Didn't see his name at this event, the sign for which I hacked to make it really contemporary:
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.
So did CS Lewis.
Perhaps that's why the atheists on FR never follow through with the sources provided. They're too afraid that they'll be persuaded to become believers as well.
People are not saved by faith in dogmas, but by faith in a person.
Just what is it that you really want to know? Is it whether the *tribals* are saved by faith, or whether they will be saved having never heard of Jesus before?
"... whether they will be saved having never heard of Jesus before?"
This should be good.
You "odubt" it, do you? I've heard of people being intoxicated with themselves, but when one starts slurring their keyboard all I can say is: put away the bong, dude.
You write like you've been puffing on what you call your "reality" for far too long.
Speaking clearly begins with thinking clearly.
My belief about you is borne as it is from repeated observations gleaned from debates over the years with the tail-chasing mental midgets which routinely populate the atheist/agnostic debating ranks.
Those of you who show up here at FR are all little more than a bunch of lazy blubbering frauds, phony pretend-to-be-conservatives, merely leaching-off the blessings of the application of conservative principles, and are barely worth the bandwidth.
Atheists and agnostics contribute nothing of substance to any of these debates, because at the root of it they are all just their own personal stripes of liberal.
Conservatism is founded in God-based morality. It is little wonder then that FR promotes God-based conservatism.
Atheists and agnostics give lip service to, but are by definition not grounded in God-based conservatism, hence their "morality" is merely an extension of their inherent self-styled humanism.
Deconstructing the argument of an atheist/agnostic is as easy as deconstructing the argument of any liberal, because the "glue" that holds their world-view together is the same (see tagline).
LOL, now it’s typos under attack. Nothing of substance to contribute, as expected. One would assume that it wouldn’t take much in terms of intelligence to understand the message in spite of accidentally misplaced letters (mistakes they never make because they’re perfect and sane, LOL!), but no, they just trip over them and run in circles around their circular “logic” arguments. Think about the cognitive dissonance at play here: They can identify the intended spelling, but prefer to make fantastic linkages between unintended typos and the lack of mental acumen, deliberately choosing to skip what they KNOW is the intended message.
Such a bore!
It's the same thing about what "religion" is true. The co-exist bumper sticker mentality reasons that ALL religions are true, "all roads lead to Rome", every man comes to God in his own way, it's like a wheel analogy, etc. EXCEPT that if all are equally valid and relevant, then the logical conclusion MUST be that NONE are true. There are not a million ways to God, but only one way - the way HE HIMSELF provided. There is only one true God and that is true whether anybody believes it or not. IT JUST IS.
Of course, man creates his own gods but that does not change the truth of the one, true God who created all things. Those who diligently seek him, who search for him with all their hearts, will find him.
I will agree with you, Metmom, that each and every human being has to answer to God on how he/she responded to the truth that was revealed to them. As Romans says the invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen...so that they are without excuse. Everyone that has the capacity to think and reason must respond to the innate knowledge of a Creator. From that point on, God then allows in more light, reveals more truth, and we respond to that or not. The Holy Spirit, we are told, is in the world to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The native in the deepest darkest jungle who sincerely seeks the truth will be granted it by God. We must not ever limit God. He is true to his word, no matter where we may reside. I was just as lost sitting in a church in America as any "tribal" ever was, and yet God showed me the truth. He is able to reach any heart who seeks him.
No, he is utterly dense.
Oooh, spoken like a true sophist.
I wasn't even going to grace AC's comment with a reply; it is obvious that such immaturity is not limited to Muslims only.
Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's “Evidence”
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Enjoy!
Yeah, even atheists/agnostics do it, too.
Are you trying real hard to be imbecillic or does this come naturally? How infantile does one have to be to make a mounting out of molehill caused by a typo? I make typos, okay, and I don't always run a spellchecker. And I don't care if a mistype a word. Grow up.
My belief about you is borne as it is from repeated observations gleaned from debates over the years with the tail-chasing mental midgets which routinely populate the atheist/agnostic debating ranks
I guess sit takes one to know one. Lucky you.
Atheists and agnostics contribute nothing of substance to any of these debates, because at the root of it they are all just their own personal stripes of liberal.
Well, so far you have contributed nothing except blather, so I guess that makes you one of them.
Anything they can latch on to so as to avoid answering a simple question. If in doubt, attack, insult, cause confusion, etc. In short, childish.
The "liberal" witch-trials resort, when the whole collection of their counter-arguments ends up being a damp squib. They've probably never heard of Ayn Rand, either.
Boatbums, there is either a deliberate attempt to spin what I said (making a mountain of a molehill as was the case with one typo I made), or there is serious reading comprehension issue at hand. I never said that all religions are equally true, and therefore none is true. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, but certainly not from reading what I wrote. In the future, if you wish to comment on my statements, I suggest you read my statements and not someone's paraphrase.
What I said is that there are many religions in the world, all claiming to be true and none having any proof. You can take ti form there.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I was responding to Metmom's post to Agamemnon which was NOT concerning your posts specifically. FYI, I DO read your posts and will ping you if I respond to them, not to worry. :o)
I don't know if they read her books in flyover areas. :)
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.