Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:08 pm What you DO... is entirely irrelevant?

It's entirely irrelevant to the truth of what I have said. So I can grant you all your assumptions, and it still matters not at all.

It is very interesting to see how some theists think that IDENTIFYING AS A CHRISTIAN indicates they are right and good, and gives them free license to distort and do whatever self-serving behavior they please. Theists should be responsible for themselves (like anyone else), and not sanctify or excuse themselves based on some claim of a god they are supposedly in allegiance with. They should seek truth over religious acquiescence: such as ignoring things in themselves and each other, that they would condemn in non-theists.

A holy shield is a huge risk because of what it distorts and hides. Christians should care about that! But some use it unabashedly. The fervent nature of their theist conviction changes nothing. They can still demonstrate and reveal more human truth than they (apparently) are even aware of about themselves. It is such a dark, murky place, operating from behind a shield of theism. That is the perfect place (of course!) to create and manipulate the darkness that theism actually warns against. Such darkness is not birthed in the world naturally. It is another product of men who seek to glorify themselves and their beliefs -- some wearing a holier-than-thou cloak in pretense. Fortunately, not all are fooled nor so blind.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:00 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:23 pm IC is definitely NOT a liar. He truly believes what he argues for and even those arguments that seem disingenuous are sincere, however mistaken, because he believes their validity.

I can see his commitment to his beliefs. Is deception in discussion different than lying? Is avoidance, redirection, and willful distortion truthful?

When someone calls these out, they are said to be hateful -- even though they are just describing what is being done. Is it not hateful to do all of the above?

Deception is not the same as deceit. One's arguments can be sincere, but if they are based on a false premise, they will be deceptive even though the one making the argument has no intention to deceive. To one who knows the false premise, the arguments may seem deceitful.

Just out of curiosity, what motive would IC have to intentionally use deceit to win an argument? Wouldn't winning an argument by means of deception be self-defeating?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:49 pm Deception is not the same as deceit. One's arguments can be sincere, but if they are based on a false premise, they will be deceptive even though the one making the argument has no intention to deceive. To one who knows the false premise, the arguments may seem deceitful.

I'm referring to deception that is the product of twisting discussions to suit and support himself. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows he is doing it. It seems clear that he has crafted his skill to preserve his argument even if it requires being dishonest towards others and avoiding his own responsibility.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:49 pmJust out of curiosity, what motive would IC have to intentionally use deceit to win an argument?

Ego

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:49 pmWouldn't winning an argument by means of deception be self-defeating?

Such arguments typically can't be won... so it becomes a game of dancing around, trying to catch or not get caught... and some use dishonesty to cheat.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:46 pm It is very interesting to see how some theists think...

It's even more interesting how somebody who claims to be indignant about truth is actually uninterested in it herself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:11 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:46 pm It is very interesting to see how some theists think...

It's even more interesting how somebody who claims to be indignant about truth is actually uninterested in it herself.

??? Please explain.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:11 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:46 pm It is very interesting to see how some theists think...

It's even more interesting how somebody who claims to be indignant about truth is actually uninterested in it herself.

??? Please explain.

Well, you have the message. You know the truth....or at least some of it. But you have a complete lack of interest in engaging it. You seem to want to deflect to ad hominems.

And you accuse others of abandoning truth...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:04 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:11 pm
It's even more interesting how somebody who claims to be indignant about truth is actually uninterested in it herself.

??? Please explain.

Well, you have the message. You know the truth....or at least some of it. But you have a complete lack of interest in engaging it. You seem to want to deflect to ad hominems.

And you accuse others of abandoning truth...

What message are you referring to? I've most certainly been very active in engaging to discern truth -- it may not be a truth you care about. I'm not deflecting to anything -- I'm pointing out your avoidance and deception in discussions. (I think it's important to be aware of.) Are you really so oblivious of it despite various people calling you on it? Or are you just really rigid in service to your ego? Seriously, I give you more credit than that... which is why it is so perplexing... but maybe you really have no clue of the games you are playing. Is that possible?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:20 pm I'm pointing out your avoidance and deception in discussions.

It's an old ruse...don't like the message? Shoot the messenger.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:22 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:20 pm I'm pointing out your avoidance and deception in discussions.

It's an old ruse...don't like the message? Shoot the messenger.

Sooo... the messenger and his message are always truthful and right? Is that what you're suggesting applies to you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:22 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:20 pm I'm pointing out your avoidance and deception in discussions.

It's an old ruse...don't like the message? Shoot the messenger.

Sooo... the messenger and his message are always truthful and right?

I'll make it very simple for you. The messenger is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the message, on any given occasion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:54 pm The messenger is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the message, on any given occasion.

Would you trust “messages” from a dishonest speaker?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:59 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:50 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:16 pmIs it not possible to arrive at belief thru reason?

Absolutely. *That doesn't mean your reasoning is any good.

*True...but it might be.

Yes it might. In a nutshell, philosophy is about good reasoning. The purpose is to take a few ideas and see what happens when you mash them together. It is an achievement to create a story that accounts for everything you know; it is a mistake to believe coherence is any measure of truth.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:54 pm The messenger is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the message, on any given occasion.

Would you trust “messages” from a dishonest speaker?

Well, in the first place, you don't know who's "dishonest" and who's not, of course. But more importantly, even if you were right, you don't know IF he/she is being dishonest at that minute or not. The message stands or falls on its own truthfulness.

If somebody tells you that your house is on fire, and you imagine that they are often "dishonest," you'd still be wise to check for fire. It's the message, not the speaker, that makes the difference.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:28 pm Well, in the first place, you don't know who's "dishonest" and who's not, of course.

Oh, you can't tell that? That explains a lot.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:28 pmThe message stands or falls on its own truthfulness.

How do you know the truthfulness of a message that is not proven to be true?