Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 15

July 9, 2001:

You missed the point...again..."amoung men." Men created racism.

Men like Jesus, who treated others differently depending on their race.

You're ignoring the fact that Christ was talking to her of her understanding. (He was there to help those of his own family first (the Jews since they were called first).

Ah, so it's not racism to treat one race better than another if you simply refer to that entire race as your extended "family"? Nice rationalization there. I suppose Hitler could have called the Aryan race his "family" too.

When she responded that even those after could still recieve pleased Him because she understood that He was there for everyone not just the Jews.

But he would not treat them equally.

Sounds like He was biased and racist towards her eh.

If you don't treat people equally regardless of their race, then you are racist. And so was Jesus.

I though offering something to everyone was not racist. Where have I gone wrong with that understanding?

Offering something to everyone would not be racist if you didn't bump one race up to the head of the line. Suppose you were starving and you went to a food bank. The person there says "the food is free, but Germans eat first. The rest of you have to wait." Would you think that racist? Or would you happily wait your turn, knowing that since they technically offer food to everyone, they're not being racist despite the obvious discrimination?

No He understood it and meet people at their own understanding.

In other words, it's OK for Jesus to racially discriminate because everyone else did it too. Nice morals you've got there.

And everyone was murdering them just as much. People are people. Don't blame God for people's mistakes. Yes God order the Jews to kill at times but it was because they were such an abomination to Him.

So you're trying to claim that the Israelites' victims were just as bad as they were, therefore it's OK to commit atrocities?

First, that's an abhorrent viewpoint. If the Americans had started rounding up Germans after WW2 and methodically exterminating them in gas chambers until there were none left, would that be acceptable on the basis of what the Nazis did?

Second, you are lying again about the contents of the Bible. The Israelites invaded a piece of land upon which others had been living. They killed not just the soldiers, but also the women and children that were living there. Were the women and children also an "abomination" to God, deserving of horrible deaths? The Israelites butchered their victims not in self defense, but in bloody conquest. All for the seizure of territory and the glorification of God. Read the Bible.

[Quoted] "Of course there was no hierarchy within the Israelites! The Nazis had no racial hierarchy within the Aryan race either."

Don't count on that. Wasn't Hitler above everyone else. Wasn't everyone suppose to "Heil Hitler?"

Of course, but that was a government hierarchy, not a racial hierarchy. The Jews had King David, too. You still can't find a genuine distinction between the behaviour of the Old Testament Israelites and the behaviour of the WW2 Nazis. And you never will, because they were every bit as evil.

I don't and do not persecute those who do not agree with Christ.

Yes, you do. Do you think prostitution should be illegal, or that all forms of pornography (not just child porn or snuff movies) should be illegal? If so, then you are advocating that people who don't follow the puritanical sexual policies of your religion should be persecuted. Do you agree with the prosecutors in the infamous Scopes monkey trial? If so, then you are advocating that science teachers should be muzzled whenever scientific theories kill religious sacred cows.

I just feel sad for their loss.

And you demonstrate your sympathy by accusing them of not recognizing human feelings, and by refusing to associate with them in any way? Interesting.

Although I have been persecuted for my beliefs though.

Vague claim #1 (one which you've made before). I challenging you to describe this persecution which you've supposedly suffered because of your beliefs.

[Editor's note: he never did answer this challenge]

[Quoted] "On June 7, 2001, you used the analogy of an "an isolation ward" to describe your preferred treatment of religious minorities."

No I may not have said it clearly enough and for that I apologize. The isolation ward was for the Jews and Christians to be isolated from the outside influence. Just like a real isolation ward so that outside infections don't influence the patients there.

You're a laugh riot! You think that there's a difference between isolating others from you, and isolating you from others? Let's put this in terms you might understand. Suppose a black man in 1952 accuses white men of keeping black people out of their institutions. Suppose the white men respond that they aren't keeping the black men out ... they're keeping the white men in. What's the difference? None!

If you refuse to mingle with others, then you are engaging in segregation. Period. You are trying to split hairs, and draw distinctions where none exist. It is impossible to segregate yourself from others without also segregating them from you!

I would segregate them from myself. Examples are chuch groups, Bible studies etc.

And if you spend all of your time in such a manner, then you are being a bigot. Let's put it this way: suppose a white man wants to spend his time only in the company of other white men. Is that racism? Of course. Now suppose a Christian wants to spend his time only in the company of other Christians. Is that religious bigotry? Absolutely.

Suppose I was part of an atheist club. Any time I spend there would obviously not be spent in the company of anyone but atheists. That is an unavoidable consequence of the nature of an atheist club. However, if I made a point of spending all of my time at that club, then I would be a bigot. That's part of the reason I don't make any particular effort to spend time exclusively in the company of atheists. Unlike you, I recognize the lesson that nature teaches, which is that strength comes from diversity, not purity.

You'll have to agree that with anything you are teching that you don't want contrary information comming in.

On the contrary, I have no problem with contrary information coming in. I would not object to a mythology and religion class in school, for example. What I object to is the ridiculous creationist attempt to force their teachings into science class even though it has no scientific validity.

[Editor's note: can you imagine if a group of science teachers tried to force Sunday school teachers to teach Big Bang theory instead of Genesis? It's all a question of integrity: science teachers can only teach legitimate science in their classes, just as Sunday School teachers would expect to only teach religion in their classes]

But in general public I would segregate no one.

Again, you're splitting hairs. You just said that you would separate all Christians from the general public, but in your ideal society, Christians constitute the vast majority, if not the entirety of society ("behavioural purity", remember?). Therefore, anyone who is not a Christian would be in the "general public" alone. In other words, they would be isolated and ostracized, just as I've been saying all along.

Such a society would remove individual choice from each and every person, thus creating an environment in which anyone would have to choose their religious beliefs with the full knowledge that failure to choose "correctly" would lead to ostracization.

See above. Also you don't want me or any other to teach in the public arena anything you disagree with. You want us to stay in our churches and Bible study groups etc.

Wrong. There are classes discussing religion, mythology, and theology in educational institutions all over the country, and to the best of my knowledge, no scientist has ever gone on record claiming that those classes should be deleted.

Nor have scientists attempted to force their way into such classes and alter their textbooks, the way creationists would like to forcibly alter science textbooks. I myself took an Old Testament theology class when I was in university, and I had a strong interest in Greek and Norse mythology when I was in high school.

You are incredibly close-minded, but you shouldn't project your behaviour onto others. You keep insisting that I want to shut myself from all beliefs that are different from mine, but you haven't a shred of evidence that this is the case. You are merely projecting your own behaviour onto others, as usual.

But you can teach anything you want to me and my children in the public arena. That is what your problem is. I don't mind in the public if you want to teach or say anything you want but don't restrict me. That's the whole point that got me annoyed with you in the first place.

More lies. I never advocated any restrictions on the teaching of religion. What I want to restrict is the misrepresentation of religion as science, because that would be fraudulent.

And I believe that science lacks quite a bit when teaching of origins.

You have made numerous attempts to demonstrate these failings. Each and every one of your points was easily rebuked, and you never managed to provide a response. So now you are reduced to the "I believe" argument again, because you have no arguments but you refuse to admit defeat. Once again, your pride is obviously exceeding your intellectual capacity.

Don't count on that either. Granted she started in a "Christian school" but during the formative years of her life she was quite shielded from Christianity. She only went to a Christian shcool because her parents deemed it to be the best education she could recieve, although now her mothers says it was the worst she recieved.

ROTFLMAO!!! In the last message, you said that your wife "was in an environment where she had little or no exposure to Christianity", and now, upon cross-examination, you admit that she went to a Christian school!!! It is becoming quite clear that not only are you irrational and bigoted, but you are also a habitual liar. I also find it amusing that you actually think you can get away with saying she was "quite shielded from Christianity" while in a Christian school ... perhaps she hid in the closet the whole time?

Do you mean Mary's virgin Birth or Jesus'? And yes we agree on those points. That's part of the Christian Faith.

In other words, you chose to marry someone of like mind, precisely as I expected. I wish you would simply admit it when I'm right about something, instead of desperately dancing around in a pathetic attempt to save face.

[Quoted] "I challenge you to find quotes from Mein Kampf which demonstrate that Hitler was not a Christian."

Sorry don't have a copy on hand. But saying your a Christian and being a Christian are two very different things.

Very well then, give me an example of something Hitler did that the Biblical God would not do.

[Editor's note: he never did give me such an example]

No I just think considering our interaction you have absolutely not respect for me. So why would you want to listen to me?

If you could come up with a decent argument, I would love to hear it. I like a good argument, and the reason I have no respect for you is that after thousands of words, you have so far failed to provide one.

[Quoted] "I challenge you to find a correlation between aptitude and religious faith in the medical profession. I challenge you to find a correlation between mortality rates and religious faith of doctors in attendance. As usual, you have casually made an extraordinary claim without a shred of evidence."

Sorry I don't have access to such information I only have personal experience to go by.

Vague claim #2. Describe these experiences, and explain how they can be used to justify your claim that your chances of survival are lower in the care of non-religious doctors.

[Editor's note: he never did provide an example of these experiences. You may also take note of the ramifications of his policy: he is saying that Christian doctors are more competent, which means that he openly advocates job discrimination in the medical field!]

No there was no misdiagnosis. After the diagnosis of Tetrology of Fallot with Pulmonary Atresia they wondered how I survived as long as I did. It was not a partial blockage. Atresia is a complete blockage. Look it up. During the surgery science took over I admit that but it is what happened up to that point that is in question here.

I'm a little tired of your homespun definition of ToF with Pulmonary Atresia. Let's take a look at a little passage from the appropriate page at the website of the Royal Children's Hospital at the University of Melbourne:

"This defect is a form of Tetralogy of Fallot in which there is complete obstruction of the Pulmonary Artery resulting in total diversion of blood from the right ventricle into the aorta. Survival depends on the ductus remaining open in the early days of life (in order for blood to reach the lungs), or on the presence of other connecting blood vessels between the Aorta and the Pulmonary Arteries in the lungs (Collaterals). Most babies will need a 'Shunt' operation during infancy, involving insertion of a tiny piece of artificial tube (made from Goretex) between the Aorta, or a branch (usually one of the arm arteries), and one of the branch Pulmonary Arteries. Complete Repair is carried out at two to three years. Complete repair for Pulmonary Atresia is usually carried out after the first year of life, though sometimes it may be performed earlier."

In other words, it is not unusual and it is certainly not impossible for someone to survive atresia for seven weeks, or even an entire year! There is a complete blockage of the pulmonary artery, but that does not mean there is a complete blockage of all possible pathways of blood! It only means that the blood is forced to take alternate paths, and there are obviously varying degrees of severity. In your case, they obviously thought your case would quickly lead to death, which it didn't. That is a misdiagnosis.

That what is the resonable explanation? The complete diagnosis occured after the initial one and it was a more severe diagnosis. I should have died within minutes of the ductus closeing or can the body survive without oxygen for a week or so?

Gee ... the scientific community is undoubtedly stumped by this mystery. Let's see ... what would they say at the Royal Children's Hospital at the University of Melbourne ... oh yes, they would say that the blood passed through "other connecting blood vessels between the aorta and the pulmonary arteries in the lungs." Oooohh, big mystery.

Same lame joke as before it is closer to the one my brother said. Besides "science" concluded that there was no brain damage at least until the stroke.

You've certainly demonstrated evidence of brain damage in our debate, hence my interest. I guess it must have been the stroke. That would be worth sympathy if you weren't so arrogant that you insisted on repeatedly exceeding your intellectual limitations.

Even he [the surgeon] told me that there was something else operating in my life that has kept me going as strong as I am.

You obviously don't know how to distinguish between comforting platitudes and objective scientific analyses.

[Editor's note: It sounds like his doctor had a good bedside manner. Unfortunately, he seems to have interpreted this bedside manner as an official medical proof that a miracle had occurred]

[Quoted] "Then, you assume that the surgeon stayed not because of his own free will or any professional motivations, but because God forced him to stay, presumably by manipulating him like a puppet."

No God placed me with a surgeon who happens to normally stay with his patients after surgery. Not all surgeons do that. He pulls up a gurney outside CICU and slept there the niight after the surgery.

Ah, I see. So God arranged the hospital schedule so that you would get placed with a really nice doctor who happens to be in the habit of sticking around. I had no idea that God was in the habit of deciding who works which shift. Does he seize control of the people who normally decide such things? You don't seem to distinguish between simple good fortune and divine intervention.

[Quoted] "So people without religion are incapable of recognizing human beings as anything but statistics? They are incapable of recognizing the lives and feelings of others? Upon what do you base this wildly bigoted accusation?"

Personal experience.

Vague claim #3. Describe the personal experiences which have led you to believe that people without religion are incapable of recognizing human beings as anything but statistics, without lives and feelings.

[Editor's note: he never did provide this example. Note that he is openly defending his bigoted characterization of all atheists as soulless automatons who are incapable of recognizing human feelings!]

I never said science is useless just unable to be the end all that it claims to be.

The latest in a long line of strawman versions of science. Contrary to your ignorant belief, science never claims to be complete, or infallible. It is a descriptive endeavour, and an ongoing enterprise.

Think of science as a painter who draws extremely lifelike portraits. He would never say that his picture is a perfect representation of reality, but he will continually endeavour to make his pictures as accurate as they can be. Over time, as his skills improve, his accuracy will improve. With advancing technology, his craft might even transform itself to become even more realistic (ie- photography).

Now, think of religion as a painter like Picasso. He doesn't even attempt to draw something which resembles reality. There are those who would say there is merit in his style of painting, or that it is even superior to the lifelike style of painting, but there is no attempt at realism, and it shows.

Now, if the question is: "which one is better", that is a subjective question with a subjective answer. There are a lot of people who prefer paintings to photographs. But if the question is "which approach is more realistic", then the answer is undoubtedly the first approach, not the second. The first approach doesn't have to be perfect (even photographs have limitations), but it can still make the legitimate claim that it is far more realistic than Picasso.

But science claims that it is all you need. I believe that you need more.

There you go with that "I believe" argument again. Explain why.

[Editor's note: I should have also pointed out that science does not "claim that it is all you need", but when one is under such a huge barrage of strawman attacks and other assorted fallacies, it's hard to catch them all.]

There may be no law stating an ultrasound always underestimates severity, it just happens to be a medical acceptance. And when it was over it is also a medical acceptance that it can overly exagerate.

In other words, ultrasounds are inaccurate, and there is no reason why an inaccuracy must always err on the side of underestimation. Exactly as I said. Thanks for admitting that I'm right, and your "miracle" was no miracle at all.

And science is built on such kind of statistics. I learned that in my science statistics course in college. That's why you repeat and repeat things.

Natural science is hardly built on those kinds of statistics. You are confusing technological limitations with scientific methods.

[Editor's note: the more a science must rely upon statistics, the less reliable it is. Medical studies, for example, use ANOVA (analysis of variance) to determine whether side effects are "statistically significant" or not (doesn't that make you feel better?). However, science ideally does not rely upon statistics, or analysis of variance, etc. If something is truly a physical law, it is repeatable and reproducible 100% of the time, and any deviations can only be the result of instrument inadequacy or human error. He makes vague reference to having taken a "science statistics course", which was probably connected to something like sociology. Sociology, by the way, is almost entirely reliant upon statistics (hence the fact that it's a quasi-science at best).]

[Regarding the claim that I base my arguments upon my personal experiences] No but the impact is a part of the foundation upon which you look at the Bible.

In other words, you can't find a single example to support your claim that my arguments against Creationism or Biblical inerrancy are based upon emotion and negative personal experiences, but you refuse to admit that you were lying when you made the accusation.

What's worse, Mr. Miller? Bearing false witness against your neighbour, or refusing to admit it when caught in the act?

As for your pathetic evasion tactic, don't waste your time. When you start attacking someone's argument on the basis that you think you can guess what his motivations are, you are committing the ad hominem fallacy: attacking the argument by attacking the man.

No but it provides a window into your personal point of view.

I had no idea you were a mind reader. Can't deal with my arguments so you try to avoid them by claiming that they must have been based on raw emotion, eh? If that's so, then why can't you find evidence of this irrationality in the arguments themselves?

You say Christians are racist and use your experience as an example and say that is one reason that Christianity is evil. Then you build your case with other points of view.

Find a quote from my website or our E-mail exchange in which I said that all Christians are racist. And what do you mean by "other points of view"?

[Editor's note: yet another blatant strawman. I based my argument on the fact that the Bible itself is racist (which means that it encourages Christians to be racist), but Mr. Miller said puts the cart before the horse by claiming that I base my argument on the idea that Christians themselves are racist, rather than their Bible].

[Quoted] "Describe how pure logic can be used to validate evil. Provide an example of an evil action along with a completely logical justification for it."

Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race so it was logical to eliminate those that did not fit.

That is not an example of pure logic validating evil, because it incorporates an unjustified assumption (that it would be good to have a pure Aryan race). The fault lies in the premise, not the logic.

A moral premise will logically lead to moral outcomes, and an immoral premise will logically lead to immoral outcomes. In both cases, the logic itself is not at fault. Logic is merely a way of taking a premise and holding it up the light, to examine it from different angles, so to speak. Blaming logic for evil is like blaming metal for the fact that it can be used to make swords.

[Quoted] "It doesn't occur to you that I put you up there because it would strengthen my argument about religious fundamentalists, did it?"

No it's a defense mechanism. It's called displacement.

It actually doesn't surprise me that you would want to bathe yourself in the comforting delusion that I am secretly withering under your assault. It distracts you from the uncomfortable reality that I am no more affected by you than Carl Sagan was by his detractors.

[Quoted] "I challenged you to find a single example of a point you made which I ignored. You said you were too "tired" to find such an example ..."

Actually this long post includes some of you statements and it takes me a few hours to write what I do write.

Vague claim #4. Again, I challenge you to find an example of a point you've made which I've ignored, or admit that you were lying when you accused me of ignoring most of your points.

Do you know what the word "example" means, Mr. Miller? You cannot provide an example by vaguely muttering that "this post includes some of your statements." Which statements provide examples of points you've made which I've ignored? How do they demonstrate deliberate attempts to ignore your points?

You have called me a racist bigot that's not name calling?

Of course it's name calling. The question is not whether it's name calling, but whether it's accurate. I say that Pat Buchanan is a bigot, too. That's a statement of fact; the fact that it's not particularly polite simply means that I have no respect for him. It doesn't change the accuracy of the statement.

Granted I believe I said you were being such as well.

Although in your case, you didn't bother providing any proof of this accusation.

But that was more in response to your attitude comming through on you site.

Your subjective, defensive, irrational impression of my attitude, which you were unable to back up with concrete examples.

[Quoted] "In fact, I defy you to name the "experts" upon whose authority the scientific method supposedly rests."

Actually the "scientific method" was coined by someone and it was defined by that person. I don't have access to who it was at the moment but that is an expert that everyone who uses the scienific method relies upon. (I know I know I fell flat on my face on this one since I can't provide the name. But I truly don't have access to it right now. It was the second thing I learned in that statistics class.)

Vague claim #4. I defied you to name the expert upon whose authority the scientific method supposedly rests. You failed. In fact, you failed twice. First by failing to provide a name, and second, by failing to show that the scientific method rests upon his authority. Yet you still attempt to wiggle around under the microscope, pretending that you would provide the evidence if you could. Oh yes, you really would. Sure ....

Doesn't it occur to you that if the scientific method was as reliant upon authority as Christianity, then it would be virtually impossible not to know the name of this mystery man? Every scientific textbook would repeatedly refer to his statements and his authority as the proof of all its premises.

Scientists would mention him all the time, much as Christians mention God. For an authority, this mystery man of yours is quite a reclusive fellow, isn't he?

Appeals to authority assume infallibility on the part of the authority, but no scientist is held to be infallible. That's why repeated, independent verification is required for all scientific theories, and that's why all scientific theories are eternally subject to revision if new evidence arises.

I thought you said science did not follow tendencies?

"Tendencies"? What "tendencies" are you referring to? I just explained that science does not rely on appeals to authority, and you retort by asking a weird unexplained question about "tendencies?" How does this refute my statement about the fact that science never assumes infallibility on the part of any authority?

[Editor's note: this is the most bizarre evasion I've ever heard of. I say that science is not dogmatic, and he interprets that as "science does not follow tendencies"]

[Quoted] "Provide an example of a properly documented piece of evidence which contradicts the predictions of evolution theory and which has been ignored by the scientific community."

But it is still taught that it is an infallible fact that even thought we have not discoved it all yet.

In other words, you've failed. I asked you to provide an example of a properly documented piece of evidence which contradicts the predictions of evolution theory, and you couldn't do it. You simply fell back on the tired strawman that it is taught as an infallible fact even though I had just reminded you that nothing in science is considered "infallible".

I have a Scientific American that has a whole article about how wrong scientist may be about the age of the univers. They had some recent discoveries that can only be here is the universe is much younger that they previously thought.

After about 20 minutes of searching I had now concluded I lost the magazine.

Creationist missing mystery evidence. Very popular. Perhaps evil UN operatives flew to your house in black helicopters in the middle of the night, snuck into your bedroom, and stole the magazine while you were sleeping. They were probably instructed to do it by the Antichrist.

[Quoted] "The scientific evidence that stars are enormous celestial objects that dwarf our planet, rather than being small objects which can potentially fall to Earth somday."

You are refering to the fallen angels here I believe?

Wrong. I am referring to a Bible quote which I mentioned to you already, in a previous post. Matthew 24:29. Your memory is clearly no better than your logic.

[Quoted] "The scientific evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor."

That has not been proved.

No scientific theories are ever proven. You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

[Quoted] "You know ... all that stuff which you ignore."

I don't ignore it. I just don't see it as proven as you do.

How many times do I have to explain on my website and in my E-mail messages that nothing in science is "proven?" How many times can you use the same strawman attack?

[Quoted] "Here's a challenge for you: describe the general requirements for a piece of evidence that would cause you to accept that the Bible is not inerrant. In the end analysis, you will eventually be forced to admit that there is no piece of evidence which would fit this bill, and that your religion is dogma."

I challenge back what evidence would you require? What life changeing experience would you need?

In other words, "you show me yours, and I'll show you mine?" That's a pathetically cheesy way to respond to a challenge, but very well.

Scientific theories are judged by their descriptive and predictive accuracy, among other criteria. Evolution theory can accurately account for the structure and placement of hundreds of thousands of known species on this planet. Moreover, its predictive accuracy has been borne out by the enormous number of fossil finds (not to mention new species discoveries) over the past century and half since Darwin first published his book, all of which have been [roughly] consistent with his predictions. And finally, its predictions about species adaptation have been borne out in experiments (eg. guppies mutating significantly in a very short time frame after being transplanted into an environment favouring such mutations) as well as passive observations (bacterial adaptations to fend off antibiotics and feed off industrial waste).

Therefore, there are numerous pieces of evidence which would potentially generate seeds of doubt. First, you could find a species which is biochemically and/or structurally unlinked to other species. In other words, one for which no evolutionary family tree can be constructed. Second, you could try to build up a large library of fossils and living species which are inconsistent with the predictions of evolution theory (it would take a while to compete with the hundreds of thousands of species which are consistent with evolution theory, but you've got to start somewhere). Third, you might try to conduct an experiment to show that animal populations will stubbornly refuse to favour advantageous variants over many generations, even in the presence of powerful environmental incentives to do so. And finally, you would have to define creation theory in a comprehensive manner, so that it has predictive capabilities, and then you would have to show that those predictions model reality more accurately than evolution theory.

Funny thing, though: nobody in the creationist community is even trying to do any of these things. Instead, they merely carry on political lobbying campaigns.

[Editor's note: he evaded my challenge by trying to put the onus upon me, and now that I've called his bluff, will he rise to the challenge? Of course not. His next post will ignore both challenges: the one I made which he could not meet, and the one he made which I easily met. What a weasel ...]

Like you accuse me about evolution, you just "know for a fact" that the Bible is [not] inerrant, because it does not seem to fit in the nice little world you have constructed for youself.

Yet again, you continue with the strawman accusations and projections of your own mentality onto others. If I have no rational basis for my contempt for Biblical inerrancy, then why were you unable to poke holes in my various disproofs of Biblical inerrancy?

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 16

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: