There is no objective Morality

[Jackalope]

How is deceiving people a victimless crime?

It is only deceit if one knows that one's statements are false. That is not the scenario that you proposed. You proposed that it would be the greatest crime to deny that objective morality did not exist when in fact it did. You said nothing about whether that fact was demonstrable. In the absence of said demonstration of fact, it is one's opinion, which is hardly a crime. Oh, and when last I checked, lying was not a crime, much less the greatest crime.

In addition the point that I was making, is that if objective morality exists, it exists independent of any entity's opinion of it, including god's, and that said god cannot be harmed by it's denial. No harm, no crime.

By the way, your proposition can be turned around to to damn you equally - what if there isn't such a thing as objective morality? By your own standard, would it not then be just as much of a crime to opine that there was? This is of course, purely a though experiment, because I personally do not think it would be, but if you are applying your own screwy logic, you should - and since you cannot demonstrate that you don't know... I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

[jstrodel]

Oh, and when last I checked, lying was not a crime, much less the greatest crime.

How different we are.

[Foxaèr]

How different we are.

Only religion and corporatism wishes we were all the same.

[jstrodel]

Mr Infidel, do you think lying is really not that serious of a thing?

[Jackalope]

Oh, and when last I checked, lying was not a crime, much less the greatest crime.

How different we are.

It is not a crime, particularly when speaking of non-demonstrable truths.

Perhaps you long for the days of the Inquisition. I for one, do not.

As one who has asserted that there are multiple sources for epistemological truth, surely you should understand that "truth" is a nebulous concept. Thoughtcrime double so.

...or perhaps you're talking out of your ass.

[jstrodel]

Multiple sources, truth is difficult to define, could be nebulous in some ways, but how much people despise and hate one who hides in the shadows of gray and black and uses holy, holy, philosophy, glorious wisdom of God to turn light into darkness and hide light from the eyes and make clarity into deceit.

Deceit is a psychological process I think more than something that can be put in epistemological language. Deceit happens when people go against their conscience. People have a sense of what is true from false. There is a lot of gray area.

Crime introduces the state into ethics, which is unnecessary. To say anything at any time that is untrue, even in a small amount, is a very, very evil thing to do. It is a very serious and destructive thing. Even to have 1% inaccuracy in anything you say is a very serious shortcoming, whether you intend to do it or not, if you are a teacher.

Ignorance is a very, very serious evil. There are few things as destructive in the world as ignorance. People are not free to be ignorant, and they are not free to be fools. The freedom of speech does not overwrite the absolute imperative of human nature that it is always wrong in all circumstances to be a fool.

There are no exceptions. A fool is a wicked person. Ethics must always proceed out of consequentialist lines, which implies that the seat of intentionality must be governed by the appropriate level of wisdom to ensure positive consequences. Otherwise, the action is considered to be harmful, whether of good intentions or not.

A fool is a wicked, destructive brute beast. The fool says he does not understand, he did not mean to do it, he does not understand because he did not purpose in his heart to direct all his affairs towards the good of others.

The fool is a selfish beast. His ruin is deserved.

[Jackalope]

[Foxaèr]

Mr Infidel, do you think lying is really not that serious of a thing?

As much as religion and corporations lie, I hope I am never anything like them.

[jstrodel]

Do you hope you are not like them because you base your morality on being what religion and corporations are not, or because it is wrong to lie?

When I was younger, I used to hate religion and corporations and be a left wing anarchist. I used to hate corporations and then base my hatred of lying and greed off of my hatred of corporations.

[Tartarus Sauce]

How different we are.

...or perhaps you're talking out of your ass.

Isn't that a given with strudel?