As always, John makes the fundamental error that our like are concerned with ceasing his production of books and the modification of his arguments. It goes without saying he clearly has missed the point. Our concern is getting to the meat of the issues he discusses, his honest integrity, and how he deals with other individuals in the online world. I could give a rat's ass on how many books John has authored or intends to author. This only becomes relevant if he is trying to downplay others to make himself look good, like in the example of *cough* William Lane Craig.
John has a new upcoming book entitled The Christian Delusion which will be released sometime in April of 2010. We may of course take the trouble in pointing out that the title for the book is probably based off of Richard Dawkins' bestseller The God Delusion, but that contention is another matter entirely. What needs to be recognized is how strange it is that prior to The Christian Delusion having been released, John is already in the mood for another book. And...why?
I'm Editing Another Book
at 10/22/2009
There are a few unnamed Christian wannabe apologists out there who viciously attacked me when I first came online before starting this Blog. I was repeatedly told I was stupid, ignorant, and even brain-dead in so many ways it took me by surprise. I was lied about and verbally maligned with everything I said. The treatment I received from them was absolutely appalling. In fact, they still do that to me. But all I just wanted to do originally was to reasonably discuss the issues that separate us. I did not set out to debunk Christianity. I merely wanted to find a place to discuss the issues in a respectful atmosphere.Oh...that's right. John is upset. Again. *Yawn.*
For reference purposes, I will continually point readers in the direction of the chapter I wrote for The Cowboy Who Wasn't There just so people know the truth about John's B.S.
Had they done this I'm almost certain I would not have started this Blog and I would not have become so passionate about debunking the very faith they use to justify their treatment of me. If you want to motivate me call me stupid. I told them that doing so was like pouring gas on the fires of my passion but they laughed some more. Even now they still laugh. I dare say that they would've lit the fires that burned me at the stake in a previous generation. So I got to thinking about the people who died so that I have the freedom to speak out, and I dedicated my life to making sure I did not trample on their blood by not doing so. I also realized that since I had the means to effectively argue against the Christian faith I could not simply walk away from what I've learned without also sharing it with others who can benefit from it. So there is no turning back.
Although I'm not particularly impressed by these statements, I think I might be becoming a little worried over them. John's bursts of anger are almost comparable to the anger held by Eric Harris and Dylan Kebloid of Columbine High and the Asian man that had killed 32 students at Virginia Tech back in 2007. I'm serious. Who else but a psychologically deranged man would use figurative language in the context of gasoline building upon a flaming heap of rage?
It would be ludicrous to imply that John wants to go out and kill random and innocent people. But what exactly does he want to accomplish, and how does he plan on going about it to accomplish what he wants? Seung Hui Cho, the 23 year old who was responsible for the Virginia Tech murders, wrote a paper for an English class which described a fictional teenager attempting to shove a banana bar through the throat of his sexually abusive stepfather.
Clearly these murderers were about as whacked out as you can possibly get. Survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre have revealed that Hui Cho was not bullied or intimidated in the slightest. Yet he killed. He did what he had threatened to do. Would you be convinced of the sincerity in this man's face when he videotaped himself making these threats (?):
Notice how similar the language is: "I didn't have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no. I will no longer run." (1:27-1:35). Would you take this person seriously? But he was very serious, mind you. He meant every word. He was so self-absorbed he saw himself as a victim. He made himself a victim. And in the end, he made others victims. Everyone else was the enemy. There were aggressive factors involved which didn't exist. Could the same, to a lesser extent, be true in John's case?
I'm not done yet. I'm editing another book.
Given that you're motive is so incredibly simplistic, I don't expect that the topic content will vary that much or differentiate itself from your previous works. We can only imagine what the next book could possibly be about.
Arguing With Online Apologists: Responses to the Criticisms of the Outsider's Test for Faith and Debunking Christianity
While I am just now in the beginning stages and even though some things might change, several authors have agreed to write chapters for it, for which I am honored and excited, including: Richard Carrier, David Eller, Taner Edis, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Matt McCormick, Valerie Tarico, Jim Linville, and still others. It'll be good, I promise.
I'm happy that they have so much important things to do like help you mass produce books, John! I think we could probably name about most of these guys as authors to your previous upcoming book, yes?
But in the midst of this all, does John not go against his principle of ignoring "sewer rats" and "trolls"? Does he not end up giving us more popularity and recognition when he does not set out to do this? Wouldn't this be in the same exact sense as John thanking us for creating a blog that uses his name?
It's a shame that there isn't a psychiatric test which measures hypocrisy.
Posts
When John claims that he had no intention of debunking Christianity at the first place and he only did that as a reaction, in essence, he wants to impart two things in the minds of his readers.
ReplyDeleteFirst, he wants to reaffirm, by pleading, his victimhood status in the minds of his naive cultic followers. Secondly, deceptively, he wants to win the same support of his cultic followers in his primary business of gaining and maintaining his inflated sense of self importance.
To me, pleading and deception, in order to maintain the ego, are signs of narcissist pysocopathy. Some will ask me why I use such a strong rhetoric to someone like John. Actually the wise says, the only thing it takes for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing. In this case, it acn be said the only thing it takes for narcissist pyscopaths to win is for sane people to stay as cowards and do nothing.
What it took Muhammad to persist 1400 years ago and islam is wreaking havoc now, what it took Hitler to win in 1930s which paved the way for the holocaust, is the same thing it will take for the sorts of John to win.
Now John usually says that people cannot deal with his arguments and attacks him personally. But my observation is that John's primary aim is not an intellectual debate with Christianity. John is not even a biblical scholar. He solely depends on what other professional biblical scholars like Ehrman says. You wonder he potrays himself as a potent fighter of Christianity than the scholars themselves. Now this sorts usually had a low self esteem when they were growing and only try hard to regain it in their elderly stages, but when they do that dishonestly, the only way forward to deal with them is to strike hard, fast and often.
Flames of *passion* is what he said.
ReplyDeleteNot rage. Lighten up there, buddy!
One of these days, he and Holding just might have a friendly, public debate and go get a beer somewhere. Stranger things have happened. Larry Flynt & Jerry Falwell becoming friends, etc.
That would just be the worst thing in the world, for you, eh? ;-)
Flames of *passion* is what he said.
ReplyDeleteNot rage. Lighten up there, buddy!
Blah, blah, blah. Are you somehow excusing that John's intent on writing books because someone calls him names is a sane thing to do?
That's absolutely pathetic. You write books to demonstrate a point that hasn't been elaborated on before. All Loftus has is "faith is bad" arguments. It doesn't work that way. You first have to admit that you make mistakes before you can reveal the flaws of other people's beliefs.
That would just be the worst thing in the world, for you, eh? ;-)
Sure...it isn't going to happen, EVER. John isn't that type of guy, if he was he wouldn't be writing a third book based on the same old dead-horse thesis he's already covered.
Whatever way you choose to slice and dice it, John is hot-headed, and that's the basic substance of his arguments. Have you even read Harry McCall's entire testimony, it's right here on this blog, you know.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong, what is wrong is not admitting that you are. Don't be conned by mere words. Words mean nothing if they aren't supported by actions.
Both of these guys can get cantankerous, but both also put in the hours and can point to favorable reviews by people familiar with the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteOf course I don't agree with the personal nature of some of these discussions, but they also get crapped on quite a bit.
I just try to ignore that stuff and focus on the arguments.
"I just try to ignore that stuff and focus on the arguments."
ReplyDeleteYou cannot distinguish a person and the arguments he makes. As you cannot trust a pedophile to take care of your youngest daughter, as you cannot trust a dishonest man as John to tell you anything about God or Christianity. Credibility is a very important over arguments when it comes to faith matters.
The mistake that too many non believers make is that after they are blinded not to see Christianity as Truth, they become totally blind to fall in every dirt pits out there. Don't make that basic mistake to fall in the lies of John!
Edson, if his arguments are truly faulty they can be shown to fail. I once knew a paranoid schizophrenic. His mental condition was actually irrelevant to the arguments he was making. They were simply false.
ReplyDeleteI've heard suggested that peer-reviewed papers should leave off the authors' names, because only then would the process be totally unbiased.
Wouldn't it just be the funniest thing, if Christians and atheists were to pseudonymously publish arguments in favor of the other side that were only subtly flawed, see how many of the other guys fall for them, and a few weeks later tell the world Gotcha!
You just have to listen to everybody and assume they mean well (which shouldn't influence what you think of the argument, but people do open up more, if there's nothing negative to respond in kind about.)
John is now arguing that most believers can not be argued out of Christianity, because they weren't argued into it.
ReplyDeleteIronically, John was not argued out of Christianity either; he got caught with his pants down, grew bitter and plainly deconverted for emotional reasons.
In his book, he clearly states that two of his three reasons for deconverting were emotional.
Looking at what I wrote again, I want to make sure that I'm not seen as implying there's any similarity between John and the schizophrenic I mentioned! :)
ReplyDelete