When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

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.

Ahem, your point being? I didn't ask you to detail the mechanism. I said cloning involves taking one gamete and one somatic cell, and making a living clone out of the two.

Once again james, slept through biology. Even Wiki notes that it just isn't ANY gamete - but the female gamete - commonly known as the egg. The cells are designed for specific purposes james. Once again - source where an animal has been cloned using a male gamete (sperm cell) and a somatic cell (crickets)

Thanks for the fun facts, Godzilla! Not that it matters an ounce to support your argument. None of this is in dispute, here, your meaningless distractions, notwithstanding.

well, since you can't even get the basics of cloning presented - the rest of your understanding becomes increasingly weak.

If you fail to recognise the difference between a spontaneous (ahem, deity-created) twinning, and cloning, it is not my problem.

Prove that it is 'deity created' james - that should be an easy non-negative presentation for you. Mechanisms in the creation of the genetic duplicate may be different - but a genetic duplicate they are.

Explaining the mechanism of cloning is completely irrelevant to the argument - just as is your nonsensical assumption whether I know two kinds of gametes exist or not. What were you thinking, Godzilla?!! Your tactics are all out in public!

And your ignorance is as well - kinda pulled a weiner there james. The simple fact that there are two different gametes and that their functions are different make a lot of difference - by showing you shallowness on the subject.

Did you forget what my intent was?

Oh it was that non-defense of your indefensible BELIEF in no God

Now get back, and answer. Quit the meaningless distractions.

LOL, I've answered it as clearly as your obfuscations on the subject at hand permit.

Cloning does not involve sperm fusing the egg.

Ding ding ding, well now you are waking up (a few years too late, but better late than never) Cloning also doesn't involve using the sperm as the 'egg' as its structure and function is not that of the female gamete.

How do you conclude cloning to be unethical then, Godzilla?

Because it is an unnatural method of reproduction james.

BTW, fun fact: "waiting for fertilization" etc. are irrelevant when the fact remains that both the egg and the sperm contribute 50% each of the genes that comprise the individual.

BTW in their separated and unaltered state they are also not an individual either - only afterward do they become an individual.

If you fail to see the difference, I am not to blame, Godzilla, LOL!

No, the only one failing to see things are you james. I've noted several times that they are not identical particularly in the method involved, but for evaluation as to whether or not the clone would have a soul and spirit there is little difference.

It’s all they have.

You know that the stalking and personal attacks always start with the truth hits too close to home and they have no answer. It’s a deflection technique, either to distract others from seeing that the emperor has no clothes, or it’s a self-defense mechanism that kicks in to protect their cherished errant beliefs. If they acknowledge the truth exists, then they have to make a decision as to whether to accept it or reject it.

Satan would rather they reject it and stay in darkness.

We shine the light of God’s truth on their vain and deceptive philosophies and they scurry from it like a cockroach from the light.

John 3:19
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

Consider that if the world hates you it’s because the world hates Christ and that we shouldn’t be surprised that it hates us, too. It’s Christ in us that they are hating, and that same Christ who they will some day bend the knee to and answer for those idle words.

That’s the problem with engaging with someone who uses those techniques.

No matter what you say, it will be wrong, and for every false accusation you deny, another three will be made up.

You could spend the rest of your life trying to disprove all the nonsense some people make up about you and all they’ll accomplish is having you run in circles like a dog chasing its tail, answering an ever increasing list of absurd demands, while they sit back and laugh at you.

And they pretend that they don’t get why you don’t play.

They’re total trolls.

The can accuse all they want, in my book. I know the truth and I know that I’ve stated on the forum where I stand on each of those issues. Anyone who wishes can go back and find the answer to the questions they are asking. It’s in my posting history.

But they are not going to manipulate and control my life in such a manner, and that’s all they’re trying to do. If they can keep you preoccupied with such drivel, it keeps you from being effective in spreading the truth of the Gospel. They’re Satan’s sock puppets.

Consider the source.

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.

To us - but that doesn't apply to God james - your definition is too limited and inaccurate. Scientists indicate that the universe was created with 10 dimensions - a God capable of creating 10 dimensions. Further God is not material james, he is spiritual, as such he is not temporally limited like we are.

God is not a man like you james, and is not subject to your frailties.

How does your deity pick the initiation of a sequential order, without time to refer to? Time-inside-time? LOL!

He chooses as an act of his will. Too bad that God will not fit into your box on this point james - you protestations are not proof that God is confined to time or is controlled by it. You refuse to incorporate into the definition of God that he is. By his nature God is transcendent, or exists independent of what he created and as a result transcends time as we know it, just as he transcends space, because they are an inseparable whole.

Yet, the power has limitations. See Blasater1960's reply.

I do not accept blaster's reply james for the same reason I already gave.

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.

Do you not understand this basic fact?

james, it is not a fact - only a construct you've created based upon a flawed definition of the attributes of God. Because you distorted the attributes of God, you created a false result. As has been shown several times now - the full attributes of God result in no logical inconsistency james - as God he can create it, manipulate it, and end it at his will.

Understand this well. This is a limitation that cannot be overcome without producing a self-contradiction - of God not being outside time.

Yawn, pretty boneheaded on this. The only 'understanding' is you misunderstanding of the attributes of God. By this stage of the discussion is becomes apparent that you have no interest in presenting the full picture of the attributes of God - only those which you THINK can be pared down to support your claim. God as creator controls time - not vice versa james. Argument by repetition is a tactic of desperation james.

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.

In our physical world james - God is supernatural and transcends time and space - a component you refuse to recognize to your own detriment.

Man does create life all the time. And if souls existed Man would be creating souls all the time too. To deny this is to deny the reality of life and birth.

That's a non-sequitor. Man does not "create life" -- when cloning a dna strand is taken out and put in an ovum that will be birthed. That is not "creating life" but playing with the tools. Creating life is taking raw elements and making it live and breathe and be cogniscent.

Secondly, if man can do one thing, that does not necessarily mean that he can do another thing -- the Egyptians built pyramids without wheels, they didn't invent those though they were geometrically etc highly advanced

Souls are supposed to be intangible, immaterial. Hence "Man would be creating souls all the time too" is a false statement -- ok, you can say that's making it impossible for man to create the intangible, but that's faith, not science

To deny this is to deny the reality of life and birth -- not necessarily, life and birth does not necessarily entail creation of the intangible does it? It entails the creation of the tangible

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.