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.
Exactly!!! Outstanding insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Perhaps atheists resent God because He is all-powerful and they are not.
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding insights, dearest sister in Christ!
God's Name is I AM.
I don't know who this father Alexander is, but I think his "orthodoxy" has popped up on other threads. I dare say he is probably ex-Protestant who by putting on Orthodox vestments believes he magically "became" "orthodox" in his phronema.
What he is describing here is NOT Orthodoxy! Salvation is the Eastern Church is achieved through theosis, a provcess of conforming (not being conformed!) to the image of Christ through self-denial ("dying unto oneself and to the world"), losing your ego )that's anew one for the Western Christians!), so that only the light of God can be seen in you, such as in the case of Panagia, the Theotokos, whose personality and ego is utter darkness.
No genuine Orthodox priest will tell you that you are "born again" unless he is an ex-Prot (always a Prot). In fact, this Alexander calls himself a "Bishop" on his Title Page, but it's utterly unclear as regards which churches he is in communion with. IIRC, this joker has resurfaces on another thread, mainly because of his UN-orthodox quotes and his Church-of-One site.
His site (fatheralexander.org) uses a lot of Russian to give the impression of being a "real" Orthodox site, but at the bottom of the Title Page (http://www.fatheralexander.org/page6.htm) he is asking for help in translating from Russian. He is a fake and he is not in communion with any genuine Orthodox Church in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and is not listed on the Ecumenical Patriarch's list of Orthodox Churches. That becomes obvious to anyone who is or was Orthodox.
Nope. I'm not kidding you.
Here's Kosta's explanation...
In fact the whole John 3:3-4 is suspect because such pun, even if it were, could not have been understood as such by Nicodemus in Aramaic because in Aramaic the word 'from above' and 'again' are not even close. And it's a real stretch to even imply that Jesus used a really strange Greek hyperbole to a member of the Sanhedrin. John made it up. I know this is sacrilege to most people, especially, because "born again" is the cornerstone for some Christians, but the conversation simply never took place. It's a tale John made up.
!
And evidently you, LeGrande, missed my point; for you replied: Exactly : )
My point is: Christ is the Son of God, God's Word, the Logos of the Beginning. As such, He has always been "in the world" — even prior to His Incarnation. He is Alpha and Omega, First to Last. He doesn't suddenly come into existence when people "recognize" Him. He has always been and IS; it's just, historically speaking, humans have been slow to catch on to that fact.
His Incarnation and Resurrection made Him manifest in the world to those with the eyes to see, and the ears to hear.... But the ancient Greeks came before these events, on the historical timeline.... Thus how could they "recognize" Him?
And I consider the source. So John made it up? To what end? What was the purpose of Nicodemus' discussion? And then John 3:16 is false and made up? If you believe that John 3:16 is false, you are no Christian.
It is also stunning that a translation is used to determine that the source for that translation is false.
A totally splendid insight from Alamo-Girl, dear AndrewC!!!
Bravissima, dearest sister in Christ!
If you consider a book written by men to be without error, you are not a Christian.
Is that your doctrine? Let me ask you directly. Is John 3:16 true or a lie?
I believe it’s true.
But according to Kosta it comes from a liar.
Agenda is understood, yet the testimony of an empty tomb and a face to face encounter with Jesus is recognized by nearly all biblical scholars at the earliest level - from day one kosta. The gospel writers emphasized they were telling the truth - not propaganda. Were it an 'agenda' kosta, please tell us why the Apostles are shown to be such dunderheads - exposing their faults and fears. Luke in particular pays attention to historical details that were one time mocked but have later proved to be right on. Correct details lend credabilty to the rest of his writings )". . it seemed fitting … having investigated everything from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order,… so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:3-4)
As to the growth of the church there are no reliable sources that indicate how many Christians were there. There was no clear division between the Christians and the Jews in the first century to begin with, since Christianity was a Jewish sect.
Perhaps no difference to a roman official kosta - but internally it was readily apparent - Christians were persecuted by the jewish leadership. Jewish Christians were eventually kicked out of the synagogues across eurasia.
AFA growth, pretty lame denial here on a minor issue. Facts are that by 120 AD even rome recognized Christianity - Tacitus wrote there was a growth of the following of Jesus after his death for instance. 3000 are recorded on the day of Pentecost and by the end of Paul's ministry churches had been established all over asia minor and southern europe. Pliny the Younger complained about its growth in 110 AD. The fact is kosta, the church grew inspite of the persecution and the contrary nature of the gospel it preached.
In the second century, there were many Gnostic sects, all claiming to be "Christian", etc.
And how successful were they in the long term - not very. And even the short term, they were limited geographically as well as demographically. By the second century Christianity had spread over a substantial area - Europe, Asia, Africa.
Subsequent centuries (all the way up to the seventh) see the spread of Manichaeanism, not Christianity, as one of the largest religions in the known world.
Manichaeanism huh, interesting because at encyclopedia.com they refer to it as an "extinct" religion. Not very successful in the long run eh kosta.
The success of the church is due entirely to the fact that 1700 years ago, Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the only permitted (state) religion in Rome, a decision entirely based on his superstitious interpretation of a dream he had.
LOL, yes Constantine ate too much pasta before going to bed that night. Yet you give him too much credit, especially since after Nicea he turned the arians loose against the Christians for another round and period of persecution now didn't he. And also, Christianity was growing in areas outside of Rome's control at that time as well. Yet the bottom line is kosta - it did grow inspite of persecution and inspite of constantine.
One point I see you avoided was the profound change in the Apostles and other followers after the resurrection.
Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing, bb? We would all know the truth instead of having to merely believe in it. Why live in suspense when we could know? Why do you think God doesn't want us to know, but merely to hope?
Kosta denies the transcendence of God
You never told me what God is, bb. How can I accept divine transcendence simply because you believe in it?
Also I suggested earlier that kosta got the definition of "Christian" entirely right, in that he said people who don't believe in the Triune God and the Risen Christ are "not Christians." He ticked off a list of such, but didn't put his own name on it — as I imagine he should have done.
And I thanked you for it, but I was right not because you blessed it, but because of what Christians say they believe in, and have long before some of these "Christian" sects you see on FR even existed.
As to not including myself on the list of those who are not Christians, do you think an agnostic has to specifically say that, especially since you know I am an agnostic?
The two are so mutually exclusive it's silly to even suggest such a thing. LOL. It's as if you insisted that a man saying he is a man would also have to declare he is not a woman! Double LOL! An agnostic is not a Christian, bb. Are you happy now? Did you have any doubts? LOL! You are in a rare form today. :)
Earlier, I suggested that atheists have a weird way of "inverting" Truth. Kosta's negative definition is yet another good example of this
Oh, whaaaaa...
Kosta seems to be a thoroughly dogmatic thinker. His dogma is entirely sui generis, having little if anything to do with the real world.
My world doesn't have talking donkeys and snakes, bb. In my world the Sun doesn't stop for 24 hours, and in my world flu is not caused by 'evil spirits.' I know, it;s a strange world I live in...right? LOL. I guess in a mental asylum, where Napoleons and Cleopatras are an everyday occurrence, a sane visitor is the 'crazy' one! LOL.
It is rather the projection of his internal world of wishes, preferences, and dreams....I anticipate his clever reply to this observation: In all likelihood, he'll say I am doing the same exact thing.
You are not?????
He has to say that; for my insight is qualitatively different than his because I recognize the transcendence of God, and he does not.
That makes all the difference...in your head. But does that make you walk on water?
If there is no transcendence, then I am wrong, and merely projecting my own internal dream world. And thus he and I are "doing the same thing."
You think there might be a chance...or is this just a lapse moment in your free association flight of ideas that every now and then borer on reality?
Kosta INSISTS he is not an atheist. But to me, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck."
When Kosta tells you he is an atheist then you can say Kosta is an atheist. In the mean time, all your quacking is just mind reading and bellyaching and whining. Get over it.
All things considered, I strongly doubt that kosta is a "good-faith" correspondent...And I'm getting a little tired of his "jerking me around" like this — by refusing to engage points, trying to change the subject, or attempting to steer the argument in directions more favorable to this peculiar methods. Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
LOL! ROFLOL! I guess I don't get a goodbye kiss... :(
Rather, everything becomes alternately more rigid and disorganized, as more and more primitive material needs to be projected outward in order to maintain the brittle delusion against the forces of reality. This is associated with a kind of frantic irritability, not the spiritual serenity of the motionless mover at the cosmic center.
Oooh, I certainty did like this latest from Gagdad Bob!!!
Thank you ever so much for the link to this wonderful piece, dear brother in Christ!
Translation? The Greek texts says nothing of being "born again".
I guess anyone endorsing the above view is a proponent of destroying all religious relics...
Why should I talk to you? If that's the best you can do, you're simply wasting my time.
The sky is blue. Grass is green. Your wife used to be a man before her surgery and hormone treatments.
Of course it does. Nicodemus asks about a mother's womb.
You're doing much worse, indulging in hypocrisy while endorsing idiotic nonsense such as this:
"Modern men who insist on "proof" of God are no different at heart [than primitive idol builders]..."
And plenty like it.
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.