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

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:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851

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....

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/08/dennis-collis-aka-dencol-wins.html

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 dencollis@juno.com. 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.

61 comments:

  1. McCall?
    I would have never guessed that. I wonder how John will explain that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Man it's been Mccall, Evan, Acharya S(whatever), Bart Willruth, Spencer and Daniel, Anthony and a few others since I've known them. I'm not surprised as fighting God and the truth is a hard way to go.

    I heard it stems from this new book that John got these guest authors and won't pay them. I don't know if that's true but that's what Dencol (collins) said.

    I'm a strange apple fellas but I like John, I TOTALLY disagree with most of what he says, and almost everything he says about God, but I do hope the best for him. he does need to quit fighting God though. He'll be crushed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I heard it stems from this new book that John got these guest authors and won't pay them. I don't know if that's true but that's what Dencol (collins) said.

    Well, if anything, that's not new. It's just a different aspect of his self-centered personality manifesting itself. If you know John after a while, there is no reason to think otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For the record, every contributor to the book was notified in advance that all articles contributued were not "for pay."

    Some of the articles were contributed late, mine was among them. John and David aided me with some last minute editing, and we still exceeded the manuscript submission date in doing so. One other article was rec'd as late as mine, Harry's. Both McCall and I had taken vacation time and worked weeks on our pieces, and both were submitted past the date by which John had told us he needed them. Other pieces he had to weed out of the book for a variety of reasons, one being space restrictions.

    Personally, I am sorry that Harry's contribution did not make it into the book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also for the record,

    The "troll" that John mentions also had his posts deleted by professor James McGrath at the latter's biblioblog, "Exploring our Matrix."

    I also doubt that the troll was harmed very much by having his email address posted on Loftus' blog, since this troll in particular seems to be capable of creating more than one email address in order to continue to "go after" John Loftus, apparently hoping to convert him via personal insult.

    Also, one might compare the troll's behavior and John's response with the responses I rec'd when I expressed my curiosity to one Christian concerning his personal testimony. I did not personally insult him, but suggested he could reveal something about his personal testimony and remain anonymous about it, replacing names and dates, etc., as one person even did in a book I had edited. The Christian responded to each of my inquiries (we exchanged about 8 of them) with growing ire, and I had not called him names nor personally insulted him, but he chose to photoshop a picture of me, call me grade school names, and posted my email addresses, both home and work, suggesting people may abuse them as they pleased. He also published someone's opinion after meeting me for the first time at a gathering for new employees at work, saying that at first they feared I might be a "child molester" (apparently they no longer fear such a thing, since I've been working with them for a while now, and they also know I have no such reputation).

    Speaking of this blog, one person who read a comment I left here then sent emails to my boss and to my boss's boss, complaining that they did not see how I could perform my job since I was so illogical as to ask questions regarding stories of Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. The emails so impressed my bosses that they chose to ignore them.

    But getting back to John Loftus, he has never to my knowledge mentioned J.P. Holding in either of his books, neither his first one, nor his upcoming work. While an atheist like Richard Carrier has, and even published a book contra Holding's arguments and delivered two lectures based on that book. But you have not created a "We Hate Carrier" blog, yet.

    John seems to have ignited more controversy than Carrier because John engaged J.P. Holding at Theology Web while all of Holding's riposters were watching and contributing. John also spoke using his real name and had revealled personal matters related to his past in his works. So the riposters (mostly pseudonomous) began insulting John personally.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AND what if riposte doesn't work? I read a report recently that said something to the effect that strong reactions most often create strong counter-reactions, with both sides remaining even more firm about their original disagreements.

    So maybe the riposters and John are both caught in a the same tide in which both sides are reinforcing their differences? Could be. Though I also admit I don't see how atheism and biblical inerrancy are ever going to find much middle ground, which might lay in the realm of apophatic mysticism, or liberal or moderate religious interpretations and understandings. It seems to me like there's a spectrum of views being left out entirely when atheists and biblical inerrantists go at one another. And biblical inerrantists don't approve very much of even considering the existence of such a spectrum, which is pretty wide and vast. While atheists don't find much of a use for going back to any form of religiosity in their thinking, unless they are soft atheists, agnostics, or perhaps mystical atheists of some sort.

    Lastly, suppose John ceases to blog, and ceases to write? We all will some day. I think we both know there are plenty of secularist writers and secularist books out there and more coming. There have been atheist bestsellers, and in no previous history in the U.S. has there ever been such a thing. (Agnostic bestseller maybe, or novels by atheistic writers, but not books "on atheism" itself that were bestsellers. That was a brand new phenomenon as far as I can tell.)

    There has also been a pretty steep rise in the founding of campus Secularist groups unlike anything seen on U.S. campuses before. So the next generation of such writers will eventually come along. Whether they will be bloggers or youtubers is another question, or employ some other medium.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I also doubt that the troll was harmed very much by having his email address posted on Loftus' blog, since this troll in particular seems to be capable of creating more than one email address in order to continue to "go after" John Loftus

    Can John state without a shadow of a doubt that this particular person is in fact a "troll"? Is there any evidence that would provide such a conclusion? Does John have some embedded html which tells him of anonymous users IP addresses?

    Where's the evidence Babinski? How do we know that John isn't just speculating?

    He also published someone's opinion after meeting me for the first time at a gathering for new employees at work, saying that at first they feared I might be a "child molester" (apparently they no longer fear such a thing, since I've been working with them for a while now, and they also know I have no such reputation).

    Okay. But again, what's your point? Do you want us to feel for you Babinski? Are you trying to justify publicizing someone's e-mail address in John's case just because it happened to you once? What?

    If you're trying to point out how wrong it is, that's a given. I would never do that to another person and have never thought of it as an acceptable course of action. So as far as I'm concerned, you will never see me engage in that type of unethical behavior. Do you want fries with that?

    Speaking of this blog, one person who read a comment I left here then sent emails to my boss and to my boss's boss, complaining that they did not see how I could perform my job since I was so illogical as to ask questions regarding stories of Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. The emails so impressed my bosses that they chose to ignore them.

    I have received word of a different story, Babinski. Not one that is quite as bland as you make it out to be. It is rumored that you were being reported for using company time to access the site and start an argument. That's quite a different story than what you have presented here. And in this case, your whining isn't welcome.


    But getting back to John Loftus, he has never to my knowledge mentioned J.P. Holding in either of his books, neither his first one, nor his upcoming work. While an atheist like Richard Carrier has, and even published a book contra Holding's arguments and delivered two lectures based on that book. But you have not created a "We Hate Carrier" blog, yet.

    This isn't a "We Hate Loftus" blog either, Babinski. John just has too much widespread publicity and for all of the wrong reasons. This blog exists to counter that.

    John seems to have ignited more controversy than Carrier because John engaged J.P. Holding at Theology Web while all of Holding's riposters were watching and contributing.

    John is controversial because he can't let go of the past. He also can't bear the fact that he isn't the center of the universe. Do you have any other reasons to suggest otherwise, or are you going to stand in John's defense for "so so" reasons?

    John also spoke using his real name and had revealled personal matters related to his past in his works. So the riposters (mostly pseudonomous) began insulting John personally.

    Pseudonym this, pseudonym that. Oh, and Babinski, "for the record" John did express having a problem with "John Loftus" being displayed all over the TheologyWeb forums. It's in his thread "Is there such a thing as a honest doubter?" Look it up, Ed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have books by Holding, Babinski, Loftus, Holman, and probably a couple more that don't come to mind right now, and your websites obviously took a hell of a lot of work.

    I'm blown away by the sheer number of unpaid hours it must have taken to assemble all of these arguments. I'm sure that if even Loftus' roof leaks, that the rest of you probably aren't doing so hot, either, and are mostly driven to do this by a compulsion to get to the bottom of this God idea. I wish the other 99.9% had a clue or cared about these discussions.

    So I'm really baffled by all these totally irrelevant personal attacks, made by people who I'd think would be in a position to KNOW how irrelevant they are.

    If I could somehow see every post made by all concerned in chronological order, and work my way back to the first time you ever made contact with each other, would I see a definite "X was just as civil as can be, until Y started harassing him for no reason at all," or has this just been one long series of "Asshole Battles" from the beginning, with everyone sharing the blame? (If I started a discussion board under that name and promised not to ban anyone, would y'all come? No offense, really! ;-) )

    It's just been the weirdest thing, seeing so many people with advanced degrees, or their equivalent (Holding told me in 1998 that he was reading 1.5-2 books PER DAY on the subject, so give the guy some credit for that) getting into spats that resemble what what you might see happen between 14-year olds on game boards, though your vocabularies are better.

    I also hope Harry McCall surfaces again, somewhere. Slate his chapter for inclusion in the next book, or whatever. What the hell is wrong with you people. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "by a sincere compulsion," I meant to say. There, now I've said my piece.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Kinks did a (tongue in cheek) song that seemed to be written just for you guys:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT5ffgWySrM

    Hatred (A Duet)

    "Hatred - it's the only thing that keeps us together."

    I'm sure y'all don't *literally* hate each other, but I wouldn't describe the state of affairs as one of mutual affection, either.

    Things sure don't look like this: ;-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G0sOA6hTg0

    ReplyDelete
  11. "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".

    Goodness me ..Shock horror! ...Thats really something to get all hung up and hyped up over hmmmm.

    Hell these things are just totally unheard of any where else.It only ever happens on the John Loftus blog.And writing people off is most definitely a trait of atheism,its not something akin to faith beliefs at all is it.Thats why we have so many different christian beliefs in this world,they all get on so well with each other.Its such a pity this wonderful total acceptance of all people thats such a wonderful trait of faith beliefs worldwide,hasnt had any lasting effect on John Loftus the atheist.

    Keep up the good work guys.The intelligence and understanding you display on this blog is truly remarkable and to be commended.

    But be careful of traps, dont let it go effecting your egos.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Truthbetold, your comment got emailed to me, but it's not on here. I'm just saying you guys are all capable of much, much better than these personal attacks many of you stoop to.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "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:"

    Thats great news guys ...Wonderful to see "the man" J.P.Holding the christian apologist is keeping up with the defense and proof of Christianity.

    Im sure the christian apologetic`s of today is in dire need of good christian men like the J.P.Holdings who are still quite willing to reinforce the nit picking aspect of what believing in Jesus and Gods etc can provide for those who still choose to keep following it.Reminding us how Jesus was gleeful also when faced with bad situations that happened to people he disliked.

    J.P.Holding has made available good reasons here with why many folks should be compelled to follow likewise in his christian footsteps.So thanks to this blog for supplying the general public with this display of such genius.Im sure christians worldwide will be feeling much better for it and will all agree.

    "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"

    Yes great call wouldnt you agree J.P ? ...Im sure it must be in keeping with christianity and all that stuff,or else the great J.P.Holding wouldnt be on this blog being associated with bringing about the demise of these nasty non believers by way of concentrating on peoples looks etc and suggesting people might be molesters without need for evidence.

    Jesus said "if man think somebody might be a molester no evidence or proof be first needed",thats right J.P ??

    Faithful folk can be really proud to frequent blogs like this,even J.P.Holding doesnt seem to suggest Jesus refrained from these things.

    Its a real sad thing you know that folks here on this blog dont seem to get all the acknowledgement they so obviously deserve.

    I do hate to see folks feeling so lonely and upset and unwanted and like nobody listens enough to them or seems to care.

    Keep up the great work guys.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gandolf, maybe you should tone down the sarcasm a little.

    The idea should be to make people *want* to adopt our more perfect ways. Maturity like ours just can't be beaten into people.

    I'm sure the feelings of insignificance, frustrations and unanswered prayers for betterment they must endure in falling so short of our example already gives them enough grief, without you rubbing it in.

    Let's just let this private Hell of their lives remain private, and be there to offer a hand, when they find it in themselves to ask for the help that only we can so graciously give.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gee Gandolf, you must be some sort of political news analyst, huh?

    You're saying that I'm a Christian based on "guilt by association" principles. Just because I correspond with Holding on allot of things says nothing about my personal beliefs. Why should it? I have no bias against anyone unless they are 100% completely demonstrably delusional. I have my personal digressions with Christianity as well. It's just that Loftus is not someone who I think should speak on behalf of "skeptics", understand?

    ReplyDelete
  16. ismellarat beating them? i didnt think i was actually being violent.

    This blog seemed to me to be all mostly pretty sarcastic anyway so far.Cant see that it proves anything much more than that some folks personally hate somebody in particular, and then feel a need to write a special blog of personal hate and sarcasm aimed totally at them.

    Truth Be Told please read what ive said again so you can point out where ive supposedly actually said you are a Christian.And besides to be honest i dont really care whether you are personally christian or not.

    It seems you guys have a personal gripe against John Loftus for what ever reason/s.And Harry McCall and others maybe you maybe happen to (personally) dislike over on DC for what ever reason.

    You say "Loftus is not someone who I think should speak on behalf of "skeptics", understand?"

    Ok, well tell me do you think Richard Dawkins for instance should be?,if not please point me to your personal blog debunking him.And any/all others you also have special blog personally against them for this reason!.

    Because while we are here discussing the "understand" bits,do you understand this blog seems to kinda look very personally lowly and more about paybacks and mostly about Character assassination etc.

    Didnt a fellow called Andrew who obviously had a gripe about John Lofus go on on here some place about supposedly how smelly John Lofus hat supposedly was ?.

    I mean to say how pitiful and extremely childish is that.It seems he,s into smelling peoples hats?,and folks here feel they have the need to worry if Harry might be molester?.I mean if the bloke feels a need to smell peoples hats,whats next their arse?

    Understand a little more where im coming from Truth Be Told?

    Theres been enough said here about some other people looks etc,buggered if i know why peoples looks must matter so much.But if all you guys looks are actually all so wonderful,care to please post some pictures of yourselves? so we can offer some feedback on you guys as well if you really think this Character assassination is really the adult way to go about things.

    Personally im not really interested at all in this type of personal attacking.But im just trying to fathom what you folks see in doing this stuff.And most of all im trying to understand why you all seem to feel so proud of it so far.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gandolf, I originally had a ";-)" at the end of all that, but had thought it superfluous!

    But yeah, I wish everyone would just stick to the issues.

    Some of the bannings I don't agree with either (of course with TBT, I don't even know what he said there, because it got deleted as well!), but I'd rather just see a parallel blog "debunking" any subject matter that might "need" it, instead of Loftus himself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gandolf: Your previous comment implied this blog is about Christianity. It isn't. What non-Christian comes up with arguments in defense of Christianity as a belief system? There's allot of stuff it bases itself on that I don't agree with anymore.

    The main reason this blog was set up is because there are no other sites out there that challenge him directly. And keep in mind, this site is 100% Loftus, I've posted about other people before, as well...

    ismellarat: Blog names are a little short and to keep the address nice and compact I came up with Debunking Loftus. I am trying to strive more towards John's arguments but these days (well, actually, ever since I've known John) they always involve some sort of personality complex in the background. Not to mention John and his followers are annoyingly repetetive so I'm often repeating myself as well.

    I got banned from Debunking Christianity for being an "asshole" by saying that the blog was full of intelligent remarks (I said it in a facetious way). John asked me to tone it down at first and I did as he asked, but he banned me anyway for being too confrontational on certain discussions.

    He can't make up his mind with his commenting policy and so I tried getting through again even though they are all under moderation and John's approval. I wrote it in the post about the "Sad, Sad Doubting John" song, but don't expect it to be published at any point in time because I made it known that John was being selective in what he picked from the e-book site he came across on TheologyWeb (once again, a site he claims he tries to avoid like the black plague).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Typo: This site is NOT 100% Loftus.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Interesting way of putting it Harry, I guess...

    I hope everyone else is starting to realize what really goes on with John, and that this blog doesn't just exist without good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tell ya what Harry. YOU start a blog and see what it takes for it to get noticed on the web. Hint: You must promote it repeatedly and regularly. Try it. I'm serious.

    Then invite a bunch of “cats” there and try to herd them. Offer them a spotlight. Give them a chance to shine and be read by a potential audience of about 40,000 readers a month. Then see what that's like. I have tolerated a lot of junk being written by team members I didn't care for, just like others may not like some of what I write. Eventually you’ll have a few disgruntled people leave and blast you too.

    Then edit a book. See what that’s like when you offer a few no-name authors a chance to shine and to be read by an even greater potential audience. See what happens if five of the authors you invited do not write on the topic assigned, and/or submit it too late to do anything with it, and/or write poorly, and/or argue poorly. See how that would feel like when you merely wanted to help their voices be heard. See what YOU would do when your back was against the deadline wall by people who did not share the same commitment you did to see this work through.

    And see how YOU would respond to a disgruntled former Blogger/author who comments at sites like this one dedicated to his demise. What would YOU say? What would YOU do? I think Truth Be Told and Holding will have a falling out someday. Watch what happens then. What which one of them will try to rise above the fray during the midst of that falling out.

    I think the Native American proverb is wise on this point: “Never criticize a man until you walk a mile in his moccasins.”

    So I won’t criticize you. As I said, my friend, as of this date I would still have you back at DC.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Welcome back, John.

    Then edit a book. See what that’s like when you offer a few no-name authors a chance to shine and to be read by an even greater potential audience. See what happens if five of the authors you invited do not write on the topic assigned, and/or submit it too late to do anything with it, and/or write poorly, and/or argue poorly. See how that would feel like when you merely wanted to help their voices be heard. See what YOU would do when your back was against the deadline wall by people who did not share the same commitment you did to see this work through.

    "No-name authors"??? Exactly how is it people become a part of your site, John? Is it open invite or do you look around for people that have something important to contribute?

    So I won’t criticize you. As I said, my friend, as of this date I would still have you back at DC.

    Do you care to share what the exact reason was for getting rid of Harry? This looks sort of awkward to the uninformed spectators.

    ReplyDelete
  24. TBT it's very hard to find quality people to Blog with me. Most skeptics do not know what it takes to reach brainwashed believers. They really don't. People ask me to invite them on DC and I give them a try if it looks like they might work out. Most do not. I usually have no good way of pre-judging them before inviting them on.

    I did not get rid of Harry, nor did I do him wrong. He decided to move on with his life. I wish him well. I have no ill feelings toward him even now. I try to follow that Native American proverb as much as I can possibly do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. TBT it's very hard to find quality people to Blog with me. Most skeptics do not know what it takes to reach brainwashed believers. They really don't.

    You should probably expand upon your definiton of "brainwashed", John.

    Would for instance support the likes of The Rational Responders?

    And I am also curious, what is your criteria for establishing communicative relations with "brainwashed" people, and do you have any empirical justification for this perspective or is it merely opinionated?

    The effects of brainwashing I believe pertain to counter-culture groups most of the time. That is, a uniform mentality across a wide range of people is what you would call "brainwashing." Sort of like saying that atheism is a "non-belief." The step we must take to have interpersonal communications between believers and non-believers is to get rid of the sensitization we have towards our own beliefs. I.e., Christians must accept the possibility that they are wrong and atheists must accept the fact that atheism is not characterized as a "non-belief" and that no such thing exists.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I find it odd you don't know the answer to these questions and yet you're planning on writing a chapter critiquing my arguments. My views on these matters are clearly stated several times in my book and on my Blog.

    You are a useful idiot, nothing more and nothing less. I personally don't have any use for idiots like you. Holding cultivates them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You are a useful idiot, nothing more and nothing less. I personally don't have any use for idiots like you. Holding cultivates them.

    Then don't post here like you promised you wouldn't. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh quaint Harry

    Feeling better now that you have vented on your frustration? ^_^ Thank you very much for that lovely laughable dribble. I suggest you leave the prophesying to the loons who think they can predict future events, it's not like we need anymore of them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Geez, Harry, he does get 40,000 hits per month. Aren't at least some of these people finding it worth their time?

    I may still be partly on the other side, but I'm glad he's around, and also hope to see you write on these topics again.

    I enjoyed Babinski's Leaving the Fold, with your contribution, and hope to see your "lost chapter" appear in something similar, some day.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Harry, don't expect Andius to be honest in telling you that he is not me, but he is not me, nor am I him, nor have I ever posted as him. If I remember correctly he is the person who created the "Sad, Sad, Doubting John" video song. Again he is not me. And again, don't expect Andius to be honest with you. He'd probably rather stir up trouble by not responding.

    I haven't heard the song you just mentioned Harry (as far as I know) so I cannot comment on it. But somehow I suspect from what I see you think it's about your life. It certainly has little to do with mine. Are you wallowing around in self-pity for a life deluded by faith?

    Last night on "Boston Legal" a lawyer was defending a lost cause of a case. The advice of his female lawyer friend was this: "You can only play the hand you were dealt with." Life is the hand dealt to you, Harry, and you can only play the one you were dealt with. Even if you think you played your hand poorly earlier in the game, you can still play it out well beginning now. There are many people who have done so later in life, and who did well with their lives. Again, I wish you well.

    Yes, there are several people who have changed their minds because of our efforts at DC. The good news is that even if it's one person or two they have influence in future generations so we've not only changed them but in 100 years we may have changed 1000's of people through them. Think of the long term effects.

    ReplyDelete
  36. As far as your not allowing me to comment on this Blog TBT, you need not bother with the poll. I only wanted to respond to my friend Harry. I do not plan on responding any further.

    TBT, I do think you are little more than a useful idiot used by Holding. You'll change your mind someday. He cultivates idiots so that he can use them. You don't even know you're being used, that's how much of an idiot you are.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. As far as your not allowing me to comment on this Blog TBT, you need not bother with the poll. I only wanted to respond to my friend Harry. I do not plan on responding any further.

    Who exactly? Me? Maybe.

    Just keep in mind that if you were cut off from communicating via this blog, you have no other way of getting in touch with Harry here. As he said in this last statement, you can probably forget him have any other type of human contact with you outside of here, or any at all.

    You can be as inconsistent with yourself as you want. But don't come on here just to stir up trouble. You would do the same if this were your blog, so I ask that you pay the same respect when visiting mine.

    and then you come up with this f**king statement

    It's been a while, Harry, but the popular consensus sways in favor of anti-profanity. Venting your anger is warranted but I can't slip up on the new rule unless something much more favorable comes up to replace it. But there are some readers, and even some fellow bloggers on here, in addition to TWeb decorum, which do not approve the use of excessive or explicit obscenities. I will ask you this time, if you could so kindly oblige, to refrain. I will tolerate terms such as "ass" and "bitch" and probably even "shit" too (as long as the last one is not used excessively); ass and bitch are terms with contemporarily ambiguous meanings which are dependent on contexts. Hopefully you can come to an understanding based on what I have set in place.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Harry, I'm going to be the bearer of truth, hence my alias: Andius is NOT Loftus. In fact, I'm not even sure why he said what he said, but he's not John.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I must say, Harry, I never expected this side to be a part of you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What I find funny, is that grown men like Loftus feel the need to attack everybody who disagrees with them. El-oh-el.

    ReplyDelete
  44. " So tell me Andius, just what part of my post is your laughable joke: The sincerity of the believers or the sincerity of the non-believers or do you really know??? "

    I could care less on the sincerity of a person. What I find laughable is presuming yourself above these debates, shouting out: "religious landscape will not be impacted by neither camp".

    " Does this include stock brokers and stock speculators? What about the federal government’s stimulus package, are they also your “loons who think they can predict future events,…”? "

    Apples and oranges Harry, unlike you, the people whom you listed actually have a clue that give them a heads up on what's going to occur (well, save the U.S. Stimulus package, yeah... real banged up job those people in the United States government are accomplishing).

    " What about the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta? When it comes to the H1N1 flue vaccine, are they your “loons who think they can predict future events,”…? "

    Your failure to distinguish loons and people awares of disease spreading bespeaks of your poor persona. One does not require special insight to be awares of a spreading of an infectious disease.

    " I’m not sure where you are coming form and I suspect neither do you. "

    I know where I come from, but it does not include surrounding myself with incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ah jeeze, this is getting out of hand again.

    C'mon people, let's try to put an end to this stuff. This is about Debunking Christianity, not our introspective selves (well, to certain extents it is). Harry is here because he has clearly been betrayed deeply by John's false promises. I'm willing to put aside ideological differences and to sort of establish an understanding with foreigners, to include Harry. And despite his comments of the past, he has shown a capability in complying with civil demands. That's a huge attributed difference between McCall and Loftus, as can be witnessed here. In due time he may serve as an important component in demonstrating just how much a person's ego can reinforce them to do bad things in their name of their ideology, a point overglanced by most.

    I'm not taking any sides here, but, well, you know...

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I got out of control with some remarks that had no place in either thought or print here. If I offended you, JP or John at DC, then my apology is offered with sincerity.

    I'm not personally offended. It's just that a few months ago there was a conflict which broke out between blog readers and John's Favorite Sock Puppet which resulted in complaints and disputes over profanity. So to help resolve the issue, I made a poll about it and decided this was how the rules would be created or modified. Obviously there is an anti-profanity rule now because it was voted in favor of by majority consensus. So for their sake and mine, I am from now on asking guests to at least regulate what they say if they don't insist on throwing it out altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ismellarat i cant say i really enjoy seeing many people banned either,but still i can kinda understand why sometimes it happens.

    It may take some time but given the right situation and circumstances etc im inclined to think even some folks here on this blog might feel they have just about had enough of it and even consider some banning.

    For starters there is obviously rules already in place regarding swearing etc,the people who started this blog surely have some rights to their personal choices.Its their house! so should i kick on their door demanding they be made to allow absolutely anyone entry?.

    Do i think Truth be told enjoys deleting posts with swearing? ,probably not.Do i think Truth be told has endless time available to go through long long threads and then spend time deleting posts?,probably not specially if he`s got so many other things to do.Should i be surprised if at some stage people who continue to post swearing might upset somebody enough and get themselves banned,no i dont think so.

    Do i really expect people who have been involved with religion at some stage in their life even if its quite long ago in their past,to be very likely to (always) be understanding caring and loving etc of each other....No not so very likely at all.

    Do i expect fall outs and shunning and division etc?,yes i do! knowing what religion can do and has done to very many people why wouldnt i? ....How easy is it likely to ever be to expect to change spots that have become in bedded so deeply in peoples lives over many past years,its not likely gonna ever happen overnight thats for sure is it.

    Do i enjoy seeing John and Harry etc being not so friendly,no not at all.Am i very likely to always agree with either of them and many others completely about everything,no but thats no reason i can see i should personally start to dislike either of them personally for either.I dont agree totally with Dawkins either,but i have no reason to hate him personally even if i had happened to be personally banned from (his site).I might feel the need to discuss it further,but wouldnt be interested in adopting being involved in the he`s got a smelly hat or stinky undies or looks like a molester type low blows.



    Truth be told glad you blog against other people also who you happen to believe dont quite fit the bill,because it looks/looked kinda mostly about personal dislike here thats all.

    Im not suggesting anyone is very likely to ever be perfect and im sure egos etc are a problem that can sometimes effect many folks more than just one or two.

    ReplyDelete
  50. After reading the dialouge between you and Truthbetold, I suppose I should tone down the things I say to you. I cannot deny the evidence that you have been pretty cordial in your expressions ever since DC exiled you. The history of your arguments and what you did to the wife of JPH a long time ago, and having been in league with John Loftus, inspired me mistrust and contempt upon you, and to demand my cordiality with your given history as if you possessed some divine right that warranted me rendering honors to you regardless of past faults and attacks to Christendom is the thing of lunacy.

    But as TbT adequately puts, your attitude has changed significantly, especially with your standing regarding John Loftus. In this case, this warrants that I temper down my answers towards you, not to mention TbT has displayed a degree of trust in you, and since now I am in league with TbT, it is only proper that I demonstrate the same cordiality as he does. You definately earned his trust and welcoming arms, and It would be contemptible for me not to emĂșlate the same thing.
    Here be my answer, some of the things I say might sound hostile, but I can assure you, I have no malspirited intentions behind these comments, and have toned them down. I hope they are fitting to your expectations of cordial dialogue.

    “ See, here’s the thing Andius and please explain this.”

    Will do

    “ I can go to DC and find real names to real people that exist in real time. But here (as your name proves) is a factious name hiding a very mean spirited individual who only knows how to communicate by starting a food fights which I’ll not engage in. “

    What would it matter if I revealed to you my complete identity here in the blogger community?

    “ I am not a Christian Andius, yet I seem to have more compassion and trust in humanity than you. ”

    Putting aside that boast in your passion for humankind, can one not demonstrate compassion and trust in humanity by making a stand and confronting those who would harm them unwarrantingly in order to safeguard them?

    “ My name and email address are clearly listed on my blog stats. My picture is there. My address is there too. My personal home city is also there. If you need to call me, my address is in the phone book. “

    Yeah… where I come from, putting one´s personal phone number at that level of public display is a big no no. Besides, I prefer not to give rampant fundy skeptics (Of both Christian and non-Christian cut) the chance to bother me on the phone with their obnoxious rants and feeble threats.

    But waaiitt… The grand majority of them are not even in Guatemala, heh, the joke would be on those suckers… =P

    “ I’m very familiar with the New Testament. Do you Andius clam to be a Christian? If you do, just how do you justify your attitude? “

    Well, I do hope you demonstrate good familiarity with NT writ. Yes I am a Christian, and my behaviour goes well in accord with Christian ethic by engaging and exposing those people who seek to twist the truth for whatever madness that drives them (Just as it occurred with this Muslim in TWeb making the ridiculuous claim that a particular peoples of Mesoamerica were practicing Muslims under the pretext that some buildings are “aligned” to the Temple of the Mount in Jerusalem, and the city of Mecca), especially if they have demonstrated a good degree of stupidity, and refuse to change it. I do not take kindly to twisting the truth, especially since the Christian is expected to love the truth, and this includes rebuking those who seek to thwart the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  51. “ According to TBT, most followers here are Christians. Yet you want to tell me how incompetent I am in a subjective personal attack. You seem only to be able to exist in a bitter exchanges. “

    Where I come from, what you consider bitter exchanges is pretty much a norm. Shame and Riposte is still alive and well in some parts of Latinamerica.

    “ (Your hidden blogger stats are like a person who blocks their phone number and only cruses and rant that the person on the other end is even alive.) “

    Again, why should I display my phone number in the most public of venues nowadays? Having my day and schedule interrupted just to put up with some idiot skeptic screaming at the phone only will only make me look like a fool. Showing off your phone number for any internet viewer to see, and boasting about it will not make you more of a man.

    I do admit, I have not updated my stats, for the simple reason that I really don´t feel like it (Never really cared about bloggers till I got TbT´s invitation to contribute). Perhaps when I muster the will for it, il update it with picture and some stats.

    “ So if you think the LDS are “loons” for their view of Christ, just how do you justify your bitter attack on me in light of the any major Christian denominational doctrines? “

    See above in matter of why I get hostile. Also, I might add: One who gets cocky with unsupported claims of what will occur in the future will earn my calculated contemptness, and perhaps a bravo if they make me laugh a good laugh. I care not if they are Christian or not.

    “ If you want to address this in a civil manner, I’ll listen and respond. However, if you just want to sow you bitter sarcasm and hopefully engaged me in a childish food fight of naming calling, then have fun and ripe me apart in your next reply. You are the one who has to live with himself. “

    Have been trying be... oh what´s that word... oh yes! Nice!! . How am I doing? =P

    “ If you are a Christian, then put forth the fruits of the spirit: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness… Galatians 5:22. Paul was not a perfect human, but he left us with some great insight on human nature. “

    Of course, and given that love is in there, this does not exclude confrontation where the good of the group and truth are placed in jeapordy.

    “ If my quoting you this makes you even madder, then again, I have no intentions to engage you in a useless food fight. “

    Well, it didn´t stir me anger at all. So I´m good.

    “ Maybe your fellow Christian bloggers at this site could help you over come your bitterness and explain Galatians 5:22 to you. “

    Mmhhh, I have yet to see one, and I highly doubt they will top my understanding of the matter, or tell me anything I don´t already know (Thanks to research in solid Scholarship that reveals what those values meant in their time).


    “ Attack me with dripping sarcasms and bitter name calling; I have no intention to engage you. I’ll simply leave and walk away the bigger man. “

    For Truthbetold´s sake, I will restrain myself next time I adress you.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  54. " I follow what you said, but I need to state the facts as to your above paragraph. "

    Please do, I'm all ears, well, eyes, heheh.

    " No one knew he was near Orlando, Fla. And just like you, he prided himself with his privacy. "

    Well, I don't know wether he prided himself with it, but his decision to protect his stats was in order to safeguard himself and his wife from potential prisoners released. This is totally expected since I also have a friend who used to work in the penitintiary system here, and he quickly deleted any info about himself that could pinpoint his location, and severed public ties he had with people online (of the visible type). It's a matter of safety rather than some personal pecularity.

    " A blogger who, heard about my debate with him, sent me a total bio of his life: Where and when he was born."

    I heard about that incident, I think it was Farrell Till, can't recall precisely who it was. Whoever did it, it was real foul play and dangerous.

    " So to get a rise out of him, I called the Fla. prison where the bio listed his wife worked. "

    Mmhhh, well, that doesn't sound obscene at all, good to hear the other side.

    However, here I must express this following reservation; If your intention was to either call his attention, or merely send him a greeting expressing delight over reading his articles, why did you even attempt a phone call? As far as I'm concerned, I am not awares of any social dictum that requres one to personally make a phone call to a person to merely express a delight or boast a higher wit, which by my reckoning, sounds very shady.

    Would not a simple e-mail have sufficed though?

    " I have no “divine right” and Christendom does include the LDS Church, the Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics and a many more Christians protected under the Bill of Rights. "

    Mmhhh, for the record, I am one of those Christians that denies recognition to the LDS Church and Jehovah's witnesses as legit Christian traditions on the basis that they are not adherents to the Niceane Creed. The Roman Catholic Church though, I deem them as a legit Christian tradition. Their rights though, can only be protected as far where the dominion of the United States prevails.

    ReplyDelete
  55. " Neither you nor I can define who and who is not a Christian. We live in the United Sates and not the Holy Roman Empire. "

    With all due respect good sir, I disagree with the first, but agree with the second. If no one can define who or what is a Christian, how will the word Christian bear any significance? Let alone identify those who are Christians and not Christians? You definately have made clear that you are not a Christian, you give postive identification as an atheist, which logically puts you out of the ingroup that is the Church, henceforth, you or any outsider of the Church cannot have any candidecy or say on the matter of defining who is a Christian.

    On the other hand, those in the ingroup that is the Church, are the only ones who have the legitamecy and candidecy of defining what and who is a Christian. When it comes to groups defining what is theirs, only those belonging in the group can define, or at least have a legit say in defining the qualities of the group, and outsiders will have to accept whatever definition they present.

    Oh, and for the record, I am Guatemalan, and live in Guatemala, :) heh. Mmhhh, I guess this warrants me filling up the data in my blogger profile, to insure mishaps and stuff. Il get to work on that tommorrow morning.

    " If My neighbor handles snakes and drinks poison based on the last Chapter of Mark, then he is a Christian if he says he is. "

    Naturally those more learned than him in the group will identify that doing such actions will not grant him the status of a Christian by default, but neither will it not deny him the status of a Christian.

    " My posts at DC are aimed (as they are still there) at Bible believing Fundamentalist. "

    Ahh, right on. On that you and I are in definate agreement, and TbT would also agree as well. :)

    " If they have a right to tell me that I’ll burn in Hell for eternity and attack me over the last 30 years, I have the right to read the Bible in a new way and I vented my anger at DC. "

    Don't know who granted those rights, but assuming they're there, it definately be legit. =/

    " Finally, the use of the name Bob for JP was the name I used for Robert in our email debates over the months we had them "

    Yeah, I remember it was a matter of a name changes he had in the past. Personally, I don't really put much mind on whatever name he carries, he can call himself Uwe Boll or Tom Cruise for all I care. :P

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I hear ya Harry, I guess I can agree with that.

    Les focus our guns, polish our armor, and aim at the real foe around here, da Loftus. :P

    Btw, let me express that it has been good that we have come to terms. :) I hope it continues this way for as long we blog around here.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Maybe with the book coming out, you can all try to aim at his arguments instead, which I'm sure he wouldn't mind, either.

    Holding seemed to put up a good fight against Jeffrey Jay Lowder (whatever happened to him) back in the day, and I don't remember nearly as much being said about either's personal lives, then.

    Let the best man win. I'm looking forward to this. :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. You'll find out soon enough, rat, about the true nature of Loftus' arguments. ;)

    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.