When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

Evolution News and Views ^ | April 28 2011 | Davld Klinghoffer

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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.

[kosta50]

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! LOL! All I wrote is:

 

"I said that admitting to it [solipsism] gets in the way of egotism and elitism. Intellectual honesty always does." (post #2088).

 

Enter betty boop, and guess what she does? She takes this and makes it into this:

 

"I noticed a certain odor of self-congratulation on grounds of his self-proclaimed 'intellectual honesty.' "  (#2094)

 

And then you, SI, pick up on this and you stretch it further into this:

 

"This means that the intellectual honesty boasted of by kosta50 is of the unseen dimension and cannot be seen nor sensed in any way, even by kosta50." (#2096)

 

Talk about drama, twisting, spinning and being a piece of work!

 

[kosta50]

Must have hit pretty close to home to engender such derision

Derision? Every paragraph is about me. Posts are not supposed to be about posters. FR rules (that no one follows any more).

[metmom]

This isn’t the RF. Tough luck.

It doesn’t say people can’t point out the truth. The forum guidelines just specify *No personal attacks*.

Pointing out the truth is not a personal attack.

If you don’t like it, go crawl back under your rock on the RF and hang out there.

[kosta50]

This isn’t the RF. Tough luck

Ah, and immediately the Christian gloves come off, right?

If you don’t like it, go crawl back under your rock on the RF and hang out there

Now that I see you crawled out of it, maybe I will.

[James C. Bennett]

LOL, the delusion-induced ecstasy at imagining they've managed to hurt you in some way is so laughably clockwork-like, it isn't even surprising - it's yawn-inducing.

---

You see, Kosta, they're merely trying to pull the debate into that fog wherein anything is everything, and everything is anything. Don't fall for that. They'll never be able to answer with a bold face, the questions asked earlier, summarized again in this one.

The tactic is so shameful, yet they have no shame in being deceptive. A lengthwise perusal of this thread, by anyone with an honest mind, shows who is trying to do what.

So, for anyone who really wants to give a try, here was what was asked:

---

Do they agree that individuals can be saved without having faith in THEIR CHOSEN deity, if they are ignorant of the deity in the first place?

Because otherwise, it would imply that the tribals who haven't heard of their deity will have to be condemned on account of ignorance. And, if this is not true, then it would mean that the ignorant are saved by default on account of the ignorance of THEIR CHOSEN deity - which then implies that ignorance guarantees salvation, and becomes a better alternative to actual knowledge.

---

Which one will it be?

---

Is this man, who lives in the Nicobar Islands, hasn't heard of civilisation, and is trying to shoot down with an arrow from a bow, an aid helicopter that's throwing relief supplies, saved by his ignorance about THEIR CHOSEN deity? Or is he saved because he has the ignorance excuse?

[Alamo-Girl]

He's so in love with himself and his "progressive" ideas, and so confident that he can bring them to bear by "invoking" his "magic words" — to build a new "model" for American society — that he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is his "enemy." He evidently does not believe that there is any such thing as a "reality test."

Meanwhile, the relentless economic squeeze on the American middle class runs apace. And Heaven knows, we are feeling it.

And how! Thank you so much for all your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for all of these engaging insights!

[spirited irish]

“though the intellect remains intact, reason is warped and peculiarly inverted, thus useless for pursuit of the good, the just and the true. In short, guided by a depraved conscience, reason is used in pursuit of the preservation of self-image at any cost. This is sophistry.”

When the sophists’ warped, inverted reason fails to preserve his imaginary self-image, he inevitably resorts to mindless ridicule, which is a spiritual attack by the way.

Tolkien’s Gollom was a double-thinking sophist. In his darkened mind took place the spiritual attack, “Thieves, they’re thieves! Dirty filthy little thieves!” even as his lips said, “Gollom will help!”

This reaction, “Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! LOL! All I wrote is...” is both a desperate attempt at reinflating a severely deflated “self-conception” and a spiritual attack disguised by a limp “LOL.”

[GourmetDan]

"Is this man, who lives in the Nicobar Islands, hasn't heard of civilisation, and is trying to shoot down with an arrow from a bow, an aid helicopter that's throwing relief supplies, saved by his ignorance about THEIR CHOSEN deity? Or is he saved because he has the ignorance excuse?"

John 12:5-7

“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He (Judas) did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

[GourmetDan]

"Do they agree that individuals can be saved without having faith in THEIR CHOSEN deity, if they are ignorant of the deity in the first place?"

"Because otherwise, it would imply that the tribals who haven't heard of their deity will have to be condemned on account of ignorance. And, if this is not true, then it would mean that the ignorant are saved by default on account of the ignorance of THEIR CHOSEN deity - which then implies that ignorance guarantees salvation, and becomes a better alternative to actual knowledge."

Romans 3:3-8 - "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”

"But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?"

"For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just."

Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

[GourmetDan]

"Do they agree that individuals can be saved without having faith in THEIR CHOSEN deity, if they are ignorant of the deity in the first place?"

"Because otherwise, it would imply that the tribals who haven't heard of their deity will have to be condemned on account of ignorance. And, if this is not true, then it would mean that the ignorant are saved by default on account of the ignorance of THEIR CHOSEN deity - which then implies that ignorance guarantees salvation, and becomes a better alternative to actual knowledge."

Romans 3:3-8 - "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”

"But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?"

"For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just."

Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

[James C. Bennett]

So, what’s the final take? Are the tribals saved without faith?

[metmom]

Yes, all people are saved by faith.

God is just. While He doesn’t tell us how exactly He is going to deal with those who have NEVER heard the gospel and have had no verbal witness to the work of Christ on the cross, He no doubt has a plan for dealing with that.

Romans 2:12-16

12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus

[Matchett-PI]

Matchett-PI wrote: "In Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger is asked how many ways there are to God. His answer may surprise you: "As many as there are people."

kosta50 responds (changing the subject to his concern about "himself" now, instead of concern for "the primitive tribes who never heard the gospel"): "So, does that include agnostics (like me) and atheists as well? Or do they not count as "people"?...."

Not as long as those "people" wish they were mere animals.

<>

Rejecting and denying Reality, they attempt to convince themselves that a mere animal could be aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. But these are the things that define man, not his genome.

kosta50 continues: "... But in the final analysis it is all about the self. We define the world as we see it, according to our experience."

True. And if our "experience" is confined to the flat-land (horizontal) "world", that is all we can "define".

Let's start with some definitions. Better yet, let's start with some principles, since they are a priori true, on pain of there being no truth, and therefore no accurate definitions.

For to define can be either a passive or an active act; to define is to draw a boundary around something, i.e., to give it a name, which is man's prerogative and duty. In a sense, it is indistinguishable from the thing's existence, at least from our perspective. We can't think clearly about anything that isn't well defined; to put it another way, to the extent that we've clearly and accurately defined something, it likely means that we are thinking clearly about it.

Without an adequate container, there can be no content, and what we call "thinking" is precisely the byplay of container and contained, or the evolution of the container through the assimilation of more refined content.

(This is one of the unavoidable problems of atheism, in that they define God in an intrinsically inadequate way, given that they concede at the outset that they've never even experienced this thing that they both define and yet reject. On this basis alone we ridicule these dysluxic dorklings with great gusto.)

Either you are a horizontal egomaniac or a vertical logomaniac

[James C. Bennett]

I repeat:

So, what’s the final take? Are the tribals saved without faith?

[kosta50]

LOL, the delusion-induced ecstasy at imagining they've managed to hurt you in some way is so laughably clockwork-like, it isn't even surprising - it's yawn-inducing

As much as they believe their imagination I wouldn't be surprised if they believed they did. After all, if they can convince themselves to believe all sorts of other things without any proof, why not a delusion that they manged to "hurt" me. Their blather to me is like mind over matter: I don't mind and they don't matter. :)

You know, if all people in all cultures came to believe in the same God, if there was some sort of uniformity in all religions it would still be difficult to prove that they reveal some 'vertical' truth.

It could very well be something genetic, or innate, a phenomenon of our biology, but at least we wouldn't be having a discussion about it, as we don't have a discussion or disagreement about gravity, even though we can't see it, or know why it is; we know that it is because it affects all the same way without exception.

But the diversity of beliefs in various (man-made, chosen) deities, the incompatible differences among members of the same religion, all claiming to know the 'true God', while all others being 'false', just makes it unlikely, imo.

Once thing is certain: their stories would never work in the real world, at work or in courts. Try not showing up to work because some chosen deity told you to stay home, and see how long you can keep your job. Or try leaving work early because your chosen deity wants you home. Lol. Or, worse, try pleading not guilty to a crime because your chosen deity told you to commit it in order to 'save' someone!

If this seems bizarre, Paul actually suggests that Christians can commit someone to Satan, to destroy that someone's flesh, in order to save his soul. Andrea Yates comes to mind. Sometimes it all borders on dementia, imo.

Which one will it be?

They can't answer you, because the answer, one way or another, exposes weakness in their story. So, they will dance around it, quote their books, invoke verticals and horizontals, smother you with mile-long copy-and-paste articles from their favorite chosen authorities, or simply try to insult you, describing what you said as having a distinct "odor", and what not, but in the end it all means one thing: they have nothing.

I was watching Anthony Weiner yesterday and I was thinking how every lie is eventually exposed and the only thing every liar hopes for is that his lies are not exposed in his lifetime. But it also reminded me how every liar reacts when his bluff is called and how convinced he sounds in defending his lie with more lies, indignant, insulting, angry, and unfortunately obvious.

I do not wish it on anyone to be exposed like he was (no pun intended!). I also don't know who is lying and who is not when it comes to different beliefs, and there are so many beliefs MAN has created, all claiming to be the truth, every sect and cult assured that their chosen deity is the right one, everyone's idea of how the world came to be "just the way it happened."

For their sake I hope mankind never debunks some of those beliefs in their lifetime the way demon-caused illnesses, or flat earth, or lightening or erupting volcanoes being associated with angry deities, and some other fairy tales man held to be true have been debunked.

In the meantime, I will enjoy listening to their arguments, as I listen to all other arguments, and take them with a grain a salt, always mindful that they are the opinions of ordinary, fallible, mortal humans; that they are not God, even if some may believe they are, or at least his mouthpiece.

[kosta50]

God is just. While He doesn’t tell us how exactly He is going to deal with those who have NEVER heard the gospel and have had no verbal witness to the work of Christ on the cross.

But God's justice also includes punishment.

He no doubt has a plan for dealing with that

No doubt? You are 100% sure?

Romans 2:12-16

Ah, I see, because Paul says so? That makes all the difference...I guess.

[kosta50]

We can't think clearly about anything that isn't well defined

You mean like what is God?

This is one of the unavoidable problems of atheism, in that they define God in an intrinsically inadequate way

I have yet to see an 'intrinsically adequate' definition of what God is. Do you, Matchett-PI, know exactly (i.e. intrisically adeqautely) what God is? Or have you just convinced yourself (i.e. believe) that you do?

Either you are a horizontal egomaniac or a vertical logomaniac

Or you could be a narcissistic blogomanic, and a BS philosopher with too much time on your hands... :)

[metmom]

Nobody can be saved without faith.

It’s irrelevant whether they are *tribals* or not.

Those who are without a verbal witness of the gospel are less accountable than those to whom the gospel has been presented repeatedly.

With greater knowledge comes greater accountability

[MrB]

“What about those who’ve never heard the Gospel, are they going to hell?”

is just a diversion. The speaker of this question HAS heard the Gospel, and is without excuse.