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.
That "the lottery is a stupid tax"? LOL I wish you all the best in playing the Lottery. Maybe you will win the Powerball with this weeks paycheck : )
What can I say? This is Christian 'Morality' all wrapped up in a bow.
I am so glad that I am not a Christian.
I responded to #42, try to stay with this a little bit, mmmmkay?
How does anyone who is religious get past these moral hurdles?
They don’t actually read the Bible or understand what it says.
And then my response was what you read.
I do agree with the ‘stupid tax’ statement, as well, gambling is wrong. It is hoping to make a gain by taking advantage of your neighbor. Just wrong.
This was the argument used by Job's friends in a negative sense. That God does not allow the righteous to suffer and that Job must have sinned and therefore 'deserved' his suffering. God was not happy with them for their misconception. Of course, God does allow the righteous to suffer with the primary example beinng that of his Son.
Unbelievers demand that God conform to their image rather than them conforming to the image of God's only begotten Son. They also make the error of judging eternal destiny according to temporal standards. Again, totally contrary to the image presented in Christ.
It's what makes them unbelievers, after all.
To take the argument at hand, can you provide for us a reason why said child should be guaranteed a long, happy, healthy, prosperous life? I mean, all things being equal, I'm sure we'd all like for this to be the case for this child, but can you provide a logical reason why the child deserves it?
This is interesting, since it once again highlights an illogic in your arguments.
See, by "studying Tanakha under a Rabbi" (which, I suppose, is where you got the rather interesting nonsense about Exodus 34 being the "real" Ten Commandments), you - who don't have any actual belief in the text - nevertheless think to make an argument from authority because some rabbi apparently interprets the text differently from the "born agains." Nevermind that there's no logical reason for you to think that the rabbi necessarily has a "better" interpretation of the text, since theoretically, if you want to be consistent in your atheism, NEITHER set of interpretations means anything to you, unless you just want to choose the rabbi's interpretation as a form of special pleading.
After all, the rabbi is just as separated by time from the events in question as are the "born agains," and we know that Judaism has, ah, evolved a lot in its understanding of the biblical texts over the past 1800 years - in large part as a conscious antagonistic response to Christian theological views. Hence, there's no real objective reason to prefer the rabbi over the "born agains," now is there?
I don't even know why I ask, none of you Born Againers are much on reading.
LOL. How much do you actually read? I probably read more than you do, since I manage to put down at least 1000 pages a month, on all sorts of topics ranging across history, philosophy, theology, science, etc., and in all manner of formats (books, journal articles, internet sources, etc.). I would read even more if I had more time on my hands.
Again I ask, what morals does Elohim have?
He has the morals that He defined. Can you show a good reason why He would have to answer to your particular idea about morals or ethics?
My bad I saw my post on 41 and thought that was what you were responding to.
So how is my comment "They don’t actually read the Bible or understand what it says."A lack of intellectual ability? Ignorance is typically the reason for many odd behaviors. There is no need to try and understand the reasons for behavior when, stupidity suffices.
According to the Bible Jehovah tortured and Killed this innocent new born baby and you are trying to justify Jehovah's actions, on the basis that no one 'deserves' a long happy healthy life?
Using your logic and Morals, any Christian can torture and kill anyone, because no one "deserves' a long healthy life?
Again I repeat. I thank God that I am not a Born Againer.
Metmom, just for your information I have decided to keep a copy of your post so that I will have a great example of Born Againer Morality.
Actually there is a logical reason. The Jews wrote the Text. Who better than the authors to know and understand what they wrote?
After all, the rabbi is just as separated by time from the events in question as are the "born agains," and we know that Judaism has, ah, evolved a lot in its understanding of the biblical texts over the past 1800 years -
And the Born Againers beliefs haven't evolved either? No I guess you are right. The Born Againers just magically appeared fifty years ago with the built in ability to know just what GOD meant when GOD wrote the Bible.
I probably read more than you do, since I manage to put down at least 1000 pages a month, on all sorts of topics ranging across history, philosophy, theology, science, etc., and in all manner of formats (books, journal articles, internet sources, etc.). I would read even more if I had more time on my hands.
Have you ever considered pondering and thinking about what you read? Never mind, I know the answer, your cognitive dissonance makes that too painful.
He has the morals that He defined. Can you show a good reason why He would have to answer to your particular idea about morals or ethics?
Since God doesn't exist, there is no reason that I should expect a reason for for a non existent beings behavior. Does Allah explain what he does to you?
To reply to the first part. "He has the morals that He defined." That is the definition of a despot is it not?
Where is a long and happy life ever promised to anyone anywhere by any religion or any non-religious system? Atheism sure can't provide it. The fruit of atheism evidenced in the barbaric inhumane regimes of Stalin, PolPot, Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Mao, show that atheism is far more inhumane than almost any religious system (save islam) and yet you don't reject atheism. Why not?
Why not be consistent?
On what basis do you determine morals and morality? In your existential universe, how do you determine innocence and guilt? Right and wrong? Good and evil? And how do you justify said decisions?
What is your objective standard by which you measure God and find Him wanting? What system of morality do you use?
It seems that you regularly appeal to the Judeo-Christian system of morality to make those determinations, and yet reject the basis for that system, God and the Bible. Why are you so hypocritical about that?
Why do you think you're better than and more moral than God and judge Him so?
Do you know the reason for everything He does? Do you know the beginning from the end?
Lots of people get sick and die. Does that mean that you think God is torturing each and every one of them?
And do you accept illness and death if you don't associate a deity with it? If there is no God and the child simply got sick and died, nothing would be different. The issue isn't the child's death. The issue is you looking for an excuse to reject God. By vilifying Him, you have that excuse.
Problem is, in the end, it's getting you nowhere. You cannot keep yourself out of hell by throwing up in His face that you thought He was faaiiirrrr and you didn't like what He did and blackmailing Him into doing what YOU want.
There's only one way to heaven and that's through Jesus. His death on the cross paid for our sins. It's available to anyone and everyone who repents and believes, even you.
You state that God does not exist.
You're assigning a value judgment of the alleged actions of a non-existent entity?????
If that's the case, then when the Jews wrote that the baby died because God struck him, they were wrong.
So you're working yourself all up in a lather over rejecting something that you claim you don't believe in the first place.
Yup. Argument from outrage.
And totally illogical and inconsistent to boot.
“The problem of evil” is pretty much answered in one of the purported oldest books of the Bible - Job.
The simple answer is, He is God, and we/you are not.
He defines the Good, He knows the “greater good”, and you do not.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world.”
para:
“You’re right, God. I spoke once and will not speak again.”
The greater good is not what WE think the greater good is.
Sometimes innocent people DO suffer for our bad decisions. If David had not sinned like that, the child would not have died. The child likely would not even have existed.
When my kids were small, I took them for their immunizations, which they did not like. It was beyond their comprehension how being hurt like that, while I held them down, was good for them.
If I told them that it would help keep them from getting sick, the next time they got sick, they remembered it and asked me (rather accusingly) why they got sick, the shots were supposed to help KEEP them from getting sick.
They were simply not capable of understanding the true reason at the time.
Likewise, when we had a family trip to FL planned for a week and a half once, I told them that we could not do something innocuous and fun that they wanted to do. I denied them the good thing they wanted for the better thing I KNEW they would enjoy more.
But the trip was a surprise (so as to live without the constant harassment about when we were going to go).
Sometimes you don’t tell your kids everything. Sometimes you let them learn the hard way and take the consequences of their actions.
There is also the blindness exhibited by some who think that this physical world is all there is. Basing value judgments on that is foolhardy.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world.”
para: “You’re right, God. I spoke once and will not speak again.”
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
-- Romans 9:19-24
Do you give your kids everything they want just because they pitch a fit and accuse you of not being fffaaaaiiiirrrr.....??
Or do you do what you know and feel is best for them and in their best interests, whether they know it or not?
Is catering to their every whim loving them?
Is not disciplining them loving them?
I made this connection a while back -
the left/atheists have the common mis-assumption between their advocacy for centralized control and their denial of God based on “the problem of evil”.
In both cases, they believe THEY know what the greater good is. In effect, they’ve succumbed to the original sin of desiring to be or thinking they are a god unto themselves, knowing good and evil. (Gen 3:4-5)
I didn't say or imply that it was. That is your false assumption.
What is immoral is your God torturing and killing and innocent child.
Why not be consistent?
I am consistent, unlike you and your God, I know that killing an innocent baby is immoral.
With logic and common sense.
What is your objective standard by which you measure God and find Him wanting? What system of morality do you use?
Logic.
Why do you think you're better than and more moral than God and judge Him so?
I don't go around killing innocent children and teaching my followers that that is a moral and good thing to do.
Do you know the reason for everything He does? Do you know the beginning from the end?
No. I have no idea, why people invent a God and then use that God to justify their actions. Or maybe I do : )
The issue is you looking for an excuse to reject God. By vilifying Him, you have that excuse.
We aren't actually talking about God, we are talking about the Morals of his followers. You believe that it is Moral to kill innocent babies. How does that make you any different than the Mayan's or Inca's who sacrificed babies?
It’s called the fallacy of the Stolen Concept. It is the practice of appropriating a concept while denying the validity of the genetic root upon which it logically depends. The slogan “all property is theft” is the most frequent example given.
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.