Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
Evolution News and Views ^ | April 28 2011 | Davld Klinghoffer

Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by 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.




TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: atheism; atheists; darwin; evolution; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,141-2,1602,161-2,1802,181-2,200 ... 4,041-4,044 next last
To: MrB; James C. Bennett
My basis is not my own authority but the Word of God

What makes it the word of God? Your choice? Prove that it's the word of God. A Muslim will tell you that his little green book is the word of God and that yours is false.

You will say that his is false. A Jew will tell you that your NT is and the Muslim book are false. A Mormon will tell you that both your and the Jewish books are incomplete, you will say that the Mormon book of Mormon is false, etc., etc. It's one man's word against another; one man's chosen belief against another.

Why, even the collection of books the people who call themselves Christians call the Word of God is not the same for all Christians! The Protestants will tell Catholics and Orthodox that their "Apocrypha" are false, the Ethiopian Orthodox will tell you that the Book Enoch is inspired, the Catholics and Orthodox will tell you that not everything the Church knows is in the Bible, etc.

There are hundreds of other man-made religions in this world, with just as many deities. They all claim to be true and dismiss others as false. Why? because they say so? The authority you ascribe to (your chosen) God is something you chose to believe. Just because you chose to believe something doesn't make it true.

Do you really believe that your beliefs determine what is true and what isn't? I am beginning to suspect that some do. I hope you don't, because that's bordering on dementia, as far as I am concerned.

2,161 posted on 06/07/2011 2:11:18 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2158 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom; James C. Bennett
Mohammed couldn’t back up his claim. The Bible does

Example?

2,162 posted on 06/07/2011 2:13:03 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2160 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Can you differentiate between your beliefs and reality? I odubt it.


2,163 posted on 06/07/2011 2:15:04 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2152 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

As I was browsing through ‘recent articles’, or whatever it’s called, I read the title of this thread as, “When athletes attack each other” and I thought, cool, maybe it’s a new twist on mixed martial arts.

Major disappointment, Clive.


2,164 posted on 06/07/2011 2:16:47 PM PDT by Do Be
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom

I’ve given you a source, probably several times, from a former atheist, and you demand that I reproduce his work on an internet forum.

You may reply to me after you have read Lee Stroebel’s works. Until then, pound sand.

Let me give you a hint - he set out to “disprove” the Bible as well.

He encountered the numerous proofs that you demand people give you, but refuse to acknowledge them when they are given.


2,165 posted on 06/07/2011 2:20:00 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2162 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

It’s the same fallacies, repeatedly recycled by them.

If they cannot objectively substantiate their claims, they’ll run an insult tirade why those who reject their dogma are bad, are crazy, are nuts, and so on.

So now they lie helpless, unable to decide whether the tribals are saved or not, by ignorance of THEIR CHOSEN DOGMA. Their conundrum is easy to understand. If they choose to say that they are saved in spite of the lack of faith in their chosen dogma, then faith doesn’t require their dogma, thus contradicting their dogma. If they say they are not saved, then their deity fails the test of justice, for it now punishes the innocent. They know this well, so they choose to avoid, and the endless prattle of insults rain on.

Then it’s the usual scoundrel’s trick of appealing to authority (defective induction). Ever notice, popularity contest religions greatly value converting “atheists” to their chosen superstition. For some reason, such conversions are of far higher propaganda value than others. Go figure, LOL!


2,166 posted on 06/07/2011 2:54:30 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2161 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
"So, what’s the final take? Are the tribals saved without faith?"

The final 'take' is...

"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."

Matthew 13:13 - "This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

2,167 posted on 06/07/2011 3:06:17 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2112 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

The tribals neither saw, nor heard.


2,168 posted on 06/07/2011 3:08:05 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2167 | View Replies]

To: MrB

True enough.


2,169 posted on 06/07/2011 3:13:08 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2148 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom
Yeah, yeah...why should I believe Lee Stroebel’s works or for that matter yours? It all comes down to believing another fallible human being. Neither he nor you are God and therefore you have no claim to absolute truth. The sooner you realize that the better for you unless you want to persist in a delusion.
2,170 posted on 06/07/2011 3:56:17 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2165 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom; James C. Bennett
Yeah, yeah...why should I believe Lee Stroebel’s works or for that matter yours? It all comes down to believing another fallible human being. Neither he nor you are God and therefore you have no claim to absolute truth. The sooner you realize that the better for you unless you want to persist in a delusion.
2,171 posted on 06/07/2011 3:57:24 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2165 | View Replies]

To: MrB
And, personally, he look like an idiot.


2,172 posted on 06/07/2011 3:59:21 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2171 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom
I’ve given you a source, probably several times, from a former atheist, and you demand that I reproduce his work on an internet forum.

You could have it appear etched in stone by lightning strikes and you would still be wasting your time.

Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

2,173 posted on 06/07/2011 3:59:27 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2165 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I leave for a bit and come back to find the atheists are busy stamping their little feet and demanding their “proofs”!

I think the atheists fear more being right than being wrong.

2,174 posted on 06/07/2011 3:59:34 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2149 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words

Keep flatteirng yourself.

2,175 posted on 06/07/2011 4:00:35 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2173 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
If they cannot objectively substantiate their claims, they’ll run an insult tirade why those who reject their dogma are bad, are crazy, are nuts, and so on

They "substantiate" their claims by this silly circular reasoning: they believe because the Bible says so, and they believe the Bible is true, so therefore it must be true. Solipsism. Unadulterated infantile egotism. They believe it, ergo it MUST be true.

2,176 posted on 06/07/2011 4:05:59 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2166 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Interesting reading:

Lee Strobel’s Case Against Christ: Apologetics Backfiring

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide September 27, 2007

Apologists usually write for the sake of convincing people to convert to their particular religion, though in practical terms their work seems to be more about helping current believers think their religion is more reasonable and justified than it really is. Sometimes, though, the arguments from apologists are so bad that they actually end up making the case against their religion. If you look closely enough and find that their “best” arguments are riddled with fallacies and obviously just fishing for rationalizations, what other conclusion can you come to?
Jeffrey W. Haws writes about his experience when a friend gave him a copy of Lee Strobel’s book A Case for Christ:

The more I read the book, went over Stroebel’s interviews and the explanations provided for everything from “Why does God allow suffering?” to “Why doesn’t God give people a second chance?,” the more disillusioned I became. The more I read the products of Stroebel’s so-called “extensive” research on Christianity, the less palatable I found religion to be. I found nearly every answer given to be unsatisfying at best and amoral at worst. The explanations given through his many interviews were confounding, contradictory and hypocritical. The more I read it, the more I became convinced Stroebel was either simply fishing for reasons to convince himself to believe (”I want to believe in God; now, let’s see if I can talk to enough people who will give me reasons to do so”) or was utterly dense.

The answers indiscriminately combined New-Earth to Old-Earth philosophies, absolved God of all responsibility while saying he sends people to eternal damnation, gave Christianity credit for every bit of good any Christian has done while saying Christians who committed evil acts weren’t “True Christians,” said atheism devalues life on Earth while saying the only objective of God is to get as many people as possible to heaven.

No one did more to solidify my lack of faith in God than did Stroebel. He showed me that, even with extensive research, interviews, etc., it isn’t remotely possible to reconcile all the seeming contradictions within the Christian faith. Those contradictions are real. For a long time, I thought I was missing something. All these people around me had faith, and I just couldn’t seem to get to that point. I saw all these problems, and I thought, “What is it that I’m not getting?” A Case for Christ showed me I got it all along.

There are better and worse apologists for Christianity, but in different ways they all arguably make a better case for atheism than they do for Christianity. When it comes to the inferior apologists, one can argue as above that when a person does loads of research only to come up with fallacious and false arguments, it's hard not to conclude that they are defending a lost cause.

When it comes to superior apologists, we consistently end up with erudite arguments that the average believer would have trouble understanding, much less using as part of their daily, lived religious life — and even then, the arguments frequently point at best to a distant, transcendent deity which has little in common with the Christian god which most Christians actively believe in and want to think is reasonable to believe in. If we take those arguments seriously, we end up with an irrelevant god of Deism than the active, involved god of orthodox and traditional Christianity.

2,177 posted on 06/07/2011 4:08:36 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2171 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

I consider the source of that advice(but not much), especially in light of fact, that I did not refer to myself once in post 2173.


2,178 posted on 06/07/2011 4:13:35 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2175 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; MrB; metmom; James C. Bennett
Neither he nor you are God and therefore you have no claim to absolute truth. The sooner you realize that the better for you unless you want to persist in a delusion.

Define "absolute truth" and then defend how you, not being God, can make such an absolute assertion based on it.
2,179 posted on 06/07/2011 4:20:43 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2171 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; kosta50
It's a substitute to insulting directly. The Muslim uses that silly, infantile tactic all the time with the Kaffirs too:

"I am not calling you a fool, Allah is!"

Those who indulge in it, do so for the dubious satisfaction that their immaturity craves.

2,180 posted on 06/07/2011 4:22:49 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,141-2,1602,161-2,1802,181-2,200 ... 4,041-4,044 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson