'Thick skin is needed on open forums' -- have you heard that one before, kosta? I guess that only applies to some...
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.
'Thick skin is needed on open forums' -- have you heard that one before, kosta? I guess that only applies to some...
Hey, my skin is too thick, I'll have you know! ;o)
To clarify - make it clear - my post was in response to Kosta50 (whom you have recruited to your attack force) who insisted that personal attacks WERE allowed outside of the Religion Forum. I simply explained that it is an overall rule for posting comments, as you see whenever you access the Posting Comment screen.
While we are on the subject, though, please explain why you continue to accuse PNSN of being a Muslim troll? This in spite of being corrected numerous times. It would be similar to me posting comments on every thread you participated and calling you a closet Presbyterian who is trying to cast Roman Catholics as bigoted, murderous idol worshipers. Would YOU put up with such things for very long? Would your fellow Catholic buddies let such things pass all in the name of "tough skin"??? Somehow, I do not think so. In fact, I believe the RM would receive dozens of abuse claims every time. I think PNSN and Metmom have been extremely tolerant of your incessant rants and stalking behavior. You should be grateful to them.
The differences are:
Take both legrand and kosta -- neither of them is afraid to tell you what they do or don't believe in?
In contrast, if a poster tells you that the main point of a Christian's faith according to him is that Jesus preached and died, full stop -- you ask him "what about the resurrection -- THAT's the central distinguishing mark of Christianity" and he's silent....
it is aggrieving when many just band up with unitarians or jehovah's witnesses or moslems just as "buddies" and then go on raids without even knowing what their fellows believe in.
Kosta is an online friend of mine precisely because I know what he does or does not believe in -- he is honest. Yes, he is agnostic and I disagree with him publicly on that matter, but I appreciate his honesty in what he does or does not believe -- I don't agree, but appreciate the honesty.
I cannot understand people who will come on a Religion Forum and debate someone else's faith without saying what they themselves believe -- an athiest says "i don't believe", an agnostic says "I don't know", a Presbyterian/Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/Methodist/Fundamentalist will point to the Nicene Creed as encapsualting the central tenets of their faith. A Baptist or Pentecostal may be wary of saying he adhered to the tenets of a creed, but at least he'll tell what he believes or not.
but the lone posters who won't even share their beliefs, just spout their hatred against all and sundry?
That is like someone jumping into a meeting of Republicans and not revealing whether he even IS a Republican or not or what his political views are -- a democrat in that gathering is still someone who tells you what they believes, but a RINO is more dangerous as they hide sneakily.
And these posters who do not talk about what they believe but attack everyone else -- they are akin to RINOs
Well said.
I find that most people who do this tend to be Christadelphians.
Hank
Any idea why they hide their beliefs? After all, this is an internet forum, why not just share what they believe instead of attacking everyone else?
I really don't know what your problem is and why you can't just discuss the issues without becoming so creepy. This will be the last time I'm even going to reply to you on this subject. I get it that you get offended by those who disagree with your Catholic theology, but anyone who comes on these threads should expect to deal with criticism and be able to discuss differences WITHOUT resorting to personal attacks. You are not helping your point of view by this kind of action. I just wish you understood that you can't go around accusing fellow Freepers of things without any proof other than your own imagined slights.
No, you haven't because they have not. Prove it.
And talking of “buddies” — why have you rung up your cohorts?
but the lone posters who won't even share their beliefs, just spout their hatred against all and sundry?
That is like someone jumping into a meeting of Republicans and not revealing whether he even IS a Republican or not or what his political views are -- a democrat in that gathering is still someone who tells you what they believes, but a RINO is more dangerous as they hide sneakily.
And these posters who do not talk about what they believe but attack everyone else -- they are akin to RINOs
An athiest would honestly say he does not believe
An agnostic would say he doesn't know
But the RINO-type sneaks are those who do not say what they believe on a religion forum
Let's see -- I ask a poster Secondly, does this mean that you support the use of condoms, abortion etc. as birth control? just because the Church opposes it?
and the crypto-Moslem answers What 'the poster' thinks or does in her own private life is none of your business
To which it is logical to say So, then whatever anyone outside your cult of one believes or thinks or does is none of your business either, eh?
Crypto-Moslem: None of YOUR business. Read my post - don’t twist it for your own agenda. I’m not the one sticking my nose into someone’s private life -
Oh and yet here the little taqqiyah practioner continues, sticking his nose into everyone else's "private life" (I don't get how talking about one's faith is 'private' especially on a religion forum)
only a Moslem or another who denies Christ was God would forget that for a Christian, the fact that Jesus Christ died, ROSE FROM THE DEAD and ascended into Heaven is the focus. Not just a dead Christ
I realise that it is difficult for the non-Christians like no-no to acknowledge that, but it is the central mystery of our Christian faith which is not only that Christ DIED, but more importantly that HE TRIUMPHED OVER DEATH, He rose again from the dead, He IS/WAS/will always be GOD
Non-Christians cannot acknowledge this fact of Jesus's resurrection and that Jesus Christ is God.
I'm sure it's an inadvertent slip, however, the meta-religion Sanatana Dharma is HindU while the Indo-European language is HindI
Both are derived from the Persian translation of Sindhu (for the Indus river) -- as the "S" sound in Sanskrit becomes "H" in Farsi
Incidently, Hindi is Prakrit mixed liberally with Persian, hence terms like darwaza which is Farsi
PERHAPS you could also install one of these . . . mine works most of the time--with decidedly some effort at times . . .
.
Or, perhaps for a list of folks, we could pray for something like this?
This one also fits:
Read up on Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Vinoba Bhave or Baba Amte -- I've not read amte, but the others are pretty critical of various aspects of hinduism
Besides, Hinduism, strictly speaking is not strictly polytheistic
hinduism being a meta-religion includes polytheism, monotheism (with the belief in Ishwara and many Shaivites believing that Shiva is the purest form of Ishwara, ditto for Vaishnavites), pantheism and athiesm -- it is a meta-religion like SGML
Really? Even when a poster says things like Jesus Christ was persecuted and died - that is the only focus for a Christian
only a Moslem or another who denies Christ was God would forget that for a Christian, the fact that Jesus Christ died, ROSE FROM THE DEAD and ascended into Heaven is the focus. Not just a dead Christ
That's not orthodox on Christian doctrines at all...
Sorry...that was sarcasm....note the sig.
My point was to highlight what I view as the silliness of all the squabbling over religious doctrine that sometimes goes on here. Really, no one is likely to have his mind changed about his religious beliefs because someone harangues him on the internet. It’s all pretty loopy in my humble opinion.
We’ve got a president and congress destroying our country, possibly for good, and many here choose to expend energy on protestant versus catholic, postmillenial versus premillenial, Mormon versus anti-mormon. It would all be a big yawn if it wasn’t distracting from the deadly serious matter of our country becoming a Third World Fabian Socialist dump.
Hank
I'm guessing you never read the Rubaiyat; even better - here's site for you http://www.persianatheist.com/ -- the name says it all. You can translate it using Chrome translator
Even on this thread we have an atheist quoting Hindu "scripture". I wonder how many times that religion has been disputed by them? -- Quite often -- didn't you know that the CPI and CPI (M) have ruled the Indian states of Kerala and West Bengal for decades? Here's another site for you with an evocative title http://indianatheists.com/
To look at things only through a western prism can be a mistake...
The "westernism" trend is not only in the west and neither is atheism only in the West. If you go as far back as the Panchtantras you see the threads of disbelieve in Indian philosophy. I don't know of any in Achaemenid Persia though.
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.