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.
I have no proof. All I have is my faith.
Lurkers will note that goml has to now revert to a fallacy called 'moving the goalposts'. He was refuted without using scripture, now he has to revise his challenge.
BTW, just more opinion, no empirical facts to support the claim.
I know all of this because this is what God told me. He tells me you follow an illusion. Prove me wrong. You can't.
My God tells me that you are a fool. Prove me wrong. You can't
And I will join with you in asserting the same. I could NEVER go back to unbelief - I have seen too much and know too much to ever ditch it. That is the reward we are all promised, that if we seek him with all our hearts he will be found. For the sincere, honest skeptic, the fence sitting eventually gets too uncomfortable and a choice must be made. Being that none of us has any guarantee that we will live the next minute, now is the acceptable time, now is the day of our salvation.
I am not an atheist, metmom. So shut your trap.
Indeed.
After Weiner Week on FOX; I am a bit apprehensive about going to look at ANYones FaceBook account!
You believe in God. Good, even the demons believe and tremble.
Since you believe in Him, then why don’t you believe what He told us about Himself in Scripture?
They don't seem to understand that. Rather they treat doubt to their unsubstantiated claims as a claim that needs to be evidenced!!! This is scary. Doubt is justified in all cases of unsusbtanited claims. Period. This is so basic, it shouldn't even have to be mentioned unless you are addressing a bunch of adolescents. LOL.
If say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter and you as for a proof and I turn around and say "no, you prove that there aren't" you have a situation we encounter here on daily basis. It is positively asinine.
The other problem is that their "evidence" is subjective or "experiential" or "witnessed". The type of "proof" they offer would be laughed at in every court in every school in every place of work: "God told me."
Try not showing at work because "God told you" to take a day off and see how long you keep your job. Try blaming God for your behavior, and see how much the courts will buy it; "God told me."
Which was why even after revealing the fallacy of appealing to arguments from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) that was repeatedly being resorted to by the person I was replying to earlier, he just didn’t seem to get it.
Those tribals could have been “saved” (his belief) because I “can’t prove” that special-purpose angels didn’t inform them about his adopted dogma, LOL!
Circular “reasoning” is all they have, but they’re blind to it.
Stop spinning and get a life. I never said I believe. I have said all along that I don't know. I am agnostic and there is no amount of spin that will turn than into a belief of any kind. I neither affirm nor deny God. I don't know what God is, I can't deny or affirm what don't know.
Good example!
But perhaps God does not have very special reasons to submit to a test from others....I just found it interesting....I recently put God to a test and He passed. I am 1/2 way there....(this is not said with pride, just the fact). Even many of the saints in the catholic church has to deal with lack of faith.....Mother Theresa spoke of this once. So have the writing of many saints....its quite common.
Don't know if this makes sense to you, I sometimes have a hard time trying to explain things...
You are right, people even back then were skeptical of fantastic stories and asked for proof. I have a little secret for you: it's not so much what the Christians said but what a superstitious pagan emperor had to say. He is the one who made Christianity the only allowed religion in the Roman Empire, and has rmeianed such for almost 1700 years in Europe. Based on a superstitious dream of an emperor. That's why we still talk about a story that was circulated 2,000 years ago.
I commented on what I observed which was numerous posts about certain people without them being pinged to your posts. As I recall, this has been a complaint of yours at times. I guess I'm not your favorite person anymore, huh? ;o)
No pathos involved.
Since we’ve already established that you would not accept even the “proof” you name the term “agnostic” doesn’t seem quite right.
And since the proof has already been presented you’re simply asking for reruns on the cheap and that just doesn’t fly.
Of course my post wasn’t addressed to you, was it?
Exactly. Their other excuse is that they died for their religion. Islamic extremists do every day. They use one measuring tool and two different criteria.
Or for that matter, that of the Mormons? The latter superstition developed and grew in an age of reliable documentation, barely a century ago, not 2000+ years into antiquity
With the crucial (and most unbelievable) evidence (the gold plates in hieroglyphs) MISSING! The whole religions is base don a testimony of one shady character who "testified" that he saw the plates before they were lost...that's like the Ark, the most sacred relic, along with the 10 Commandments, lost! Conveniently.
The Fatima scam is a classic example of unreliability of "witness" testimony, especially massive eyewitness account during frenzy. Another excellent example is a British reporter who "saw" a British paratrooper on the Blood Sunday in Belfast in the 1970's point a rifle at him.
He swears the soldier had a red beret. But photographs of the incident (which did take place) show unmistakeably that the paratrooper wore a green steel helmet! The reporter to this day, despite having seen the photograph says his brain refuses to acknowledge it and when he closes his eyes he "remembers" a red beret!.
Anyway, unreliability of human recollection and eyewitness accounts is a separate study that points very conclusively that human "witness" is patently unreliably.
You are spot on, goml. Very good. Humans can conjure up any theological scenario and then say simply prove me wrong...you can't.
What you are witnessing first hand is the result of misplaced priorities. Born Againers place their own personal beliefs above all else. Their theology even holds them blameless, they can commit no sin because they are Saved by the Blood of Christ. This relieves them of the burden of critical thought or reasoning. Every hateful thought and action is instantly absolved and made pure by the Blood of Christ.
This is why you won't see any condemnation of a Born Againer by another Born Againer. They know that the Born Againers motives and heart are pure and that is what counts. The Muslims have an almost identical theology in that respect. The same goes for the AGW'ers, etc. etc.
Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
As Cronos reminded me earlier there are liberal trolls like Hankerchief who intentionally flame the hatred, but I think on the whole it is a self inflicted wound on the conservative movement. For example earlier betty boop called me treasonous because I am an Atheist. And betty boop isn't a liberal plant, but that makes my point.
What we are doing is very painful to the Born Againers. Telling and explaining the truth to them is like taking a vampire out into the sun and expecting them to thank you for it.
Each of our posts is as offensive to them as Agememnons is to us. We are lucky that they aren't as secure in their delusion as Muslims or we would be hunted men by now. Thankfully our founding fathers understood this predilection of the People of the Book and did what they could to keep them out of power.
Is what we are doing pointless? I don't know. I fight on because it is my nature to try to learn and speak the truth. I think the biggest benefit to me personally is that The Born Againers are terrific contra indicators. Almost everything they believe is wrong and simply disagreeing with them makes me right, I never would have believed it if I hadn't tried it. That principle doesn't just work with Born Againers, it works with any mass movement with devoted followers. Self delusion must be some kind of survival mechanism in the Human race.
Exactly : )
Actually we can prove they didn't if we are held to the same standard of proof that they hold themselves too. None.
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.