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.

I do not add any thing to God's words. You have been.

Actually, no, let's review. This starts with my post 3558 saying

The wisdom of God is here
Mk 16:16, Lk 13:3, Jn 6:54, Matt 23:13 are Jesus's own words telling us that

He who believes
and is baptized will be saved.
[U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish
[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day
he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved

These are the Lord's very own words His very own statements, exhortations, commands.
this is not the philosophy or wisdom of men, this what God Himself has commanded.
to which your post 3561 said
BUT I insist that the only "unless"(sbsolute necessity) involves repentence.
--that's putting human logic on the simple words of Christ
I repeated in 3561
Salvation is as Christ, Himself said he who believes, is baptised (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) for the remission of sins, who truly repents of his/her sins, who eats of His flesh and who endureth to the end, they shall be saved. If not they will perish
I don't see how one can not see this said very clearly by Christ Himself
to which you respond
If A then B does not imply If not A then not B(inverse). It does imply If not B then not A(contrapositive).
this is the wisdom of men, using human logic when Jesus Christ's words are so simple: The one who "believes and is baptized shall be saved," (Mark 16:16) -- you do A (believe), then B (baptism) follows and you shall be saved. You don't do A (believe), then B does not follow, hence you won't be saved. Yet, CHRIST HIMSELF says you MUST do A and then B

To which I again told you in post 3617

He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
and in context it reads
12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
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.
God has clearly said -- believe and be baptise and you shall be saved. If you don't believe, then baptism can't help you and you shall be damned.
But the clear point is you believe then you get baptised.

These are the words of Christ.
Baptism sans belief does not help, but Christ says believe and be baptised -- it is if you do A (believe) then get B (baptism) done. If you don't do A, then B has no point. This does not mean that B is not necessary, just that it does not stand on its own.
For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven'

It's so clear -- why do people subtract from the word of God? From the EXACT words of Jesus Christ from His very mouth?

Easy -- when 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.

Note again -- 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

38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Lk 12:50

50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.
Jn 19:34

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1 Jn 5:6-8

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" Jn 3:5

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

I think what many people miss - and I blame it on their own "scholars" who have more trust in traditions than Scripture - is that our salvation depends on faith/belief for our part and the grace and mercy of God. Baptism in Scripture was NEVER only speaking of the sacrament of water baptism. If it were, then we could correctly question the salvation of the thief next to Jesus whom Jesus said would be with him in Paradise.

I think this point was already made on this very thread in a slightly different context by an atheist who said if he could prove an exception to a belief he could prove the belief was false. Of course, to get around this on the need for baptism, we have the claim of "baptism of desire" which said the thief would have been baptized if he could have so he really did get baptized only in a "spiritual" way. I do not hold to this way of thinking simply because I know Scripture says we are baptized into Christ when we believe. Our baptism - the one that counts - is a baptism of the Holy Spirit and it occurs at the moment of repentance and faith in Christ as savior. It does NOT depend upon an outward act of participating in the rite of water baptism. It couldn't be speaking of that simply because we are saved NOT by works of righteousness which we have done but by God's mercy and the washing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The rite of water baptism then, becomes a testimony to the world that we are following Christ and commit to walk in newness of life. But it is NOT what saves us. It is by grace through faith that we are saved.

That is the only explanation that makes sense when Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved and he who believes not will be condemned.". When we believe we ARE baptized (in the Holy Spirit), so if we do not believe, we are not baptized in the Holy Spirit so we are not saved. An unbeliever can get water baptized every day of his life, but it won't save him. Only when he believes does he get saved. Baptizing does not save anyone, only faith does.

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.