Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 12

July 4, 2001 (yes, on Independence Day):

[Editor's note: after a long silence, he suddenly came back (after seeing that I'd published our exchange on the Internet). Naturally, he came back with a "fresh" message, ignoring all of the points I'd made in the last message I'd sent him]

Cool! I've got my own section on one of your hate mail pages. My wife is quite impressed and is on the floor laughing. Just wanted to thank you for the praise and the honor of being on such a page.

That's the most disturbing thing about you. You're actually proud of all the things you've said.

[Editor's note: It doesn't seem to occur to him that I gave him an entire series of pages not because his arguments were so good, but because they were so bad]

I am so tired right now. I am still recovering from a trip to Temple University Hospital to descover my heart is now in a very stable state despite the defect I have and they want to take me off coumadin. They think the stroke I had is not heart related and can probably get off the coumadin. I can't wait to hear what my local cardiologist has to say about that. He thinks that I should never get off the coumadin. That means I can ride the coasters again. Yahoo!!!!!!!!

Sorry to hear about your stroke, but I think they should perhaps check the blood vessels in your brain instead of the ones around your heart.

Anyway thanks for the neat uplift you gave me.

It takes a very special person to be proud of publicly stating his support for racial hierarchies and religious segregation.

I forgot to add that my wife said she was quite proud of me and that I must have been doing something right.

Your wife (who is undoubtedly of like mind, since somebody of your mindset would never marry anyone with an even slightly differing opinion) is proud of you, so you think this bolsters your argument? Eva Braun (who was raised Catholic, just like Adolf) was proud of Adolf Hitler, and she thought he was doing something right, too.

You just can't escape the mentality of the fallacious appeal to authority, can you? Whether it's the authors of the Bible, a collection of creationist crackpots on the Internet, or your own wife, you insist on trying to prove points by simply saying that it must be true if somebody says so.

Also I wanted to challenge you to go to a pediatric hospital and try to use science and humanism there to explain things to the parents about their kid's conditions and also to the docs and nurses there.

It doesn't occur to you that the doctors and nurses were already trained in science and humanism, does it? Whether they are religious does not impact on their medical training, which is entirely the result of science and humanism.

You picked an incredibly ironic example for your criticism of science and humanism: a pediatric hospital, far from being disproof of science and humanism, is actually a gigantic testament to the success of science and humanism. Don't you realize what you'll find in such a hospital? Millions of dollars of high-tech equipment which was designed by engineers applying scientific theories for a humanistic purpose (the prevention of human death and suffering, which is a far better use of economic and labour resources than the glorification of God).

You might be surprised at the reactions you might get. Sure some will agree wholeheartedly with you but I'll bet most will disagree with you.

Again, you attempt to use the appeal to authority (in this case, the authority of worried parents in a pediatric hospital) in order to prove your point. Are you trying to suggest that for the most rational, objective opinions on science vs religion, we should go to a place where distraught parents are worrying about their children?

You seem to be inadvertently acknowledging that people are most conducive to religion when they are in an emotionally distraught, vulnerable, possibly frenzied, and almost certainly irrational state. Thanks for bolstering my position; I wouldn't have put it quite so strongly on my own, but you graciously opened the door for me.

Sure you outlook may make human logical sense but does it explain observations in the real world? It most cases it does not.

Actually, science is entirely concerned with explaining observations in the real world. You base your conclusions not on empirically verifiable observations of the real world (which fly in the face of your amusing belief in "Biblical inerrancy"), but on popularity and emotion.

But thanks for admitting that my position is logical, and admitting that you don't place much stock in logic. In the last few messages, you have publicly acknowledged that you proudly support racial hierarchies, religious segregation, Old Testament atrocities, and irrationality. I couldn't have asked for a better example of what's wrong with Christian fundamentalism.

By the way, I have observed a common Christian fundamentalist trend in your debating technique. Whenever you are getting overwhelmed by specific points, you simply ignore them all and start an entirely fresh message, emphasizing appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority appear to be your staple argument, which is quite sad. However, it's not unexpected. I find that when a fundamentalist is on his heels, he will often retreat to the company of fellow fundamentalists. There, he can preach to the choir, which will give him the answers he expects rather than giving him an argument he can't handle. Once recharged in this manner, he will return not with newer and better arguments, but with a renewed conviction that he must be right because his fellow fundamentalists agree with him.

In your case, you don't even try to hide it.

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 13

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: