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.
You have no concept of what a "BA" believes(an attempt at insult of course from someone who denies its effectiveness). To someone truly born again(born above or whatever other metaphor you wish to invoke) there is no horror. You must die to the world(metaphorically) to be born from above(to use your metaphor).
I did not attempt to connect the meanings of the individual words. I was demonstrating that kosta was calling the writer of John 3:16 a liar since his conclusion was that John made up at least verses 3 an 4.
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Which would make John what?
Sorry, it was late. You are right.
So, you are saying all of these are wrong...yet the Bible is inerrant. Brilliant/s.
ok. But it is pretty clear that the meaning of John 3:3 is “born from above” not “born again”
The problem is that the BA philosophy seeks to curtail God, to limit him. And BAs seem to forget Matt 7:21
How can kosta be a "'simply seeking the truth' agnostic" when he denies Truth in the first place?
Oh, I'm sorry: He'll say he doesn't deny Truth; he just can't prove that it exists — to his own satisfaction.
So it seems to me that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to have it "both ways." Which is "no way" that actually works, in logic or reason.
For all practical purposes, the very word "agnostic" means "to know nothing."
And yet kosta presents himself as singularly "all-knowing" — in his purported ignorance (i.e., lack of ability to prove anything).
I'm sorry; but such a method makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Thank you so much for your astute observations, dear boatbums!
No the discussion is about "reborn"(born again/above) and the assertion that this is the antecendant to the conclusion that John is a liar. I stated that your deconstruction(disarticulation) attempt had no bearing since this was about a mistranslation into Greek. I again stated that despite whatever the source was, Paul was talking about a rebirth since he mentioned seed.
So, you are saying all of these are wrong...yet the Bible is inerrant. Brilliant/s.
Saying "NO" again would fall on deaf ears as the written word falls on blind eyes.
Does a person have to be born more than one time?
And you replied: Then prove that God exists. [a non-sequitur, BTW dear kosta — another typical, willful misdirection of the kind we have come to expect from you]
I can't do your "seeing" for you, kosta. Why not try your own eyes?
I've already told you — repeatedly — that God is not subject to proof, and why that is.
That does not mean that He is totally "undiscoverable." Totally obscure, totally remote from Man.
It just means that Man has to do a little work from his side. Which means, practically speaking: Man has to open his eyes and see what is there for himself.
God has left His fingerprints all over everything that exists, including you and me. Only a willfully blind man cannot see the evidence that presents to the eyes of an honest, eyes-open man who is paying attention to what actually is, in the real world.
And not getting sucked into futile second realities instead, the realization of which ultimately depends on the denial and defacement of, not only God, but also of Man — and making the denial/defacement "culturally acceptable" to the mass....
And you deny that atheism is a "national security problem?"
What you and your flying monkeys are doing here is nothing less than trying to undermine and ultimately divide the cultural consensus that has supported and sustained American society for over two hundred years now.
Do you really think that a culturally divided nation is in the best possible form to take on the ominous threats that currently face it, and to defeat them?
Or might it be the case that, deep-down, you despise this culture, this people, this country? In addition to your evident contempt for God and Man?
God knows, but maybe you even despise yourself.
But hey, I'n not your shrink.
Good luck!
I meant watch the whole documentary. Then check back with me If you want.
Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
No.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I [go], sir: and went not.
Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
What is rich is your attempts to assume me or others try so desperately to ignore God's word.
Get over yourself. It is out of ignorance that someone would claim Your sects fail because Tt be just song and dance without detailed, deep study is as bad as to be dry text without the joy. The balance is lost, the tying force that brings the loss of fear of the inexorable abyss is gone in both of these extremes and they lead to despair in one and delusion in the other. when you have no knowledge whatsoever to what lengths I or others have gone to deeply study the Word of God. I refused to accept my religion's "word for it" and sought to examine for myself if these things be so. Can you claim the same due diligence? How about you hold back on this hyper-criticism for once and actually judge what each person states rather than a blanket condemnation because they do not wear the same label?
I don't deny the possibility of it, altough I don't think it;s very likely, but that's just my opinion based on the fatc that there are notlaking donkeys and that dead people don't get up and go abaout their day as if nothing happened—after being dead for days!
And yet kosta presents himself as singularly "all-knowing" — in his purported ignorance (i.e., lack of ability to prove anything)
No, I just admit that I don't know something, which is more than some people can do. They must know, or at least pretend to know THE Truth, but they can't prove it!
Now, it seems to me that claiming ignorance and not being able to prove something is more logical than claiming to KNOW something and not being able to prove it.
I'm sorry; but such a method makes no sense to me whatsoever
I know, what make sense to you, apparently, is to imagine something and then proceed to "prove" that it exists by means of "vertical transcendence".
Amen, dear sister in the Lord. Indeed, "What is man that you are mindful of him?". The Creator of ALL that there is has deemed man worthy of his care and love yet the prideful throw it all back in his face and demand, "Prove yourself to me on MY terms, so that I can see the way I want to, in MY timeframe, according to MY variables." No wonder:
Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. (Psalms 59:7-8)
God can only be found with the heart, not the head.
Christianity cannot be reduced to a formula. It is a relationship between a loving, caring Creator with His creation. It’s not a laundry list of do’s and don’t’s to check off to see if we’ve arrived.
Believers can no more validate God’s love for us to someone else than another person can make real to me their love for their spouse or their children.
Some atheist can come along and mock the love of God and then tell me how much they love their children, but I can also come along and tell them that their love for their children is not real because they can’t validate it to me and make me feel it.
So, LG, kosta, JCB, Do you love your husband/wife/children/parents/friends?
Prove it to me.
The "vertical line" has nothing to do with proof. It has everything to do with insight into questions of meaning and value.
"Proof" belongs to the mathematicians/logicians, working within the set rules of their discipline.
Meaning and value ever transcend the reach of mathematical methods. Unless you want to emulate Pythagoras, so to see mathematics as the key to understanding the transcendent underpinnings of reality.
Bu you don't look like a Pythagorean to me. Or a logician, for that matter.
So, what's your excuse for bad behavior?
That is absolutely correct. That's why chest-thumping individuals who want the whole world to know how they love their spouses and children are no different than the Pharisees who made pained faces during fasts in order to come across as pious and observant. That's all hollow show.
You prove how you feel towards someone by your deeds. Words are cheap.
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.