This is a thread about Lib, not Ben. If someone wants to start one about Ben, fine.
What I don’t understand about Libby is how dualistic he is. For example, in one post, he calls atoms “burps and farts.” He has repeatedly stated that atoms don’t mean shit, only Spirit. And yet, he also repeatedly states how anti-bigotry he is. What the hell? How can bigotry affect someone’s Eternal Spirit? He noted once that his Native American ancestors were force marched from Florida to Oklahoma (Trail of Tears). Why should he give a shit if some atoms were located in Florida as opposed to being located in Oklahoma? Makes no sense to me.
Also, I love how he constantly spews platitudes that make me want to retch, and then is capable of gems like “As far as I’m concerned, you can get behind me.” Maybe I’m misinterpreting him (it’s happened before), but I read that to be a PG version of “Fuck off.” It’s really easy to say, “God go with you, for He Loves you, and I Love you” or some such shit. It’s much harder to show that you mean any of it.
No, there is no limit to Lib’s hypocrisy. For example, see above where he takes glee in the though of pepper on tomatoes. But try suggesting salt on a watermelon, and see what response you get. Really, quite without bounds.
I just re-read Lib’s defense of himself, just to make sure that I had read it right. Not once, not once did he address the main meat of my accusations- namely, that he bore false witness. You know, the things I itemized?
Instead, he focussed on an entirely tangential issue- I had said in passing that I was tired of him hijacking my thread. Why? Well, he’s caught red-handed on the lying thing, so he might as well try to excuse himself on a tangential issue which is vague enough that he might be able to score a few points. Moreover, he can make some false (not to mention weird) accusations that I “hijacked” threads in various ways. Of course, those accusations of hijacking are so tenuous that they can’t really fly, so Lib has to borrow the authority of the moderators and talk about how they would no doubt agree with his condemnation of my “hijacking.”
I don’t know of a Christian alive who doesn’t believe the same thing. Ross neither distorted nor falsified his faith. You did.
[/quote]
3. In particular, I never “smeared” his credentials, since I didn’t discuss his credentials at all.
You claim he falsified and distorted his science. Yet his science is recapitulated by his credentials. He holds a B.Sc. (1967) in Physics from the University of British Columbia, a M.Sc. (1968) in Astronomy and a Ph.D. (1973) in Astronomy, both from the University of Toronto, having earned a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council of Canada fellowship. He was the youngest person ever, at seventeen-years-old, to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society. He holds memberships in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Astronomical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Scientific Affiliation. He was a Research Fellow in Radio Astronomy at the California Institute of Technology from 1973 to 1978, where he researched quasi-stellar objects. He was the first to verify the radio variability of galaxy PKS 0048-09, and published his findings in Nature in 1970.
You smeared his credentials precisely by not mentioning them, either because you were too lazy to make yourself aware of them or because you knew they would contradict your assertion that he has falsified and distorted his science.
[/quote]
4. Lib’s comment about “Why, he hardly deserves to live!” is simply putting words in my mouth.
No, it isn’t. It’s a simple ecphonesis.
[/quote]
5. To compare my comments about Ross to the Inquisition- in which people were tortured to death for their beliefs- is in such grotesque poor taste as to be akin to Nazi-baiting. (Incidentally, the fact that atheists like myself were killed by the Inquisition makes his Inquisition-baiting all the more disgusting.)
No one was comparing your comments alone to the Inquisition, oh vain one, as though your comments were that important. I had spent most of the thread, long before your hijack of it, talking about the inquisition style tactics of some debators who attack not the science but the faith of their debate opponent.
[/quote]
6. My comments about Ross aren’t “faith-bashing”; I was bashing dishonesty, not faith.
But how does any of this address the all-important issue that has millions of people all over the world on the edge of their seats? i.e.–why is Libertarian such a horse’s ass?
Libertarian replied to Ben: *“Contrary to Lib’s claims, Ross doesn’t just see the Bible as metaphor; like any creationist, he takes sizable chunks of Genesis literally.”
That’s what you would call a lie, or what the rest of us would call a mistake.*
Well, not according to Ross’s own words, Lib. In this transcript of a debate between Duane Gish and Ross on James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” radio show, he made these comments:
That is, Ross does explicitly concede the necessity to take the Bible literally (although he doesn’t agree that his “literal” interpretation has to be the same as that of the young-earth creationists), and he does claim to take “sizable chunks of Genesis”, such as the destruction of man and all other animals, literally. And he completely rejects the idea of biological evolution. Now I admit to feeling some sympathy for Dr. Ross, because he does at least try to work some conclusions of modern science into the creationism debate, and you can’t help pitying anybody who’s trying to educate Duane Gish about modern astronomy. But his own words make it very clear that he does indeed “distort science” by denying its well-supported conclusions about, e.g., biological evolution, and by claiming that modern science falsifies non-Christian religions or provides scientific evidence for design.
So contrary to your assertion, Ben’s remark about Ross was not a lie or a mistake. You tried to make it seem so by quoting opinions of Ross that didn’t support Ben’s statement, even though they didn’t actually disprove it. That’s the sort of belligerent disingenuousness that provokes these Pit threads about you, and it really is annoying to deal with. I think you owe Ben an apology on this one, Lib.
It’s even worse than you think, Kimstu. Libertarian already knows that Hugh Ross is a creationist- hardcore quoted a number of quotes to establish that point, including your own quote from Dobson’s show in which Ross declares that he “absolutely” rejects evolution. Libertarian admitted- in the other thread, to hardcore- that he was wrong about Ross, but now he’s decided to prove the opposite, and he quotes Ross blatantly out of context in order to try to make me look bad.
One can imagine Libertarian as a defense lawyer: “The prosecution claims my client killed many people, but the fact is that there are billions of people whom my client simply did not kill. Think of Leonard Nimoy, or Sarah Jessica Parker. Think of Chandra Srinivasan, an Indian peasant. Or even think, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, of yourselves. Given that there are so many people whom my client did not kill, it’s obvious that he is not a murderer.”
Best of all is how Lib prefaces his most recent round of weaselling:
**
If Lib is so reasonable that he knows I merely made a mistake, instead of assuming that I was being dishonest, then why did my comment originally cause him to launch into a diatribe about my “Inquisition-level tolerance”? If Lib knew I was merely making a mistake, then why did he act as if I agreed with his mistaken assessment of Ross as an evolutionist?
Hmmm… let me think here. Yes, I think I’m receiving a telepathic message from the other world… Ross’s faith is… Christianity! Did I get it right? Wait, there’s more- Ross also believes in Biblical inerrancy!
So, how did I do?
Of course, by your logic, Tris and Poly regularly “smear” the faith of fundamentalist Christians when they use terms like “Divine Weasel.” Why don’t you launch into them?
Could it be because they are Christians, while I am not only an atheist, but I am also a scientist? Take a look at this admission from Lib:
Would Lib have made that diatribe against me if I were not an atheist, or not a scientist? Apparently not, since Tris and Poly don’t seem to be accused of “faith-bashing.” But while Lib is able to admit his mistake in the abstract, when it comes to accusations against individuals, he can’t apologize for his prejudices.
**
You’re really, really grasping at straws now. What’s next? Are you going to claim that I insulted Ross’ mother? After all, I impugned his honesty, and his honesty “recapitulates” his upbringing, so I insulted his mother precisely by not mentioning her!
Believe it or not, Lib, in science we try to judge people’s work by their actual work, not by their training. If Ross is dishonest, his dishonesty lies in his writings- not in his schooling. Or do you believe that investigations of scientific fraud should give better treatment to people who came from prominent schools?
**
A simple ecphonesis used to underscore the following points:
“Oh, no! He believes in divine creation? He believes that biblical metaphors can be reasonably interpreted? Why, the man hardly deserves to live.”
But, as has already been explained to you what- three times now?- I wasn’t criticising Ross for belief in divine creation or for interpreting the Bible metaphorically. I was criticising him for distorting his science by rejecting the entire foundation of modern biology. Ergo, you were putting words in my mouth. It’s as if I were to respond to your messages by saying, “Oh no! Ben is caucasian? He hardly deserves to live!”
**
My “hijack” of my own thread? There you go again, nine-commandments Christian.
Anyway, would you care to provide some evidence? The tactics of the Inquisition were the rack, the thumbscrew, and the stake. Please provide quotes where evolutionist Dopers used torture instruments to attack the faith of their debate opponents.
Given that I am a strong advocate of freedom of religion, the idea that my mindset can be compared to that of the Inquisitors is simply ludicrous. After all, in this thread
I actually encourage someone to become a Christian! And yet Lib accuses me of faith-bashing. Could it be that I’m an atheist, and Lib’s prejudices run against me?
No argument quite so effective as an aphorism, eh nine-commandments?
When you talk about how God is Love, does any of that actually mean anything? Does “Love” mean what Jesus meant by the word, or is it just a warm, fuzzy, Hummelware kind of feeling?
I think that if someone, in order to suit their belief in Biblical inerrancy, rejects THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE MODERN SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY, then he hasn’t reconciled his faith with the facts.
Bear in mind that Lib has already admitted that he was wrong about Ross- all his current efforts to prove that Ross takes the Bible metaphorically are just dishonest attempts to weasel out of admitting that he made false accusations against me.
Considering that the whole “micro”/“macro” evolution is a false dichotomy that creation “scientists” came up with and is a completely bogus concept, then yeah, I assume if someone’s blithering on about the reality of “micro” but not “macro” evolution, I consider it a warning sign.
ALL evolution is “micro” evolution but those little changes add up. To say that “micro” evolution is real, but “macro” isn’t is like saying that because you can only take strides of 2 feet, you couldn’t walk from New York to California because it’s too far.
I’m reading a bit into the single word “already”, I guess, but I take it you are thinking of pursuing this theme here, Ben.
I don’t think you should. I think you’ve made your point.
I understand your frustrations with Libertarian. I like him, but sometimes he makes me grind my teeth. I’ve stopped myself from replying angrily to a post of his on more than one occasion. Sometimes his belief in peace and honesty takes a while to show. I’ve no problem with you calling him on it here, but I don’t know that you should push on along this line.
You seem pretty concerned with getting a rolled gold backdown from Lib. You seem very concerned with your reputation here. Give some credit to people who read these threads. They’ll work it out.
Just to clear up any confusion regarding Nazi comments: there is a nontrivial difference between calling a poster a Nazi and pointing out similarities between a person’s opinions/argument and that of Nazis. If Ben had referred to Chaim as being a friend of Goebbels I’d kick his ass but good for that, too–that’s a pretty obvious (and offensive) claim that that person is a Nazi (or, even under the most charitable reading, that that person has close personal ties with them). “That’s the same argument Nazis used” is not the same as “you are a Nazi.” It’s like the difference between saying “that’s a stupid argument” and “you are stupid.” Now, I don’t like Nazi analogies; I’ve always held that unless genocide is involved, keep the Nazis out of it. However, in Ben’s case, geneocide was indeed involved, so I am kind of hoist by my own petard here. (And in fact, IIRC, Chaim does believe the Nazis were doing God’s work–horrible as it sounds–by punishing the Jews for straying from God, and that those who suffered in the camps got the fair punishment they merited, so the two situations may be more similar than even Ben suspected.) Anyone who makes Nazi analogies without genocide being involved deserves any mockery they get, IMHO.
Comparing a poster’s argument to that used by Nazis has always been allowed in GD. I find it lame and uncalled for in most cases, but it has never been reason for official warning, just chronic eye-rolling. Heck, I’m sure I’ve used Nazi analogies myself. They are the twinkies of the balanced meal of an argument; everyone knows they’re fast and cheap and don’t do much to nourish the debate, but hey, sometimes you’re in a hurry, and if you don’t make a habit of it your argument’s heart will mostly remain clear of the plaque of poor rhetoric (though you have to watch out for the Cheetos of overstretched metaphors, too). What is against the rules is blatantly alluding to other posters as being genocidal goose-steppers. Even before the DITWD incident, I warned Someone-Whose-Name-I-Don’t-Recall-Right-Now for calling Libertarian a Nazi, while letting tons o’ Nazi analogies go by with no more than a snort of derision.
Well, Gaudere, you’re the mod and I’m not, but I would submit that the difference between the two is more trivial than you make it out to be. The fact that it comes down to a semantic line, one side of which Ben knows how to dance around but Daniel did not, makes it unnecessarily arbitrary. Had Daniel phrased his statement, “Ben plants lies about me in a manner similar to the way the Nazis operated their propaganda machine,” I don’t imagine for a moment that the results would have been any different. But I suppose we’ll never know, and are free to differ. Nevertheless, it’s my considered opinion that Ben frequently dances all too closely to that line without reprimand.
My other point, however stands: Ben is all too eager to explain how much he disbelieves this, that and the other thing in the Bible, but is all too ready to accept the braggadocio-laden accounts of warfare and genocide by the ancient Israelites. If you don’t believe that a literal Creation took place, don’t believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of great fish, don’t believe Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven, don’t believe Jesus was conceived of a virgin, was crucified, died and rose again, why concede or believe for a moment that these genocides actually took place? And if you are willing to believe, to the exclusion of of all other events in the Bible, that these slaughters took place exactly as described, then why not in fact believe that they were the results of God’s judgement and that that judgement was right and just?
It’s like Ben calling Libertarian (or anyone else) a “nine-commandment Christian.” It’s not as if Ben is a Christian and is trying to correct the behavior of a brother, as we often see the more level-headed Christians do in GD. It’s not as if Ben believes in God and believe’s Lib’s soul or salvation are in danger for the sin of disregarding a single commandment. Hell, it’s not even as if the “10 Commandments” are a tenet of Christianity; there are in excess of 600 commandments in the Old Testament. Those ten are particularly significant only to the extent that they were written by the hand of God on the tablets, and hold no special place in Christian doctrine or in Jewish teaching. Why, then, does Ben persist in this? Why, to show how smart he is, of course: “I caught you, sinner! Even though I don’t believe in sin qua sin, nor in the God who punishes for it, I caught you!” He spends an inordinate amount of timing patting himself on the back for “catching” people in “violation” of a doctrine he himself neither believes in nor follows.
In short, Ben, it would appear, wants to enjoy the comfortable position of both disbelieving in religion in general and of Christianity in particular, while chastising people for not following what he believes are its tenets.
I used to do this, too. I used to think it was clever. I only recently realized that it isn’t; it’s childish, petulant and stupid. I find that what a person believes about gods and goddesses and afterlifes and what-have-you is generally the least interesting thing about them. I don’t find Lib interesting because he believes in Jesus Christ; I find him interesting because he is intelligent, clever and proficient in logic. I don’t find Chaim interesting because he is Jewish; I find him interesting because he is principled and funny, even if his choice in baseball teams is lacking. I don’t find Ben interesting because he is an atheist; I find him interesting because he is well-versed in biology and evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, he’s possessed of an image of his importance to the SDMB, and of his priveleges regarding argument and address, that is way out of proportion to reality.
Anyway, that just my two cents, worth probably far less than that on the open market. I barely read the SD let alone post anymore, and this kind of silliness is exactly why.
I do. ::shrug:: “Your argument is stupid” IS different from “you are stupid” (though we do have people complain about how that distinction is arbitary, too; well, you can’t please everyone). And IF Ben makes a habit of comparing Chaim’s arguments to that of the Nazis in multiple debates, I’ll consider that harassment and I’ll ask him to knock it off unless there is a really good reason why no other analogy will serve. (Just as someone who habitually calls other poster’s arguments stupid will get called on it too, but under the rubric of “jerkiness”, not “posting insults”, while one or two rare “your arguments are stupid” will be let slide. Snotty posts are acceptable–if not usually embraced–until they get too obnoxious. Since it’s not clear-cut like calling someone a moron, you’ll have to trust my judgement on when someone goes from snotty smartass in the Cecilian tradition to “jerk”. We do tend to seek and encourage smartasses here.) Should he continue to do so after being warned, he may very well be banned. But anyhow, let’s not hash this all out again–I just don’t want people thinking all people who use Nazi analogies are going to be/should be banned. I think it’s dorky, yes, but it’s practically a staple in GD. I’d have to retroactively warn about 60 people, myself included, if we instated that rule. But if we don’t allow calling people “stupid”, I don’t think we should allow calling people “Nazis”, though you have a pretty loose rein about what you want to say about a poster’s argument.
The rest of your comments about Ben, well, I have no official Mod-opinion on, so I’ll leave it to him to argue with it if he so desires. Even if Ben does use inconsistent logic, it’s not something I give out warnings for. Hmmm…
[Moderator Hat ON]
Stop using the fallacy of the Excluded Middle, Poster A; I’ve warned you about this before! And you, Poster B, you’re using Appeal to Sympathy and The Slippery Slope. Knock it off, you two, or I’ll kick this to MPSIMS!
Which brings up a question I’ve always wanted to ask. If I’m in a debate with Gaudere the poster, and I use the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, (said authority being Gaudere the Mod), what happens?
