"Science is liberal and anti-American." (Conservapedia)

[buckshot24]

I didn't say Jesus, I said God. You know, the Father and not the son. I gave you a perfectly legit answer as to how he could deceive without lying. I didn't say he was or did or anything like that, you asked for an example and I gave you a valid one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

"something intended or serving to convey a false impression;"

This is a lie so your example isn't valid.

 

[buckshot24]

Well he is currently arguing that god is not omnipotent since he is arguing there are things that are outside of his abilities. If there are things outside of his abilities he isn't omnipotent. I'm not sure if that is what he intended on arguing but it is.

No I'm not. Why are you lying?:sneaky:

Only your strawman definition of omnipotence is supporting your views.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent

 

[dank69]

Do you have an example? I'm not going to rationalwiki to look.

You aren't going to look? Do you have some problem with rationalwiki?

Here is an example straight from the Bible:

Perhaps the best known example can be found in Genesis chapter 27. Isaac is dying, and wants to bless his first born son Esau but needs some munchies first (it would be silly to bless someone on an empty stomach), but Esau's twin brother Jacob overhears, gives Isaac his needed munchies, and receives the blessing instead. Jacob is later renamed to Israel by God (Genesis 32:28) and goes on to become the father of the 12 tribes of Israel and ancestor of Jesus Christ.

Jacob didn't lie. He let his father believe he was Esau.

Here's a list of ways to be deceitful, including lying:

Deceit can take many forms:
Lie - The most basic form of deceit, where some sort information is divulged where it is known that is information is in fact not true.
Affinity fraud - abuse of the trust of others because you are (or pretend to be) a member of the same socio-economic, religious or ethnic group.
Censorship - silencing all dissenting viewpoints.
Misdirection - distracting or diverting from the issue at hand in order to avoid further conclusions to be drawn.
Quote mining - presenting a real (but "hairdressed") quote, deliberately placed out of context and presented in a new or different context, so as to make it seem like it meant something else than was originally intended. This differs from making a "misquotation", as those are simply mistakenly attributed or phrased wrongly.
Obfuscation - nonsensical claptrap, or words without any particular connection to reality.
Omission - failing to report something that wasn't specifically asked for (yet perhaps cannot be asked for as, it is an unknown unknown to other people), with the express intent to deceive others via manipulating their perception of the truth.
Burning the evidence - attempting to secure plausible deniability by destroying possible trails of evidence that could, if left intact, allow potential investigators to correctly identify the true culprit.
One single proof - claiming that without a specific key proof, the whole argument is invalid.
Propaganda - affect or control the perceptions and behavior of a population.
Revisionism - revising history to something it wasn't.
Self-deception - metaphorically (or literally...) sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalala! I can't hear you!".
Statistics - sometimes statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than illumination.

 

[Herr Kutz]

I just discovered "Conservapedia" and.....its hilarious! Especially considering its not a satire website and the people writing this are 100% serious. :

There is an article on Science and the first sentence reads "Science is liberal and anti-American."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Science

There's also an article called "Atheism and the suppression of science" that reads:

"Atheism and the rejection of science is one common criticism of atheism, as militant atheists have often suppressed scientific knowledge because it conflicts with a presupposed materialistic worldview."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science

These people obviously have no clue what Science is.

And another hilarious article reads "Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals":

"The persecution of homosexuals, is one common criticism of atheism, as militant atheists have often persecuted those belonging to the LGBTQ community."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_persecution_of_homosexuals

If you want to read some shit that is even more bizarre than that site head on over to huffingpost.com. Your mind will be blown.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nothing is more deceptive than the truth. It is the thing we do not know, do not want to know, and do not want to know we do not want to know.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A two-second check confirmed that the opening sentence was only added on the most recent edit. It's supposed to be a serious Wiki and undoubtedly there are many idiots that use/maintain it, but this particular case reads like a troll.

 

[cbrunny]

I clicked through a few sites and read a few pages. If I lived in America, I'd move tomorrow. You guys are fucked.

 

[ivwshane]

If you want to read some shit that is even more bizarre than that site head on over to huffingpost.com. Your mind will be blown.

Ooh! I'm interested! Show me a good example to start with.

 

[dank69]

Ooh! I'm interested! Show me a good example to start with.

HuffPo articles never explain why the facts they report are Obama's fault. Everyone knows this.

 

[Cozarkian]

So he's lying.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie.

You are incorrect. Your definition is for something, not someone. In common understanding and usage the situation I described is not one where the politician is lying, it is one where he is being a deceptive dirtbag. One might say the campaign is a lie, as that is something, but not that the politician is lying, as that is someone.

You can see this again in the Oxford English definition, which similarly reserves the second definition for situations.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/lie#lie-2

Need more evidence? Note you said the politician was lying, a verb, but cited to the definition of a noun. Looking instead at the definition of the verb, we note that it requires telling of lies or false statements, not merely misleading statements.

In addition, while dictionaries are useful sources for this type of argument, they do not supersede common parlance, which does not hold all forms of deception to be a lie.

Finally, your burden is not to establish a definition that supports your belief that all deception is a lie. In this case, you have to prove the intended meaning of the words at the time they were written support that argument. Thus, you need references to dictionaries existing at the time of the original writings.

 

[Cozarkian]

Can power accomplish the task of capturing and keeping God from escaping? No. So this has nothing to do with omnipotence.

In order for your argument to be true, the concept of what power can do has to exist independently of God and beyond God's control, which means that in the beginning something other than God existed. Not only does that mean is God not the creator of everything, but your definition indicates that God's ability to create was limited by the limits of power. This, of course, means that power itself is more powerful than God, as it can do everything God can, plus it makes the rules.

 

[disappoint]

Pearls before swine.

Do you want to take your little balls and run home like an angry little boy? You can take your little pearls of what you think is wisdom, run away and keep them all to yourself.

Lock yourself up in a cabin in the woods. Just you and your little precious pearls of wisdom. You can grow old and grey, into an angry old miser who kept all of his wisdom to himself while calling everyone else childish names like swine.

 

[disappoint]

Well how about you are walking to work with a tuna sandwich for lunch and I am walking to the same place with a Turkey melt and we see a starving child. God tells you to give her a tuna sandwich and he tells me to make it turkey?

What if I'm a selfish miser? Then I decide to keep the sandwich to myself because I read in a book I was told was written by a God that was into slavery, misogyny, torture and had anger issues that I should not cast pearls before swine. Clearly that starving child is swine because it does not believe everything exactly as I do. If it did, then it would magically have been fed by God anyway so there is really nothing much more important than just being subservient to this misunderstood entity.

 

[MrPickins]

It's hard to believe it's not satire. It reads exactly as if leftists were caricaturing conservative positions.

Poe's Law in action.

 

[disappoint]

I do not think that people who believe there is a transcendent morality they can't defend logically are fools. The fools would be those who do not believe in such a morality.

Why should they believe anything without evidence?

 

[JulesMaximus]

They should rename that site Constupidpedia.

 

[JSt0rm]

my old roommate is a scientist and religious and was a republican up to around 2007. Republican stances towards science made him go full bore democrat. It was pretty funny to watch tbo.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is all your opinion. Why should anybody believe it?

You asked me a question and I did the best I could to answer. There was no intention on my part that you should believe it.

 

[buckshot24]

You are incorrect. Your definition is for something, not someone. In common understanding and usage the situation I described is not one where the politician is lying, it is one where he is being a deceptive dirtbag. One might say the campaign is a lie, as that is something, but not that the politician is lying, as that is someone.

Really? A lie is something committed by someone. The second definition covers his act precisely. He's lying.

 

[buckshot24]

Why should they believe anything without evidence?

Yes, why should anybody believe mutation and selection can build biological machines without any evidence whatsoever to support it?

 

[buckshot24]

You aren't going to look? Do you have some problem with rationalwiki?

Here is an example straight from the Bible:
Jacob didn't lie. He let his father believe he was Esau.

Here's a list of ways to be deceitful, including lying:

All of those things are covered with definition number 2 linked above.

 

[buckshot24]

In order for your argument to be true, the concept of what power can do has to exist independently of God and beyond God's control, which means that in the beginning something other than God existed.

You'll have to expound this assertion. Why?

Not only does that mean is God not the creator of everything,

We don't believe God is the creator of everything. God created everything that was created.

but your definition indicates that God's ability to create was limited by the limits of power.

Power itself wouldn't exist outside of God's existence; power is contingent.

This, of course, means that power itself is more powerful than God, as it can do everything God can, plus it makes the rules.

That's like saying an orange is less orange than orange.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do you want to take your little balls and run home like an angry little boy? You can take your little pearls of what you think is wisdom, run away and keep them all to yourself.

Lock yourself up in a cabin in the woods. Just you and your little precious pearls of wisdom. You can grow old and grey, into an angry old miser who kept all of his wisdom to himself while calling everyone else childish names like swine.

What if I'm a selfish miser? Then I decide to keep the sandwich to myself because I read in a book I was told was written by a God that was into slavery, misogyny, torture and had anger issues that I should not cast pearls before swine. Clearly that starving child is swine because it does not believe everything exactly as I do. If it did, then it would magically have been fed by God anyway so there is really nothing much more important than just being subservient to this misunderstood entity.

Do you think you might have some anger issues?

 

[buckshot24]

You asked me a question and I did the best I could to answer. There was no intention on my part that you should believe it.

Don't you think talking about favorite cookie flavors is just as meaningful? You've created your own god with attributes you like which is called idolatry.

 

[buckshot24]

What if I'm a selfish miser? Then I decide to keep the sandwich to myself because I read in a book I was told was written by a God that was into slavery, misogyny, torture and had anger issues that I should not cast pearls before swine. Clearly that starving child is swine because it does not believe everything exactly as I do. If it did, then it would magically have been fed by God anyway so there is really nothing much more important than just being subservient to this misunderstood entity.

I suggest you look at where that phrase comes from because that isn't what it means.