Oh the irony, comming from someone who has called me a liar for a long time.

I agree lying can be a benifit, but that doesn't make lying right in every single context. Evolution does produce deception as a survival skill. It is what leads some species to have camouflage which can make them blend in and look like other life to hide from preditors, or allow them to prey on other life.

 

That does not make lying moral in every single context. The lie in camouflage benifits the individual or the colony, but it sucks for the victim.

 

It is why for example, it is ok to lie to protect an abused kid or spouse, but not ok for a rapist or child molester to use deception to assault a victim.

 

Evolution works, unfortunately with both force and cooperation. Lies can be used to protect, and attack. 

 

It is also why you cant understand why religion is poison to human thought. It is what allows, for example, someone to value the horrible morality of the story of Saul/Paul, Romans 3:7 "

 

 

Romans 3:7 "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

Evolution is why we lie, but gap filling religious explanations allow humans to justify all sorts of cruelty to spread the religion, regardless if it completely made up. That lie based on a naked assertion also works in creating groups and thus allowing offspring.

I'd like to see more details on the purpose for lying, which is often the justification of the liar, such as a government who might say they did it for the greater good of a nation. People lie for items like surprise birthday parties and call it a "little white lie" as an attempt to justify it.

People in poker lie in a sense, by bluffing or by verbally misdirecting the opponent. People lie to get others to leave them alone, such as a bible thumper on a Saturday morning. People even lie to help others such as a attempted suicide or if they have just broken up with a romantic partner.

Lying can be very benefical.

A predator with colors and patterns isn't a lie. It's a natural selection giving an animal more food or avoiding a predator.

You can lie to a police office provided the lie doesn't obstruct justice. If a cop asks what my favorite football team is I can tell him anything I want.

The difference between a lie and camouflage is a bit of a stretch. Snakes don't pick their camouflage. It is natural selection. The snake with yellow dots dies out because the rabbits see him coming. However if the snake has brown dots it is able to hide and wait for the rabbit to come closer. Thus it eat more, more offspring survive.

I understand what you are saying, but lying is a conscious act. 

Not true. Snakes DID choose. It's natural selection. Billions of individual snakes chose camo over what they had previously. They weren't bred that way against their will. Noone programmed their genes in a lab. You can't say snakes had no choice when snakes were the only ones making the choice.

There is nothing in the definition of deception or lie that requires a conscious choice and knowledge of the consequences. A lie is simply an untruth. A falsehood. One can lie without being aware they are lying.

Yes they did, else noone and nothing ever makes a choice, thus making it impossible to choose to lie. Some mighty strong cognitive dissonence you're showing. You literally couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

an entity that does nothing but lie, and on top of that- exists on lying, one is forced to lie to be independent. To be truthful to a lier gives the lier the advantage. I think children lie to escape judgement/scrutiny. With 7 secret agencies snooping and crawling through everyone's life for anything and everything and then lying about the reasons they do it --they deserve everything they get back from the public. If you skunk on taxes --hoooray, everyone in government does the same---only "you" are supposed to be truthful. Authoritairans (polititiians) have this mental trick that they aren't responsible for the laws they make and make it look like "the law" is a seperate entity then they. Bullwhacky. The law is representative of them and how they think and not some obscure person off in the distance oiut of their sight. It's the same with corporations, making the responsibility for the foulups an abscure person off in the distance out of sight that's responsable for their decisions. They rob stockholders blind by fudging their pay and bonuses at the loss of others. The it's not thier fasult for the failures illegal or other wise. The supreme cout is within the staus of the elites, and favor thie kind over the masses. It's obviou when these type of decision they made favor there kind. Money is NOT freedom of speech. The founders intended that we can critisize authority, and that's verbally or by the press. They by no means ment that money can equal freedom to speak one's mind/self. He who dies with the most money wins.  The court is deciding things from their mindset and staus level, not the constitution.