The Virute in Lying:Why the Bullshitting Idiot is far more criminal than the Criminal

(Q) said:
You criticize theists all the time.

They're mindsets are vile and comtemptuous, you've shown us that yourself in this and other threads.
Click to expand...

This implies that you assume to know better; that your truth is superior to theirs.


I told you already, I don't deal in truths. I have done little more than expose the contradictions of religion and how it will ultimately lead to our extinction.
Click to expand...

You don't even understand religion. You are fighting strawmen. You are fighting your own illusions created out of ignorance and fear.


It has nothing to do with superiority, it is common sense, something you can't comprehend.
Click to expand...

There goes your assumed superiority again.
 
your truth is superior to theirs.

I don't deal in truths. Why can't you understand that?

You don't even understand religion.

I understand religion far more than you ever will, that is a fact which you yourself have shown.

You are fighting strawmen.

Yes, religion is built on strawmen fallacies, as well as other fallacies. Thats what makes the fight so difficult. Theists like yourself who are so deluded in their religion make up whatever they can at the moment that suits their purpose, for the moment. What you glean from religion shows what is selfish in you.

There goes your assumed superiority again.

No, it is more along the lines of you showing an inferior mindset to that of the norm.
 
How does a diesel engine operate?
Isn't that a truth?

I did a lot of research some time ago with 'truth' and 'faith.' I'll try to did that stuff up and re-post it here. It should help to answer that question.
 
The nature of truth is a key issue in this topic.
And. So is faith, for that matter. I insist that belief is more an issue than the bullshit.

Anyway.
Truth is a slippery concept.
But, your objection to truth is largely a semantic one.
There are things in this world that can be said to be 'true'. Even if this idea of truth must, by necessity, contain a kernel of possibility that the truth is not true after all. Truths change as time goes on. And, holding a strict and dogmatic view of truth is what leads to the entrenchment of bullshit in the first place.

But, there are objective truths.
A diesel engine operates in a certain fashion.
The truth goes from the general in the case of the simple label "diesel engine" where only the general principles of operation can be stated (keeping in mind the timeframe one is dealing with. I.e. primitive diesel engines. Modern diesel engines. Future diesel engines. Hybrid diesel engines. Etc..) to the specific as in the case of a specific model of diesel engine.

You can find the manual for that engine and see how every part of that engine operates. Its tolerances. Its movements. Etc...

This is truth.

An engine is an engine.

Now. We can begin to see some subjective truths.
Let's say someone doesn't know about engines. What the various parts are. What their precise function is. They can get the manual. Build the engine. But they'd have to interpret why the engine functions as it does. What this part is for. What that part is for.

This is where the bullshit can flow freely.
And, if a system of bullshit is created which allows the bearer of the bullshit to build, maintain, and service diesel engines... is this truth? Even if the reasons conjectured range into the supernatural? Little gods in the cylinders pushing on the pistons. Etc. Whose to say it's not true? If it works?

This is the difficulty of subjectivity.


Now. What of it? What if a cult of engines were created in this fashion? What would that imply? Would this increase or decrease the likelihood of newer and better diesel engines being created (two truths, by the way, the first objective, the second subjective)?

The answer would most likely be that innovation would not be encouraged when the engine of old has been made holy and religious. Dogma would insist that the engine of one's fathers is the only true engine.

Also, the likelihood of refining technology is lessened when the 'true' nature of the operational functions is unknown and replaced by bullshit. But, I must admit that a slight possibility exists that such a wonderfully fit system of mythology might be created that new innovation is possible within its framework. In fact, there exists a slight (very slight) possibility that a great leap forward can take place that would not be possible in a purely objective system. Intuition can lead to amazing things. But it can also lead to bullshit.
 
Wow, I just have to say jolly good in imploding this thread. I love the bullshit you guys are throwing back and forth, half-assed.

Perhaps we could instead complain about people who pretend they know what they're really talking about?

Maybe we should form a society to address this issue and raise awareness, as Fishpantsen believes they are very, very dangerous.

[edit]
Sorry about the previous post. I didn't know I had revisited this thread until I checked my log. OOPS.
 
The truth sets people free. Conversely, lies are for making slaves out of people. When is a person more likely to contradict authority, when they are obviously right or obviously wrong? It is only possible to force people into submission when they go against authority. From what I've seen there are two cases where this is likely. One of those cases is when they have to for survival. The other case is when authority deliberately said something stupid enough that a reasonable person had to react badly to it.
 
The truth sets people free. Conversely, lies are for making slaves out of people.
Click to expand...

Platitudes and bromides.

What if the truth is that your master has the power to annihilate you instantly should you even attempt to seek freedom?

Or what if the truth is that your mind is being manipulated by remote control by Ron Howard?

Or what if the lie is that you are a slave?

Truth and lie is nothing inherently. It's all in the interpretation.

When is a person more likely to contradict authority, when they are obviously right or obviously wrong?
Click to expand...

Who is 'they'? The person or the authority?
Regardless, I doubt there's a direct correlation.
Especially considering that the person and the authority can both be right at the same time and still be on opposing sides.

Truth is not a motive power necessarily.

It is only possible to force people into submission when they go against authority.
Click to expand...

Ah. The idea that laws are meant to be broken. For through guilt you can rule.
In this case, the laws themselves are lies, yes?
Are they also bullshit?

From what I've seen there are two cases where this is likely. One of those cases is when they have to for survival. The other case is when authority deliberately said something stupid enough that a reasonable person had to react badly to it.
Click to expand...

Or when the power goes out and the ice cream melts.

Anyway, why does authority have to do anything deliberately?
And why must it be a reasonable person reacting to authority?

It seems that you have a bias against authority.
 
I have a bias against authority because authority gave me no other choice. Yes, if authority has the power to annihilate me instantly I should seek freedom. Everyone should seek freedom. Then "authority" can either grow up or rule over a vast graveyard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top