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.
Don’t you see God is God and you are not therefore you are in no position to judge Him nor His ways.
The good book does say he will judge non-believers on what they do know and since his laws are written on all our hearts and he knows all our deeds I’d say it means any judgement he deems will be just.
Beautifully said.
That's between you and C. S. Lewis t clear up. Well, he can't, btuj you get the drift. He said what he said and he said man enables Jesus to do more.
I don’t have to forgive you. I didn’t take an offense. You are entitled to your opinion.
kosta you are not getting different versions so much as some blind men are describing to you what they know of the ‘elephant in the room.’
The NT does tell us if we are free or slave to accept our predicament and still be the best imitation of Christ we can be ~ either way. It does not mean God condones slavery nor should someone remain a slave if he can find a peaceful resolution.
Frankly both you and James need to read the book for yourselves and make the leap of faith if you sincerely desire to know and follow truth.
And what are you to tell me what book is true and what isn't?
And the OT doesn't count? Maybe you should read it too. You will find that God back then didn't mind slavery at all. In fact he even regulates it!
Since all have sinned and all have fallen short of God’s glory [Rom 3:23] it matters not if C.S. Lewis [nor anyone here on FR] has willfully or mistakenly misrepresented God’s Word. All that matters is
a) are you sinful?
b) do you know the payment for sin?
c) are you willing to accept the one and only substitute?
All that truly matters is what God said in His book and how we measure up w/ his perfection. Since no one can truly measure up tis why we need a substitute or sacrificial death that paid for all our sins. It is really simple if you’d quit trying to complicate it anyways...
I’ve seen you throw up this ‘tribes’ issue and set up an inadaquate parameters. You presume to know the heart condition of these tribal members. Prove to me that they are not saved by what God has revealed to them? Prove to me that God has not revealed Himself them.
As I’ve been trying to say all along you argument is not w/ anyone posting here. Your argument is with God’s Word. If you refuse to read it you may simply allow yourself to be brainwashed by all the propaganda that has flooded the ‘civilized’ world.
Look up brain-washing techniques and see if they don’t all involve some form of listening to only one side of an argument ad nauseum.
The sacrifice
|
|
Which knowledge pays is better than great gifts
|
|
Offered by wealth, since gifts’ worth—O my Prince!
|
120
|
Lies in the mind which gives, the will that serves:
|
|
And these are gained by reverence, by strong search,
|
|
By humble heed of those who see the Truth
|
|
And teach it. Knowing Truth, thy heart no more
|
|
Will ache with error, for the Truth shall show
|
125
|
All things subdued to thee, as thou to Me.
|
|
Moreover, Son of Pandu! wert thou worst
|
|
Of all wrong-doers, this fair ship of Truth
|
|
Should bear thee safe and dry across the sea
|
|
Of thy transgressions. As the kindled flame
|
130
|
Feeds on the fuel till it sinks to ash,
|
|
So unto ash, Arjuna! unto nought
|
|
The flame of Knowledge wastes works’ dross away!
|
|
There is no purifier like thereto
|
|
In all this world, and he who seeketh it
|
135
|
Shall find it—being grown perfect—in himself.
|
|
Believing, he receives it when the soul
|
|
Masters itself, and cleaves to Truth, and comes—
|
|
Possessing knowledge—to the higher peace,
|
|
The uttermost repose. But those untaught,
|
140
|
And those without full faith, and those who fear
|
|
Are shent; no peace is here or other where,
|
|
No hope, nor happiness for whoso doubts.
|
|
He that, being self-contained, hath vanquished doubt,
|
|
Disparting self from service, soul from works,
|
145
|
Enlightened and emancipate, my Prince!
|
|
Works fetter him no more! Cut then atwin
|
|
With sword of wisdom, Son of Bharata!
|
|
This doubt that binds thy heart-beats! cleave the bond
|
|
Born of thy ignorance! Be bold and wise!
|
150
|
Give thyself to the field with me! Arise!
|
|
|
|
Chapter IV, lines 118-151 of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ,
|
|
entitled “Jnana-Yôg,” or “The Book of
|
|
the Religion of Knowledge”
|
I have read both OT and NT [the important and hard to comprehend parts multiple times] ~ God allowed slavery in both the New and Old Testament times. Criminy there are still countries with legalized slavery today and we are virtual slaves paying a hefty portion of our income to the all-most-mighty fed gov...
I’m outta here
ttfn...
I don’t have to prove anything in this regard because I am not the one claiming that “salvation” is only through Jesus. If you, or anyone else claim so, please show me how the tribals are saved. If they are guaranteed to be saved due to ignorance, then the implication would be that the guarantee to salvation is ignorance (of your adopted dogma). If you say they are not saved because they do not know Jesus, then they are punished when they are at no fault. This is a moral problem that the believers in this chosen dogma need to resolve, and reconcile. All I am doing is asking just that - and pointing out what I think is a contradiction that this supposed “absolute truth” is incapable of addressing, and thus failing the test of universal applicability. I am asking how you satisfy your own conscience when such a question is posed.
Do so. Show me how. Instead, torrents of idiotic, veiled or explicit insults are doled out - completely oblivious to how seriously such behaviour damages their cause - or how happy it makes me to see that I have been vindicated by their vileness.
Indeed!
Your own Bible says no man can substitute for you sins.
OK - commercial - so one last post tonight.
I think the answer is we don’t necessarily know nor does He intend for us to know all rather to simply trust that He is a good and loving and just God.
Another hint I take from the Bible is this - several references to first-fruits [true believers] from the church age and possibly prior but only an implied reference of second or several soul-harvests after that. Also God said he loved us so much that He does not want even one to perish so ultimately that means if He wills it then it will be so.
Not trying to start another monster debate rather simply noting we can read it all [HisWord] but we can not understand it all nor know it all. His ways are not our ways.
Even your attempts at insult fail but no surprise there since over and over again you’ve made statements here that are so far off base as to be not worth response.
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.