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

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Take Biology Classes Online, With Debunking Christianity!

Joe E. Holman hits up this one as he goes into a nonsensical rant trying to get a valid point across to Christian fundamentalists. As with most of my posts, I give you the link to this grand stupidity which will soon follow:

Imagine you are hiking in the woods. As you pass by a pond, you get a glancing view of some scavenging birds as they fly off some ways away from you. You make nothing of it. You keep walking. Then you spot it in the distance—the reason the birds flew away. A deer comes ripping through the bushes as he’s being chased by a grizzly. You hide quickly as best you can. With any luck, you’ll go unnoticed and that deer will be the thing’s lunch instead of you.

As you've seen, not only is he big, but boy does he move! He's strong too. One good swat from him is equal in force to a small piano (about 450 pounds) being swung from the height of a second story window. You know that if caught, he could literally knock your head off! You’d need a good gun to fend him off if he had his mind set on rending your flesh like the skin off a thigh from Church’s Chicken. But thankfully, you don’t have to go up against him. He’s gone now and so you can forget about him just like humans do all the things on planet earth that God creates which are deadly.

So forget about the bear.

Now imagine you are at the same pond, seeing the same birds fly away. This time, you are startled to see a red beast with big red eyes, with scales instead of fur, and fangs and canines just like the bear. If you will, he has a pointed tale and horns. Hiding, you are hoping that this deer-chasing demon is no smarter or more observant than that bear.

The demon is so different from the bear, but strangely, he’s no more or less terrifying than the bear. Let’s switch them; let’s say the bear was the mythical beast and the demon was the evolved creature. Would the raging bear not be exactly as terrifying or more than the demon? Would not someone who was sheltered from nature’s harsh realities feel the same fear as if that someone saw a traditionally described demon? Of course that person would.

So, let’s say you did see that bear. And let’s say you happen to be a Christian, but then it dawns on you (if you’re a halfway thinking Christian) that all this time you’ve been afraid of the Devil when you should have been afraid of (and prepared to face) things like bears—of things that are real and that you have a much higher chance of encountering, of things that are deadly and everywhere, just waiting to bring your life to an end.

And then, for the first time, it starts to occur to you that you’ve been praising a God for building a world for his people that is full of unspeakable horrors. You are now starting to realize that anything you ever saw on Friday the 13th or Halloween or The Outer Limits is no more horrifying than what God has exposed his people to and that we take for granted on this planet.

"Ooooh boy, it sure is! We live in such a vicious cycle of nature!"

Once more, the chances of someone getting mauled to death by a grizzly is slim to nothing unless a person should cross the path of the grizzly, and almost in deliberate fashion. You still have better chances of getting struck by lightning, as popular statistics have shown and demonstrated. The Great White shark is not the beast portrayed in the movie Jaws. Most predatory animals are not out to get humans for the following: 1) We are organisms foreign to their native habitat, and consequently are not a typical or convenient food source for their dietary requirements, 2) Humans possess industrial and mechanical resources and it follows that most animals would rather stick to their business than go around walking the streets of Manhattan or New York 3) We are the most dangerous animal in the world. No other creature has been capable of what we have done to other humans in the history of the world, to include torture.

It strikes me as appauling that atheists would try to argue based on emotions rather than intellect, something they primarily accuse Christians of doing almost all of the time. In his own little way, Joe is arguing about just how "evil" nature is, especially evolution. Hypocrites, perhaps?

Alright, so it can be pretty much said that Holman, like Loftus, is ignorant of basic zoology. But ignorance is not perhaps the best word to describe this:

Better rocks than other lifeforms, but maybe plants would be a start. grease..would be better than having a deity who has creatures killing and consuming other lifeforms for sustainance.

Sounds like Holman has a thing for P.E.T.A., or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I'm much more Ted Nugent inclined myself. And with that said, what I'm about to say will be addressed to both Holman and the idiots who support P.E.T.A.:

It's funny when animal rights activist complain of people eating other "lifeforms", or that animals have the same basic societal rights and priveleges as do humans (that might be even moreso if humans were allowed to defecate in public; oh wait...dammit). Those poor animals. Humans don't need meat as part of their food intake. Animals should just be left alone! We all need to refrain from the ingestion of animals and animal products. We should just eat plants. If that happened, we'd have no more political scandals, wars in the Middle East, or even human genocide. There you go. Problem solved.

I guess it never occurs to this crowd that plants are LIVING? Yes, living. They're alive. They grow, like humans and animals do. Why would you make such a fuss over the consumption of animals and not defend plants while you're at it? Maybe if PETA and Greenpeace got into a confrontation, their philosophies of non-violence would quickly dissappear, ya think? Exactly...

"Who wants to learn more from Debunking Christianity?"

My answer:

NO THANKS, I'll invest my money with employed professional professors, not internet bloggers...

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The John W. Loftus House of Horrors

What with John taking a break (so he says) these days, there isn't much to write about here, but we had to take notice of this picture he posted of water damage, he says, to his living room. If you ask me, it looks more like what happened after he hit the ceiling when he discovered his book sales weren't as good as he'd hoped. Or maybe he got a little TOO excited with that upstairs carpet cleaning job.

But anyway, we just want to encourage people to help John out with the damages. I mean, just look at the OUTSIDE of his house:

On second thought, better wait until Sept. 10 or so. By then we'll have something for John that'll make him blow a few more holes in the roof.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Yes He's Back. Back Again...

Loftus makes all sorts of promises that he never keeps. This time he says that he "ignores" these types of blogs, usually the types of blogs that criticize and question John on matters that really count. They're direct, you see. Loftus prefers it that his critics keep hush hush about certain details and go about things nicely instead of realistically. Isn't John supposed to be the individual that acts on realism instead of acting on niceness? Well, the best answer to that question is that it's all a facade. It's a fraud. John is a self-serving person. His interests aren't in establishing truth, except that which he considers to be "truth", but it's too debauched to really be considered by the rest of the world as such. Tidbits and pieces don't constitute whole truths. They do, however, settle for half-truths, or LIES.

In order to maintain "consistency" John makes several response posts to this blog without officially calling us out by name or blog title. He figures no one will notice because his audience is stupid and gullible enough to believe it or to justify John for making these responses out of ambiguity. His expectations and standards he sets for his subscribers may not be far off from what is reality, and in that sense we may call John a realist.

So as of early this morning (by the way folks, I shouldn't even be here doing this this early in the morning; I had ROTC class today but missed out because my alarm didn't go off when it was supposed too) John says:

Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and kicks off this Blog anyone who disagrees with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain and that I am cheating the authors in my new edited book, The Christian Delusion, out of their expected royalties.

I’ve tried to resist responding to such drivel. I know that I cannot satisfy the people making such charges as I’ve responded to some of them several times already. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But I just want to respond to my readers so they know the truth even if others won’t accept my answers.

You sure have responded to us "several times already" in a very coherent and specific manner, haven't you John? But another thing you won't voluntarily mention is that this is a fairly new and recent charge being brought against you. So you haven't responded to this one yet at all. You are cunning like a snake but as dumb as a box of rocks, my friend. And whowouldathunk, if John didn't go into some sort of self-justifying modus operandi with the complementary victimization complex.

In the first place, even if these accusations are true, which they are not, they do not make me a bad person. Just think of the things Hollywood stars are accused of every day. I’m not being accused of anything like they are. And these accusations do nothing to answer my arguments. I’m told someone will be publishing a book filled with these kind of accusations. I won’t dignify that person by mentioning his name, but he thinks the justification for doing so is because Elijah, Jesus and Paul railed against their opponents. Leaving that bogus justification aside, the truth is that Christians have accused their detractors of some of the most heinous crimes merely because they attacked their faith. So I stand in a long line of skeptics who have been falsely accused simply because I’m doing so. The real question is why they are focusing on these things rather than answering my arguments. I suspect it’s because they can’t respond to my arguments. If they could do so, then why don’t they?

You never learn, do you, John? But you're preaching to the choir here. Your "arguments" are indiscernable from who you just happen to be. You've made this known on numerous occassions. Your "drive" to debunk Christianity comes from your personal feud with Holding, and nothing more. YOU said that. No one else. You have also said that your goal is to debunk JP's "certain faction" of Christianity, rather than the whole picture. Your arguments are not only based on personal issues of seeking revenge against your long-time internet foe, they are limited in scope, and purposely done so. That in itself pretty much goes for "answering" your arguments.

Am I egotistical? So what if I am? Am I a self-promoter? Why shouldn't I be? Do I want financial gain? Why not? Do I want fame? Who doesn’t? An egotistical person is usually in the eye of the beholder anyway, and since it takes one to know one, the person making that accusation is probably more affected by that disease.

Elementary school logic is not going to get you anywhere from the face of criticism. This is not based on the answerability of your arguments. It's because you're pathetic. You play on the notions of relative perceptions to make justifications for your own immoral actions. You probably would be best described as an anarchist in terms of your political sways. But by playing on relativism, you are digging yourself further into a hole, and sensible people will begin to think less of you. It does not matter whether your "detractors" are atheist or Christian, you'll find something to accuse them of being, while you yourself are portrayed in a honest and ethical light. You're a coward John. Cowards are only good for running, and, as you seem to be a fan of cliches, "you can run, but you can't hide."

The truth about me is that I lack a whole lot of self-esteem. I’m never satisfied with my efforts. I always find fault with them. I continually think I don’t measure up. So when people tell me I did something great I get excited about it. If I appear egotistical then it’s merely because I’m overjoyed and excited that people tell me I did something great. This is what people are telling me about my efforts to debunk Christianity. And fame is a double edged sword, anyway. The more famous a person is the more that person has problems.

We've been saying that all along, John. At least I have if nobody else. But you should probably learn to establish a better self-esteem. I don't have the greatest self-esteem in the world. I certaintly have my own set of potholes. Do I let these things get ahead of my thinking and allow for them to construct personal agendas? No. By your logic, anyone who criticizes you has more problems, or at least they share the load in whatever disease they accuse you of having. So if your "detractors" have a better time dealing with the same disease that you have than you do, it still falls back on your face. You can't escape your inevitable blame here.

As far as financial gain goes, when I got my first (and only) royalty statement for my book Why I Became an Atheist, it said I owe them $1,100. I don't actually owe them any money. It's just that it hasn't produced enough sales to merit any more than the couple thousand dollars they advanced me. Yeah. I’m in it for financial gain…right! I barely make a living as it is. This winter I had some water damage to my house and had to use some of the insurance money to pay long over due bills. I didn't have the money to fix the house completely, so this is what my living room ceiling looks like (see picture). My porch ceiling and a wall in another room look just as bad. THAT’S why I appreciate any financial help I can get from people who click on the donate button in the sidebar.

Alright, we'll give John the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to check out his donation entry and see what it says as being reflective of this statement. Let's see:

Help me stay alive in these hard economic times. I need your help. I need people who are willing to donate on a regular basis, a monthly commitment if you can. Unless more money comes in I’ll be forced to get a second job. Spinoza ground lenses during the day and researched at night. What if he had to have two jobs? I’m no Spinoza by a long shot, but what if Spinoza never had to grind lenses and could research and write all day long? How much better would his arguments be?

Is it possible for John to get a second job in academia? Expand upon the scholarly credentials perhaps?

Here's what I don't understand: John constantly brags about the reviews his book receives, and now, when it is most convenient, he says that his book doesn't make enough sales. He says that he isn't bringing in enough income due to "hard economic times" (you have your own vote to thank for that one, John). If it is such a matter of difficulty and hardship, why doesn't John just consider free publishing? Does it make him less of a serious author if he were to go with a free publisher like LuLu? I'm not doubting that maybe John doesn't do it merely for profit (although I don't know if I necessarily believe him; how can I trust him about anything he says?), but he could at least make 20 times more than what he does for every book sold. From LuLu's website:

During the publishing process, Users are asked to choose the amount of creator revenue they will receive for each piece of Content sold. If Lulu sells your content, and we receive payment, Lulu will pay you the creator revenue amount you chose. In general, Lulu's service fee is 20% of the gross margin resulting from the sale of Content. The gross margin is the net amount actually received for your Content after freight and manufacturing costs are subtracted.

For example, if a User publishes a book that costs $5.00 to manufacture and chooses to receive $4.00 in Creator Revenue, Lulu will set the price of your book as follows:

Manufacturing cost: $5.00
Creator Revenue: $4.00
Lulu service fee: $1.00
Final price of book: $10.00

In this example, the gross margin is $5.00, of which you get 80% ($4.00) and Lulu gets 20% ($1.00). Regardless of the foregoing, the minimum mark-up for Lulu's service fee is nineteen cents ($0.19). However, if you choose to make your Content free, Lulu waives its service fee altogether. Exceptions to the 20% margin rule may be applied in the case of special offers or discounts to Users who purchase their own Content in bulk.

Plus, another benefit is that there is no limit to the amount of content in a given project. So, why not go free?

I think John is relunctant because he wants to have the spotlight that Promotheus provides. I say, however, that it would be much better if John were to have a general publisher, instead of an atheist one. Sure his book is much more likely to be found with an atheist publisher, but aside from this I see no merits in doing so. The publishing company is already in agreement with what John probably has to say. Additionally, I wouldn't appreciate my scholarly work being on par with pornographic literature.

I have a few internet stalkers, several trolls here at DC, a few websites dedicated to trashing me, along with one published book against me and two more promised ones coming down the pike. They say you can tell how famous a person is by the number of stalkers he or she has. Well I have some. Woooo! Hoooo! The problem is that people hate me for what I’m doing. I’m not famous. I’m infamous. Yeah, that’s what I want…right.

Stalkers? Where do you come up with this stuff? Where's your evidence? Proof? Yeah, that's right, you have none. Just a whole bunch of paranoia as far as I'm concerned. And until anything is documented and not something that is just your mere speculation, that's all it ever be.

As far as my new edited book goes, I rejected five chapters written by five different authors for various reasons having to do with word limit concerns, deadlines, and content. These were tough decisions, but I had to make them. By doing so I pissed off one person, maybe more. But I still had to do it.

Fair enough. I wouldn't want to make a defense of McCall by any means, unless it concerns moral deviations.

I only “censor” comments here at this Blog by the same standards any newspaper editor uses when deciding whether to publish a “Letter to the Editor.” That’s because I want a civilized and intelligent discussion of the ideas that separate us, or none at all.

Repeating it does not make it so. The use of the world "asshole" when referring to someone who says something in a way you do not like, is also the wrong way to go about it, if that's your genuine intention.

As far as kicking team members off DC who don’t agree with me goes, I open myself up to this accusation because I allow people to become team members here in the first place. This is my Blog. It’s my house. I invite guests here into my house. If they don’t respect me or if they somehow begin to think they own it, there can be problems. It's something like herding cats.

Agreeably understandable. But it doesn't really address anything if the issue concerns disagreement, as opposed to disrespect, which are two entirely different things.

Nearly all of the other Bloggers who have left DC fall into one of two categories. They either did not publish often enough or they asked to be removed for various reasons unrelated to me.

They didn't "publish enough", John? DC seems pretty staffed as it is. Why insist on having a posting quota if you have so many authors that are willing to contribute in the first place? You don't need one to get going. On average there are about 4-5 posts made every week on your blog, with about 1-3 of those being your own? That's just the typical average. I make most posts around here and I believe some members have expressed their desire to be taken off from the list. I haven't removed them yet because things are liable for change. But it's your blog, John. Unlike you, I won't chastize you for running things your own way, even if I question your motives and boundaries.

There are other accusations. Expect them. Just tell my accusers to produce evidence, think about them, and then tell these accusers to try to answer my arguments.

John wants EVIDENCE? Are you kidding me? This isn't a challenge and anyone asking for this "evidence" will be provided with it asap. I'm not going to repost it for the umpteenth time though, as I and others have beaten this to death before in the past. Contrary to what John might believe, the book that is coming out contains a whole compiled chronology of such evidence of the reasons why John isn't very trustworthy. The book will put an end to the question of whether or not the evidence actually exists, which it does. But it's rather surprising, that John, without revealing any specifics to his blog "trolls" would demand evidence of why he shouldn't be trusted. John, don't make this the end of the road for you, for your own sake.

NOTE: Once again, something of our interest coming from John has come up again. In the same post we've cited here, John removed some comments he didn't approve of, most likely after they had been brought to the world's attention through TheologyWeb, a site John claims he ignores as much as possible. The catch? John claims to be on "vacation" and won't return until August 27, meaning that only his fellow bloggers can post comments. Or can they?

In a long past case similar to this, John claimed at the very end to having put on an act to somehow demonstrate the inferiority of his critics. But surely enough, the only thing he seems to demonstrate effectively is his own inferior mentality.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Demagogue Mania

John's ego must have taken another hit for the worst. I've been occupied with some matters of schooling and will probably only contribute and update the blog on occassion, but J.P wrote me recently on a book project coming out soon that will be based on Loftus and serves as a compilation for why he is full of crap. Yes, I am one of the contributing authors to the final product.

Question of the day: Is John an abusive modern-day demagogue? He absolutely hates dissent when it concerns his arguments, websites, book(s), etc. But another thing not mentioned often enough that John also hates seems to be any sort of dissent from those he appoints to his blog. On numerous occasions over the years, people have come and go from the Debunking Christianity author list, some for different various reasons, most because they have in some way or another, upset John. And he gets his revenge simply by (in the words of Matthew Green) "writing (them) off".

So who is the one individual to receive the boot this time? Is it Ed Babinski? Nope. Even if I were told this, I would doubt it only because Babinski has a subtleness to him, and a tedency to be a real brownose. Dr. Hector Avalos? Good guess, and it probably will happen someday, but for now John would consider him to be a reputable scholar, so long as he doesn't say anything in disfavor of John and his course of actions. So...JUST WHO IS IT? The answer: Harry McCall.

Yes, the same exact Harry McCall that went around here posting perverted and sexually deranged comments. The same Harry McCall who addressed me on this very blog as if he was still a "minsterial student." The same Harry McCall whose picture gave you the sense he might be a child sex offender, or as J.P. used to refer to him as "Chester the Molester." Hey, child rape isn't funny. True, but there's no arguing that Harry was a creep, and did resemble someone who might in fact have those types of "urges."

Someone will have to relay more of the specific details of what happened (although I doubt this ever being the case, mostly because of John's repetetive behaviors and his personality; secondily, for the reasons I will show down below), but it's true. As always, when hearing about such news, I quickly rush to DC or the Google search engine just like any other person would. Currently as of August 19, 2009, Debunking Christianity's list of authors now includes only the following names in their respective order:

Harry McCall is no longer with us. Not just in the land of Debunking Christianity, but it also seems the Blogger community as well:

His short autobiography and personal details have been whiped out completely. Even his "Chester the Molester" face is gone. Why exactly? That's a question I would like to know myself. For now, we'll suppose that Harry's exile from DC has given him the indication that his internet career is otherwise useless without being a component of something in the New Atheist movement. But let's not get on the wrong foot about this issue: This isn't to sympathize or feel remorse for Harry. It's not even so much that John is an egotistical demagogue who makes appeals to a certain demographic for making profit. It might even be in John's moral favor for him to do this. Could it be that the reason why John severed ties is because Harry was a self-admitted stalker perhaps?

Oh wait....

DenCol has been banned as an ignorant abusive troll. I'm not exactly sure why he's here or what he actually believes, but for the most part he does not try to interact with us at DC. Once banned he starts another Blogger account and this process starts all over again. He has been banned as Rob, savedbygrace, tyler, Richard2, Rich386 and others. Right now he's commenting as Cool Running. He does not respect our wishes to go away and so he apparently does not think the Golden Rule should be followed when it comes to skeptics...Nonetheless, it's beginning to look to the first time visitor as if we are banning a whole lot of people. It's just one person! Fair warning to everyone. If you engage this troll you will be frustrated. I recomend just ignoring him. Or you can email him at As you can tell, I don't care for him at all.

Publicly posting someone's e-mail address to carry out retribution out on a supposed "troll"? Yeah John, there's nothing tasteless about that...

ADDED NOTE: JPH sent me this last word from Harry McCall, which sure enough is actually here on our very own blog. I made sure as always, to put emphasis on areas that I think really count:

Nice count Holdie, but as of July 27 I am no longer associated with either John Loftis or his DC blog. There will be no more 10% post from me or any posts from me on his blog; ever again.

My name is removed as a contributor and I have broken all contacts with him and his blog. I told him he could ban me from DC as I don’t give damn! Screw him!

If you two want to bitch and bash each other’s character brains out for a cash first, be my guess!

John and his ego blog are history for me!!

Well, well, well...the evidence just keeps piling up against John, even as he negligently spirals down a path of self-sabotage.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Good News for John Loftus!

According to this poll on TheologyWeb, there is at least ONE atheist who is screwier than John Loftus.

But I'm sure John will keep working as hard as he can to retain first place!