying and therefore has no hope or intention of deceiving them.) Second, the chapter holds that in order to tell a lie, one must make a statement that one warrants to be true. According to the definition, any lie violates an implicit promise or guarantee that what one says is true. The definition makes sense of the common view that lying involves a breach of trust. To lie, on this view, is to invite others to trust and rely on what one says by warranting its truth, and at the same time to betray that trust by making a false statement that one does not believe to be true.

So it seems you're not quoting a universally-accepted definition. And like Carson, I think the important aspect of a lie is its departure from truth. The intention of the liar is a secondary matter, and not necessary to the thing, in itself, being a lie.

Here, we separate between liar and lie. Becoming a liar requires intent: but telling or spreading a lie does not. The former is a character judgment; the latter is a statement of fact.

So if I tell you that you take the train to Washington to get to Brighton, even if I believe I'm telling you the truth, you are going to end up in Washington. And you will have been deceived, regardless of my intention. The thing you have believed turned out to be a lie: that it fooled both of us doesn't make it less a lie.

However, if we don't accept standard definitions, communication becomes impossible.

The definition above will do very nicely.

For example, I would not consider your profession of Chrisrian faith to be a "lie".

You don't know. I could be inauthentic. But I could be authentic. You have no way of applying the criterion upon which you say we have to base our judgment: intent. You can't judge my intent, so you can't know, according to your own definition, if I'm lying or not: you have no basis on which to accuse me, but none on which to affirm me, either.

But you can speak about whether or not you regard the Christian message as the truth or a lie. And that's legit for you to assess. Me, you cannot assess. You don't know me.

I suppose you want to consider all religions but your own "lies".

All ideologies, all "religions," creeds and beliefs are "lies" to any extent they depart a thing called "truth." It has nothing to do with intent. It has nothing to do with particular persons. It has to do with the fact that the belief or ideology claims to be telling the truth while it is promoting an error. That's enough to make anything into a lie.

The speaker may or may not be a liar -- he may be naive, ill-informed, a dupe, or just making a mistake, and yet be entirely sincere -- and sincerely wrong; but the words he is promoting as truth turn out to be untrue. It's the content of the words that creates a lie. Intent is a different issue. That's a question of character, not of merely the content of an utterance.

[Alexiev]

You don't know. I could be inauthentic. But I could be authentic. You have no way of applying the criterion upon which you say we have to base our judgment: intent. You can't judge my intent, so you can't know, according to your own definition, if I'm lying or not: you have no basis on which to accuse me, but none on which to affirm me, either.

But you can speak about whether or not you regard the Christian message as the truth or a lie. And that's legit for you to assess. Me, you cannot assess. You don't know me.

I suppose you want to consider all religions but your own "lies".

All ideologies, all "religions," creeds and beliefs are "lies" to any extent they depart a thing called "truth." It has nothing to do with intent. It has nothing to do with particular persons. It has to do with the fact that the belief or ideology claims to be telling the truth while it is promoting an error. That's enough to make anything into a lie.

The speaker may or may not be a liar -- he may be naive, ill-informed, a dupe, or just making a mistake, and yet be entirely sincere -- and sincerely wrong; but the words he is promoting as truth turn out to be untrue. It's the content of the words that creates a lie. Intent is a different issue. That's a question of character, not of merely the content of an utterance.

If a liar is someone who tells lies (per the normal. meaning), then you are clearly wrong. Also, there is not much of away too determine if your faith is the truth, so your version of "lie" is as indeterminate as mine.

The notion that all myths and fictions are lies is ridiculous. The words "myth" and "fiction" are good words, as is "lie". Why make them mean the same thing? Doesn't that debase the language?

[Immanuel Can]

If a liar is someone who tells lies (per the normal. meaning), then you are clearly wrong.

What is it they are "telling," then?

If you only know a "liar" by the fact he tells "lies," then you already have to know what a "lie" is, before you can know what a "liar" is. Your argument thus defeats itself, and you're actually the one who's clearly wrong. Sorry.

Also, there is not much of away too determine if your faith is the truth,

So you haven't checked. That's clear. If you had, you'd no better than to say that.

The notion that all myths and fictions are lies is ridiculous.

Good thing nobody said that, then. You're imputing to me a thing I did not say. But I'll fix it for you.

A "fiction" is not presented as truth. A "myth" is also known to be a fiction. It's only when a fiction or a myth is presented with the deception that it is the truth that one can call it a lie. If it's already known to be a fiction or myth, it's not lying about anything at all. But most religious stories, many ideologies and Atheism itself are presented with the declaration that they are the truth about the Divine. They are not the truth. They are deceptive and misleading. Therefore, they perfectly fit the basic definition of "lie."

[Alexiev]

If a liar is someone who tells lies (per the normal. meaning), then you are clearly wrong.

What is it they are "telling," then?

If you only know a "liar" by the fact he tells "lies," then you already have to know what a "lie" is, before you can know what a "liar" is. Your argument thus defeats itself, and you're actually the one who's clearly wrong. Sorry.

Also, there is not much of away too determine if your faith is the truth,

So you haven't checked. That's clear. If you had, you'd no better than to say that.

The notion that all myths and fictions are lies is ridiculous.

Good thing nobody said that, then. You're imputing to me a thing I did not say. But I'll fix it for you.

A "fiction" is not presented as truth. A "myth" is also known to be a fiction. It's only when a fiction or a myth is presented with the deception that it is the truth that one can call it a lie. If it's already known to be a fiction or myth, it's not lying about anything at all. But most religious stories, many ideologies and Atheism itself are presented with the declaration that they are the truth about the Divine. They are not the truth. They are deceptive and misleading. Therefore, they perfectly fit the basic definition of "lie."

What nonsense. Myths (including the one for which you proselytize) are not "fiction" according to careful critics of literature. They are distinct literary genres.

This discussion is going in circles. Have a good day.

[Immanuel Can]

Myths (including the one for which you proselytize) are not "fiction" according to careful critics of literature. They are distinct literary genres.

Yes, they're fiction.

Think about what a "lie" is: it's a statement that contains large elements of truth, but falsehood in one or two key elements. The strongest lies are those that are most closely aligned with the known facts, in fact. The deception that can be confirmed on every point but one is often the deepest sort of deception, and the hardest to detect. (That's why, as children reach their teenage years, they often get better at deceiving their parents; they learn that the most powerful lies are the closest to the truth. Their deceptions mature and become more effective, and not overtly fictive.)

So the myth that keeps hold of the truth in as many regards as possible, and then only strays on one point, is the myth that is most likely to be mistaken for the truth. But to be a "lie," the myth must also be presented as if it were the truth. And that describes exactly how every religious and ideological tradition presents its myths: as if they were, to one degree or the other, simply the truth.

That makes them not just myths, but also devious and deceptive. Were they presented merely as fiction, as entertainment, as idle fairy-stories, they would represent no danger, and could not be deceptive. Nobody is going to be misled by "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," because it's presented as pure fiction; but because it is presented as the revelation of truth, millions have been misled and murdered as a result of the myth of "The Triumph of the Proletariat."

[Alexiev]

Myths (including the one for which you proselytize) are not "fiction" according to careful critics of literature. They are distinct literary genres.

Yes, they're fiction.

Think about what a "lie" is: it's a statement that contains large elements of truth, but falsehood in one or two key elements. The strongest lies are those that are most closely aligned with the known facts, in fact. The deception that can be confirmed on every point but one is often the deepest sort of deception, and the hardest to detect. (That's why, as children reach their teenage years, they often get better at deceiving their parents; they learn that the most powerful lies are the closest to the truth. Their deceptions mature and become more effective, and not overtly fictive.)

So the myth that keeps hold of the truth in as many regards as possible, and then only strays on one point, is the myth that is most likely to be mistaken for the truth. But to be a "lie," the myth must also be presented as if it were the truth. And that describes exactly how every religious and ideological tradition presents its myths: as if they were, to one degree or the other, simply the truth.

That makes them not just myths, but also devious and deceptive. Were they presented merely as fiction, as entertainment, as idle fairy-stories, they would represent no danger, and could not be deceptive. Nobody is going to be misled by "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," because it's presented as pure fiction; but because it is presented as the revelation of truth, millions have been misled and murdered as a result of the myth of "The Triumph of the Proletariat."

In that case, all histories are myths. Therefore, all histories are lies. After all, we must assume that histories inevitably get one tiny detail wrong.

This, of course, makes the reasonable literary categories of "myth", "fiction" and "history" meaningless and literary discussion impossible. It also clearly means (to any but the strctest fundamentalist) that The Bible is a lie.

It also means that most published science is a lie. There is none righteous, no, not one. By conflating all these words you make the Englush language a crude and pathetic tool.

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, all histories are myths. Therefore, all histories are lies.

No, because again, they are not presented as more than tentative and partial retellings, rather than as comprehensive truths. Now, we can turn them into lies, if we insist that history is no longer revisable and corrigible: but I know of no historians -- at least, none that have a good grasp of historiography -- that would ever do that. Their stock-in-trade is the revision of the stories of the past, so as to make them more accurate.

Contrast that with something like "The Triumph of the Proletariant." That is presented by Marx not merely as a product of accurate "History," but also as a future prognostication of inevitability, and as a universal moral duty for us to produce. But history itself, real history, has clearly proved his lie to be just that. So we know Marx lied...and his lie had huge consequences.

Had Marx presented "The Triumph of the Proletariat" not as the inevitable outcome of History, then millions would not have needed to die at the hands of the deceived who bought into the myth.

[Alexiev]

In that case, all histories are myths. Therefore, all histories are lies.

No, because again, they are not presented as more than tentative and partial retellings, rather than as comprehensive truths. Now, we can turn them into lies, if we insist that history is no longer revisable and corrigible: but I know of no historians -- at least, none that have a good grasp of historiography -- that would ever do that. Their stock-in-trade is the revision of the stories of the past, so as to make them more accurate.

Contrast that with something like "The Triumph of the Proletariant." That is presented by Marx not merely as a product of accurate "History," but also as a future prognostication of inevitability, and as a universal moral duty for us to produce. But history itself, real history, has clearly proved his lie to be just that. So we know Marx lied...and his lie had huge consequences.

Had Marx presented "The Triumph of the Proletariat" not as the inevitable outcome of History, then millions would not have needed to die at the hands of the deceived who bought into the myth.

Nonsense. Myths are oral histories, as were the gospels before they were written down. Of these oral histories, only the gospels are presented as certain truth. Perhaps you think other myths conform to this nonsensical notion of infallibilty, but they don't. Marx wrote a theory, which he thought (perhaps) to be inevitable. But I cannot accept that he thought his theory infallible. Unlike you, he wasn't that naive.

Of course belief in the infallibility of the Bible has led to almost as much evil as Marxism. Witch killings, inquisition, crusades, and forced conversions are all quite reasonable lf there is no room for doubt. Torturing 1000 heretics to prevent them from damning one eternal soul conduces the greater good. So does torturing people into converting. It is only by recognizing that we can never be certain of the truth that such horrors become unjustifiable.

[Immanuel Can]

Myths are oral histories,

No, no, they're not. What an odd idea to get. The difference between history and myth is the difference between "an attempted account of real happenings" and "an entirely fictitious account."

Marx wrote a theory, which he thought (perhaps) to be inevitable. But I cannot accept that he thought his theory infallible.

Then he shouldn't have written it as if it were. He thought he was some kind of "reader of history" and "prophet of the future," essentially. He was wrong on both accounts, as subsequent facts clearly proved. Not even today's Neo-Marxists will back his theory any longer, so wrong it has proved to be.

Of course belief in the infallibility of the Bible has led to almost as much evil as Marxism.

This is actually statistically dead wrong...and about as wrong as any guess can get.

By any account at all, Marxism is simply the most homicidal creed ever invented, by orders of magnitude...and even a moment's reflection will prove that to you. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Maduro, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, and all the rest of the avowed Marxists have killed more human beings than any other group or all others combined...over 140 million, in the last century alone.

Nothing else has remotely come close to that, and religions, all combined, comprise only about 7.8% as many: half of that by Islam alone, and most of the rest by the combination of Hinduism, Sikhism, animisms, Buddism, Shinto, Catholicism...and the number that can be fairly associated with anything that remotely could be called "Christianity," if you can find any, is vanishingly small. I would even argue that those don't deserve the name "Christian," since they stand in direct contravention to the commands of Christ; how genuinely "Christian," then, could any such be?

Meanwhile, many groups, such as the Mennonites, the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and such, have precisely 0% of the fatalities. And all of that's according to the three-volume set of the Encyclopedia of War, a wholly secular, academic source.

One of the biggest problems with today's Socialists is that they are entirely ignorant of -- or willfully indifferent to -- the brutal homicidal legacy of their own tradition. A little history sure would do them good; but myth, well, that's their problem, really.

[Alexiev]

Blaming Karl Marx for all the horrors of communism is like blaming Jesus for Inquisitions and witch burnings. Anyone with a brain can see this, so there's no point in arguing about it.

In addition, defending Christian tortures and witch executions by saying, "The commies were worse" is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. John Wayne Gacy was worse than Jeffery Dahmer (statistically). Does that mean the jury should have found Dahmer "not guilty"

You have no idea about the nature of mythology, except to use the word "myth" as some sort of vague pejorative, serving thereby to cast aspersions on yourself and your fellow travelers.

[Alexiev]

Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early HISTORY of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Sounds like the gospels, or the book of Genesis, to me. This regardless of the truth or falsehood of those accounts.

Of course, Humpty, I know you define words so that any vague emotional associations you or others have concerning them are more important than the actual meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

Blaming Karl Marx for all the horrors of communism is like blaming Jesus for Inquisitions and witch burnings.

Not at all. Not only is there nothing in Marxism prohibiting violence, it expects revolution only by the violent overthrowing of the existing order. It expects bloody revolution, and issues in purges, "re-education" camps, death marches, and shootings and torturings of dissidents. Even a rudimentary count of the dead, impoverished and immiserated by Marxist regimes shows the certainty of what I'm saying.

Stalin alone killed, conservatively, 22 million of his own people. Mao killed at least 45 million of his own that we know about. And that doesn't even begin to add in the totals of the rest of the self-professing Marxist despots of the last century and this one. Even by those two alone, all "religious" killing is reduced to a fragment. And that's without even excusing Islam, the bloodiest of all religions.

And why does it ALWAYS play out that way? How come, if it has nothing to do with Marxism, every Marxist regime in history has done precisely that: murdered its own people, crashed its economy, tortured its opponents, and immiserated everyone? There's not one successful try in the whole lot: so why not? If Marxism is such a great idea, why does it never work?

Now, any killing at all is wrong, of course. Good thing Christianity forbids it. If anybody ever committed such a deed, and said he was a Christian for doing it, you have every right to call him out on that, and to point out to him that nothing in Christianity allows him to do that. So you're on good grounds for being skeptical of any such person's claim to association with Christ, if such they make.

[Alexiev]

Blaming Karl Marx for all the horrors of communism is like blaming Jesus for Inquisitions and witch burnings.

Not at all. Not only is there nothing in Marxism prohibiting violence, it expects revolution only by the violent overthrowing of the existing order. It expects bloody revolution, and issues in purges, "re-education" camps, death marches, and shootings and torturings of dissidents. Even a rudimentary count of the dead, impoverished and immiserated by Marxist regimes shows the certainty of what I'm saying.

Stalin alone killed, conservatively, 22 million of his own people. Mao killed at least 45 million of his own that we know about. And that doesn't even begin to add in the totals of the rest of the self-professing Marxist despots of the last century and this one. Even by those two alone, all "religious" killing is reduced to a fragment. And that's without even excusing Islam, the bloodiest of all religions.

And why does it ALWAYS play out that way? How come, if it has nothing to do with Marxism, every Marxist regime in history has done precisely that: murdered its own people, crashed its economy, tortured its opponents, and immiserated everyone? There's not one successful try in the whole lot: so why not? If Marxism is such a great idea, why does it never work?

Now, any killing at all is wrong, of course. Good thing Christianity forbids it. If anybody ever committed such a deed, and said he was a Christian for doing it, you have every right to call him out on that, and to point out to him that nothing in Christianity allows him to do that. So you're on good grounds for being skeptical of any such person's claim to association with Christ, if such they make.

Revolutions are inevitably bloody and violent, whether they are Maxist or not. The Stalinist and Maoist and Khmer Rouge purges resulted from the almost religious notion of the State as the unit of almost divine good. Of course this notion was perverted by evil egomaniacs, who (perhaps) believed they were rhe state. How you blame Marx is beyond me. Read "Midnight at Noon", an excellent novel, for further insight. As with the Christian witch craze of the 16th century, the violence was fueled by torture. Accused witches (or counter revolutionaries) were tortured until they named names, and then the names were tortured, and so on. The similarities are striking. Also, it makes sense that people who commit horrible acts use the excuse of the greater good: rhe state for commies, religion for Christians.

As I stated earlier, if the Inquisitors could save one soul from eternal damnation by torturing and killing they thought they were justified, and, given the assumptions, they were right. Perhaps the commies were right, given their assumptions.