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.

the Book of Mormon...?

There you go again!

The BoM is NOT authoritative to them.

Now HERE is some MORMON 'scripture' that they CLAIM is authoritive; but the way they PRACTICE it leads one to believe they do NOT read it, but have others tell them what they THINK it means:

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 89

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327–329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet.

1–9, Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed; 10–17, Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals; 18–21, Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings.

1 A ^aWord OF Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the ^aword of wisdom, showing forth the order and ^bwill of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

3 Given for a principle with ^apromise, adapted to the capacity of the ^bweak and the weakest of all ^csaints, who are or can be called saints.

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of ^aevils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of ^bconspiring men in the last days, I have ^cwarned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

5 That inasmuch as any man ^adrinketh ^bwine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, ^apure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, ^astrong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

8 And again, tobacco is not for the ^abody, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome ^aherbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—

11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with ^aprudence and ^bthanksgiving.

12 Yea, ^aflesh also of ^bbeasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used ^csparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be ^aused, only in times of winter, or of cold, or ^bfamine.

14 All ^agrain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

15 And ^athese hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

16 All grain is good for the ^afood of man; as also the ^bfruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, ^ashall receive ^bhealth in their navel and marrow to their bones;

19 And shall ^afind ^bwisdom and great ^ctreasures of ^dknowledge, even hidden treasures;

20 And shall ^arun and not be ^bweary, and shall walk and not faint.

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the ^adestroying angel shall ^bpass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

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.

At last I can see where you are coming from with this explanation.

It appears to be the same as Thomas' positition, before CHRIST appeared to him.

"unless I..."

And OUR prayer for you, Kosta, is:

"Lord; reveal yourself to K. And make it UNreasonable if you want too!"

;^)

Actions speak louder than words.

If your goal is not to prove there is no God, why are you trying to hard to do so?

You've been provided with evidence which is no less reliable than the evidence for anything else you appear to accept as fact and you keep rejecting it and making blanket statements to the contrary, which you have yet to back up. If you're not trying to convince others that there is no God, then just who are you trying to convince with all your arguments against Him? Yourself?

Prove Jesus swooned.

Prove that there were no disciples at the crucifixion.

Disprove the miracles with fact that you are rejecting as evidence. Rejecting them on the philosophical basis of calling it inadequate evidence is not enough. Use data and hard fact.

Hold yourself to the standard of proof that you hold everyone else to and stop being a hypocrite.

"It seems to me that describing quarks in terms of "flavors" — up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom — doesn't necessarily mean that "we lack the intellect to invent the descriptive terms." The descriptive terms have obviously been given — they're just "strange.""

What we see in the concepts like 'quarks' is the rise of the sorcery of the anti-christ.

In classical physics, the world was based on the atom, a natural manifestation of the Trinity. The Father and Son seated together and surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses is represented by the atom. Proton and neutron in the nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons.

We even see that a neutron will spontaneously decay into a proton and an electron outside of the atom, testifying to the 3 in 1 nature of the Trinity. Within the atom, distinctions between the 3 particles are lost and can only be probed indirectly. The atom itself appears as a single entity, again the great 3 in 1.

In physics, the atomic view is being replaced by quarks (6 in number, the number of man) with names including 'strange' and 'charm' representing the rise of witchcraft in the world.

It has been said that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and this is what we are beginning to see. The number of the beast, 666, may represent the rise of technology indistinguishable from magic.

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.