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

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Our Gift to John

As was expected, John had been venturing around TWeb anonymously scanning traces of his name to and fro to find something good he can pick at and inflate his ego to newer and more lengthier heights.

Earlier today John added a music app titled "Godless songs" fashioned after the music app I put up on your right, which contains the featured song "Sad, Sad Doubting John" written by JPH and sung by TWebber "Andius" a new favorite of mine. What made this suspect was that the app John had uploaded was from the same exact site mine is: http://www.mixpod.com There would be no reason to be alarmed over this if it weren't for the fact that only after a couple of days of embedding it here, John proceeded sometime either this late morning or mid-afternoon to follow suit. That's just one of many reasons, at least, to suspect that watching eyes are upon our community, even if John claims otherwise.

Now to be truthful here, I did personally send John an e-mail notifying him of the YouTube video version of the song to your right. And was it done in the manner of "sticking it to him"? Almost so. I just happen to know that the outcomes and reactions coming from Team Loftus are almost always of predictability, and I want Loftus to know that he can't just waltz through arenas without first being challenged by a gladiator or two.

Contrary to the first impression you might have from this newest post, John has known for at least a week now of our upcoming plans for him. This isn't necessarily news. And another thing, if John really had so much disdain for TheologyWeb, why does he go through its threads? (Case in point):

JP Holding promises to write a rebuttal to my work. He (or someone with his approval) wrote:

"John W. Loftus continues to be one of the most well-known internet celebrities of atheism ever since the publication of his collective biography entitled Why I Became an Atheist. In it, he argues that he was once a champion of Christian moral values but was later ostracized by his local faith community for committing adultery and was subsequently overwhelmed by intellectual arguments in which he advocates that by these arguments alone Christianity hangs by a very thin rope. For these past years since the publication of his book, Loftus' writings have remained unchallenged, or at least, have been challenged inadequately."

Thanks JP. Is there anyone saying the same kind of things about you and your arguments?

;-)

Loftus doesn't even provide a link of where he got that. But the answer is right here: http://thecowboywhowasntthere.yolasite.com That's the companion website, (similar to what Richard Carrier had created for John's new book, The Christian Delusion) to our little "project", by the way. Funny that it had only been created yesterday, while the e-mail I sent out to John is nearly a week old. Loooooks like somebody hasn't been true to their word lately. ;)

Two other points:

A) John expresses his paranoia by supposing that the site was created by Holding, as always. NEWS FLASH FOR THE DAFT: Most of the new Loftus sites that have or are coming out these days (including this one) have been or are created by ME. And another thing, I don't need or require Holding's "approval", Johnboy. Usually what happens in these circumstances is that a website is created first, and I consult JP second. Projecting yourself onto others does the world no good, Johnny...

B) The fact that the paragraph being quoted is only a fragment of what is on the site just makes John out to be a snake in the grass. If that was all that was written, it certaintly would compliment him in such a way as to warrant a boosted ego and sense of self. But here's what John left out for his own convenience:

But like most things with humanity, there is always another side of the story. The upcoming e-book "The Cowboy Who Wasn't There" is a substantial rebuttal (and in some respects, a refutation) to the writings of John W. Loftus and his philosophical arguments against "religion." The Cowboy Who Wasn't There will not only analyze the primary arguments set forth by Loftus, but in doing so will demonstrate how the "New Atheist" movement and their arguments are based on stereotypes and oversimplifications. With a jab of humor mixed in with direct confrontation, the book sets out to convince the reader that emotional stakes can and do run high on both sides of the God debate. This book is not arguing mainly against atheism in favor of Christianity, it also advocates for a middle ground in which both atheists and Christians can have intellectual dialogue safely and respectively. It advocates for the integrity of scholars and the ultimate search for truth despite what may be considered popular and appealing to a specific demographic.

If John had included the rest of that paragraph, there is no way he would have been able to make it look like it was being complimentary, as it was never even intended to be interpreted in such a way. Just because one might describe a person as "well known" doesn't really say that they are of admirable character. Barack Obama won the presidency because he was a popular icon of appeal, not because he was actually a straightforward candidate or the best man for the job. John teaches what again?

At least we now have proof that John just can't let things go. He is always watching for opportunities.

12 comments:

  1. "I want Loftus to know that he can't just waltz through arenas without first being challenged by a gladiator or two."

    Yeah and from what ive seen so far im sure he must be so very very frightened :)

    TheologyWeb ! ....Hell got the mafia of skydaddy believers on his tail :)

    Look out John they`ll have you burning at the stake :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Gandolf, aside from the reason that Loftus has just as a narrow scope of religion and theology as you happen to do, what other reasons are there for actually liking Loftus?

    Do you have any evidence of any kind that rebuts or refutes what has been cited on this blog? DO YOU KNOW what has been cited on this blog?

    Where is YOUR evidence? Where is the evidence that Loftus isn't "afraid"? Where is the evidence that Loftus isn't bothered by what other people say, even though he doesn't consider what they have to say to be very significant? On what basis should a reasonable person believe that John is consistent to his word and really is who he says he is. Hmmm?


    I suppose you believe in the retarded sentiment that atheism is a "non-belief", don't you?

    atheism

    /aythi-iz’m/

    • noun the belief that God does not exist.

    — DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

    — ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

    http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

    Do you have any evidence for your claims? Your support of Loftus? I don't think you do when it comes right down to it. You are just on Loftus' side because he "dumbs" down things for you. Pathetic the whole lot of you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gandolf

    "Yeah and from what ive seen so far im sure he must be so very very frightened"

    Your boy Loftus is afraid as far as I'm concerned. The fact since the bannings of his opposition in his website have occurred, he hardly deserves to be called a man. You wanna be a disciple to a leader that sets cowardice as an example? Go ahead, all the more fun to chew you around.

    " TheologyWeb ! ....Hell got the mafia of skydaddy believers on his tail :) "

    What mafia? The only mafia around here are the boneheaded goonsquad he keeps around whenever the slightest opposition to his agenda pops in.

    " Look out John they`ll have you burning at the stake :) "

    Mmhhh, smells like chicken, but of the rotten kind....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now children theres no need to start throwing stones getting all worked up and go upsetting yourselves so much :)

    Its quite funny and even a little entertaining ,but a lot like water off a ducks back! that is unless you hoped to only get yourselves upset and panicky like some hairy arsed school girls caught up in a menstruation cycle :)

    Truth be told firstly i dont see any real reason to personally dislike john .It might come as a bit of a surprise but i actually gave up needing (any) special Gurus many years ago.And what ever people might think of John etc in their personal opinion ,i personally still think he at least deserves some credit for what he does do.Just like i personally think religion is crap,but still think its good that many are involved in charity for instance.Even if i might personally think a lot of their charity is more centred around gaining more members,and pretty feeble if it relies on there needing to be some religious book for it to carry on.

    I couldnt personally care if folks believe atheism is actually a belief or not,i have no need to personally protect atheism like people do with faith beliefs.I dont really see myself ending up in some hell if i dont bother hmmm.

    Im not involved in posting on DC for many other reasons than it interests me as well,and i dont feel i need to always totally agree with or even be one of Johns fans to still share some things in common.

    L.o.L ....it seems you suggest i need evidence for supporting John like im still in some church room needing to always be in total agreement of the brethren within, or be accepting of shunning and total excommunication etc.

    Did it even cross your mind at all that maybe after (honestly) having left faith beliefs i no longer felt i needed to agree with everything with people to still feel i could allow myself to act humanly towards people.

    And you lot try suggesting John is the only one with the ego and is racked with problems of being bossy etc,wonder where this type of thinking might have evolved from.Religion?the same that you lot show many same signs of obviously once being involved with as well.

    "What mafia? The only mafia around here are the boneheaded goonsquad he keeps around whenever the slightest opposition to his agenda pops in."

    Now now theres no need to go getting all huffy about it,i only came to this blog because i heard some poor disgruntled folks here were feeling lonely and sad at feelings of being left out :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. " Now children theres no need to start throwing stones getting all worked up and go upsetting yourselves so much :) "

    Now now Gandolf, there is no need for you to be throwing meaningless comments under the delusion that you are the bigger man around here.

    " Its quite funny and even a little entertaining ,but a lot like water off a ducks back! that is unless you hoped to only get yourselves upset and panicky like some hairy arsed school girls caught up in a menstruation cycle :) "

    Really? Truth be told (no pun intended TbT, hehehe), I am certain the hairy arsed school girl is actually you.

    " Truth be told firstly i dont see any real reason to personally dislike john .It might come as a bit of a surprise but i actually gave up needing (any) special Gurus many years ago. "

    - Yes, cuz I! Guru Gandolf!!! is the only enlightened one who actually has them answers, and not those other Gurus out there! Oh yay is me and my freedom from other Gurus out there!!! Yay is me!!! -

    Ssshhh, dont tell anyone, but I think you giving up Gurus didnt help you intellect much either.

    " I personally still think he at least deserves some credit for what he does do. "

    Credit? The only credit he be legit for is how connaiving he can be in conning people into buying his books.


    " Just like i personally think religion is crap,but still think its good that many are involved in charity for instance. "

    Yeeeaah... cuz them "religious folks" are the only ones giving charity out there....

    " Even if i might personally think a lot of their charity is more centred around gaining more members,and pretty feeble if it relies on there needing to be some religious book for it to carry on. "

    And there ladies and gentlemen is Gandolf´s brilliant assesment of how charities work! Lets give a show of hands!!! WHAT BRILLIANCE!! WHAT ENGLIGHTENMENT!!! I COULD HAVE NEVER KNOWN!!!!

    " I couldnt personally care if folks believe atheism is actually a belief or not,i have no need to personally protect atheism like people do with faith beliefs.I dont really see myself ending up in some hell if i dont bother hmmm. "

    I do hope the next thing you wont defend is yourself pinhead. No sport if you dont put up a little smug resistence.

    " Im not involved in posting on DC for many other reasons than it interests me as well,and i dont feel i need to always totally agree with or even be one of Johns fans to still share some things in common. "

    Things in common... I see. Demonstrating calculated haughtiness in debates that dont concern you? Yep, definately a common thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " L.o.L ....it seems you suggest i need evidence for supporting John like im still in some church room needing to always be in total agreement of the brethren within, or be accepting of shunning and total excommunication etc. "

    So why do you even bother to post tripe like this; - Yeah and from what ive seen so far im sure he must be so very very frightened :) -

    This is your idea of demonstrating your neutrality?

    " Did it even cross your mind at all that maybe after (honestly) having left faith beliefs i no longer felt i needed to agree with everything with people to still feel i could allow myself to act humanly towards people. "

    Calm yourself kiddie, its not like we expected such a thing anyways.

    " And you lot try suggesting John is the only one with the ego and is racked with problems of being bossy etc,wonder where this type of thinking might have evolved from.Religion?"

    YES CUZ RELIJIIIOON IS EEEEEEBBBIIIILLL!!!!!!

    Seriously, how much more narrow minded can you get?

    " the same that you lot show many same signs of obviously once being involved with as well. "

    Yes, cuz being a caught in the act of outright lying, censoring and intimidating the opposition, yeah.... So many commmon things between DL and DC have in common.

    " Now now theres no need to go getting all huffy about it,i only came to this blog because i heard some poor disgruntled folks here were feeling lonely and sad at feelings of being left out :)"

    Appearently, the only sad one around here is you bothering to post around here. Have the irresistable urge in posting in debates or conflicts that you claim you are not concerned about? I suggest you don´t. You only end up looking like an asshole.

    Dont jump in crossfires fights that you claim dont concern you. The likelyhood of you coming out unscathed and shamed is not garuanteed. =P

    ReplyDelete
  7. But its at least funny reading your comments and watching you steaming and getting yourself all worked up so very very easily Andius :)

    You happen do such a excellent job of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Quote Andius.."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."

    Im looking for any evidence to try to see what these supposed personal relationships with Jesus that christians keep telling us about, actually really honestly do for people :)

    They try telling us its a very personal thing and its not so easy to provide evidence for.

    You seem to me to be doing great at proving what a load of rubbish it really seems to be,so far.Managing so extremely well to provide some evidence at least against it being worth much,you really honestly deserve to be commended for such intelligent expertise.

    Keep up the good work! ,no sense in leaving the Cristian group in Jeopardy is there :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. " But its at least funny reading your comments and watching you steaming and getting yourself all worked up so very very easily Andius :) "

    You know what be a greater hilarity? Confusing my answers with me unleashing steam. But I guess that is the inevitability that occurs when one's brain is damaged with rampant skepticism :P

    " Im looking for any evidence to try to see what these supposed personal relationships with Jesus that christians keep telling us about, actually really honestly do for people :) "

    In the name of fairdom though, what is that you even expect from these people who go claiming they have a "personal relationship with Jesus"?

    " They try telling us its a very personal thing and its not so easy to provide evidence for. "

    Oh no wonder.... you've been looking in the wrong places in the first place. >_< At what point did you think these people constitute the entire representation of Christendom?

    " You seem to me to be doing great at proving what a load of rubbish it really seems to be,so far.Managing so extremely well to provide some evidence at least against it being worth much,you really honestly deserve to be commended for such intelligent expertise. "

    The only thing succeeding right here is you thinking I constitue any part of those people going around saying "I have personal relationship with Jesus".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Andius you said "In the name of fairdom though, what is that you even expect from these people who go claiming they have a "personal relationship with Jesus"?"

    Maybe that i might find some evidence that might suggest its actually made any real honest difference.

    "Oh no wonder.... you've been looking in the wrong places in the first place. >_< At what point did you think these people constitute the entire representation of Christendom?"

    Have i said anywhere these people constitute the entire representation of christendom.Even if they dont can i still not consider it is still valid evidence of just what effects these faith beliefs might have on people.

    Personally i dont think im the only one comparing these type statistics, do you?.Many of us happen to think its valid and important evidence including plenty of faithful folk,are we allowed to?.

    Reading blogs like this where at least some folks involved are supposed to be christian yet dont seem to really walk the walk as well as talk the talk,is important in helping debunk what rubbish people of faith often speak.Dont you agree?

    Just as you might find it important to figure out the honesty of certain people,i find im also interested specially when folks start personally judging others and tossing pebbles as if those they throw them at are supposedly specially inhuman.

    I suggest some inclusiveness of our imperfections in posts above! something i had thought even the bible teaches,yet just the thought of it seems to make you a little irate.And i dont see J.P Holding the apologist commenting on the thought that supposedly maybe nobodies perfect, either.

    And id like to help point this out to people,im a helpful type see.

    Just because you prefer to debunk the Loftus,are we supposed to be kept silent about just how honest the likes of the great J.P.Holding and others might or might not be?.

    Is it ok that these things be considered?,or does your particular type beliefs of the good book tell you that only people that (you say) should become involved should be allowed to?.

    If everybody else sat back silently like little lambs saying nothing other than those directly involved, this would some how be considered by you to be that of "demonstrating neutrality" ?.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " Maybe that i might find some evidence that might suggest its actually made any real honest difference. "

    Thats good and all, what you said is pretty much the given. I be talking about, what is this evidence that you be looking for? Hard work? High charity? Staying away from titty clubs? Staying sober? You straight layed out that you got expectatives, but what they be precisely? And more importantly, are they legit expectatives?

    " Have i said anywhere these people constitute the entire representation of christendom.Even if they dont can i still not consider it is still valid evidence of just what effects these faith beliefs might have on people. "

    Fair enough on your silence on that matter. But asking for validity on what you deem "faith beliefs" (What the hell do you even mean by faith beliefs may I ask) is an illegit overgeneralization, clumping together the insane diversity of beliefs out there as if they could all belong into one category that you conveniently label "faith beliefs" (Which I suspect, you are referring to blind beliefs systems). Want to demonstrate the praxeology born out of the beliefs of a peoples? Treat each group and subgroups in individual manner (in other words, learn yourself some Sociology of Religion, starting with Max Weber as step #1 in methodology), and not use your gross categorical clumping, as if a determined set of doctrines will automatically yield a determined behavior. Human behavior don't work that way. So no, you cannot use the behaviour of a determined sample of peoples to draw a conclusion as evidence describing the harms of a system of belief.

    " Personally i dont think im the only one comparing these type statistics, do you?.Many of us happen to think its valid and important evidence including plenty of faithful folk,are we allowed to?. "

    You and what other people? On what basis can you and your others possibly validate the legitimacy of whatever statistics you have at hand?

    " Reading blogs like this where at least some folks involved are supposed to be christian yet dont seem to really walk the walk as well as talk the talk,is important in helping debunk what rubbish people of faith often speak.Dont you agree? "

    Oh please, quit toying around with your special pleading of "Christians that dont walk the walk and talk the talk" in this blog, and give examples of those claiming to be Christians that are not fulfilling this expectation of yours of what it is to "Act like a Christian". >=/

    I agree with you in part what you said, but do not think that rubbish can only come out of the mouths of "people of faith".

    ReplyDelete
  12. " Just as you might find it important to figure out the honesty of certain people,i find im also interested specially when folks start personally judging others and tossing pebbles as if those they throw them at are supposedly specially inhuman. "

    Ooooh!!! People passing judgement on others!!! MAYDAY!!! MAYDAY!!! SOMEONE CALL THE POLITICALY CORRECT GESTAPO!!!

    If you deem a judgement unwarranted, then I see no reason that can stop you from attempting to demonstrate what is at fault.

    " I suggest some inclusiveness of our imperfections in posts above! something i had thought even the bible teaches,yet just the thought of it seems to make you a little irate.And i dont see J.P Holding the apologist commenting on the thought that supposedly maybe nobodies perfect, either. "

    ¿¿¿0.o??? Bible writ teaching encouraging imperfections in communicating!!?? BAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Where on this Earth did you pickup such a thing in the first place? XD

    Bible generally covers the theme of recognizing our imperfections when we got them (Which pretty much covers every human out there as self-afflicted him/herself out there). If you sin, you have sinned, thats no pretext to continue maintaning a content imperfection in every aspect of your life, blogging included. ;)

    " And id like to help point this out to people,im a helpful type see. "

    Tha be good and all, when you see an imperfection, yah let me know, kay? ;)

    " Just because you prefer to debunk the Loftus,are we supposed to be kept silent about just how honest the likes of the great J.P.Holding and others might or might not be?. "

    I smell special pleading here. State your claim on what has JPH has failed at, not this "oooooooh, JPH may not be an honest man" bullcrap.

    " Is it ok that these things be considered?,or does your particular type beliefs of the good book tell you that only people that (you say) should become involved should be allowed to?. "

    I see no reason why they should not be considered. MY good book states that I put all things to the test, hold on to everything that is good, which naturally follows that I should cast out all that be bad (1 Thessalonians 5:21). It does not take a Bible to realize that anyone not skilled or informed in a matter should stay away from said matters that he/she is NOT adept at.

    " If everybody else sat back silently like little lambs saying nothing other than those directly involved, this would some how be considered by you to be that of "demonstrating neutrality" ?. "

    If those lambs really wanted to become involved in said matters, and demonstrate critical thinking, then it must first become learned in said matters if it wants to take sides, otherwise, they will get shredded by those more adept in the matter. Letting any moron have a say is pure folly, and why the democratization of expression is one of the stupidest ideas walking out there.

    It would be like one who tries to tell me that me and my teammates in football (soccer) that our plays are terrible, by which we demand what we be doing wrong, only to see with our own eyes that the idiot don't even know how to handle a ball properly. Not only will we mock him, we sock him straight in the face, leaving them with a black eye as a mark for such haughtiness.

    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.