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.

Now, I don't agree with this Calvinist viewpoint shutting off the miracles today.

Neither do I, dear Cronos!

If I did, I would have zero explanation for the miracle of my own spiritual transformation/reformation in Christ which occurred when I was "born again."

I DO consider that a miracle. Totally.

Yet I think it's true that, today, many folks of different Christian sects are "uncomfortable" with miracles — such as (arguably) Fatima and Medjugorje. Such folks seemingly uniformly deny them on principle as manifestations of demonic powers. That's the initial presupposition on which their following argument is uniformly based.

But the fact remains — these debunkers weren't there; i.e., at Fatima or Medjugorje. Literally tens of thousands of other people were there. And gave their accounts of what they saw/experienced.

I wasn't there either. Thus I have no basis or evidence to call the others who were there either liars, or victims of mass hypnosis. Which are the only two possibilities by which the historical account can be read — in the debunkers' view.

I have no reason or evidence to say the participant reports of the events at Fatima and Medjugorje are false, utter lies — or the results of hypnotic programming of some kind. (A very modern idea.)

My dear brother in Christ, Quix, even tosses in UFOs directed by satanic powers as the main facilitators of such events. He points to what Catholics call "The Miracle of the Sun," in which to the on-scene observers, the Sun seemed to "dance" — not "fall" as some indirect observers have said — in the sky. So dear brother Quix seemingly reasons a UFO must have been involved....

The modern mind finds modern solutions to problems, I guess.

Even though he drives me nutz with such contentions (of which he is constantly reminding me), I love my dear brother in Christ very much. I honor his freedom to ask and answer questions according to the Light given unto him. So I will not even say his argument is "wrong." It is his view; and I respect it as such.

My view is different — but we are still brother and sister in Christ. And I try never to forget that.

Thanks you ever so much for writing, dear Cronos!

My contention is not whether or not the meaning is symbolic or literal. Personally, I think it’s probably both.

My contention is that the persons interpreting the passage use some consistency in the interpretation. Either the entire PASSAGE is literal; or it is symbolic; or both.

But don’t cherry pick within a sentence even and say, “Well, casting out demons is symbolic, and speaking in tongues is literal...”, and so on, to fit with one’s preconceived theology.

Our theology is to be determined by the Word of God, not by our personal preferences, especially when we let the personal preferences color our interpretation of Scripture.

Consistency is necessary. Anyone can justify anything by inconsistent interpretation of Scripture.

The same folks who demand that water baptism is essential for salvation because Jesus said it in Mark 16 will then turn around and mock those who they think believe that speaking in tongues and snake handling comes with believing in the very next verse, the very next sentence that Jesus uttered.

Those people are believing the words of Jesus in verse 17 as the baptism is necessary for salvation group is in verse 16. There is nothing in the context of the passage to indicate that Jesus went from speaking literally in verse 16 to speaking figuratively in verse 17.

If they are going to disallow verse 17, then verse 16 ought to be disallowed.

Yet you didn't answer -- I answered your question -- EXPLAIN THE THIEF ON THE CROSS.

hen did Jesus tell the theif that he would be in heaven?

BEFORE Jesus Christ died, right?

The thief lived under the OLD Covenant who received the grace and mercy of the Lord. The NEW covenant was not inaugurated until Jesus Christ's death on the Cross, refer Colossians 2:12-17

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Christ ended the Old Testament nailing it to his cross;

Remember that each of God's covenants was with a sacrifice -- and for the Jews in the OT, there was forgiveness of sins which involved an animal sacrifice at the temple -- and in the case of the New Covenant of Christ this was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is commanded after THE RESURRECTION read Matthew 28:18-20

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

or Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

the thief was promised in the OLD Covenant while in his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized
Mk 10:38

Did that answer your question?

I join with you, dearest sister in Christ, in identifying myself as "born again." The person I once was is dead.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

Should anyone use the term "born again" as a pejorative in speaking of me, I will count it all joy!

Indeed, I've been called many things in an apparent attempt to insult and I count them all joy. I've been called Satanic, demonic, Jesus freak or just plain freak, worthless, mindless, stupid, superstitious, pawn, blind, gnostic, heretic, etc.

Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12

Praise God!!!

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.

But I surely know that I was not saved because I did these things.