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.
Like I said, I was not aware that they did. Thanks for the links. I am quite aware that lying is wrong, does this mean you admit certain ethics are intrinsic now? How does that work in the no absolutes, no objective morality world view?
Did I say tribe? No, I said clan. "Ok someone out of the clan of Bethlehem Ephratah, shall rule Israel. Christ didn't come out of the clan Ephratah and he didn't rule Israel. So far not so good."
The scripture clearly refers to the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
A noted Bible scholar such as yourself, clearly knows the difference between a Clan and a Tribe. And you clearly know that the scripture is referring to a clan.
Therefore I can only conclude that you were intentionally lying when you set up the strawman implying that I was referring to a clan.
I caught you lying before GodZ and now I have caught you again. I guess that makes you a serial reprobate doesn't it.
I have never pretended to be a Biblical scholar, unlike the Christian ignoramuses around here.
Regardless, and personal opinions notwithstanding, the fact remains that they have debated and argued against Islam, contrary to the blatantly false accusations and outright lies that were paraded here, without apology or retraction, to no surprise. Shameful hypocrisy, no less.
It was the fact that false accusations were made, without retraction, that caused the hypocrisy to reveal itself.
I said I believe in the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you) to be the basis of all morality. Not any supernatural deity.
Islam, obviously, violates the Golden Rule. This is a no-brainer.
Psssssst james, this God exists in a multi-dimensional realm. We can only reference it as the 'beginning' - God's reference system is not necessarily the same as ours.
God being all-powerful doesn't allow God to peform an absurdity, Godzilla. You should know that. Truly you have no clue in understanding that even God has limitations.
And how do you know this james? You bleat here is profoundly absurd since for it to be true, you - james - must possess all knowledge. Refusal to accept that God, as God, can both be outside of time as well as interact within time that he created is not a justification of your claim. Secondly, since you don't BELIEVE in God, what you say has no weight - how can a non-existent God have limitations james? You claim knowledge in what you don't know and BELIEVE not to exist.
Let me share a comment from another thread, to illustrate my point:
The strawman you are building is commonly associated with the term omnipotence paradox james. Now that argument is on another thread to be discussed there and there are answers to blsaters assertions that do not support your assertions here. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.
If God is not subject to time, then God cannot separate God's sequential acts. Is this too hard to understand, Godzilla?
Oh really - once again unsubstantiated assertions james. All God has to do is act and time is generated as a consequence. God could both create time and exist at time. As the then creator of time, he has control over it - as the higher law involved. Further, you - without evidence positive or negative - cannot say definitively that timelessness of God is an essential, rather than contingent, property of God - His timelessness and/or temporal is a factor of his will james. Its up to him.
Without time separating God's sequential acts, Godzilla, God ends up creating and destroying the Universe, simultaneously. Do you understand this, Godzilla? If you don't, specifically point out the fallacy in this argument.
I believe I have specifically pointed out the fallacy now at least twice. First is that your definition of the properties of God is incorrectly constrained. Second, your very limited definition ignores the power of God to enter and exit time at will and control it at will. It is your BELIEF to the contrary on these points james - unsubstantiated and understating the nature of God to construct a flimsy strawman of an argument.
That hasn't stopped you from looking stupid before lg.
need a little ketchup to go with that crow lg?
"That's not an insult. This is an insult."
Dearest sister in Christ, sometimes I wonder whether the human race has bifurcated into two camps: Those who are desperately trying to preserve their true (that is God-given) humanity in a chaotic world, and those who are trying to throw it away with both hands, thus further fanning the flames of chaos....
Thank you so much for your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
Psssssst James, this God exists in a multi-dimensional realm. We can only reference it as the 'beginning' - God's reference system is not necessarily the same as ours.
Time is but one dimension, Godzilla. We exist in four dimensions - a multidimensional realm, too. I strongly suspect you really know what you're talking about, here.
Whether you choose to obfuscate more is immaterial to the question posed: How does your deity pick the initiation of a sequential order, without time to refer to? Time-inside-time? LOL!
And how do you know this James? You bleat here is profoundly absurd since for it to be true, you - James - must possess all knowledge. Refusal to accept that God, as God, can both be outside of time as well as interact within time that he created is not a justification of your claim. Secondly, since you don't BELIEVE in God, what you say has no weight - how can a non-existent God have limitations James? You claim knowledge in what you don't know and BELIEVE not to exist. My Lord, man you really should learn to read, and better yet, comprehend. This is what I said: God being all-powerful doesn't allow God to peform an absurdity, Godzilla. You should know that. Truly you have no clue in understanding that even God has limitations. You ask how I know this. Are you serious? Can your deity perform an absurdity? An absurdity would be similar to this deity being asked to build a rock so heavy, even the deity wouldn't be able to carry it. A true god cannot perform an absurdity, because the absurdity would contradict the nature of the definitional qualities of the god. NOT TRUE. G-d can not lie. G-d can not decieve. G-d can not break His own Torah. G-d can not be immoral. All of which christianity teaches if you accept A) human sacrifice B) human vicarious atonement C) Replacement of the Law D) etc... Since you obviously have a reading comprehension issue, I will have to directly ask you what Blasater1960 is explaining to Tennessee Nana, in your own words. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. Yet, the power has limitations. See Blasater1960's reply. Likewise, I argued that God cannot order events that occur in sequence, without being under the realm of time because being outside time will destroy the sequence. Do you not understand this basic fact? Without time sandwiched between each of God's events, there is no way to separate them. Understand this well. This is a limitation that cannot be overcome without producing a self-contradiction - of God not being outside time. How does God begin to "act" without a time-frame to refer to? Every beginning needs a time reference. Without reference, it is impossible to begin something. Outside time, it is impossible to initiate anything because everything happens simultaneously, in that hypothetical realm. Ha ha, no. See above. Try again.
I posted a comment from another thread which illustrates beautifully the limitations of God:
To: Tennessee Nana
I believe I have specifically pointed out the fallacy now at least twice.
You got the same dumba** question for me - another follower of the blind?
Read #2,749
And you used he plural "are" didn't you james. the whole construct of the sentence is referring to them in a blanket manner. You are just upset that I uncovered your little semantic game james. And as you've already found out - you question in not a valid construction based upon what the bible teaches.
If I have already invoked the individual in the beginning of this whole argument where I began with the ignorant tribal problem, and if you jumped into the thread sometime later and MADE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS about whether I was referring to the collection of individual "saved" tribals or whether I was referring to *ALL* tribals, on Earth, it is you who's at fault.
Your bleat would be far more respectable and substantiated if you hadn't continued to push the issues in the face of my MULTIPLE statements requesting and finally making the clarification for you. Your reluctance to accomplish this earlier only reinforces my observations james.
I have more than amply clarified my stance on this.
As mud james - only to switch to ad hominem against me :) (funny you are the one showing your frustration by way of heaped insults.
It was a counter-productive tactic that you employed to distract from the question at hand - as to how such tribals are "saved" without scriptural knowledge.
Nope, it served to clarify you bogus fill in the blank pseudoquestion. That issue has now been successfully addressed.
YOU suggested that I cannot prove that "angels" didn't exist to tell those tribals about your deity.
Or you could prove that they do exist - the choice is yours james. However, a "just so" answer from you won't cover the ground necessary either.
Your failure to recognise your attempt at making me prove a negative, is documented on this thread and any attempt to shy away from that will only bring you embarrassment. Why do you want that, Godzilla?
To which you've tried the same thing to me james - care to go for two out of three? You are the one making the greater claim of proving a negative james - you BELIEVE there is NO God - but then I can see that you are working through your frustration by way of heaped insults.
I have declared more than once that to prove your dogmatic theories wrong, all I need to do is raise a contradiction (the tribal case, the clone, the god-outside-time-ordering-sequenced-events, etc.).
Well that is all nice - when are you going to get around to it james? Every time you've tried, the only thing you end up with is falling back on your own authority - as what we haven't figure out - but it has something to do with that BELIEF of yours no doubt.
LOL, Godzilla, please think before you ink! I am not performing a comparison game here.
Lightbulb - you brought the subject into play james, or is that another one of those moments that you overlooked - go back and read what you said to me slowly this time.
Your fallacious "argument" basically comprises of claiming "look, my guys only killed 100,000+ people in deciding what comprises the Bible, 'your' guys killed much more, hence my guys are right!"
Not really, for anyone with common sense. You were trying to assert moral authority over the bible on the basis of sinful man's abuse of scriptures and the church. My simple point was that any moral authority is worse off for atheism. Run the numbers james, compare the deaths from the inquisition to those of the Lenin and Stalin and the gulag.
Do Bibles vary in content, Godzilla? Yes or no, Godzilla? LOL.
What do you mean by versions james? Are you referring to the english translations (kjv, niv, rsv, etc) or is it innate feature that you are incapable of answering in the specific?
Why that haste in making that idiotic judgment, then? Why are you so deceptive, Godzilla? Don't you think you should apologise for this?
Want some cheese to go with that whine james? The facts are you are expending orders of magnitude of effort and postings attacking Christianity than you do attacking islam in the same manner. If a whole three posts is a magnificent effort on you part, then I'll let you have your illusion.
Forcing me to prove a negative again, Godzilla? LOL! It is for you to prove God exists.
Yet you base you life on that one statement don't you james - you don't BELIEVE that God exists. Too gutless to support your own beliefs by producing direct evidence. I can say that I BELIEVE the moon is not made out of green cheese - and I can provide proofs james. Certainly for the all knowing atheist out there similar proofs are available.
You know boatbums, you’d think lg would apply some knowledge to this for once. he ignores the fundamentals and majors on the cherry picking. typical for a exmormon turned atheist.
But, please tell me you understand the difference between not being aware of such things or hearing about them and actually out and out insisting that they do not ever do so? That's all I was saying. I have heard far more from the likes of the famous atheists about Christianity than I have about any other religion. I'm glad to hear they are somewhat consistent, but I still think they are grossly wrong about Christianity and the existence of God. I doubt very many would be willing to debate a Muslim in the current environment so naturally they'll stick with those who will pray for them instead of beheading them! The hypocrisy is still theirs.
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.