From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:57:29 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>>No.  You simply asked how they "jive".  I explained how they can in

>Are you picking on my illiteracy again?  As Jim Perry pointed out,
>the word is "jibe."

I think you were correct with "jive."  As it is something of a slang
word, the spelling may vary reigionally.

>>priciple.  In practice, of course, the combination is a failure,
>>because something about humans makes abstinence difficult even for
>>those who try it.  I will not defend this practice other than to say
>>that it is rational.  Rational, but not practical.

>Rational, but not practical eh?

Yes.

>  Would you say the same for my
>solution to food shortages? (People should stop eating)

If our only goal was stopping food shortages, then yes, that would be
a rational solution.  (If our aim is to stop hunger, then it is not a
rational solution.)

>>>Gregg, you know and I know that there are infinitely better solutions
>>>to the population problem, right?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>  So don't you think I'm justified
>>>in saying that those who seek to prevent the implementation of those
>>>vastly superior solutions seem to want to destroy life on the planet?
>>
>>No, I do not.  I think I can understand the point of view of those who
>>choose this solution.  I can see their reasoning; it is rational.

>Well, as long as it's rational, I guess nobody has the right to criticize
>it.

When did I say you couldn't criticise it?  You may.  Please do.  I
will join your criticism.  But to imply it doesn't "jive" (ie to call
the position irrational) belies in this case a lack of complete
understanding of the position.  We can claim all day that the position
is irrational, but our efforts will be wasted because those who hold
it know the rational basis.

>  You're an idiot Gregg.

You have proof of this?  If not, then let's see your retraction.
(Expect to be taken literally, because this is yet another
condemnation.)

>>Their point of view does not seem to be one of wanting to destroy life
>>on the planet, rather they seem to be interested in preserving it.
>>They think their method is superior.  We disagree.  But none of us
>>intends to purposefully destroy human life.

>I don't think that there are many who consciously think up ways to cause
>our extinction, but I do think that subconsciously, many Xians would like
>to hasten the planet's destruction so that that Jesus fellow can drop by
>again. Anyway, whether this is true or not, many of their policies seem
>to serve no other purpose other than the destruction of life on the planet,
>so I still think I'm justified in saying that they *seem* to want to
>destroy life.  We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

Apparently so.  I think your imagination has run wild.

>>If you have now taken off
>>your blinders to schools of though other than your own, you may begin
>>to see this.

>Like I said Gregg, you're an idiot.  I could rape your daughter and
>concoct a "rational" explanation for it.

Yes, but that would not make your action morally or leagally acceptable.

>  I just follow a different
>"school of thought" ya know.  I hope when I do, that you're not so
>blind that you won't be able to see my point of view.

If you do, the only hope I have of getting through to you that your
behavior is wrong is to understand your reasoning.

The underlying assumption I suspect you are making is that the
existence of a rational basis for something means that it is the right
thing to do.  There are thousands of counter examples to this idea.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism