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.

Liturgy = worship?

Yes, liturgy is prayer and praise expressed in various ways.

Matthew 6:7-8 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him

Gentiles? The Jews do repetitious things in their liturgy and Jewish liturgy was the basis for the Christian liturgy. That includes, kissing, bowing, repetitive sentences.

Jesus also said you should pray in a closet! Do you have a prayer closet, and if not, why not, when Jesus commanded you to pray in a closet?

Keyword Search results: wave offering

Dead link. But here is a good summary of wave offering:

Read more: What Is a Wave Offering? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6625858_wave-offering_.html#ixzz1MUdc3yJc

So, it's a Jewish ritual associated with offering a sacrificed animals and bread and oil!

So, you think people who wave their hands in worship are doing it mindlessly?

Yes, because they don't bring God any sacrifices and don;t celebrate Jewish festivals. And because it's an "empty ritual".

How do you know that? Can you read their minds?

Ditto.

I'll have to reply in fits and starts.

In the end most debates come down to the question you posed,
“How do you know you're right?”

I can only add that what any person accepts as evidence and proofs of a thing have as much to do with character of the person as with the quality of the evidence. And that we are formed by our opinions as much as we form them.

If that sounds like, “You believe what you want to believe”, well I suppose there's a measure of that but I would also add that one sort of person will drawn to one set of views and beliefs and another to an entirely different set.
It's not likely anything an atheist can say will convince me there is no God and vice versa.
So I know I am right as much as I can know such a thing at the moment and have the luxury of being able to leave the final decision to a judge I trust.

“There is no doubt that, grammatically, the text says “a god” rather than “God.” It has to do with the particular use of definite articles in the Greek language., which is actually reversed form English. The name God, the one and only, is actually the God in Greek, with a definite article. But a(ny) god in English is simply god in Greek (no article).

Many early Christian apologetics, and I would venture to say all 2nd century ones, considered Jesus a lesser god then the father. And the Scripture's seem to lend plenty of support for that view.”

The above shows Greeks (and Hebrews)were much less hesitant in their use of the term “god” (God). Moses was called a god, human judges, anyone who was extremely powerful.

But toss in Colwell’s Rule and a misunderstanding of Greek grammar (and English for that matter) and the debate become an argument over belief and not translation.

I have to break here.

I'll have to reply in fits and starts.

That's fine. Short posts are easier to follow.

In the end most debates come down to the question you posed,
“How do you know you're right?”

Being a skeptic, my answer is "I don't know." :)

And since we are fallible (or we should know that we are fallible) then our opinions, beliefs and personal truths, for the sake of good character, ought to be taken with a grain of salt and humility, always mindful that we may be even a tiny bit wrong.

Let me clarify something: my desire or "mission" is not to prove or convince anyone there is no God. I personally have no clue if there is or isn't. I do know that I don't know what God is. Consequently, I can neither deny nor affirm God, nor do I hate God (as some have suggested). I ask other people who claim they know with absolute certainty that God exists to find out how do they know and what evidence they have! :)

For some reason, if they find out that I did not buy into their argument, or that my standards of proof are too high for their taste, or that I was not totally bedazzled by their answer, they throw a fit and become very indignant. And if I present a counterargument, I am labeled as a liberal, atheist, 'the enemy' (!) , and worse.

The above shows Greeks (and Hebrews)were much less hesitant in their use of the term “god” (God). Moses was called a god, human judges, anyone who was extremely powerful.

I wish more Christians would realize, or at least recognize that.

Good night. Thanks for your insights.

What do you think their motives are? When I listen to Dawkins or Hitchens or read comments from some here, I see an almost gleeful attitude of one-up-manship. Like taking on Christians is a sport to pass the time or feather their egos a little fluffier.

Atheists immerse themselves in a common culture of delusions. They think of themselves as scientifically accomplished, even thought they may have done nothing to merit such an appelation. They think that others too, should view them as scientifically accomplished and scientifically authoritative, again, even though they may have done nothing whatever to deserve it. Do you remember when they insisted that people here call them "FR Scientists" or some such stupidity? Throughout their careers as atheists, the atheist culture tells them incessantly that they are scientifically literate, by mere virtue of being atheists, while the believers are scientifically hopelessly ignorant. Atheism teaches that people who believe in the Bible cannot possibly understand science. This is what the atheist hears from other atheists and this is what he believes.

The typical atheist's notion of science amounts to just a few points. People came from monkeys, everything is relative, and purple dragons can come flying out of your arse because of quantum mechanics. To dispute these points with an atheist automatically puts you into the ignorant science-denier camp. No matter what your accomplishments, no matter how well you know chemistry, electronics or physics, if you do not believe that the dead monkeys in the ground are your ancestors, you are a rejector of science and you know nothing of science.

The atheist can feel himself far superior to such a person. It matters not if the atheist is ignorant of basic geometry or basic kinematics, as we have seen of the two loudmouth atheists in this thread. It matters not.

One thing I must confess that I enjoy when they DO participate on threads such as these is the vast numbers of highly intelligent FReepers we have that stand up to them and squash their arguments. They DO NOT appreciate being shown up and they prove it by their easy to predict slide into insults and patronization.

Of course, because as I have said, the atheistic culture they live in tells them that they are Scientists and people who believe in the Bible must be idiots. People who disagree with them must be fools. If you try to tell an atheist that the Sun is where it is, he will most likely denounce you as a Bible-believer, or a creationist or whatnot. It is inconceivable that a believer could ever point out a scientific error of an atheist. But we see how far the devil has deluded them in this respect. Not only do they make scientific errors, they make some pretty ironic ones, like "the sun is 2 degrees from where you see it". Because of their brainwashing, they cannot accept correction. As you can see from the evolution of this thread, no one can disabuse kosta50 of an astronomical notion that directly implies that the sun is orbiting the Earth. And where did he get this notion? From another atheist who suckered him. he was saying was untrue. It was a deliberate deception.

When you point out their errors, they react in the same way that muslims react. They lauch into a slew of accusations, slander and ravings about your religion, about the Bible, and about everythig else. They are no different from islamic lunatics who, in defense of themselves, accuse everyone else of being terrorists. Likewise there is no reasoning with an atheist. Atheists are, like muslims, mostly beyond the influence of logic and reason: they can contradict themselves a dozen times within the same conversation. You can hear the same islamist denying the existence of al-Qaeda, praising Al-Quaeda, denying terrorism, justifying terrorism, blaming terrorism on you, then taking credit for acts of terrorism -- all within the same conversation. Contradiction or pressure or criticism of an islamist will get you a load of irrational ravings, foaming at the mouth and endless accusations.

It is no different with these atheists. If you contradict them, that is their cue to start accusing you of believing in a flat earth, or geocentrism (their favorite) or a million other things, along with the usual load of satanic anti-Christian twaddle spewed out with frothy build-up on the sides of their mouths. They say, in the same conversation, that the Sun is ahead of it's apparent position, that it is behind it, that they never said that, that the Sun isn't where you see it during an eclipse, that it moved off but did not move, that it isn't there, that everything is made of nothing, that physics is irrational, that Christian are immoral, that morality doesn't exist, and so on and so on.

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.