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.

This is definitely news to me. Why should they not believe in the God of the Bible, since the God of the Bible is the self-same Creator acknowledged in the DoI as the source of man's unalienable rights?

You can cherry pick the literature to your heart's content, tearing items out of context as it suits you.

Cherry pick? Read Thomas Paines The Age of Reason. Or would you like me to post hundreds of more quotes like I just posted? I can even start with the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But what you cannot do is rewrite American history to fit your reimagined, "culturally-updated" version of it. America is what it is, unique among nations. And what it is, is a Christian nation philosophically, i.e., without taking the doctrines of sectarian religious belief into effect.

Tell you what Betty, can you list a few things that the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution that makes us a Christian Nation Philosophically?

I'll be willing to bet that neither you nor your fellow Born Againers Apologists will make a better case for that than they did the Bibles predictive ability.

Prove God exists? I ask, Prove to whom? To the atheist? To he who believes God doesn't exist and anyone who accepts as fact He does is “delusional” and taken in by a “sham”.
What “proof” could the believer offer that is not likewise “delusional” and a “sham” in the opinion of the atheist?

Perhaps some “proof” that will overwhelm the Pharisee-like disbelief and accusation of fraud, demonism, and ignorance?
and what “proof” would that be?
“Pull those nails out your hands and feet and come down here! Save yourself!”?

But the atheists won't accept even the proofs they demand so the demand is in it's self false.
One of the most compelling proofs was offered on one these threads, perhaps this one, that of fulfilled prophecy concerning the release of the Israelites from Babylon and Jesus’ own prophecy about Jerusalem be laid waste.

But, ‘who cares’, says the atheist, ‘it's not MY proofs so it means nothing at all.’

“Then prove that God exists”

That was done a long time ago and it was ignored.

There is no proof that an atheist would accept.

You are quite correct. Since the atheist thinks that belief in God is delusional, then by default, any *evidence* the believer uses to *prove* God is meaningless; mere delusion, not founded in fact. ,P> Therefore, there is no proof that the atheist would accept as valid. So they are demanding that someone prove God's existence using something that they have determined a priori, to be invalid.

19"There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.'

25But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

There is no proof that an atheist would accept.

You are quite correct. Since the atheist thinks that belief in God is delusional, then by default, any *evidence* the believer uses to *prove* God is meaningless; mere delusion, not founded in fact. ,P> Therefore, there is no proof that the atheist would accept as valid. So they are demanding that someone prove God's existence using something that they have determined a priori, to be invalid.

From an earlier post about 7 years ago:

...the intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that, since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because
1. something like that cannot happen,

2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and

3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.
The answer to the above is, of course,
1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;

2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,

3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?

* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?

Here is the absolute truth about God. Please memorize this because it will finally set you straight...

The Supreme Being of the Universe is God and he is all evil. One day the all evil God was bored so he decided to have some fun by creating the universe and all that exists including man. He is so evil he created the Scriptures and the story of Jesus just so he could trick you and people like you into believing God is a good God. This evil God created EVERYTHING. He created the universe, birds, flowers, puppies, kittens, gorgeous sunsets, all the people on Earth (including you) and all that is beautiful in this world just to fool you.

Then he created a fake Holy Spirit to go whisper in certain people's ears. He instructed this fake Holy Spirit to give you knowledge of a good God that simply doesn't exist, and never did exist just to fool you. The evil God wants you to believe in his fake Scriptures and his illusion of a good God just to see the look on your face after you die and go directly to hell. There you will be forced to slide down razor blades for eternity. The harder you cry, the harder the evil God laughs at you for being so stupid you fell for his illusion of a good God. You will slide and be cut forever with evil God laughing and laughing at you.

Prove me wrong, but you can't use the Scriptures, because they were created by the evil God in order to trick you. If you use Scripture, you only proof the supreme God IS all evil. You will be proving how bad he tricked you.

Now, please... prove me wrong.

Yes I do kosta - it is the empty tomb and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. I know already you reject that evidence from the start, but nothing else explains the phenomena of the Church. Secondly kosta, you of all people know that two opposing truths cannot coexist

Okay, G, thanks for sharing that. Here is how I see this proof: (1) empty tomb only means that a body was removed. How was it removed, I don't know; you don;t know either. (2) the eyewitness account are notoriously unreliable. In 1917 thousands of people in Fatima, Portugal, "witness" the Sun falling on earth.

Luckily (or not), the cameras of various reporters at the scene failed to confirm, that. Without the photographic evidence showing that no solar activity occurred, the mass hysteria, for the lack of a better word and not trying to insult anyone, would have been taken as "fact". How wrong would that have been? This is how myths and legends are created, G. In less than a century it can become a dogma.

My third objection to your proof is that Jesus eyewitnesses did not include the people who condemned him, such as the Sanhedrin or Pilate. Their eyewitness would have carried a lot more weight, I think. Converting your enemies always does.

As for "nothing else explains the phenomena of the Church", G, it was Emperor Constantine, not Jesus and not Paul, who is responsible for the phenomenon of the Church. He not only allowed Christianity, based on a superstitious dream he had, but made it a state religion, prohibiting all pagan religions with the penalty of death for those who did not convert.

The number of Christians, contrary to popular opinions, appear not to have been really very high before that.

Again, neither of us are eyewitnesses, nor do we have any definitive evidence one way or another that God exists. You choose to believe the evidence that you offer, and others choose to disbelieve based on the evidence they have. Others, like myself, chose to live with doubt without condemning either.

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.