The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

"Anti-Loftus Blogs" Ranting Pt.2???

In the short time that this blog has been on the web, John dubya Loftus seems to be going crazy over the idea that Holding and I (hopefully some others in the future as well) are persistently picking on him and his poor arguments. Just yesterday he started something over at DC with this: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/obnoxious-jp-holding-is-now-blogging.html And if this wasn't enough publicity already, it still seems to bother him to the point where he comes up with this unnecessary "follow-up": http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/few-links-about-james-p-holding.html

These posts have drawn some of Loftus' fans into pondering what this exact motive behind this blog (and some others) is, so I figure seeing as John seems to be in a state of severe exasperated irritibality right now, these could use some Loftus-debunking commentary points. Beginning with yesterday's post:

I wish he'd crawl back into his sewer as the rabid rat that he is. The neighborhood just won't be the same with him in it. Maybe he can explain why he's targeted someone as "ignorant" as I am if indeed I'm ignorant? I have never picked on Ray Comfort, for instance, because he's not worthy of my time. Why me if I'm "ignorant"?

John's newer post about this serves as proof that he ignored what I stated in one of my comments to this particular post, because I already explained to Loftus why he is such a target of fascination: 1) John has repeadetly stated on numerous past occasions that he will be leaving TWeb permanently, but only leaves for a month or two before returning to interrupt a discussion thread and then to trail off in a repeating cycle (one question I have for John is why he thinks it's a good idea to re-visit "the sewer" as often as he does), 2) Holding's reasons are for "enetertainment value" which certaintly might have something to do with the general scheme of things, and 3) John has way too many admirers and its rather frightening they take him all seriously; it's time to expose Loftus and his arguments for what they are, and test their credibility.

Another interesting point in mind I think deserves a response is that Loftus writes as if Blogger is exclusively a domain that provides for him and his colleauge's communicational needs. News flash, John: It isn't. Blogger is owned by Google and Google.com is accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. It's a public-based worldwide web service. Anyone has the right to use it. Aren't you being a hypocrite by trying to make it out that you have no power and are not harming anyone and are therefore not worth our perseveration? Besides, JPH has a site of his own, and yes it's here on Blogger, as it has been for a while now. Keep up with the times Johnny, and stop shooting yourself in the mouth.

Now onto today's events:

He claims that he's focusing on me because of the "entertainment value." Hmmmmm. What's that exactly?

You don't mean to tell me that you don't know what he means: How about how fragile your sense of pride and ego is that you will go to great extents to enlarge it and act like the big guy in control of matters. How about your inconsistencies, one of which Ive already mentioned.

In fact his answer is disingenuous, for inconsistently he later added I'm an "enemy of the common good." Lot's to say about that one. No one bothers with enemies who don't have any power, now do they?

What type of power are you refferring to John? Political power? You do have a form of power, John, and it's your blog. It's your willingness to control everything around you, and to manipulate your externalities. It's your false testimony of deconversion based on immoral actions, and the fact that people are somehow persuaded by your tactics. Additionally, it's the way you attempt to censor and silence your dissent.

I don't plan on giving Holding much attention here at all. Attention is what he craves. In fact, among his ignorant followers they think he's pretty important precisely because he gets some pretty important skeptics to turn our guns on him.

Important skeptics that all became atheists for the wrong reasons: To serve their own agendas. None of you could ever claim the title of "rationalist" because you don't base your beliefs on reasonable interpretation of evidence, you base it on yourselves and whats in store for your interests. It's an issue of having a self-serving identity.

Amazing that Loftus would say that JP is an attention seeker. But it doesn't make much sense for a non-attention seeker to slip in an advertisement of their book in almost every chance they get, even when it comes to reviewing other people's books on Amazon.com!

His followers conclude he must be doing something right if we go after him. But the truth is that Holding merely annoys us by treating us with such disrespect that we feel compelled to respond. He makes us angry, not because he has great arguments but because of his demeanor toward us.

I've written a few articles of my own on John before, and this one doesn't convince me of anything otherwise of what I have always thought of John: He has a personality characteristic of interchangeable schizophrenia. It's indeed VERY hypocritical that John would expect Holding, myself, and others to simply ignore him for some idea of perceiving him as insignificant (which we clealry don't) and then to shout out that the reason JPH gets any responses at all is because of his abilities to irritate the opposition. John has yet to prove he has the right to accuse others of inconsistency for any reason.

Before wrapping up, I'd like to make a few more jabs on John's explanation for why he gets "motivated" to "debunk" the arguments posed by Christians:

...I hate being laughed at.

Hey, who doesn't! But I'm not sure what you mean by being "laughed at", because many people, including myself, have matured to the point where I can laugh at myself over basically anything. Here are some quotes of wisdom for you to consider:

"A day without laughter is a day wasted." - Charlie Chaplin

"You grow up the day you have your first laugh - at yourself." - Ethyl Barrymore

"A friend is someone who gives you total freedom to be yourself." - Jim Morrison

"I never had a policy; I have just tried to do my very best each and every day." - President Abraham Lincoln

"Our anxiety does not come from thinking about the future, but from wanting to control it." Kahlil Gibran

"We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it." - President Thomas Jefferson

"It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities." - J.K. Rowling

Being ridiculed and mocked motivates me like nothing else. It’s like pouring gasoline on the flames of my passion. I want to make these people eat their words, and I usually do. Yes, that’s right. I usually do. The reason is that I believe in myself. I know what I am capable of doing if I set my mind to it.

I think John needs a theme song to go along with this. *Cues Eye of the Tiger*

I’ve been doing that all of my life. I even have a signature line on one Christian forum that reads: “Personally attacking me is like pouring gasoline on the flames on my passion. I get stronger. I've told you that from the beginning. You didn't believe me. Maybe someday you will.” But the Christian hyenas there like JP Holding and his ilk have ignored it.

Ignored it??? WRONG. We've simply taken it in a way you don't appreciate, most likely because it's honestly penetrating. Given from all that you've stated and the many attempts you've made to dig yourself out of a hole, I'd interpret it to mean that you are too full of yourself to admit your shortcomings, and would rather play the victim.

So let me just take a moment to thank all of those Christians who have ridiculed me in the past for motivating me. To you I owe a debt of gratitude. Your God must be very pleased with you.
Thank you John for demonstrating that your blog was not borne out of a humane cause or some humility towards Christians, but out of vindictive spite and a sense of intellectual superiority. Props for John!

I'm done for today.

10 comments:

  1. There are many non-sequitur's in this post that I don't have the time to begin pointing them all out. And given the number of them it seems clear it would be a wasted effort anyway, since with the poor reasoning skills displayed here you would just offer more of them.

    Tell us this and do not lie, do you deny Jesus is the Lord and Savior and do you reject the claims of Jesus being the Christ? I'm just checking.

    And tell us this too, do you know that which you're railing against? What I mean is that if you're going to set up a Blog to ridicule me and my arguments then I would suppose you've read much of what I've written so that you're properly informed about that which you rail against, especially if you're not a Christian. Tell us this, have you read my book, for starters? I don't care if you do and I'm certainly not soliciting for you to do so. I just think a full disclosure is important. And if you say you have, can you provide some evidence that you have by talking about some previously unknown arguments in it that only readers of it would know. And while you're at it would you please tell us your credentials and why anyone should believe your opinion of my book over the other people (both believer and non-believer) who recommend it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tell us this and do not lie, do you deny Jesus is the Lord and Savior and do you reject the claims of Jesus being the Christ? I'm just checking.

    Do any of you not live under a rock? How many times do I have to say, at the timing that I am writing this response, that I do not have a relationship with Jesus. So stop asking.

    Tell us this, have you read my book, for starters? I don't care if you do and I'm certainly not soliciting for you to do so. I just think a full disclosure is important. And if you say you have, can you provide some evidence that you have by talking about some previously unknown arguments in it that only readers of it would know. And while you're at it would you please tell us your credentials and why anyone should believe your opinion of my book over the other people (both believer and non-believer) who recommend it?

    You see John that's your biggest dilemma. You can't really argue beyond your book, I've seen it a thousand times as you've gone through various blogs and Amazon book reviews. You always refer to your book. Do you have anything else to say beyond your book?

    No I haven't read your book, yet. Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but I haven't been too interested because I'm afraid it will fund a cause I'm not too supportive of. Additionally, the behaviors you have displayed on TWeb and elsewhere have also made me cautious of purchasing your published materials.

    The purpose of this blog is not to supercede you with credentials but to test the credibility of you and your arguments to see if they hold any water. And yes, for the record, I have read and have started up once more reading some of your more recent posts, and I'm not seeing anything that would sway me over from the "Dark Side."

    So far all you've shown here in this comment is that you can't argue beyond your book. I don't understand why exactly, because if you are able to generate an entire blog, you should be able to expand beyond what is already in your book. After all, it's a finite text. It comes up short of what you should be capable of doing. You should be able to more convincing and persuasive than your book is. But I don't understand why you think it's the exact reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. About my so-called behaviors go, Holding infuriated me and I responded in kind. As Dr. Parsons says of him in the link above: "Holding is like the big, fat cockroach that scuttles across your kitchen floor. You just can't resist the temptation to stomp on him." Even a cuddly dog can be provoked to take a bite out of you. I suspect you will think as Matthew Green does now about him once he uses you up and then you too will apologize.

    In any case I cannot post my whole book. I do post small bits of it. But when it comes to a whole worldview one can never, and I mean never effectively argue against it in piecemeal fashion. One must mount an overwhelming cumulative case. THAT'S what I attempted to do in my book, for only an overwhelming case has the slightest bit of a chance. That's why I recommend it, although as I said I don't care if you get it or not. Thanks for saying you haven't done so since this lessens any impact this blog might have.

    From a part of my book:

    Christian philosopher William Abraham wrote: “It should be clear that evaluating world-views will never be based on probabilistic arguments, since one cannot simply isolate one presupposition for evaluation. The case must be cumulative—a case must be built slowly.” It is based upon cumulative case-type arguments like “jurisprudence, literary exegesis, history, philosophy, and science.” “One must be well educated in the relevant moral, aesthetic, or spiritual possibilities.” But, “mastering all the relevant data and warrants needed to exercise the required personal judgment seems remote and impractical. . . . This is surely beyond the capabilities of most ordinary mortals. . . . One simply has to proceed, often in an ad hoc fashion, and work through the issues as honestly and rigorously as possible.”

    This is exactly what I am attempting to do in this book, realizing my limitations as an ordinary mortal. According to Abraham: “The different pieces of evidence taken in isolation are defective, but taken together they reinforce one another and add up to a substantial case. What is vital to realize is that there is no formal calculus into which all the evidence can be fitted and assessed. There is an irreducible element of personal judgment, which weighs up the evidence taken as a whole.”


    That's why without reading it and relying merely on bits and pieces you think as you do. You will not think that way if you actually read it. In fact I think you will probably apologize and shut this blog down. That's what I think, especially since you are not a Christian.

    People can be blinded, you know, by friendship, and by being exposed to a few people who all agree. You're exposed to the few people on Tweb who all think the same things about me, so that influences you. None of us can escape the influence of people we like. Keep in mind that the personal attacks by Holding and crew soured me and caused me to cease caring about them so you are exposed to a very small slice of the pie with regard to what most people think of me. So in order to see for yourself you owe it to your readers to be fair. In fact Seasanctuary on Tweb was poisoned by the attitude of Holding and crew and yet found himself highly recommending my book. I suspect you will too.

    If not, then not. I cannot help you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Recommending your book, John?

    Maybe you'd like to note what else Seasanctuary said? :D

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2437800&postcount=110

    "Congratulations on sabotaging a positive review with nothing to blame but your own self-destructive attitude."

    Folks might want to read the WHOLE thread to see how Loftus has one of his usual TWeb mental breakdowns. :D And he's got a lot of 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I said I don't care about treating Holding or his loyal blind-as-a-bat followers at Tweb with any respect and they know it. So what? They've earned it. We have a history and it started with you JP. I could only take so much of that shit thrown my way, period. Tweb is a sewer of an environment created by Holding which has now flushed out into a Blog.

    People out here will see the differences between us. I'm actually glad you're here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, they will indeed see the differences, Loftus...

    ...and thanks to me, and to the folks at TWeb... they all know what you REALLY are. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Holding, are you suggesting that Christianity should be embraced because of its positive evidence, or are you simply out to refute Loftus' arguments because you find it amusing?

    If the former, I assume that there is some evidence or line of reasoning that led you into the faith?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hmmmm...John, still seems you're full of making generalizations and assuming what other people think is according to your standards of "reasonability" (because they are so reasonable after all).

    Anyways, this blog is not coming down just to quench your frustration. Learn to deal with it. That's one of the major points of this article.

    "That's why without reading it and relying merely on bits and pieces you think as you do. You will not think that way if you actually read it. In fact I think you will probably apologize and shut this blog down. That's what I think, especially since you are not a Christian...
    ...Keep in mind that the personal attacks by Holding and crew soured me and caused me to cease caring about them so you are exposed to a very small slice of the pie with regard to what most people think of me. So in order to see for yourself you owe it to your readers to be fair...Tweb is a sewer of an environment created by Holding which has now flushed out into a Blog...People out here will see the differences between us."

    Don't worry John, eventually I will get to reading your book at some point in the future. And for your information, I did perceive JP at first as cringe-worthy, and then I came across the thread about your fake blog. That's when I officially became a TWebber, and have been active here and there ever since.

    A couple of things worth talking about: If you expect me to believe that you were 'caught up in the moment' of things, I don't believe it. Check out my newest post which is rife with quotes copied and pasted from your blog. The problem isn't other people John, the problem is YOU.

    And as far as people being able to differentiate and standards of fairness, I think this blog beats yours by a mile. In fact you're evidence of this: You're still allowed to post here even AFTER you've banned me and a few others from your blog!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Moodyman sez:

    "Mr. Holding, are you suggesting that Christianity should be embraced because of its positive evidence, or are you simply out to refute Loftus' arguments because you find it amusing?"

    I'll take both options for $500, Alex. Please fix your mustache.

    He also sez:

    "If the former, I assume that there is some evidence or line of reasoning that led you into the faith?"

    Uh huh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


    Ann

    http://racingonlinegames.net

    ReplyDelete

If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.

Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.

READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.

NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.