Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Why Liars Lie

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a previous post, I exposed yet another of eigenstate’s outrageous lies.  Then I asked:

The real question is what motivates him to engage in such insane denials? I have to admit that I am utterly flummoxed by it. He knows he is lying. I know he is lying. Everyone else who reads his comment knows he is lying. What in the world motivates such outrageous conduct? If I did not see it myself I would not believe it.

Commenter Charles replies:

He can’t help himself. It has become his nature. I have watched liars lie for years, and I have noted their inability to admit even the simplest of truths. I have observed their self-destructive behavior (as a consequence of losing the trust and charity essential in routine communication and cooperation) over matters both mundane and mission-critical.

This fellow suggests a mechanism for something I have suspected for years:

Dishonesty reduces applied intelligence: re-wires the brain

What I am suggesting is that, although the fundamental efficiency of neural processing is an hereditary characteristic which is robust to environmental differences and changes (short of something like destructive brain pathology – encephalitis, neurotoxin, head injury, dementia etc) – habitual dishonesty (such as is mainstream among the modern intellectual elite) will generate brain changes, and a long-lasting (although probably, eventually, reversible) pathology in applied intelligence – such that what ought to be simple and obvious inferential reasoning becomes impossible.

 

I would add impossible not only in communication with others but equally impossible when alone and merely analyzing (rationalizing) information they find disagreeable.

UPDATE:

After observing Carpathian’s hi-jinks in the comment thread to this post, Charles adds:

Carpathian demonstrates the corollary, why liars lie badly.

A consequence of chronic, pathological intellectual dishonesty is a narrowing of ones sphere of influence to other liars. A further consequence of which is the positive reinforcement from other liars that their lies are credible and compelling. But when those lies are trotted out to an informed and experienced audience, those same lies don’t pass muster and are recognized as vapid and vacuous.

 

Comments
Barry Arrington:
And now we have regressed to the tactic of the second grader on the playground: “I know you are but what am I?”
It's you who seem to be more proficient at recess than you are in the classroom. Stop calling people liars and use school to learn something. eigenstate could teach you a few things about respectful debate.Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Carpathian @ 38. Jaw dropping. He points to the fact that I did not take into account that there are multiple ways he could have attempted to deceive us. And then he suggests that is a failure on my part. God help us.
LOL!!! A terrible attempt at trying to "bend" the message! And then you do the typical thing you do, take a shot at the messenger , since you you don't have a message that's more powerful.Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
C @ 41. And now we have regressed to the tactic of the second grader on the playground: "I know you are but what am I?" God help us.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Carpathian, your insane denial is impenetrable. You must be so proud.
You're projecting Barry!
It has become common for people who routinely engage in chronic psychotic levels of denial to consider themselves as being mental powerhouses, and to be considered by others as being mental powerhouses, because no one can break through their irrationality. This is often supported by a self-referencing congratulatory inner voice which says, “(guffaw) He REALLY didn’t have an answer for that one!” And they are correct. He didn’t have an answer.
Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Carpathian @ 38. Jaw dropping. He points to the fact that I did not take into account that there are multiple ways he could have attempted to deceive us. And then he suggests that is a failure on my part. God help us.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
In 37 Carpathian demonstrates the truth of Robert L. Kocher insane denial essay:
It has become common for people who routinely engage in chronic psychotic levels of denial to consider themselves as being mental powerhouses, and to be considered by others as being mental powerhouses, because no one can break through their irrationality. This is often supported by a self-referencing congratulatory inner voice which says, “(guffaw) He REALLY didn’t have an answer for that one!” And they are correct. He didn’t have an answer.
Carpathian, your insane denial is impenetrable. You must be so proud.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Good one Carp! You caught me. I predicted you would join eigenstate’s lie, and you certainly did not. But I totally neglected to include among my prediction of possible responses another tried and true form of deceit — pretending we were talking about something else and responding to that.
This is another thing I've noticed about IDists; the inability to process multiple statements. In computer logic, gates don't come with just pairs of inputs but might have eight. That means eight things could all be true at the same time. IDists however seem to have an inability to cope with this concept. Over and over I've seen IDists claim that 1 "boolean truth" negates another when clearly this is not the case. In one race, a driver may lose the race but win the championship in that same race due to points standings. This means the driver is both a loser and a winner at the same time. That form of multiple "boolean truth" logic seems to be too difficult for IDists to handle.Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
We have been asking the question about eigenstate. I will ask it about you instead. Why do you do it? I know you are being deceitful. You know you are being deceitful. Everyone reading this thread knows you are being deceitful. Carp, the whole reason for being deceitful is to, you know, actually deceive someone. Yet you make a run at it even when you know you have no hope of succeeding. Why? Why do you do it? It is utterly senseless. Please explain that to me.
It's easy to explain. The fact that I am not deceitful, yet you claim I am, is proof of one of two things; you either truly believe it but are wrong, or you don't believe it but are saying it anyways for the purposes of this debate. I believe the latter. In every exchange that you seem to be losing, you start to focus on the debater instead of the debate. Why would you change your focus from a topic of debate to the debater if you felt you had the better argument? Clearly you must believe you are losing the debate if you change your focus to the person.Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Thank you. As I said to Dennis above, I understand and appreciate your concern for Carpathian’s soul, even if he himself has noneBarry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
I'LL step back Barry...Andre
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Andre, thank your for your contribution, but I have gavelled Carp's attempt to hijack the thread (one which you picked up on).Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Carpathian demonstrates the corollary, why liars lie badly. A consequence of chronic, pathological intellectual dishonesty is a narrowing of ones sphere of influence to other liars. A further consequence of which is the positive reinforcement from other liars that their lies are credible and compelling. But when those lies are trotted out to an informed and experienced audience, those same lies don't pass muster and are recognized as vapid and vacuous. In terms the lying liar can comprehend: When a child is caught by his mother standing next to the cookie jar with crumbs on his lips and chocolate on his finger tips, the child lies "the dog ate them" because that lie is plausible to both the child himself and to his friends (whence he heard it). But unlike the child and his friends, the mother is experienced in such lies and childish ignorance, and sees the evidence of cookie crumbs on lips and chocolate on fingertips, plus knows that dogs don't remove cookie jar lids and put them back (all evidenciary details the child overlooks having relied on his friends "wisdom"). But the child, in his ignorance and inexperience, thinks his mother is fooled because his friends fooled him with the same lie.Charles
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Carpathian I want to tell you a story, If Darwinian evolution is true then homosexuality is a defect. You see homosexuality does not contribute to the fitness of any populations and in nature anything with a defect is discarded or removed. If Christianity is true then homosexuality makes you just a sinner. Since I'm also a sinner I resonate with sinfulness but being sinful does have a path to redemption, nature however does not.Andre
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Hoe did the conversation go from Einsgate is a liar to Jesus is a myth? The absolute anger towards Christianity is now on the table. Been there done that hated God so much for 34 years I convinced myself He is a myth. Boy was I wrong. And if you ask me other than my personal experience why I deem Christianity true my answer is a simple one. The Bible makes it clear in heaven there will be no sex. You just don't say something like that to a man unless it's true.Andre
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Barry @ 23:
Now, if you are true to form, you will join with eigenstate in his insane denial. But if you break with your habit and admit the plainly obvious truth of the matter, you will have to admit that eigenstate is a liar. And that would bring us back to “why does eigenstate do it?”
Carpathian @ 28:
If you are talking about whether “A=A”, it cannot be wrong since it is correct in syntax.
Good one Carp! You caught me. I predicted you would join eigenstate’s lie, and you certainly did not. But I totally neglected to include among my prediction of possible responses another tried and true form of deceit -- pretending we were talking about something else and responding to that. You said that eigenstate does not lie. I demonstrated one of eigenstate’s lies. You responded not be admitting you were wrong, but by trying to change the subject. You and eigenstate are very much alike in that you are both very nearly shameless. We have been asking the question about eigenstate. I will ask it about you instead. Why do you do it? I know you are being deceitful. You know you are being deceitful. Everyone reading this thread knows you are being deceitful. Carp, the whole reason for being deceitful is to, you know, actually deceive someone. Yet you make a run at it even when you know you have no hope of succeeding. Why? Why do you do it? It is utterly senseless. Please explain that to me.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Carpathian: But I see that behavior in Christians. So? Do you think it is objectively bad, and why?Mung
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
OK. Consider the following two statements. LH1: “I cannot . . . be . . . certain of anything” LH2: “the proposition is not fallible”
If you are talking about whether "A=A", it cannot be wrong since it is correct in syntax. Any human being is fallible, but that statement does not leave any human a choice to make. As soon as you try to use that construct to solve problems however, human fallibility enters the picture.Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Thank you Dennis. I understand and appreciate your concern for Carpathian's soul, even if he himself has none.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Barry:
The topic is “why does eigenstate feel compelled to lie”?
Sorry for the extra post. Internet delays. Backing off now.DennisM
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
DennisM:
He had no guarantee at that time of coming back, except that the ancient writings said he would. Perhaps you may think of this, and reconsider your opinion of Jesus and Christian faith.
I appreciate the reply!Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
From Carpathian:
Jesus on the other hand, was a human who was “blown up” and “re-assembled” as a god.
First, Jesus was human AND God on earth. That is a fundamental concept presented in the Bible but not explained, probably because it cannot be explained. The Creator somehow put himself into our human family. Second, Jesus has not "re-assembled" into something he wasn't while on earth. He remains a human being, but temporarily absent from us. If you could stand in front of him now you would still see a human being. He became a human being permanently when he came to earth. That is part of the whole "plan of salvation" you may have heard about from Christians. You are criticizing things you don't understand.DennisM
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Carpathian,
I believe eigenstate doesn’t lie.
OK. Consider the following two statements. LH1: “I cannot . . . be . . . certain of anything” LH2: “the proposition is not fallible” In the first statement LH says he cannot be certain about anything. In the second statement he asserts that a proposition is not fallible, i.e. “infallible.” “Infallible,” of course, means “unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain.” In other words, in the second statement LH is saying that he is certain the proposition must be true. Saying one cannot be certain of anything is the exact opposite of asserting that one is certain that a particular proposition is true. Yet, eigenstate, in a misguided attempt to save his failed argument, asserts the two statements mean the same thing. This is plainly a lie, as anyone can see. Now, if you are true to form, you will join with eigenstate in his insane denial. But if you break with your habit and admit the plainly obvious truth of the matter, you will have to admit that eigenstate is a liar. And that would bring us back to “why does eigenstate do it?”
I believe that my experience in life suggests that when one side of a debate starts to lose, they start attacking the messengers instead of the message.
In my experience, materialists such of yourself seek to win by engaging in the insane denial tactic, and when someone points out that they are engaging in the insane denial tactic they attack that person as intolerant or hostile.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Dennis, I have gavelled Carpathian's attempt to hijack this thread. The topic is "why does eigenstate feel compelled to lie"?Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
"I believe eigenstate doesn’t lie." Indeed. A statement of faith. Even certainty? How religious of you, Carp. Andrewasauber
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
From Carpathian:
Clearly, if Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected in three days, he did not sacrifice his life since he knew his existence would continue in whatever way he saw fit."
Even most Christians do not understand what Jesus did, so I don't blame you for thinking you found a logical contradiction in Christian faith. Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected in the same way I know I will be if I trust him for my future. He believed the scriptures that described his life and mission. However, he did NOT have the kind of certainty you think he did. He only had faith and trust in his heavenly Father not to leave him in the grave. Based on that, and on the kind of love you grant to humans who give their lives to save others, Jesus gave his life to save us who would otherwise be lost forever. It's significant that even if the result might be that Jesus himself would die forever, he was willing to do it for the people he loved. But it wasn't just the physical death he experienced. He doesn't save us from that. What he saves us from is called in the Bible "the second death". It's the one that is accompanied by anguish and despair in the knowledge that one is dying apart from God and will be gone forever. That anguish is what Jesus experienced while dying on the cross, the sense of dying and being lost forever. He had no guarantee at that time of coming back, except that the ancient writings said he would. Perhaps you may think of this, and reconsider your opinion of Jesus and Christian faith.DennisM
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
If he has a comment regarding why eigenstate continually tells outrageous lies, he is free to post it.
Alright. I believe eigenstate doesn't lie. I believe that my experience in life suggests that when one side of a debate starts to lose, they start attacking the messengers instead of the message. I believe this has happened with IDists as their arguments are the first to change into emotional statements and posts like this one.Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
OK. We’ll use this analogy. If a house is blown up and then reassembled into a house again, does that mean it was never blown up? Under your logic it would, which is absurd.
That was my whole point. If the house is blown up and re-assembles itself, the house has not lost it's function or future. Jesus on the other hand, was a human who was "blown up" and "re-assembled" as a god. Sort of like blowing up a garden shed in your backyard and seeing it re-assemble itself into a 60,000 sq ft mansion. So with Jesus, no sacrifice. UDEditors: Yeah, forsaking your Godhood, entering into creation as a man, allowing yourself to be beaten nearly to death and nailed to a cross, and then, while you are on the cross, bearing the sins of the entire human race from the beginning of time to the end of time, all the while having the power to stop it at any instant, is no sort of sacrifice at all. Carpathian
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Carpathian has succeeded in hijacking the thread from its original purpose though. If he has a comment regarding why eigenstate continually tells outrageous lies, he is free to post it. False claims of equivalence do not count as such.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Carpathian,
It is an insane denial of logic to actually believe in this myth
And this seems to have slipped by you as well: The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history. Your response to all of the evidence is to stamp your foot and call it a myth. While it is typical of your ilk, it is hardly a satisfying, or even rational, response. Evidence, Carpathian, is what I want from you. Your bare unsupported, dogmatic assertions establish nothing whatsoever.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Carpathian,
The topic is why liars lie and I gave an example.
No, actually, you didn't. I told you before that the word “lie” does not mean “statement supported by massive evidence but which Carpathian nevertheless refuses to believe.” Apparently it did not sink in. Maybe you should write it down.Barry Arrington
September 15, 2015
September
09
Sep
15
15
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply