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.
Yup! Salvation outside of faith. Ergo, faith is not required in all instances. The Bible says otherwise.
The same can be said of infants who die before they can believe and be baptized. Are they saved or are they lost? If they are saved, then faith is not required. The Bible contradicts this. If they are not saved, where are they? In hell?
LOL! Now that’s a good way of putting it.
Thank you. I am not one to post on these threads. This is, in fact, a first. I can only offer what I know and believe to be true. As for ultimate, absolute truth, who can say? While the quest for absolute truth is admirable (I do not hold on to blind faith), that search has driven many mad or has led them to dead ends or an unending series of questions. And the only guarantee that I can give, is that there is not a one of them who has hit upon yet. Blessings,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2713145/posts?page=2363#2363
You don’t have to watch the video, simply reading the post will suffice.
Your honesty is appreciated, Wallop the Cat. It would do tremendous good for the others to emulate!
With me, it is the quest that sustains me and my passion for life, and all its mysteries.
If I were to sacrifice reason and pitch a tent on one religious dogma over the rest without sufficient conviction, that would not just make me mad, but define me as a lunatic.
kosta,
God and Jesus Christ’s abilities don’t depend upon man rather He chooses to work His Will through mere men ~ faithful followers from all nations. No matter what sophistry you employ you simply can not stamp out this following. Nothing that has happened nor will happen has escaped his notice regarding every detail.
It it one of the hardest doctrines to comprehend ~ the providence of God [see Romans 8:28].
The test is timed, however. And the proctor won’t let you go over time. :)
All righty then if you feel that I’ve sinned against you then I’m truly sorry and please forgive me. You too Kosta!
Now if either of you want to try it too ~ where it truly counts, see Romans 10:9-12.
To me, such a quality screams of the hallmarks of a man-made god. This is one of the reasons why I cited the tribal-ignorance problem, earlier. No answers worthy of consideration came forth, predictably. Plenty of obfuscation was doled out, though. All these are abhorrent to reason.
You are basing this on your acceptance of what's in a book. These tings don't happen in the real world. There are no talking snakes and donkeys and diseases are not caused by 'evil spirits.' No one else recorded this outside the Bible. The sun stood still for 24 hours? How did they measure 24 hours? Please, don't do this to yourself.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are four eye-witness Gospel accounts
I don't know where you are getting this from. Mark was no eyewitness and neither was Luke. In fact all four Gospels are anonymous. The names were added at the end of the 2nd century.
re: archaeological evidence see http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm
Israel Finkelstein, among others, is the Head of the Israeli Antiquities Society. And hes says the Jews were never in Egypt, there was no Exodus, and that there are no traces of any Jewish presence in the Sinai corresponding at any time during those centuries.
How can you have over a million people living in an area most of the 40myerars they were there and not leave a trace? But there are plenty of Egyptian traces in the area dating back to any proposed Exodus period.
didnt claim to be the judge of the world but the good book makes it plain who will judge the world
Other mortals like you (you are mortal aren't you?) believe in other "good books". Why should yours be the "true" one and theirs not?
Their is no substitute
That is your belief.
I only point out hypocrisy when I see it. It is up to you to realise it in you, and what to do about it, especially when signalled.
:)
It does truly amaze me how quickly and easily you think you have refuted God, the Bible and all the supporting evidence simply because you can quickly and easily finds fellow detractors.
Nice!
:)
It does truly amaze me how quickly and easily you think you have refuted God, the Bible and all the supporting evidence simply because you can quickly and easily finds fellow detractors.
The internet truly is a powerful vehicle for destroying falsehood. No wonder Big Government everywhere seeks to throw a leash on it. We are yet to witness the full impact of this magnificent technology.
xzins just told me that God used slavery for his purposes...did he use Hitler for that too? Shy am I getting so many different stories from different Christians?
If morality is from God then morality could not evolve because it is absolute. Yet, we see that it did evolve,as you yourself realize.
Shy=Why
By the way, those “detractors” are believers themselves. They just called out a fraud when they saw one. Take a look at that website.
LOL! I love it...where do you find these things? :)
I suppose then that it comes down to whether there is for you or for me an alternative to reason. I’m educated, I’ve been through countless hours of philosophy classes, etc., and I greatly value reason. On the other hand, I believe in faith. When reason fails, faith abounds. Indeed, who needs faith when something is objectively, scientifically, and rationally proven to be. Faith is the knowledge of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. That sustains me, it doesn’t you. I’ll promise not to throw out reason, why don’t you give faith a fighting chance.
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.