John W. Loftus Admits He’s a Jerk!

March 31st 2009 , 06:53 AM

Post: #515 Re: March 2009 Screwballs

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2627685&postcount=515

Listen, I don't expect you and me to have a complete meeting of the minds just because we agree about Holding, and I don't see why you should all of a sudden think I am not a jerk, either, which is what you were arguing for on your Blog. I can be a jerk, and I am, under the right (or wrong) kind of circumstances.

***

What is a jerk?

jerk, n.

5. slang (orig. U.S.). Someone of little or no account; a fool, a stupid person.

Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition, 1989.


John W. Loftus believes he's a jerk. We agree.

What credibility does a jerk have?

What would John W. Loftus’ wife and kids have to say about this?

Recently Brock’s Cleaning Service janitor Loftus began the following thread:

March 30th 2009 , 04:33 AM

Post: #1 The Math Whiz Thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2626572&postcount=1

This thread may not last as long as some others.

To win be the last person to post a correct answer to the following math question.

Multiply the number 2 by itself and the result times the number two and the result times the number 2 until the last person posts the last correct answer.

I'll start.

2 x 2 = 4.

Now multiply 4 by 2 and the result by 2 and so on and so forth.

You may post as often as you wish. One answer per post.

Any incorrect answer disqualifies you from winning the thread, prize to be announced.

Have fun.

***

Four hours later, Loftus makes the second post:

March 30th 2009 , 08:34 AM

Post: #2 Re: The Math Whiz Thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2626696&postcount=2

I guess I win then.

My prize is a beautiful girl to show up at my door with a case of cold beer.

***

What would Loftus' wife and kids say about this?

"Would You Like to Give Me Attention?"

It's true, I do hover over John's website from time to time. But after all, that's the purpose of this blog's very existence. Whether John and his litter recognize it or not, or are just in complete denial, this blog does debunk that which it can. And let's face it, John's arguments stink. DC has no more professionalism in its writing prose than we do here. It's probably even less scholarly, because it committs to the error of some many pseudo-scholars when trying to pass off their "work": I'm a scholar! I'm a scholar! I'm a scholar!

From mere personal observation, self-proclaimed titles mean that a certain person wants to inflate their level of competence and practice to something that it is not. It is a means of getting attention. The real scholars have little of anything to brag about themselves, and yet they end up being taken seriously by their colleagues and writing inspiring works of well documented research. It's my thesis that in order to be a true genuine scholar, it takes a great deal of humility and a great lack of ego. If ego exceeds the humility, then it impedes on one's so-called "scholarship" and becomes riddled with their already preconceived biases. Not rocket science.

That's another primary reason this blog was created and why we write what we do. John expects the world to take him seriously for practically nothing. He wants us to bow down to him and obey his demanding requests. He wants to shove himself down our throats in order to better accomplish his already laid out agenda. It's not due to him revealing personal details about himself to the public, and being mindlessley "berated" for them: It's how he presents the details about his personal life which we are criticizing and are reflective of his behaviors both past and present. As some of his book's reviewers have revealed, he spends most of his time repeating old, hashed-out arguments, and he blames all that is wrong with his life on the actions of others (e.g., "Linda forced me to have sex with her!"). I don't believe these are mere rumors, because this is very consistent with the way John acts and writes on an almost-daily basis.

Just after having disabled comments for all non-DC staff, DJ starts asking for favors:

I have a very important announcement about something I've been working on where individual people who want to talk live with me can do so. Christians who would like to argue with me can do so. Skeptics who would like to bone up on the arguments as well as pick a bone with me will be able to do so. Students in ethics or philosophy classes can get special personal tutoring from me. Christians who struggle with their faith can talk things over with me. And former Christians who want to vent or ask advice about their personal pain can do so.

Details will be forthcoming, probably very soon. This will be exciting. Stay tuned.

Now that John has disabled comments from the general public, he must seem to think that he can turn everything around on its head as a means of making profit ("special tutoring"). As I said before on TWeb, this is unbelieviably pathetic. Let's shut up as many people as we can who disagree or point out my own stupidity and evasive deception, so that we can keep those who already agree with me rolling in with their cash to donate! Pathetic.

Truth is, John craves control. That's all he wants out of life, and that's all he expects to receive. And when he is able to control things, he is able to profit. Debunking Christianity: Another typical Internet atheist scam.

DC's Untimely Deterioration

DL frequenter and commentator Blogger user Andrew has notified us of the following in the previous post before mine:

News Flash! As of an hour or so ago, John has broken down!

NO MORE COMMENTS!

BLOG MEMBERS ONLY!

DISCUSSION TOTALLY SHUT DOWN!

John made an especially rambling rant last night, and received a number of well placed comments. He couldn't take it, and has...per his recent post...completely shut down comments!

Could it be true? Well.....

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/ive-decided-no-more-comments.html

I regret to inform regular readers of this Blog of something I've just decided. I am not going to allow any more comments except from other team members here at DC.

There was never a doubt in my mind that this was bound to happen...

I’ve been online arguing for about five years or so. When I first got online in some forums and on some Blogs I was personally attacked and mocked because I revealed a lot of damaging information about myself in my previously self-published book, which was picked up by Prometheus Books, and is getting some astounding reviews. I was also impersonated as saying horrible things, which I never said. I was repeatedly lied about and personally maligned. So I felt compelled to defend myself and attacked back.

Give or take, things happen on the internet all the time. When you somehow gain popular attention on the web with a large following, you're going to have impersonators getting at your goat. I wonder what he means by "impersonators" anyway, cause if he is referring to the John W. Locust account, he still doesn't get the value of parody or what is obviously intended to be taken as fictional. The solution to the problem is just to brush it off your shoulder, and not let it nag at you like the devil with the pitchfork.

And then there's this bullshit about being "personally attacked and mocked" for revealing "a lot of damaging information about myself". WHAAAAAAAAA! I don't think so. Here's the link to where the Holding-Loftus conflict seeded itself. People need to be able to judge for themselves, but realistically speaking, John is just in a state of delusion, BIG TIME.

It's an interesting phenomenon really.

An "interesting phenomenon really"? No, NOT REALLY!

I post under my real name. So when personally attacked I can and did attack back. When I did so other readers thought to themselves what childish behavior of me, not considering how they would feel or respond to these personal attacks if they were to post in their real name.

This has no relevance to the issues whatsoever, Looney Tunes.

Some of the relationships I had with people who attacked me has degenerated to the point where all I do any more is blast them for their idiocy and deceit. I really do not care at all about some of these idiots.

You do that regardless. Anyone who criticizes you in a negative light is best described (by YOU mostly) as "ignorant", "idiots", "naive" and or uneducated. In order for someone to criticize you, they need to fufill the following criteria established by your exclusive standards of thinking:
1) We must have read John's book to a capital T. Without reading John's book, you can't deal with the arguments he publicly posts on his public blog.
2) You must be "nice" to John, even when he's being a complete "asshole" to put it into his own words. You must respect him, and you must also tone down your negative criticisms of him even on your own blog, otherwise you'll lose your priveleges to play in the DC sandbox.
3) You must be "rational" by John's own standards, whatever they are. Naturally I would question the standards set by an individual who makes up a sockpuppet blog just to gain vengance, and then when caught, outright denies any allegations of being responsible or taking responsibility even when in their own pockets of incoherence they admit to being responsible unintentionally as being pretty suspect.
4) You have to "come to the adult world of civilized discussion", whatever Loftus means by that. Just more of the same ass-kissing that John expects of the world.

These personal attacks are getting stronger and more and more desperate with each passing week, probably because I'm making a difference. And the Christians doing so are increasingly becoming frustrated because I will not link to them or mention their names, since they want to be noticed. A few of them have come out of the sewer of a particular forum to post comments here that are disrespectful and slanderous in order to disrupt the decent, civil discussion I have always wanted between believer and non-believer.

When Loftus blabs on like this, I am reminded in some aspect or another of Alfred Hitchcock's cinematic character figure, Norman Bates.

They think that atheists are angry and malicious people. But I appear to be decent and civil, until personally attacked, and I am. Unlike other atheists who just don’t give a damn, I do. I suppose that galls these ignorant Christians to no end. This can’t be, that an atheist cares about a civil, reasonable, and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. But I do. I have only wanted this.

I'll be fair and concede that John's "fairness" can have a temporary impression. But once a person gets to interacting with John more, we see that his egotist philosophy dictates how he perceives the world and social situations, even when the sane world castrates him for it, and rightly so.

Now the whole "atheists are angry and malicious people" is a bullshit strawman and John probably knows it. There are a handful of atheists and skeptics from TWeb which are openly accepted without any negative criticism on their records: CodewordConduit, Anon, The Moonshield, and myself are just a number of examples in an ever-growing group of people whom are not as stupid and as immoral as John and his like. In many instances, to say that most atheists are malicious and angry is not far from reality. In no such certain terms does John have the right to proclaim himself as an exception to the atheist stereotype and as the archetype for the 'friendly atheist'; such has already been claimed by other radical extremist groups such as the Rational Responders, who also fail to be consistent with their claims of peace and civil discourse.

I’ve decided that the time is to move on. I’ve got many things to do, not the least of which is to begin writing and editing a new book just accepted by Prometheus Books, which will include several great chapters in it, from some scholars and others you know from this blog.

And the book will more than likely be titled "Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Preacher, Popular Blogger, and Enlightened Thinker/Former WLC Student Explains; The Revised 16th Edition".

This emphatically does NOT mean I will be posting any less here at DC. I will. It’s just that I do not want to spend the time responding to idiocy, especially from a few of the regular Christian commenters.

What was that about peace and civil discourse, which is usually tied in with tolerance?

For the record, and as an afterthought, to several Christians who were banned from DC but kept coming back anyway, sometimes 3 and 4 times a day with slanderous comments, you didn't win anything. In fact, I thank you for teaching me that it can be useless to try to reason with you. I was only beating my head against the wall with the likes of you. I'm better off realizing this.

This "interesting phenomenon" John is describing here is the point in which his behavioral monitor has gone so far off the radar he has resorted to bashing his head against a brick wall until he is left with only but a nice mix of pulp and scrambled eggs.

Already Christians are seriously claiming that one reason I decided not to allow comments is because I could not deal with their arguments. And this comes from the very idiots I spoke about!

That sounds like something you think goes on when people lash out at you John. You fail to recognize that the true reasons for you being flogged by others (i.e., the folks at TWeb) is because you are dishonest, self-serving, and intolerant of others. Get a clue why don't you?

Onto another entry of John's which intrigues me: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/amazing-race-and-amazing-grace.html

While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share.

My, oh my, oh my, oh my......ignorance abounds.

Sometime mid-last month I suggested (humorously) that John should go work for Google and become a Communist. What does this have anything to do with China? Read on, kiddies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm

In case John or his bud buds happen to question the authority of the source, I will remind them that the BBC is the same broadcasting network that has its affliations with many of Richard Dawkin's television programs.

Does John think before he types? Many if not most of countries in the far eastern reaches of Asia are propaganda machines that pass themselves off as things they are not. Asians hold a sense of traditional integrity and honor to the point where it is embedded into their skulls. It doesn't take an anthropologist to realize this. I personally have spoken to those who have visited China for themselves, and their testimonies have collaborated that of many of its rumored discussions. One such example is the amount of pollution in China, which was only dispelled temporarily for this year's Olympic games: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/6934955.stm

And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]

Treading on dangerous grounds there, Johnny. Best to be outright with everyone including yourself that fundamentalism was the starting basis for your faith, and it was also the destructive factor.

John W. Loftus Goes Mental

Poor, poor John W. Loftus. What is going on in his brain? We find out from his own words:

July 19th 2005, 04:47 AM

Doubting John’s Argument Against The Resurrection.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1120558&postcount=74

This is funny.

Are you guys trying to be funny, because you are!

And what if I exegete this verse in a way you disaprove [sic] of?

Does that make my former Christian faith suspect?

Do you think you've got me now?

June 30th 2005, 02:50 AM

Where is God in Infinite SPACE?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1093244&postcount=60

As insensitive as you've been so far, I'll suppose you'll have an argument for what I've just written. Save it. It'll fall of deaf ears. Silence is all you'll get from me.You, your arguments, and your God are not worth my time anymore.

December 4th 2007 , 03:06 PM

Post: #72 Re: December 2007 Screwballs

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2155898&postcount=72

Now that I see people ganging up on me, I'm gone.

September 10th 2008 , 01:34 AM

Post: #97 Re: Review: Why I Became an Atheist by J. Loftus

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2437603&postcount=97

There is no fairness here. That's what I and FF object to. It maddens me to no end. You know this about me. So you push my hot buttons.

I do not care for you. You do not care for me. Big truckin' deal. I don't care. Why should I? I don't know anyone here. I'm not here to win friends. This is a computer community. It is not composed of flesh and blood people. No one will help me if I'm sick and need a hot meal. Only a friend could do that. Not anyone here on TWEB.

September 10th 2008 , 02:06 AM

Post: #100 Re: Review: Why I Became an Atheist by J. Loftus

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2437615&postcount=100

When it comes to TWEB I do not give a buck.

Again, it's not good for my mental health to be here. [I say this for my own benefit].

Please...please...no one ever recommend my book here on TWEB again.

I don't want to see it mentioned. I don't...I shouldn't...visit.

October 18th 2008 , 08:28 AM

Post: #13 Re: Is God Stupid or What?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2474296&postcount=13

TWeb brings out the worst in most of us, although I dispute your characterizations of me. I was pointing this out to you since I don't come here much anymore. It's better for my mental health not to be here.

4/03/2009

Perhaps I'm Losing it; I Don't Know.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/perhaps-im-losing-it-i-dont-know.html

By John W. Loftus

I am ******* tired of being shot at from both sides of the fence for five years because I actually want to reach the opposing side. If you are a skeptic and you want to take pot shots at me then **** ***. I do not care. I really don't. There are many sites and books that preach to the choir on both sides of the fence. Fine. Go to them. That is not what I'm doing here. Get the point. I'm about ready to quit. I really am. I no longer care. I've done my part.

***

Luckily for Mr. Loftus, his town of Angola has a fine mental health facility, Northeastern Center, Inc. at 1418 Beckland Dr. The friendly, helpful staff can take good care of him.

Take the John W. Loftus Challenge!

In a recent Theology Web exchange, Brock’s Cleaning Service janitor Mr. Loftus made the following claim:

Originally posted by Doubting John

April 2nd 2009 , 04:08 AM

Post: #107 Re: April 2009 Screwballs

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629549&postcount=107

Holding will not engage me in a serious non-abusive debate because he knows he will lose.

Originally posted by jpholding

April 2nd 2009 , 07:22 AM

Post: #117 Re: April 2009 Screwballs

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629672&postcount=117

I tried to when you first came here -- and you wouldn't be a man and step to the plate on ANY of the points I asked you to debate. Every time it was some lame excuse. Waah waah waah.

Originally posted by Doubting John

April 2nd 2009 , 08:13 AM

Post: #123 Re: April 2009 Screwballs

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629709&postcount=123

There were only two times that we really engaged each other and I owned you both times.

In this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68629

Where I entered the fray here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68629&page=7

And then in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58650

Where you entered the fray here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58650&page=15

Both times I owned you. If anyone thinks differently then, well they think differently. But I encourage everyone to take a good look at those two threads.

***

Take the John W. Loftus challenge! Click on the links he provides. Read the threads. He encourages you to do so. Did he, as he claims, “own” J.P.? If not, what do you conclude about Loftus’ mental state?

Fudged by Easter: Whining + Chocolate

Here I am once more on the topic of Easter. I'm only addressing it a second time because DC just can't let the topic go, and, well, frankly, I find their commentaries on the holiday to be bigotted and shallow, like most of what has been quoted and responded too here.

Nothing to do with Loftus here as addressed in the previous Easter post. This time, I take on a new target, someone never done before, and someone I could care less about in general as far as Debunking Christianity goes: Joe. E. Holman.

Holman's Easter Sunrise Blasphemy is just more of the same ol' same ol' coupled with extreme and outlandish statements. Clearly these people don't sleep at night very well because the Christian Right along with Evangelism are haunting their psyches' because of bad past experiences. I don't want to be insensitive and innappropriate here, but they mine as well have been molested as children by some evangelical preacher with serious sex orientation issues. If this isn't the case, something just as extreme is....

Let's begin my critique:

It's Easter today and that means countless Christians will be at their respective houses of worship praising and thanking the god that made them for sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins and for his being raised from the grave. You may or may not be planning to attend one of these pagan put-ons known as Easter sunrise services, or like me, you may actually despise them. Either way, I want you to hear why I feel the way I do.

This is where the whining begins to ensue:

I hate Easter. About the only thing I love around this time of year are those discounted chocolates in pretty-colored packages that are on sale in the stores. But that's it. I hate everything else about it. The cool weather leaves and the warmer weather comes. What's to like?

You hate Easter?! Gee, I never would have guessed....

As far as I'm concerned, I much prefer warm weather over cold. At least warm weather can be tolerated longer than cold. Cold doesn't even give you a choice for tolerance.

I hate that it's a holi-(read “holy”)-day. To me as an atheist, this is a red flag reminder that society is still not above having holy days—days with vile histories that have been exalted by blood god worshippers through the centuries who possess the arrogance to think that the world would end without their putrid, bloody offerings. It’s sick, I tell you!

The biased fundamentalist thinking is strong in this one. By this line of reasoning, all holidays are religion-affliated. But the reality is, not quite. I wonder what Holman has to say about Veterans Day, Memorial Day, July the Fourth, Presidents Day, Thanksgiving, St. Patrick's Day, Valentines Day, Martin Luther King Day, etc. All of which these are hardly even remotely related to religion or religious affairs! Only one of these are brute in their origin (Valentines) but still have absolutely zero to do with religion. In fact, many of these holidays are festive remembrances of those that have dedicated their lives to civil rights, helped found and mold the democracy of the United States, and so on. Most of these holidays are days that are reserved for personal family time, yet the people at DC have no complaints about them. It comes with points like these that we must take the binky out of our mouths and stop sucking on our thumbs.

Add to that, Easter time means that the religious nuts can't help but wear their nuttiness on their sleeves with their nauseating talk of alters and blood and redemption and how worthless and worthy of burning we humans are. It's creepy stuff!

Holman doesn't realize that these complaints come from atheists and upset "non-believers" on a daily basis. Shut up and enjoy the candy, already.....

Easter means I have to see those big, “in your face” banners that spread across intersections and streets that advertise these sacred bunny events, and that means more people are out and about shopping. But the restaurants I love will be closed! That frustrates the hell out of me (or hell into me, depending on how you look at it.) Sometimes, I swear up and down that this is how Jeebus is getting back at me for defecting!

Nevermind that in most cases, most stores and restraurants close early on regular Sundays and will also close on holidays such as the ones already mentioned. But perhaps Holman should take the time to consider that people which usually cater to the needs of others have personal lives too, and that Holman isn't the only person in the world with needs and demands. ;)

Then there are the radio broadcasts and telecasts of emotional preachers who have to remind everyone with emphatic, high-pitched voices that a dead guy came to life on a certain day and how that event long ago will someday help us. But it hasn't helped us yet. None of our friends and loved ones and family who died in war or of cancer or Legionary’s Disease have come out of the ground yet. They're still there, but that shouldn't surprise us. Religions are big on making big claims, including impossibly big claims like the dead being raised to life.

Oh really, Holman? You mean to insult us by informing us that a large organ with electric-like impulses is impossible to recover? And what about the braindead whose hearts are still beating? Holman hasn't thought much on the possibility that resurrecting someone through scientific means is very much a possibility, and you don't need a degree in neuroscience to realize this. And if "resurrecting" someone from the dead can be achieved through science, why not open the possibility of this occuring through supernatural means? The likelihood or improbability of something confers that something is possible nor impossible, Joey boy.

But what's the real import of this holiday? Like Christmas, it's not really spiritual. It never was. Spiritual is a man or a woman who tells the truth even though doing otherwise would not result in being caught.

??????????????

All this oohing and ahhing to a ghost, all these churches filled with believers, all these prayers and colored baskets of eggs and pretty banners and billboards that say “He is risen” won't move God to rid the world of a single evil. It won't stop lunatics from shooting up malls or post offices. It won't stop one child from dying of starvation or dear sweet Aunt Olga from dying of breast cancer. And all the church-sponsored Easter egg hunts in the world won't cause God to bless one infertile churchgoing couple who can't have children of their own, and it won’t stop unfit parents from doing the naughty and having more kids they can’t take care of.

Holman's point is????? There are some Christians that don't involve themselves with Easter, and Easter is not a holiday intended to rid the world of its illnesses and dysfunction. Does Christianity even try to pass itself off as the magical miracle pill? I don't think so. Christianity is in fact a religion which acknolwedges the world's imperfections and makes statements about their ongoing reality. In fact, it's supposed to get worse before the end. Not better. Holman is whacked.

I'm going to be sleeping in this Easter like I have for the last seven. Together with my cozy bed and the internet, I'll make it. These big bags of chocolates will help!

A silly nilly will bunny wabbit does deserve an egg basket of confinement every now and then. :D

Rotten Easter Egg Spoils

Happy Good Friday world! Two days from now, we will be witnessing another Easter Sunday, a special time for all, and in particular, church-going Christians!

Let me ask you of what seems to be a random question on the surface of things: If some Christians can get passed the ghoulish costumes worn around the Halloween season and regard it simply as a cultural holiday of fun and candy, then can't atheists get passed the fact that Christianity does not have a monopoly over Easter and just consider it a Chocolate Bunny Rabbit Day instead?

I'm sure that some do. However, like the fundamentalists they used to be and still are today, some folk at Debunking Christianity just can't get over the fact that Easter has something to do with a religion they really don't like because they used to "belong". In their own little way, they make the situation out to be as if they just transitioned over from skinhead Nazism and had an epiphany about the origins of the different human races. Actually, in a way, the DC folks once did belong to a form of skinhead racist philosophy, if you account for the ignorance it bestows in much of the same fashion that fundamentalists have justified their own beliefs. The situation at hand clearly demonstrates that the ignorance of Loftus n' Friends are what made them deconvert and use a different style of ignorance to counter the ignorance they once had before. But as they say, you can't fight fire with fire....

Several recent posts on DC have all been revolving around the origins of the death and resurrection concept, or i.e., Easter. Now that DJ is a Christian-turned atheist as he claims, he's accustomed to accepting the contents of popular atheist writings and literature quite uncritically. It is similar in the manner of Acharya S' zeal after having come out with a fifth book dealing with the "mythological Christ", so to speak. Case in point: It's an unhealthy obsession, and whether people choose to admit it or not, there are lies and distortions coming from both sides of the plate. One such example comes from Loftus himself:


Even if someone is way out of bounds with what I think can be rationally defended, I can still say, "but she makes a good case against Christianity...she makes me think."

It's not worth saying this is a puzzling statement. What is there to "think" about something that is misconstrued and distortionally inaccurate? The provocativeness of it all amounts to how someone is able to connect the dots where none exist conclusively or substantially. That's the only provocativeness we need to be concerned with, because everything else is beyond the shadow of a doubt, false and misplaced, and is therefore not worth the time investment. Hence, there is already a preconceived bias to believe most anti-Christian notions of history, even if John willingly acknowledges them as false in their entirety.

Another example, not directly related to Easter, comes from a post about Acharya S and Dr. Robert Price a few years back:

John W. Loftus said...
I know about both of their views.

Let me state for the record that I am a freethinker first, and an atheist second. No freethinker faces a potential excommunication or heresy trial for not abiding by the party line as far as I'm concerned. I left Christianity partly over this party line attitude. Acharya S. was a Blog member here for a week until she recused herself because of her critics, and I have invited Bob to be a member here with no luck yet.

Where I agree with people, I agree. Where I disagree with people I disagree. That's it. For instance, I do believe Jesus was a historical figure in the 1st century unlike them. But I learn from everyone.

The goal here at DC is to Debunk evangelical Christianity. This could be done by a Deist, a new age pantheist, an agnostic or an atheist.

2:54 PM, September 02, 2006

The debunking of evangelical Christianity is open up to everyone, except for non-evangelical Christians. Hmmm. That's suspicious. Keep in mind that John's blog is titled "Debunking Christianity" not "Debunking Evangelism" or "Debunking Evangelical Christianity". The latter is a long title for a blog, but it does coincide with what John argues about in his already existent blog. Could this serve as proof that John not only has a clearly established and biased agenda, but that it is also related to his narrow scope based on his lack of experience with general Christianity? These are questions that need answering. I want to see if John (or any DC poster) can answer them directly and straightforwardly. If not, DC does not have a case for anything it proposes. Zero...nada...zip.

Keep this in mind when you happen to come across some bogus argument based on a discontent for Christianity's relation to Easter and a desire to link the New Testament resurrection with Sumerian paganism directly: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/valerie-tarico-on-ancient-sumerian.html (The person mentioned in the article's title is a DC contributor, which, for some unknown reason, was unable to post this herself):

"Some stories speak to people in a deep spiritual way. These sacred stories are what are called "myths" in the field of religious studies. Despite our common usage, a myth traditionally is not just a false tale. Rather, it is a story that, at least at one point in time, had a very powerful spiritual resonance. The story of death and resurrection is one such story. In the Sumerian tradition, in which much of the Bible is rooted, the story is called, "From the Great Above to the Great Below" or "The Descent of Inanna." There is also a Babylonian version of the myth, which is called "The Descent of Ishtar," and she is known elsewhere as Astarte."

I would think there would be three factors to take into consideration before making direct connections with these: Time period, context, and technical details. It's an obvious fact that most if not all dying and rising pagan myths are centered around the symbolic represenation of the withering and blossoming of cultivated plantation. This is an extremely pantheistic view and not one that I don't think fits well with meaning of the Christ story. Christ's resurrection is one of salvaging his followers from the afterlife torments of death, not a symbolism of Mother Nature. Perhaps there are some cultural influences and assimilations involved, but to me this resembles the dilemma of fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Another thing I think is more to the point than merely assuming a copy cat thesis are the similarities in cultural language. So some of the linguistics and literary figures such as the numeric similarities between Mesopotamian myths and the counterpart tales found in the Bible are due to similar cultural exposure, rather than deliberate plagarism. These similarities could get fused together and thus end up in the unconcious assimilating of these stories that we modern people today would perceive as religion carrying on and refining the traditions of much older religions that today no one practices. I can't argue against that on all accounts, but I believe in order to truly understand the languages and contexts of these myths and their belief systems, we must understand the culture and psychology that was present at that relative point in time.

Like previously before with John's arguments on Christianity being a "cult", the article John references is one big gunshot to the foot:

"If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it's ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ's torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist."

I think it's time for John to rename his blog to a much more appropriate title. He also needs to broaden his staff to the non-evangelical, if indeed he is so bent on exterminating evangelism from this country. Will John do this? Probably not. Is it possible that he uses Debunking Christianity to gain a wider web traffic and to get better marketing? Possibly so. In the end, only John truly knows. ;)

The FAQ

If you haven't noticed yet, a FAQ was recently added to this blog which appears to be a post that was put up sometime this Febuary. If you've been around here long enough, however, you'd realize that this blog started in March, and not February, of 2009.

Instead of pulling things out of my arse, you'll notice that some of the questions are derived from comments that have actually been posted here. Yes, I do in fact care what you people have to say that I created a real FAQ and not something bogus. Cherish it.

John Loftus' Embarrassment of the Millenia!

People are probably going to hate me more for this, and I may be viewed as even more "childish" and other related labels, but no matter what anyone has to say about me or this blog, what has recently occured to John Loftus cannot possibly be matched in proportion.

Take a good gander at your calendar and you'll see that April Fools Day has hit us all once more. I'm sure there are people like myself who typically don't take the time to notice these things or really get involved with its cultural significance. Luckily, I already had an idea in mind for this special, yet underrated, holiday. That idea of mine was to help "fulfill" the prophecies of John Loftus, which go along the lines of something like this:

John W. Loftus said...
Just a reminder this will be YOU apologizing someday.

This was the very first comment in my previous post here. He posted this, he personally believed, because my profile has the word "Deist" currently on it, that I was going to eventually get aggressive with JP til the point that I became detested by his character. Right.

This year, it dawned onto me that I should probably consider that "April Fools" was just around the corner. This previous week (not far off from when I made my last post) I had concocted a scam in hopes of fooling DJ based off of this line of reasoning. And...it worked.

But let's give credit where credit is due as to why it worked, specifically. I had originally planned to "fake" a conflict with Holding on TWeb to set the realism of what would later become the trap. Obviously, the draft that Loftus got a hold of was still being in development at the time that me and Holding were working together to perfect the scheme. Because of my limited diskspace and the fact that the current computer from which I am blogging from is related to a family relative's business company, and the likeliness that I probably wasn't going to come up with a perfected document within a day of my allowable free time, I had momentarily posted it here on Blogger in order to copy and paste the text so that Holding could examine it and give me suggestions on how it could be better modified.

Unsuspectingly, Ed Babinski, a DC contributor and another frequent commentator on this blog, had subscribed here. Even though the posted draft was probably on here for about a minute and a half, Babinski quickly rushed to the 'Copy and Paste' manuever and sent an e-mail to John, as explained in his post. To both myself and Holding's suprise, John fell for it. DJ just so happened to be more gullible than Holding had previously posited in the past. Even I was sure that DJ would not fall for such a simple plan. And yet, he had.

Well John, I appreciate your somewhat selfless motive in trying to reach out to me and "save" me from Holding, BUT WHAT ON EARTH makes you believe that I would abandon JP for you? Do you not understand that these issues are centered upon moral character, and not philosophical stances? The fact that you make this out to be the case shows you're in serious case of self-delusion. This is a moot point when you fellow non-Christian TWebbers such as Anon and The Moonshield that seem to get along with Holding just fine. More recently, CodewordConduit
(who has also commented on here a few times herself) distanced herself from your destructive behaviors which end up decreasing your crowd of potential allies. So where do you get off assuming that I will follow in the same exact path as Matthew Green? Do you have anything to justify this? If not, why do you make the assumption?

There can't be much said on just how much John's "You bully me because I'm an atheist" is a moot point to boot. It's obvious. The more and more John insists on "engaging" us at TWeb, the more he embarrasses himself. He has no one to blame. But he does try (and is certaintly welcome, as it is his own right to risk his reputation) to save face:

I guess April Fool's Day is an excuse to lie, eh? Only the lie was not offered on this particular day, but a few days ago. Why not lie on, say, July 1st then wait to reveal that it was a lie next time April 1st rolls around? Now with your ignorant example everyone has a right to lie if they want to any time of the year, right? All they have to do is wait until April Fool's day to "confess." Oh, and tell me, gerrymanderers, if this isn't the case then exactly how many days can separate the lie from April 1st when you reveal it as a lie? I'm all ears.

As I've already mentioned on TWeb, the reasons for this "lie" being predetermined prior to April 1st is that this was already planned and prioritized. Without responding to a word I said (because I'm a "sewer" rat not worth responding too of course), I guess DJ didn't really take the time to read anything I typed because he manages to ease his way around the issue by implying that this was sloppy work of some kind. Oh, and just like his Big Blog Lie thread, he double-posted in order to gain some personal salvage. But we all know better than for it to actually work this time:

At least when I was confronted with a lie I owned up to it. What do you think Holding and TBT will do?

Really, John? I mean, REALLY??? Is this the best you can do?

In the event that John still doesn't believe me even after having posted a private message I received from JPH on the intended blog post (at the time of DJ's discovery, it was only a draft), I'll post some more undeniable proof that the whole thing was plotted from A-Z:

Re: A childish favor to ask (March 25th 2009 , 08:47 AM)

ROFL,

Funny you should suggest this. I had a very similar idea myself to "apostasize" on the blog on April 1, but I thought it rather too obvious. Your idea is much more subtle and may have a better chance of working; and if he falls for it, it will indeed, as you say, make him all the more obviously someone who does not think things through.The only catch is that one of his followers on the blog may check the calendar and tip him off. All that collective non-intellect together (eg, Deist Dan) can't even build a Lego barn individually, but together they may figure it out.Sounds good. If you proceed, let me know who else is in on the secret so I don't inadvertantly tip any hands. At a minimum I'd suggest letting Nick (Phoenix) in on it, and the rest of our crew.

Take care,

JP

Not enough for ya, John? Well then...

An idea! ( March 25th 2009 , 05:19 PM)

OK, here's the deal....

1) I'm due to review "Losing My Religion" by William Lobdell for my E-Block subscription e-zine. I just started reading this evening.

2) DJ LOVES this book: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...at-review.html

3) I've already read enough to see that Lobdell isn't credible....he's not as bad as DJ by far, but he's not an intelligent critic either.

4) Tomorrow sometime in the morning, I'll give him a Screwball Award.

4) Later tomorrow, you post in the Screwball thread something to this effect:"I hate to disagree with you here, JP, but while you may be right about Lodbell this way," etc etc etc, "I think he is honest and credible," etc. (If you like this plan), I'll send you some details about the book so you can sound like you read it.)

5) I'll act a little surprised and offer to email you my review.

6) Friday, Saturday....all quiet. I'd suggest limiting your interactions here on TWeb; and in particular, IGNORE ME.

7) Sunday or Monday: Drop the bomb on the blog. Say we had a major falling out by email over my "dishonest" review of Lobdell. I'll write you a quote from me to use in which I "tell you off." For realism, don't forget to remove sidebar links to my site, my one post, and my name as an admin. (I'll save a copy of my post.) Say I'm "off" the blog and you're considering what to do with it, and also reconsidering your stint on TWeb. Then do not post there or on TWeb until....

8) Wednesday the 1st....when you drop the bomb! If you do this, it would be good to let the other blog members like aki know what we're doing and ask them not to post either.

I'll be offline shortly and back in the morning....let me know what you think!

Take care,

JP

There you go, moot point #2 has now been laid into the ground as another stupid strawman brought on by more of the typical self-denial. John...YOU'VE BEEN HAD.

But even in the event that that just isn't good enough for John...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629353&postcount=89 (Pixie, you have full permission to post a screenshot of the message that was forwarded to you and the others prior to this prank).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629675&postcount=118

And I guess John really did admit to lying about his blog in that good ol' stickied thread of his which proves that he made it all up. Going back to what was said in the not-so-long ago past:

Technically, I didn't lie.

Prove to me I did.

Besides, it doesn't matter that you know I started the Blog. I don't care. People will still visit there regardless, and I will continue sending people there.

You are the dishonest one.

Ah...and the truthfulness just keeps on coming. Priceless. And the best John's stupidity has to muster up is by twisting around the focus of the story (rather predictably) onto me and JPH for being the "liars" here. There are two interesting distinctions of why this is not so:

1) This was clearly a joke from the beginning. While not everyone was made aware beforehand, some were in fact notified prior to the event. Instead, John lied to his readers about the second blog and had no intentions of revealing to anyone that it was all fabricated.

2) Now that April Fools has come and gone, everyone that was fooled now knows that it was all a prank. As can be proven, JPH and myself admitted to the whole scheme of things. John...regardless of what he claims rather delusionally...did not and denied it in the face of the undeniable.

Moot point #3 has now also been laid to the ground.

Next another note of importance, CodewordConduit has recently publicly denounced DJ as a credible person:

I'll have to admit that the "information" that John had "sent to him" was written by me. However, it wasn't written to him - it was lazy conjecture between me and somebody else. This other person said "can I forward this to John?", and I was like "yeah, whatever, if you like."

He never even asked before posting it up here - and treated it SO SERIOUSLY! Like I was desparately analyzing exactly how he got his arse handed over to him on a platter and thought the world should know that something might not have gone to plan! Yeah right-o, dude got served.

At the end of the day I think it's pretty obvious that I have no side in this silly catfight, I just like the laughs that the situation provides. And this week?

The laughs are at John's expense. Mostly becasue of his hysterical whining and finger-pointing after the event.

Priceless.

Ms. Conduit, welcome to the Dark Side. Would you like some cookies? (Okay, maybe she hasn't taken a side yet, but she's certaintly welcome too. :)).

Not long after his response here, John made it a public issue on his blog (trying very hard not to be specific or to reference anyone in particular), which, after having been spotted by myself, was permanently removed from Debunking Christianity for some even more irrational motive than what John had in mind for posting it in the first place. I was sure that he did this so that no one could see how he argues based on emotional phases, and I was almost sure that, by John having removed it from DC, that the post was gone forever. It was removed so quickly that even a simple Google search for the post's title does not having any listings for 'Cached' page (UPDATE: Google must have taken a while to get to this, but the Cached version can be found here). I'm sure John intended this to be that way.

But lo and behold, a Tektonics.org frequenter (I know who you are though, but I'm not going to reveal it to everyone for your own sake) had saved the post just in time before having been erased. Down below you'll find the exact wording to the post that John had hoped of ridding forever (of course, the moral of the story is that if it isn't worth the publicity, why bother publishing it in the first place?). I had planned on removing expletive asterisks in order to demonstrate the degree of severity in John's inability to stomach a simple prank, but in order to keep this site at least somewhat "family friendly" I'll shorten the words out a bit so it isn't so explicit as it was in its original posted form:

Perhaps I'm Losing It; I Don't Know

I am ****ing tired of being shot at from both sides of the fence for five years because I actually want to reach the opposing side. If you are a skeptic and you want to take pot shots at me then **** off. I do not care. I really don't. There are many sites and books that preach to the choir on both sides of the fence. Fine. Go to them. That is not what I'm doing here. Get the point. I'm about ready to quit. I really am. I no longer care. I've done my part.

It's funny, because in many places, it sounds as if he's making an official leave and is closing shop. I'm pretty sure the comments he received had little to do with this. It'd be my hunch that this post is being rather disingenous (spelling?). It isn't because John really has intentions of leaving and closing shop, it's that he wants sympathy. He needs the comfort. And what is even more saddening is that John is taking a shot at both sides, not just Christians. So we have it here that John isn't interested in debating it, he's interested in reaffirming himself and keeping his ego inflated. I'm sorry John, but it's da truth, and you know it just as well as any other Tektonics.org TWebber.

Let's get a last-minute point clear: John and his lap dogs cannot logically claim that this is a post of "strawmen." There is evidence of this happening, word for word, as quoted. Unlike his blog, where has the freedom to remove content that either is self-destructive or censorship of opposition he doesn't appreciate, what he has posted on the TheologyWeb forum will stay there forever. This is perhaps one of the greatest moments in time that DJ has once again manged to embarrass no one else but himself. This isn't just some blurb to blog about. This, ladies and gentlemen, is going in the history books.

And at the request of fellow TWebber Tophet, I will end the commending of this glorious event in TWeb history with a song tributed to John Loftus' recent palm-faced blunder.

Loftus' "Outsider Test": Just Another Ad for Pepto-Bismol!

How ironic indeed that John Loftus recently advised us to “not be fooled on April Fool’s Day” after what he just fell for. Such is the level of his narcissism that he seems never to stop and think before he jumps into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades.

But on the occasion of his April 1 post on his gratuitously useless “Outsider Test” – the latest version of the old “if you were born in Pakistan you’d be a Muslim” canard – it is also ironic that he makes a post that proves EXACTLY the point I planned to make in my next “official” post here – namely, that his Outsider Test is about as useful as the Mormon burning in the bosom. I had planned to post this around April 10, but since it’s so relevant now, why wait?

Yes: The Outsider Test is just Loftus’ version of the Mormon burning in the bosom.

How?

First of all, let’s review some stuff I wrote about that Mormon version of the Outsider Test:

**

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/insidejob.html

The inevitable result of such an epistemic paradigm will be on these lines:

If you ask for it, God will give you confirmation that the Book of Mormon (or the Bible, or van Praagh's stories, whatever) are true.

But what if I ask God and He doesn't answer, or says they are NOT true?

You either didn't ask sincerely or are being misguided. Try again.

I am sincere/I did ask again. The same thing happens.

Then....?

Then, what? The inevitable result is that the proclaimer of whatever internal witness must declare that the seeker is not sincerely seeking, or is not accessing the right source. Now it may be replied just as simply that a person who denies the relevance of evidence, i.e., pointing to a certain truth, is just the same either not sincerely seeking, or else is misguided. Practically speaking the internal witness could be of no more value than evidence, even if it is genuine. Indeed, since the internal witness is not accessible or open to investigation or argument (as would be things with an evidential basis) one might suggest that the internal witness serves an even less useful purpose than external evidences -- and indeed, offers more opportunities for people to deceive themselves.

**

How is Loftus’ “Outsider Test” no better? His quote speaks for itself:

”Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do.”

Ah…sniff. Eau de Narcissus, is that? So here’s what it boils down to:

If you read all John Loftus has read, it will give you confirmation that Loftus’ view is true.

But what if I read all those sources, and decide that Loftus’ view is NOT true?

You either didn't read sincerely or are being misguided. Try again.

I am sincere/I did read again. The same thing happens.

Then....?

Then, what? The inevitable result is that Loftus must declare that the seeker is not sincerely seeking, or is not accessing the right sources. Thus the Outsider Test is of no actual value – just as Loftus has been told time and time and time again on TheologyWeb. It’s just a cheap parlor trick with Loftus sitting at the table in his swami outfit rubbing his crystal ball (and despairing because he can’t find those three holes) telling us poor benighted schleps that we’d know better if we just bought his book bought his book. Bought his book.

The sad fact is that many of us HAVE read the same sources as Loftus – and in many topical areas, much, much more than he has – and we’re not convinced. The Outsider Test is, as I told Loftus from, Day 1 that I heard of it, a waste of time, and a diversion from the real issues of evidence.

By no means am I saying that one should not examine one’s presuppositions – but that’s old news, a subset of the evidence-sifting process, and the Outsider Test isn’t much more than Loftus’ vain attempt to repackage and sell something that was stale at the time of Thomas Paine.

That’s the hard truth, Loftus.

Deny this if you can.

Why I Too Am Now An Atheist....Because John Is Right!

Confession, they say, is good for the soul; but it really doesn’t matter if you don’t have one to begin with. I, James Patrick Holding, have a confession:

John Loftus is right. I’ve been wrong. Christianity is bunk, and I know it.

Sad to say, I understand now why so many like Dan Barker covered up their change of mind. It isn’t cowardice, as I thought, but the fact that running against the grain of evidence is so hard to do. The problem is, as I have said truly, that you sometimes have to dig deep to get at the truth of a matter, and not even the best scholars can get it all at once.

Take the claim, for example, that Mithra was crucified. I’ve been regaling this as bunk for years now. It isn’t. More on that in a moment.

What led me to come out on this is Truth Be Told’s latest discontent over my review of Lobdell’s Losing My Religion. I couldn’t be dishonest with him on this, because he’s been a good friend for a while now, and in our correspondence over that review he said some rather conscience-smashing things. So here we are.

But now for Mithra. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I found that in a book titled Weihegrade und Seelenlehre der Mithrasmysterien by Reinhold Merkelbach. I still carry a bit of German around with me from my community college days, and while I’m sure my translation here isn’t exact, I’m able to do this well enough (and with the aid of the picture in the book) to give the gist of it:

Figure 5A. Composite carving from Mithraeum in ancient Achaemenid city of Istakhr, showing Mithra suspended from cross. Estimated date: c. 200 BC.

I resisted this evidence for a long time, and searched for anything I could find to suggest that Merkelbach was misconstruing or wrongly dating this evidence. But I couldn’t find it. So I have to be honest about it. What made it especially hard to dispute was that Merkelbach didn’t even try to connect this carving to Christian origins.

So anyway, it’s over now. I’ll be erasing the Tekton website in the next few days; you folks can save what you want from it, but make it snappy, because by next week it’ll be gone. I’m not sure about things like the E-Block. Those of you who paid may get refunds. I’ll soon be contacting Loftus (or someone else, if he won’t have me, and I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t) about posting a fuller deconversion story. There’s lots more where that Mithra thing came from, let me tell you. I also found out that:

1) The problem of evil is indeed very serious. This is where Loftus’ book was more convincing than I’ve been willing to admit. I pawned it as something out of my subject area, but the reality is – as Lobdell’s book also showed me – it hits hard in the gut.

2) Pedophilia in the Catholic Church is a very strong argument against Christianity. Lobdell emphasized this, as well.

3) Atonement is a disgusting doctrine, and Greco-Roman patronage doesn’t excuse it. See Claude Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford U. Press, 2002 for a scathing expose’ on this issue.

4) The NT indicates that gifts of healing, etc. were intended to last for the entirety of church history. Clearly that hasn’t happened, as frauds like Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton show.

5) Pope Leo X really did use that “fable” quote in real life. It was recorded by the medieval historian Unsinn Stierausscheidung.

So there you have it. Say goodbye to Tekton. John, let’s be friends, heh? How about we get together for lunch sometime, like today?

You heard me. Check your calendar and see what day it is today.






















April Fool!