Language is universal

[Debunking Atheists]

Your first and second sources require to be bought to read the full. So, while this by no means discounts them, it means I also can't really judge them.

Dude! They're PEER REVIEWS dork, they have already been "judged." The abstract reveals the results. Your bias and dogma is showing. You might want to cover that up in public.

Also, if you read the abstract of the third it reveals the thrust of the paper:

The study finds that, despite the polygraph’s shortcomings, there is currently no viable technical alternative to polygraphy. While some neuroscience-based alternatives have been proposed, there are significant problems with these techniques and far more research is needed if they are to become sufficiently reliable for use in operational settings.

This is why I added it. I agree that its not 100% but to deny the tell tale signs of lying as we discussed is just that, denial. All people have such signs, MOST OF WHICH can be detected though not to the point of using against people in a court of law. That does not mean they do NOT exist as you are claiming and arguing for. They exist and I have showed evidence for that.

Yet it is all too readily apparent that the current technical and methodological means for detecting intentional deception by individuals are inadequate.

Yes, I added the third as a method of critical thinking, I am sure you have no clue what that is. It was to reveal the current methods are inadequate (remember the 70's reference?) and that new technologies, cause of dem puters, will be more accurate.

You're right, Danny boy, I guess these things can be falsif[ied]. Like your bullshit. And best of all, you're falsifying your own bullshit for me. Thanks, pal!

Obviously, you have no skills in comprehension. At least we revealed that much here. My work is done.

Ironically, the federal government relies extensively on the polygraph for forensic investigations and personnel security, yet the results of polygraph tests are generally inadmissible in federal courts (Greeley, 2004).

Snarky aside, there is some hope for you yet. That was refreshing. "And best of all, you're falsifying your own bull for me. Thanks, pal!"

The paper goes on to discuss the various potential of lie detection. Which is certainly possible, but it has nothing to do with your conscience making your sweat or your pulse quicken. If it is, then the conscience is an poorly designed construct since the response to lying is similar to other emotions that aren't connected to "sin" at all.

*facedesk

Nature? Who the fuck cares? Animals also don't have advanced hygiene or medicine, so I think judging something solely on how "nature" it is would be fairly unwise. You also note that lions don't have complex minds capable of equally complex communication. Or, to be cute, a lion won't be lyin'. So you're making a rather bogus comparison.

"And best of all, you're falsifying your own bull for me. Thanks, pal!" So there are differences huh? Hmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe there is a verse for that. Genesis 1:27 comes to mind. I digress.

No, lie to the government is not always treason. Kent Hovind lied to the government about his organization for the purposes of tax fraud, and yet he is not facing death or a punishment more severe than the "police officer" tier. Maybe you should have kept that post tucked away in those distant years, as it didn't take long to dismantle.

So you deny that its an extreme act against a nation (treason) and then give an example of a guy going to prison for doing that to our nation? Just wow! Are you alright in there? You crack me up. Have a great day.

[Azou]

Dude! They're PEER REVIEWS dork, they have already been "judged." The abstract reveals the results. Your bias and dogma is showing. You might want to cover that up in public.

You cannot just use the abstract of a paper as evidence for something. I do find it quite funny that you suddenly have all this faith in scientists. Not that I did not say your evidence was invalid; I said that I just don't want to pay $20 or so for the sake an internet argument. So I couldn't read it.

This is why I added it. I agree that its not 100% but to deny the tell tale signs of lying as we discussed is just that, denial. All people have such signs, MOST OF WHICH can be detected though not to the point of using against people in a court of law. That does not mean they do NOT exist as you are claiming and arguing for. They exist and I have showed evidence for that.

The crux of my argument is that the signs YOU listed are not conclusive evidence of lying and especially not via a conscience. The emotions you listed (pulse quickening, sweaty palms, etc.) are brought forth during several actions and would be really fucking silly if they were also the "Don't do that." indicator.

Yes, I added the third as a method of critical thinking, I am sure you have no clue what that is. It was to reveal the current methods are inadequate (remember the 70's reference?) and that new technologies, cause of dem puters, will be more accurate.

But we have nothing conclusive right not. We may never have anything conclusive. So it's incredibly premature to pin that on a conscience.

So there are differences huh? Hmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe there is a verse for that. Genesis 1:27 comes to mind. I digress.

Because they are a different species, you fuckwit. You don't take two different species and make random comparisons. Hey, humans don't turn color when they get scared like chameleons. Clearly we don't exhibit fear. It's a desperate apples-to-orange move.

So you deny that its an extreme act against a nation (treason) and then give an example of a guy going to prison for doing that to our nation? Just wow! Are you alright in there? You crack me up. Have a great day.

You define lying to the government as treason, and insinuate that the higher the authority you lie against, then the higher the punishment. But lying to the government (which you call treason in a move of being overly broad) as done by Hovind only landed him ten years in jail for TONS of lying about his taxes. You act like the stakes are close to death! Hint: treason is a bit more than just lying to the government. Not to mention that a police officer, judge and...government are all part of government.

[Photosynthesis]

Hello guys,

I see that you keep giving Dan ammunition to continue the rhetorical bullshitery of pressuposhitionalism.

Dan, if you needed a universal standard of logic for logic to work, then logic would not be absolute. Got it ass-hole? Your arguments are contradictory and you don't even notice.

Guys it is not about proving whether logic or morality are absolute or not. It is about showing the holes in the presupposhitionalism. The shit is so obviously flawed that the point should be not to let them even start. Just mock them by showing the crap they use as arguments and you are done. (Well, not really, because they will fall back into some other part of their system, but at least you will have shown onlookers that what they do is just trickery.)

[IntellectualNinja]

Your first and second sources require to be bought to read the full. So, while this by no means discounts them, it means I also can't really judge them.

Dude! They're PEER REVIEWS dork, they have already been "judged." The abstract reveals the results. Your bias and dogma is showing. You might want to cover that up in public.

Oh, good. So you finally accept the trustworthiness of all the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, the big bang, etc...

That's a start!

[Debunking Atheists]

Your first and second sources require to be bought to read the full. So, while this by no means discounts them, it means I also can't really judge them.

Dude! They're PEER REVIEWS dork, they have already been "judged." The abstract reveals the results. Your bias and dogma is showing. You might want to cover that up in public.

Oh, good. So you finally accept the trustworthiness of all the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, the big bang, etc...

That's a start!

Some peer reviews are indeed reliable. Like this one:

"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN

[E-lad]

Dude! They're PEER REVIEWS dork, they have already been "judged." The abstract reveals the results. Your bias and dogma is showing. You might want to cover that up in public.

Oh, good. So you finally accept the trustworthiness of all the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, the big bang, etc...

That's a start![/quote]

Some peer reviews are indeed reliable. Like this one:

"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN [/quote]


But the bible has been totally vetted and there is no one that disputes that every word is the divine word of God. Not one person can dispute that.

Don't be silly Dan. Of course the vetting process is not perfect. Nothing's perfect. I love how you and your ilk will holler out, "See the scientists made a mistake!11!!" Yet, they never point out that it is invariably the scientists themselves that found the mistake or distortion, just as it is the scientists themselves that have pointed out and found the frauds. Newton described gravity in a way that works very well in daily calculations, including the orbits of the planets, then Einstein totally upended all that. Science is evolving just as everything else is and the main body of the sciences have withstood the test of time or been expanded on as new data is harvested. There have been no good scientific discoveries that have been dead wrong, just that some were initially incomplete.
You hate the fact that science has relegated you bff godster to the myth that he is, but no amount of your stupid and ignorant blather is going to change that. Every single scientific discovery and advancement has been and will continue to be another nail in the coffin of literalist bible interpretations.
Go beat your kids or whatever it is you people do since you surely never do anything that actually results in positive personal self development.

[IntellectualNinja]

Dan's right. Credible peer reviewed journals are biased toward actual science, so creationists are often unfairly excluded from publication.

[Photosynthesis]

"Telltales of lying" don't prove that morals are universal. They would prove that to the societies where there's such "telltales," lying is a big deal. This would be easy to demonstrate if experiments were made in different cultural backgrounds. Since there is little if any of those experiments, it follows that you can show as many experiments and abstracts as you want Dan, but unless you show the ones showing that lying produces the very same "telltales" no matter what level of lying (important or inconsequential), and no matter what the cultural background, you will have shown nothing about universality.

If the Bible proves anything, it would be that morals change. Just study it a bit.

Still, some basic tendencies have evolved. We are gregarious animals. Thus, we need some basics in order to be able to survive as a species. But it is very hard to test how much of it is basic inclinations, and how much of it is cultural.

Oh, by the way, "absolute" and "objective" do not mean the same thing.

[Whateverman]

Oh, by the way, "absolute" and "objective" do not mean the same thing.

Yeah, good luck getting him to be honest enough to understand that...

[zilch]

In any case, as photosynth also intimated, this whole discussion about the signs of lying is beside the point. Most naturalists and theists alike agree that morality has some innate and some cultural origins- they simply disagree about the sources. It doesn't affect the argument for or against the existence of God how accurate polygraph readings are. Dan even implicitly agrees with me here, when he admits that even if he lost his faith, his "conscience" would prevent him from molesting children. We simply disagree about the source of that "conscience".