[net.religion] reasonable?

hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (06/13/85)

___________________________________________________________________________

Reasonable?  Surely, Allan ...

> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "Flame, Inc."  Written 11:37 am  Jun 10, 1985 }
>
> In  a  previous  note,  Keebler  { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } made the
> silly assertion that creationists are much more  likely  to  start  a
> nuclear  war  than  are evolutionists.  I took the scenario he wrote,
> and constructed one from the opposite  viewpoint  in  an  attempt  to
> demonstrate the fallacy in his reasoning.

Wrong.  I made the assertion that fundamentalist Christians are more likely
to start a nuclear war.  Since you did not bother to include quotes, allow me:

> { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa (Keebler)
>   "We Want War ... We Want War ... We Want War ..." }
>
> > { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
> >   "War and Peace"  Written 12:21 am  May 13, 1985 }
> >
> > > { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa (Keebler) }
> > >
> > > Imagine Reagan, for a moment, sitting with his finger over "the button".
> > > He is someone who believes in the Bible and Christianity and etc...  He
> > > might say to himself, "Gee, if I push this button, God would have known
> > > and planned it that way.  If not, He will stop me or stop the electrical
> > > signals or the missiles themselves etc.  Now, the Bible says that the
> > > end of the physical world is coming, and that there will be a great
> > > battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good.  The Soviet
> > > Union is an empire of evil.  We are obviously a Christian nation, and
> > > hence, good.  The good Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson all say that
> > > the events leading to Armageddon is shaping up.  Oh, what the heck ... "
> > > Click.
>
[NOTE 1]
> Please note that this contains a lot of "stabs" at the "Radical Right",
> and not at Christianity as a whole.  It does not contain any "stabs" at
> the creationists, although, as many of you already know, creationists
> do have a sizable percentage of right-winged ultraconservatives.
>
> > This is a two-edged sword in that I can also fabricate an equally
> > ridiculous scenario for evolutionists.  Try this one:
> >
> > As we all know, the life expectancies for Russian leaders has been less
> > than satisfactory recently.  Suppose Gorbachev comes down with one of
> > those infamous Soviet "colds".  He, then, about to kick off and feeling
> > a tad grumpy about it, begins to reassess a few things.  He notes that,
> > when it comes right down to it, the bottom line of reality is physics.
> > Are we not, after all, chemical machines (extremely complex ones, granted)?
> > Do we have a responsibility or morality towards physics?
>
> Right here is the problem.  (I am assuming that this is suppose to be
> the thinking of an evolutionist.)  The inaccuracy here, as with a lot
> of creationist literature (off the top of my head I can state at least
> one specific example:  _The Creation vs Evolution Handbook_ by Thomas
> Heintz [sp?], who began his book with a short essay on science applied
> to morality and ethics), is that scientific principles should be some
> how translated into moral/ethical principles.  (Note that there is a
> difference between science saying that you need vitamins and science
> saying that you shall not commit adultery; science cannot say anything
> about the latter, as it is a moral/ethical principle.)  There is nothing
> in science that have anything to do with moral or ethical practices.
> A typical statement in creationist literatures would be like this:
> 
>         "Young people everywhere are screaming out for spiritual
>         peace and are being hit in their faces with this false
>         teaching of evolution tearing away from them any moral
>         absolutes that their parents have carefully instilled."
> 
> In fact, I have seen several examples of "well, I guess you secular
> humanists don't feel any obligation or responsibility toward God, so
> you can just eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, you may die ..."
> posted in net.religion and net.origins.
> ...

I go on to point out the specific fallacies behind your poor attempt at
"pointing out [my] fallacy".

> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "Flame, Inc."  Written 11:37 am  Jun 10, 1985 }
>
> At  this  point,  he  threw what I can only describe as a tantrum.

Wishful thinking, dude.  Pointing out your fallacies is not throwing a tantrum.
Perhaps you want to provide us with some evidence of what you so proudly accuse
me of?

Just calling it a "tantrum" proves nothing.  I have copies of the article if
you want to prove it to yourself.  Here is a quick summary of the rest of the
post to remind you of what you obviously ignored and chose to relabel to your
convenience.  (nice cop-out, bud ...)

> { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa (Keebler)
>   "We Want War ... We Want War ... We Want War ..." }
>
> First, a morally wrong or ethically wrong practice does not imply
> that it is improper science (provided that it is scientific other-
> wise). ...
>
> Second, scientific knowledge is only scientific knowledge; science
> does not look for moral/ethical principles hidden in nature some-
> where. ...
>
> A popular accusation of creationists, as mentioned above in somewhat
> different words, is the "free-for-all" anarchy that would result in a
> context consisting of only relative (rather than absolute) morals and
> ethics. ...
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but does the general population of creation-
> ists and right-winged ultraconservatives feel that a God is necessary
> to make all of us behave and be responsible? ...
>
> { some critical questions posed to A Ray Miller for his response to
> this quote ... }
>
> > { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Keebler) }
> >
> > I cannot think of a reason to survive.  It is just my general attitude.
>
> Once again, your responsibility seems to come from the need to be
> responsible or you will get spanked when you are done here on earth. ...
>
> > { your quote [NOTE 2] }
>
> Another creationist attitude of polarized options.  ...
>
> { criticism of your religious assumptions used in your "scientific"
>   analysis. }

More complaints from you ...

> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "Flame, Inc."  Written 11:37 am  Jun 10, 1985 }
>
> I guess I didn't provide him  with  enough  ammunition  for this fit,
> however, as he charges me with all sorts of positions/beliefs I never
> even discussed.  A few cases in point:  Did I mention "right-winged"?
> No.  Did I mention "ultra-conservatives"?  No.  Did I mention "Walter
> Mondale"?    No.    Did  I  mention "subversives" or "homosexuals" or
> "pinkos" or "feminists" or ...?  Of course not.  You are  welcome  to
> grep  all  of  my  notes  on  net.origins and you will not find these
> things.  Yet Keebler attributes positions on all of these  topics  to
> me (as well as others in which he used profanity).

Here is the segment that should tell it all:

[NOTE 2]
> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "War and Peace"  Written 12:21 am  May 13, 1985 }
>
> One more comment: such allegations that creationists are more likely
> to start a nuclear war has another side effect.  An inference can be
> drawn that the Soviets are much more likely to be kind, thoughtful,
> futuristic thinking peace lovers, while the Americans (corrupted as
> they are by the creationists) are much more likely to be blood thirsty,
> war seeking, crazed swine who want to blow up the world and get on
> with the kingdom of God.  The only course of action, then, is to
> unilaterally and immediately disarm the US, and welcome the generous
> humanistic Soviets over to quickly set up some "reeducation centers".

This is, needless to say, sarcasm to flavor of right-winged/fundamentalists.
Are you not a fundamentalist Christian?  I really would like to know.  Perhaps
you are Jewish or Hindu?  What would provoke you to write to this tune?  If
you had read my articles carefully, you would have realized that I do not
accuse fundamentalists of WANTING to blow up the world.  Rather, I accuse them
of being numb to the mass destruction, being that it would coincide with their
view of the end of the world.

Also, YOU are the one who lumps Christians, fundamentalists, and creationists
together.  I commented on each with the appropriate label. [NOTE 1]  Since you
seem to feel that all of those comments are against Christians in general, you
provide the evidence against your own screams of others unjustly generalizing
Christians.  Funny that you are dreaming up enemies and failing miserably to
protect yourself from them.

> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "Flame, Inc."  Written 11:37 am  Jun 10, 1985 }
>
> Next, I was floored when I read the following:
>
> > { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa (Keebler)
> >   "We Want War ... We Want War ... We Want War ..." }
> >
> > A Ray Miller (by the way, what is your first name?), please move this
> > topic over to net.religion, as it deals with moral/ethical principles
> > and  the  misapplication  of  science  to  them.    This newsgroup is
> > strict- ly scientific.  (Or at the very least, it  SHOULD  be.    Too
> > many people have already grossly violated this.)

Why don't you post the last sentence of this paragraph, too?  Let me help
you:

> { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa (Keebler)
>   "We Want War ... We Want War ... We Want War ..." }
>
>                                                ...   Too many people
> have already grossly violated this.)  I am posting this article here
> so that it will be visible to you, in addition to the reason given in
> the introduction above.

It is clear now?  Or will you still blindly throw out unsubstantiated
accusations?

> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "Flame, Inc."  Written 11:37 am  Jun 10, 1985 }
>
> The  reason  this  surprised  me  was:  1)  It was Keebler's original
> article  which  dealt  "with   moral/ethical   principles   and   the
> misapplication  of  science  to them" when he claimed that because of
> the moral/ethical/philosophical position of Christians, they are more
> likely to start a  nuclear  war;  and  2)  Keebler  brought  up  Rev.
> Falwell,  Rev.  Robertson, and the Bible in his first note, whereas I
> have *never* mentioned any of those on the net.  And HE tells  ME  to
> move  it  to net.religion?  (And finally, as I have mentioned before,
> my first name is Allan.)

Wrong.  Colin Rafferty brought up the subject in a response to a creationist.
I responded to a response to Colin's post by Paul Dubois.  Interestingly, you
do not respond to my criticism of your religous assumptions.  (Not terribly
unusual.)

> I've noticed a pattern of similar behavior in Keebler.  grep -i  fool
> on  a previous note of his (not one of those mentioned above) reveals
> 4 instances.  In that same note (directed towards another person this
> time, not me) we find:
>
> > That's right!  In fact, I hope some grads read this, and  pound  your
> > face in.  Say, what DO you do at DEC?  Take out the trash?  Obviously
> > your education stopped in kindergarden.
>
> and
>
> > Please die.  Don't prosper.  You don't deserve it.

You will note, of course, that this attitude is in response to the same from
Ken Arndt (at whom both of these quotes are directed).  Why you do not
criticize him for the same, I do not know.  Double standard, Mr. Miller?

> Such  behavior has no place on the net.  I hope it does not represent
> the attitude of most evolutionists.  Furthermore, it  does  not  even
> help  your cause.  Name calling and profanity really demonstrates the
> poverty of your position.  It would be much  better  to  discuss  the
> evidence  for  evolution,  if  you  have  any, than to resort to such
> tactics.

Wishful thinking again.  Name calling and profanity demonstrates no such
thing.  (Neither does your very poor rhetoric.)  Perhaps you wish to have
more of your opponents abandon me because I so strongly criticize your
articles?  Where are your responses to my questions?  Since you do have
the ability to post to the net, I can only assume that you have none to
offer.

> It is perfectly acceptable to attack strongly  people's  *ideas*  and
> *posi-  tions*.    I've  done  that  myself.  Attacking the *person*,
> however, is counter- productive and wrong.

My, but aren't we being a bit hypocritical?  Also, aren't you going back
on your promise of not responding to flames (since you think my criticisms
are "flames")?

Obviously you do not find it too acceptable to respond to the attacks upon
YOUR ideas.  Perhaps you should soon try to prove otherwise.

> I  stated  a  few  months
> back  that  I would refuse to respond to people I felt had gotten too
> emotional.  Keebler is the first (and I hope only) one I now have  on
> that  list.    I  can't speak for the other creation- ists, this is a
> unilateral decision, but until his behavior improves (soon, I hope) I
> intend to ignore him.

Allow me to put it in perspective, ...

> { From: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller)
>   "Policy Statements, et al"  Written  9:06 pm  Mar 14, 1985 }
>
> THEREFORE, I can't speak for other creationists on the net, but from now
> on I intend to *not respond* to anyone at the first sign of name calling or
> excessive emotion/flame/mud.

You are certainly a man of your words ...

Since then you have posted:  (* indicates an attempt at debunking evolution;
not the same as supporting creationism.)

Apr 2    A brief post discreditting the April Fools "Duane Gish" article.
Apr 2   *An attempt at debunking the challenges to the Paluxy finds.
Apr 12   A note to "Michael & Mike" promising the last of the SOR pamphlets.
Apr 12   You again whine about an insignificant difference between ICR & CRS.
Apr 12  *Dr. Hinderliter's review.
May 3    Some inane statistics.
May 3   *Botched attempt at finding an objective definition of a subjective
         term.  ("order")
May 13   "War and Peace" (to me)
May 13  *Thermodynamics debunking again.
May 19   Criticism of the "indoctrination" of evolution.
May 24  *Attempt at denying the validity of the "primitive earth" experiments.
Jun 10   "Flame, Inc." (to me)

You have responded to me twice (not answering my questions, but making silly
accusations), attempted to debunk evolution 5 times, never supported creation,
posted one socialogical criticism of the public education system, made a yet
unkept promise, and wrote three unrelated articles.  How impressive ...

You've done a very good job of ignoring all of my questions.  I am glad that
you are attempting to show some consistency.

I am not going to ignore your posts.  I still await some real answers to
some read questions, all of which you have consistently ignored.  Instead,
you write this poor attempt at discreditting me.  Tsk, tsk.  Before you
try it again, how about answering some of those questions that people have
been asking you?  Or are you going to try ignoring them like the infamous
poster of the "100+ Scientific Evidences for Creationism" series?
___________________________________________________________________________

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/15/85)

Why the h*ll are you boys slugging it out in net.origins?  Take your
arguments elsewhere (like private mail) - we don't care who can think
up the meanest names to call the other.

-- 

--JB                                          Life is just a bowl.