Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
Evolution News and Views ^ | April 28 2011 | Davld Klinghoffer

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.




TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: atheism; atheists; darwin; evolution; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,741-2,7602,761-2,7802,781-2,800 ... 4,041-4,044 next last
To: James C. Bennett
I said I believe in the Golden Rule

Golden? Where did you get that from? Do you always take what doesn't belong to you?

"The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD Almighty".

Not any supernatural deity.

"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, HE GAVE THEM OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND, to do what ought not to be done".

A depraved mind - like the muzzie I'd say. No brainer here.
2,761 posted on 06/10/2011 10:07:28 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2744 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
"That's not an insult. This is an insult."

From the linked post: "You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood."

LOLOL! That person sure had a way with insults!

2,762 posted on 06/10/2011 10:08:59 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2748 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; kosta50; LeGrande

Arguing with you is futile. You not only refuse to acknowledge your errors, you continue to commit them, even when you are shown why you are wrong (eg.: asking me to prove a negative).

You make false accusations and don’t have the humility to retract them when you’re shown to be wrong. You bear false witness, without shame.

Your incapacity to comprehend basic sentences, follow intent from prior comments, understand simple frameworks of logic, and other limitations show that you are incapable of arguing with. You are unwilling to recognise the gist of the arguments, and instead produce tangents as a deviation.

The comedy of your comments were enjoyable, nonetheless.

I hope that others perusing through this thread enjoy just as much!


2,763 posted on 06/10/2011 10:10:02 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2757 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett; metmom; betty boop; boatbums; ejonesie22; xzins
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.

2,764 posted on 06/10/2011 10:13:02 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2740 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Hey Cronos - STOP MAKING THIS THREAD ABOUT ME and stop you damnable lies about me, you hypocrite - you defile yourself with what comes out of your mouth and your commandments of men!


2,765 posted on 06/10/2011 10:13:08 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2758 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; kosta50; LeGrande

Your tripping and tying yourself into a knot over the “gamete” reference is hilarious. I couldn’t have had a better laugh the whole day.

If you want to entertain me some more, show me how my reference to the word “gamete” implies that I didn’t know which gamete I was referring to, okay? LOL!

Thanks, again!


2,766 posted on 06/10/2011 10:17:54 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2764 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
He certainly did. As I recall, Firehat wrote that.
2,767 posted on 06/10/2011 10:19:27 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2762 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
. "Ok someone out of the clan of Bethlehem Ephratah, shall rule Israel.

< And misquoting the verse doesn't gain you points either lg. There is nothing in the passage that refers even to a 'clan'. Even a wussy atheist like yourself should be able to see that those words do not appear in the text.

Tis a good thing you are not a bible scholar lg - you'd be on 0bama welfare.

So in regards to lying - inserting 'clan' into the text where it doesn't exist. But why should you care - you have no God to be accountable too. And for accusing me of lying what is the evidence? There is no evidence of a clan being cited - evidence points to geography lg -

Bethlehem Ephratah, to distinguish it from another Beth-lehem, which was in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos 19:15.

Geography, not clan

I'm not lying - you are.

2,768 posted on 06/10/2011 10:23:28 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2742 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; presently no screen name
Nah, it's just that your precious presently no screen name is a card-holding Moslem practising taqiyyah here. He doesn't believe that Jesus rose again from the dead It's amazing that a Christian like you supports a person who doesn't believe Jesus rose from the dead

Please tell me what PNSN said to you that you are carrying on your own jihad against him? Did your feelings get hurt because your demands were not met when you wanted them and how many times you wanted them? I know I have asked you this before, PUT UP OR SHUT UP, remember? Prove that PNSN EVER said the things you accuse him of. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't been zotted already for this personal vendetta. It's amazing to me you claim to be a Christian.

2,769 posted on 06/10/2011 10:24:02 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
So true it needs repeating!

That's a common propaganda technique. Accusations posing as questions.

2,770 posted on 06/10/2011 10:27:51 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2738 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

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.


2,771 posted on 06/10/2011 10:30:02 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2765 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Cronos

cronos is just being true to his namesake.

You realize, don’t you, that Cronos is the son of Uranus.

Lovely character of Greek mythology.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/cgodsandgoddesses/p/Cronos.htm


2,772 posted on 06/10/2011 10:34:00 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2765 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Thanks boatbums.

I’ve told him but he does it more.

I haven’t complained to the RM so he continues.

He hangs onto me like a two year looking for attention.

He spreads lies and deceit to incite.


2,773 posted on 06/10/2011 10:38:06 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2769 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Cronos; presently no screen name

cronos has nothing on anyone. None of the accusations he flings at others have any basis.

He will NEVER provide any source to back them up because he has none. He pulls them out of thin air, or his butt, and throws them around as fact and then demands denial, even going so far as the *If you don’t deny it, I’ll presume you mean yes.* tactic.

Basically, he’s trying to play a game and claim to be the winner because others won’t play along.

He must be all of 12 years old or something.

There is no point in trying to further reason with him.


2,774 posted on 06/10/2011 10:38:22 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2769 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Cronos

Thanks boatbums.

I’ve told him but he does it more.

I haven’t complained to the RM so he continues.

He hangs onto me like a two year looking for attention.

He spreads lies and deceit to incite.


2,775 posted on 06/10/2011 10:38:28 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( The Palin Party: The Party of Patriots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2769 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

It’s also a diversion from the answers they’ve already gotten and understood. If they admit they understand then generally it’s time to decide...they don’t want to so the questions issue again and again. So round and round they go...never satisfied.


2,776 posted on 06/10/2011 10:48:04 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2738 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; boatbums; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; caww; ...

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.


2,777 posted on 06/10/2011 10:48:29 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2773 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett; metmom; betty boop; caww; ejonesie22; boatbums; Colofornian; aMorePerfectUnion; ..
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.

2,778 posted on 06/10/2011 10:50:44 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2752 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
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

2,779 posted on 06/10/2011 10:54:52 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2534 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Obviously no one is damned and just as obviously no one is saved by the Blood of Christ, because no one is damned in the first place.

What you have stated is not a Christian view. Since you are not Christian, you can hold that view. I disagree with that view

2,780 posted on 06/10/2011 10:56:47 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrz&#261;szcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego s&#322;ynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2534 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,741-2,7602,761-2,7802,781-2,800 ... 4,041-4,044 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson