Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[Guest Paul]

This is a discussion about values. In such a discussion, outrage counts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correction: Common sense isn't a prerequisite to a sense of outrage, but it is a prerequisite to a well-directed sense of outrage.

[Guest Guest]

Point five simply states the obvious.  The resurrection of the dead to either glory or hell should be expected to have some differences from the present existence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a moron. I've never seen ANYONE look past everything he's saying so quickly and so completely, while at the same time nitpicking every syllable written by anyone else. In the gospel according to Bryan, God is going to wake up all the non-Christians (or whomever) so they can suffer forever. Apparently this is supposed to be obvious. It's not obvious to me. Given that choice and only that choice, I'd just let them sleep. That would constitute "some differences," would it not?

[Bryan]

In order to be outraged by something, you have to have a sense of values and some common sense. Draw your own conclusions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But don't do it on the basis of logic. Use your intuition.

Paul needs for you to avoid logic and reason this one.

[Guest Guest]

I'm talking about people who started smoking before the warnings.  The warnings themselves were not strong enough.  They said that "smoking may cause cancer of the lungs".  What they should have done is show the statistics comparing lung cancer rates for smokers and non-smokers.  A lot of people who were smoking in the early 70s had been smoking for years.  The damage had already been done.

There are also underage smokers who started before or after the warnings were put in place who did not have the capacity of making a rational choice about smoking.

The framers's intent is basically irrelevant because they did not all agree on what the first amendment was supposed to mean.  Some of the Founding Fathers seemed to contradict themselves.  When "Christian America" people quote-mine they only choose the quotes that seem to present their side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you a child. Do you need someone to take you by the hand and show you everything. Paul will tell you that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I say this concept applies across the board.

[Guest Guest]

The cigarette manufacturers have been making huge profits off a product that kills hundreds of thousands of people every year, and they deliberately market it to our children, hooking them on what is essentially a drug before the age of consent. Why aren't you outraged by that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not outraged because I expect people to use common sense and take responsibility for their actions.

Do you work for Binder and Binder?

[Guest Guest]

It's interesting that we're hearing all of this anti-hell and anti-bible sentiment coming from two guys named Paul and Matthew.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

In the gospel according to Bryan, God is going to wake up all the non-Christians (or whomever) so they can suffer forever.

Apparently not just the Gospel according to Bryan:

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:13-15

See also:

"...They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Revelation 20:10

[Guest Paul]

But don't do it on the basis of logic.  Use your intuition.

Paul needs for you to avoid logic and reason this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intuition is part of logic. Maybe there's an algorithm that captures life, and maybe not, but if there is we haven't discovered it yet. The human mind figures things out based on intuition all the time. This occurs as the brain performs processes we're not even aware of. How, for example, can we explain knowing the minute we see her for a date that a girlfriend, let's say, suddenly has something on her mind; or, based on the opening words of a telephone call that something is botherering someone we care about? There's something in the way she's carrying herself, or in the voice that tells us. We may not even be able to express what we're seeing or hearing, but we know it's there. As a trial lawyer, I read juries all the time. My last one (we won, by the way) was obvious, but some of them are subtle. I can't explain it to you with a syllogism, but I can explain it, and when I can read it I'm almost always right, as are we all.

As for logic, there's nothing less logical than the story offered up by the fundamentalists, for all the reasons that have already been pointed out.

[Guest Paul]

Are you a child.  Do you need someone to take you by the hand and show you everything.  Paul will tell you that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  I say this concept applies across the board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet you consistently ignore the other side of the equation, which is the corporate irresponsibility of the tobacco companies, even as they market their products to children under the age of consent, thereby costing us all billions of dollars every year and making future victims out of our children to boot. I've asked you folks to address this, but apparently arguments only matter to you if you think they support your side of the discussion.

[Guest Paul]

I'm not outraged because I expect people to use common sense and take responsibility for their actions.

Do you work for Binder and Binder?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Including children under the age of consent. So why don't we eliminate the laws against statutory rape?

[Guest Paul]

It's interesting that we're hearing all of this anti-hell and anti-bible sentiment coming from two guys named Paul and Matthew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No we're not. That would make it easier in your mind perhaps to preserve your belief system, but it's not true. No matter. You've imagined it, so it is true.

See how the fundamentalist mind works?

[Guest Paul]

Apparently not just the Gospel according to Bryan:

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.  Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire is the second death.  If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."  Revelation 20:13-15

See also:

"...They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."  Revelation 20:10

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for confirming it.

Now why can't see that there must be something wrong with the Bible? John Nash realized that he was having delusions when the girl never got older. Why can't you see that this is wrong if it's describing God like this?

Do you see my point, at least?

[Guest Guest]

Including children under the age of consent. So why don't we eliminate the laws against statutory rape?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I think you must know, parents are responsible for under age children.

Did you allow your children to smoke cigarettes?

[Guest Guest]

It's interesting that we're hearing all of this anti-hell and anti-bible sentiment coming from two guys named Paul and Matthew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very "Biblical".

[Guest Guest]

And yet you consistently ignore the other side of the equation, which is the corporate irresponsibility of the tobacco companies, even as they market their products to children under the age of consent, thereby costing us all billions of dollars every year and making future victims out of our children to boot. I've asked you folks to address this, but apparently arguments only matter to you if you think they support your side of the discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personal responsibility is the key variable to the equation.

[Bryan]

Intuition is part of logic.

So if somebody believed in God intuitively you'd accept that as a reasonable evidence?

Somehow I doubt it.

Maybe there's an algorithm that captures life, and maybe not, but if there is we haven't discovered it yet. The human mind figures things out based on intuition all the time. This occurs as the brain performs processes we're not even aware of. How, for example, can we explain knowing the minute we see her for a date that a girlfriend, let's say, suddenly has something on her mind; or, based on the opening words of a telephone call that something is botherering someone we care about? There's something in the way she's carrying herself, or in the voice that tells us. We may not even be able to express what we're seeing or hearing, but we know it's there. As a trial lawyer, I read juries all the time. My last one (we won, by the way) was obvious, but some of them are subtle. I can't explain it to you with a syllogism, but I can explain it, and when I can read it I'm almost always right, as are we all.

One wonders how Paul can make statements such as the one above and yet criticize Paszkiewicz's remarks on the issue of epistemology.

Other than via an astounding display of hypocrisy, of course.

As for logic, there's nothing less logical than the story offered up by the fundamentalists, for all the reasons that have already been pointed out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul's argument here contradicts itself. With intuition installed (by Paul) as a feature of logic, he must either accept as reasonable arguments from the other side based on intuition or engage in the fallacy of special pleading.

Anybody want to place some bets on which option Paul takes?

[Bryan]

Thanks for confirming it.

Now why can't see that there must be something wrong with the Bible?

Intuition, maybe? Paul says intuition is a part of logic, so why isn't that okay?

John Nash realized that he was having delusions when the girl never got older. Why can't you see that this is wrong if it's describing God like this?

Well, other than the fact that attempts to demonstrate it logically have to appeal to intuition, I'd say that intuition accounts for the refusal to accept the argument.

Do you see my point, at least?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your point wasn't that you argue in a vicious circle and commit fallacies of special pleading, was it?

[Guest bewildered]

Are you a child.  Do you need someone to take you by the hand and show you everything.  Paul will tell you that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  I say this concept applies across the board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What law are you talking about? I did not mention law in any way in my last post.

What are you talking about?

[Guest Paul]

As I think you must know, parents are responsible for under age children. 

Did you allow your children to smoke cigarettes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Parents are not the only ones responsible for children. Adults in the community have responsibilities toward them too, for example refraining from conduct that would harm them and from conduct (e.g., sex, drugs and alcohol consumption) for which they are not of suitable age to consent. This applies also to the tobacco companies, which have nonetheless marketed their products deliberately to children.

You resist the obvious because you don't want to see it. Your mind is made up, never mind the facts that don't fit what you wish to believe. What I don't understand is why you are completely resistant to reason, or why you must have the argument framed as all black and white. I understand your point. I was more comfortable with the lawsuits brought by the state attorneys general to impose liability on the tobacco companies for costing taxpayers billions of dollars than I was with private lawsuits. However, the families who brought those lawsuits for deceased relatives were innocent, and in that context they were justified. Many families of dead smokers can't pay the medical bills, so who should pay them: the tobacco companies or the taxpayers? I say the tobacco companies, but that's not the answer you want to hear. So you don't hear it. The tobacco companies engaged in socially responsible, even criminal behavior. Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the fact?

That's the question I'd like you to answer, but I doubt that you will. Like a lot of people, you hear only what you wish to hear.

[Guest Paul]

Intuition, maybe?  Paul says intuition is a part of logic, so why isn't that okay?

Well, other than the fact that attempts to demonstrate it logically have to appeal to intuition, I'd say that intuition accounts for the refusal to accept the argument.

Your point wasn't that you argue in a vicious circle and commit fallacies of special pleading, was it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also re: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=59376

Intuition allows for the application common sense. If you don't think that the hard-core fundamentalists' description of God paints an obviously false, distorted and grotesque picture, then use of intuition won't help you here. And if you don't have any common sense, you won't understand any of this.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Parents are not the only ones responsible for children. Adults in the community have responsibilities toward them too, for example refraining from conduct that would harm them and from conduct (e.g., sex, drugs and alcohol consumption) for which they are not of suitable age to consent. This applies also to the tobacco companies, which have nonetheless marketed their products deliberately to children.

You resist the obvious because you don't want to see it. Your mind is made up, never mind the facts that don't fit what you wish to believe. What I don't understand is why you are completely resistant to reason, or why you must have the argument framed as all black and white. I understand your point. I was more comfortable with the lawsuits brought by the state attorneys general to impose liability on the tobacco companies for costing taxpayers billions of dollars than I was with private lawsuits. However, the families who brought those lawsuits for deceased relatives were innocent, and in that context they were justified. Many families of dead smokers can't pay the medical bills, so who should pay them: the tobacco companies or the taxpayers? I say the tobacco companies, but that's not the answer you want to hear. So you don't hear it. The tobacco companies engaged in socially responsible, even criminal behavior. Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the fact?

That's the question I'd like you to answer, but I doubt that you will. Like a lot of people, you hear only what you wish to hear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the LoonyLeft talking again. "No Personal Responsibility", the hallmark of the defeatocratic party. You get lung cancer from smoking, the tobacco companies pay; alcoholic ? Sue the company that makes your favorite vodka; you're lazy and won't work ? No problem.... the government will take care of you. Obese from all those Big Macs ? McDonalds is guilty !!

[Guest Guest]

So if somebody believed in God intuitively you'd accept that as a reasonable evidence?

Somehow I doubt it.

One wonders how Paul can make statements such as the one above and yet criticize Paszkiewicz's remarks on the issue of epistemology.

Other than via an astounding display of hypocrisy, of course.

Paul's argument here contradicts itself.  With intuition installed (by Paul) as a feature of logic, he must either accept as reasonable arguments from the other side based on intuition or engage in the fallacy of special pleading.

Anybody want to place some bets on which option Paul takes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intuition can tell us a lot about our relations with each other. It tells us virtually nothing about the universe as a whole.

[Bryan]

Intuition, maybe?  Paul says intuition is a part of logic, so why isn't that okay?

Well, other than the fact that attempts to demonstrate it logically have to appeal to intuition, I'd say that intuition accounts for the refusal to accept the argument.

Your point wasn't that you argue in a vicious circle and commit fallacies of special pleading, was it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Forty-five minutes now and still no reply.

That speaks volumes.

[Bryan]

Also re: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=59376

Intuition allows for the application common sense.

Really? How (suspecting yet another LaClair Assertion Without Evidence (or LAWe) ?

If you don't think that the hard-core fundamentalists' description of God paints an obviously false, distorted and grotesque picture, then use of intuition won't help you here.

That's doubletalk.

It appears to suggest that if one is reasonable, then intuition provides the solution, but if reason fails then intuition won't help--but LaClair began his appeal to intuition, it seems, when his attempts to argue his point using reason came up empty.

Paul seems to add intuition as a magic ingredient that makes poorly-reasoned arguments reasonable, in effect.

And if you don't have any common sense, you won't understand any of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Non sequitur. Having common sense is the barrier to understanding Paul's doubletalk, not the key to unlocking the meaning.

Paul is a philosophical and logical maladroit pretending to be something else.

[Guest Paul]

Here's the LoonyLeft talking again.  "No Personal Responsibility", the hallmark of the defeatocratic party. You get lung cancer from smoking, the tobacco companies pay; alcoholic ? Sue the company that makes your favorite vodka; you're lazy and won't work ? No problem.... the government will take care of you. Obese from all those Big Macs ? McDonalds is guilty !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You deliberately market poison to our children: you get to "earn" and keep billions and billions of dollars.