When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.

On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.

I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.

Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.

Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,

We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.

Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.

That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!

It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.

There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,

I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.

A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.

There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.

The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.

Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.

If someone denies God's existence on those grounds and is called an atheist, what is someone who denies the existence of quarks on those same grounds called?

Do not torture yourself over such issues, dear sister in Christ! It's not your problem, it's the perennial atheist problem: Logic fails when people don't notice the essential need of logic as a harbinger/criterion of any standard of universal Truth as it plays out in actual Reality. Universals to them are inconvenient. I'd guess because one usually finds God at the bottom of any true universal.

Atheists, it seems, eschew universals in principle. Thus atheists "self-contradict" virtually all of the time. But they don't notice this much.

Do not abuse them! Pray for them.

Call that a "circular argument" all day long if you want to. Er, you wouldn't call it that; but others are not as scrupulous as you. The Truth of the statement holds up: For common sense gets the tie-breaker vote. :^)

Perhaps my friend LeGrande might pipe up here and say, "Aha! I've caught you in the every act of 'instantiating a fictional god, called Logic! Or Reason! Ably accompanied by the good squire Common Sense!'"

At that point, we agree — at least as to the parties just specified.

Their presence in any way shape or form does not depend on any act of "conjuring" by me.

The world was not born with me, nor will it pass away with me.

While I'm here, I give all thanks and praise to God Who made it, to be what it is, and not some other way — and to Be, rather than Not-Be.

In conclusion: Humans do not create God. God creates humans. And this is an irreversible process.

All thanks and praise be unto our Lord!

Thanks ever so much for writing dear sister in Christ! And for your many fine essay/posts on this thread!

notice how kind I am being towards you since you expect better treatment from Christians than you seem willing to give yourself

Is bragging a Christian trait? If your being nice is something forced then don't be nice. Otherwise it's hypocrisy. As for me, I am civil with people who are civil with me. I believe in measure for measure. If you are nice, I will be nice. You can count on that. It's the Golden Rule... :)

We were speaking of the embarrassing lack of TRANSITIONAL evidence. In other words, transmutation of species that would have to have happened if Darwin's theory of evolution is fact.

I didn't see it that way, but if that was what you were talking about , then you make a very good point, boatbums. The theory of evolution has a lot of loopholes and uncertainties. It should not be treated as gospel. But in all fairness, there is a lot more evidence to support the evolution than the story of Genesis.

I wonder if even you could resist prayer should a loved one be in dire straights?

I never did understand prayer, boatbums. Does God change his mind as a result of them? Do prayers have the power to alter God's will (the Bible seems to suggest they do, which means God is not eternal and unchanging!)? Why pray, then, "Thy will be done..." when your prayers are saying "let my will be done"? If I truly believed my loved ones are going to heaven I would be happy that they are dying. I would beg God to take them, the sooner the better. I would envy them! For if you love God with all your heart and soul and mind, then assign God to not take your loved ones means you don't love God first and foremost, and you are a hypocrite.

Dear Betty, please allow me to report a quark sighting.

Zwiebelkuchen, which literally means "onion cake" in the German language, is actually a savoury pie (a quiche?) prepared with onions and quark (similar to sour cream) on a leavened or yeast dough, that is very popular in the German wine-growing regions. Serve them warm with a glass of chilled half dry German Risling or fruity Corbières if you prefer red. It is most common at wine harvest, and can be found at gasthauses and harvest barns along with the ultra-new wine, federweisser, the product of fermented freshly pressed grape juice, known as "must." Having had the pleasure for many years of traveling the weinstrasse of west/central Germany during harvest, let me assure you that you will not go wrong with quark-based zwiebelkuchen, federweisser, and fire-grilled wurst. Almost heaven.
Quark Dough adapted from Grundrezept Quark-Öl-Teig Topping Recipe adapted from Tobiaskocht
Topping
•4 Yellow onions
•3 stalk Spring onions
•2 tbsp Olive oil
•200 g Herb crème fraîche
•Salt and pepper to taste
•1 tsp Cumin seeds

Quark Dough
•350 g All purpose flour
•15 g Baking powder
•1/3 tsp Salt
•50 g Sugar
•1 Egg, small
•220 g Quark, lean (Magerquark)
•80 g Olive oil
•80 g Milk

1.Cut the ends off the onions and slice them into thick rings. Slice the spring onions into rings too. Heat a skillet with olive oil over medium flame. Add in onions and stir-fry until lightly golden. Stir in chopped spring onions. Season the mixture with salt and pepper. Turn off the heat and set aside.
2.Combine the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar in a mixing bowl. Add in egg, Quark, olive oil and milk. Stir until the dough forms a ball. Preheat the oven to 180C/350F. Line a baking tray, about 30x40 cm, with parchment paper. Roll out dough on a lightly floured surface into a rectangle and fit into prepared baking tray.
3.Top the dough with the herb cream evenly. Spread the caramelized onion all over the cream. Sprinkle the top with salt, pepper and cumin. Bake for 25-30 minutes until beautifully browned.

I gave the example of the very early Christians, including the Apostles, who personally witnessed the risen Jesus Christ after his brutal execution. Those people went on the suffer death because they refused to deny the truth of what they saw with their own eyes.

Hearsay, boatbumbs. There is no cfredible evidence except that such was the case. This is pure 'tradition' or, as I like to call it, myth/legend.

Nevertheless, Muslim fanatics die for their religion. If being "martyred" proves anything it is their fanaticism, not truth of their religion.

My point was that, although there are people who die for a lie, they usually wouldn't for something they KNEW was a lie.

And therein likes the problem, boatbumbs. That's why they call it belief in God, and not knowledge of God. You choose to believe even though there are holes in that belief. I choose not to, as I choose not to blindly believe in theories.

When Peter, for example, was threatened with crucifixion upside down he could not and would not deny what he KNEW was the truth.

More hearsay. How do you know he said that? Who recorded the conversation? That's like the detailed descriptions of the crucifixion and not a single apostle was there to describe it!

That's the difference. I know your cute example of the pink unicorn from Jupiter could easily be shown false were you facing death. ;o)

I have news for you: we are all facing death. Besides, what people do in a state of panic or fear is not a rational proof of anything except that people will agree to anything only to get out of the unfortunate predicament. Their reaction proves nothing but desperation.

Why does God heal cancer but won't give paraplegics new limbs?

Mark 2

1 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Document the resurrection of someone who's been dead and buried, not someone who swooned.

ROTFLOL!!!!!

Right. He was beaten, scourged, had His beard ripped out, thorns pressed into his head, nails driven through his hands, a spear thrust into his side, and didn't die from massive infection, blood loss, and fluid loss, but only *swooned* and revived in the coolness of the tomb, no doubt, after three days of laying in the cool tomb with dirty, untreated wounds.

The lengths people will go do deny the death and resurrection are almost unfathomable. It denies all the logic and reason atheists brag about to deny that what He went through didn't kill Him.

And He walks out of the tomb, past the Roman guard in perfect health, right?

Atheists don't believe because they don't want to believe. There's something in any atheist's life that they don't want to deal with before God or some sin they won't give up. It's the only reason people reject God, and the mental gymnastics they go through to justify that reject are more absurd than anyone could make up.

It's not lack of evidence that's the problem, it's sin and the will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.