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

Friday, April 23, 2010

The Loftus Delusion

Believe it or not ladies and gentlemen, but a new book titled "The Loftus Delusion" was not written by any of us here at DL. Sure enough as always however, John was tempted to comment on how "respectfully" well written it was:

I’m honored that some college professors use my book Why I Became an Atheist (WIBA) in their college classes, like Dan Lambert, at John Brown University, and Richard Knopp, at Lincoln Christian University, as I mentioned earlier. I’m also honored that David Reuben Stone has decided to write a book against WIBA, called The Loftus Delusion. While I do not like the title of the book, which is misleading for a few reasons, including the fact that Stone does not deal at all with my most recent book, The Christian Delusion (TCD), Stone's book is a respectfully written one.

Would John like to tell his audience what is misleading about the book's title? I mean John, aren't you delusional?

To reiterate, isn't someone who denies evidence contrary to their claims in delusion? Like this, for example?

http://theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1973384#post1973384

Now I do actually agree that the book is a little misleading. Take a look at it briefly and you'll see that the book, at least from the subtitle on the cover, addresses issues pertaining to Messianic Zionism vs. the New Atheists. That is perhaps misleading. But it is not misleading to rebut John on his assertion of possessing whatever special knowledge and insight is required into debunking the Christian faith.

Because John is far from qualified from debunking or arguing anything worth serious consideration. Instead, John offers arguments about a hypothetical world in which every living being was a vegetarian and we were all created to be pacificistic flower-frollicking hippies which is somehow to be automatically assumed as a perfect universe that only a perfect sovereign creator would spawn into existence.

Yep, that's about it as far as John's intellectual depth goes.

The question we ought to be asking here is not if the book actually backs up the meaning of its title. What we ought to ask is whether or not Loftus is delusional and if this can be verified outside of any published materials. And we certaintly think it has and can be verified and always will be verifiable.

Stone considers his book “the definitive critique of the anti-Biblical atheism of John W. Loftus” (seen on the back cover of his self-published book). [And to think, people don’t like my self-promotion ;-) ] Is he right? Not even close. He asks me for a response to his critique in the interests of a “charitable dialogue” that “could benefit us both in our search for truth" (p. 162). Okay. Here goes, very briefly.

And look, it didn't take long for us to spot something. John clearly seems to think people like myself have a problem with John because he promotes his own works. WRONG. The more accurate response is that we anti-Loftuscites don't approve of dirty political tactics in order to promote one's book. We don't appreciate an obsessiveness with oneself and trying to make themselves sound like an objective third-party source. And so on.

So John, its time you learned how to grasp that concept and actually come up with something real and supportive. Instead of trying to oversimplify the issue, you could say "People don't approve of my methods" and you might actually have a leg to stand on.

But then again...

Stone begins his book with a “newly discovered mathematical proof” of a critical component of the intelligent design (ID) thesis in chapter one (which can be seen on Amazon). Don’t get me wrong here. I can do the math. It’s just that it takes time to work through it; time that I must think is worthwhile if I’m going to want to do so. It’s just that I have lots of reasons for thinking it’s not worth it, so I didn’t. This chapter is the kingpin of his whole book. It’s Stone’s natural theology. If he’s right about it then he seems to indicate the rest of his case follows. If he’s wrong then his whole case fails. It’s that simple.

John is in the right here but can he apply this argument introspectively? John's book Why I Became an Atheist would rely entirely on John's personal testimony of his experiences managing churches and related groups. So, if John at first states that his reasons for leaving the faith are unconventional and did not rely on reason, John cannot state the exact opposite ahead of time:

"...Some former believers rejected their faith based upon the evidence itself. My initial arguments for rejecting the Christian faith are not the same ones that others have had..."

Later on...

"Nearly two years later, I came to deny the Christian faith. It required too much intellectual gerrymandering to believe.."

So, does John's case rely on his personal experiences or on his ability to interpret evidence? If John can't make up his mind, does he even have a case?

He criticizes my “Outsider Test for Faith” (OTF) and proposes an alternative called “Stone’s Test Of Neutral Evidence” (STONE). He criticizes the OTF for arguing for on behalf of skeptical agnosticism rather than for neutral agnosticism. He thinks we should be neutral agnostics rather than skeptical agnostics. Rather than starting our examination of the evidence “from above” with the assumption of God, or in starting “from below,” with the world, STONE argues we should start “from the middle,” even though he grants with me that “utterly pure and complete neutrality may be impossible to attain with respect to all belief systems.” (p. 73) Now this is all high sounding rhetoric, but rhetoric it is. It’s the democratization of extraordinary miracle claims that Bob Price criticizes so effectively in TCD. Stone, just like Boyd and Eddy in The Jesus Legend, wants us to take seriously all claims no matter how bizarre or outlandish so they can smuggle in their own extraordinary Christian claims. This so-called middle position of theirs is a strange land to stand on. They never started on this piece of ground in the first place. No, they were born into a Christian culture and accepted what they were taught to believe in this culture. There is no middle position. Human beings are not Spockian type creatures. We are given our religious worldviews. They are inherited; caught, not taught. The question the OTF asks us is how can we properly test the ones we were given. Given the fact that we are born into them, and given the fact that the odds are that ours is wrong from the geographical distribution of religious faiths, we should test our handed down faith with skepticism.

This is what John would call a "case study in cognitive dissonance reduction" because he seems to be incapable of answering the mounting criticisms there are against the OTF and why its limitations are perhaps its greatest weakness. If high-profile institutions such as the CIA relied on John's material for guidance instead of intelligence research, we might all be dead by now:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/american.qaeda.message/index.html

Saying that religions are merely by-products of enculteration is narrow-minded and ignorant. Sociologically speaking, we can view religions as various different items within a collective marketplace. Individual "consumers" pick and choose what religion or religious ritual best fits into their own lifestyle. Predominantly religious countries such as India are starting to make economic progressions and are realizing their place in the world despite having been affected by the detrimental caste system for many thousands of years. If John were correct in his thesis, then we would suspect that nations which are predominantly religious have little to no hope of ever improving their status on a worldwide scale. And yet they do, and will continue to do so. The notion that even theocracies are permanently static in their progress is a cariacture itself. The Islamic world can be credited with many advances in practical fields such as algebra, and yet the Islamic world has been dominated by a strict adherence to ritual and and a constant reverence for Allah since its inception. In fact, Islam is the only religion, according to comparative religion scholars, that delibrately fuses politics and theology with each other.

Oh and, in deductive logic, theism and atheism are both positions rooted in what is known as the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

The most amazing thing about Stone’s book though, is that after he argues against my skeptical control beliefs he dismisses the second part of my book in ten pages (139-149). He says so. “Loftus’ unjustified Biblical perspectives may be dismissed due to their logical grounding in those unjustified controls beliefs.” (p. 139). The second part of WIBA criticizes the Bible and its foundational miracle claims and doctrines. For instance, since he thinks he’s undermined my skeptical control beliefs then without so much as trying to answer my arguments with regard to the atonement he basically says that since my control beliefs have been shown wrong I am unjustified in rejecting the doctrine of the atonement.

Ahhhhhh.....now I get it. Materials exist which finally do get at addressing what you bring up in your book, but they're obviously not good enough because they never got to "part 2"!

John, John, John, you are no logician. You use equivocation, appeals to ignorance, red herrings, straw men, and amphibolies to make your points about 98% of the time you make an "argument." If you were to specify what you meant by certain terms in the context that they get used, or if you were to elaborate on what it is you are actually trying to say, people would take you less seriously than they already do now. And of course, you and I both know this. Which is why you rely on logical fallacies rather than on true sound reasoning.

Wait just a minute, Stone. I was once an insider. The second half of the book describes why I could not remain a Christian GIVEN a believing set of control beliefs. It’s the considerations of the second half of WIBA that caused me to reject the Christian faith and led me to my skeptical control beliefs in the first place. So until or unless you actually deal with the arguments in the second half of my book, you have done nothing to support your natural theology project. And until you actually flesh out for us what it means to treat all religious truth claims “neutrally,” as you claim to do, then you must examine in detail the arguments in the second half of my book. You cannot merely say that with your neutral stance you would accept these biblical doctrines and claims. That’s NOT being neutral, you see, or very critical as a thinker. You need to show us from a neutral starting point why you would accept the claims of an incarnation, the atonement, or the resurrection, and you did no such thing.

Again, its time to place the microscope back on yourself, Lofty. No one else can or should have to do that for you. When it comes to actually coming up with something tentative, your primary tactic is to beat around the bush.

So John, from what I can tell, you do not acknowledge the evidence that is out there contrary to your assertions. You make no real attempts to address the criticisms of what you believe to be your most well constructed and hard-hitting arguments. When you've been backed into a corner, rather than man up to your flaws, shortcomings, and wrongdoings, you will divert the attention onto someone else, something else, or change the subject entirely. You are an individual that prefers to plug his ears when he is removed from any hint of the shadow that is their comfort zone. You are, quite evidentially, delusional.

15 comments:

  1. I'm not thrilled with how Loftus conducts himself and no doubt you have some valid points there. However, it seems to me that one can loose their faith for subjective emotional reasons, and simply be unable to rekindle it with intellectual reasons. It's not like it's all cut and dry. Plenty of atheists still want to believe in religion, but are simply unable to do so. So, I don't see how Loftus' two accounts of how he deconverted are contradictory.

    Maybe you can help me out here. I don't understand the reference to the CIA and the CNN article in regards to the OTF. Could you explain or link me to a blog post that explains the case?

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Maybe you can help me out here. I don't understand the reference to the CIA and the CNN article in regards to the OTF. Could you explain or link me to a blog post that explains the case?"

    This may be more or less to the point, but it is supposed to illustrate how Loftus' OTF constructs a false dilemma where only two options are given when there are many more plausible explanations to be accounted for.

    The essence of the OTF that Loftus has failed to address is that it states religions are false because people brought up in cultures where x religion is prominent and perhaps even dominating tend to believe x religion against all of the others. Loftus' OTF does not address certain cases where an American Jew will leave his homeland to join a radical Muslim organization. Clearly you have an individual who is well aware of the American lifestyle, has lived it, knows at least somewhat about Judaism, and instead goes off into a different culture to join a particular faction of a religion many have alledgedly accused of propogating anti-Semitic hate.

    What am I getting at? This individual separated from his own cultural upbringing to become a member of a completely different and almost contradictory lifestyle. Loftus' OTF makes no attempt whatsoever for why this would be the case. In not doing so, it certaintly doesn't have the muster for evaluating the truth or falsehood of any particular religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've read Loftus' book and he addresses that objection, so your denial of that is a bit confusing. You seem to be conflating the OTF with the observation that most people don't make such contradictory transitions on the belief-scape and so tend to be a little lazy and uncritical in their persuasive speaking (and thinking) habits. The exceptions you can point out don't change that any. And regardless, the OTF even applies to the one's who do make such a journey, since potentially they should be making that journey because they have been convinced by the arguments for an entirely different worldview. Granted, we'd have to go through that case by case, but ultimately what the OTF is getting at is to make sure that we are actually stepping outside of the domain of our conclusions and arguing from "square one" as though we don't at first know they are correct. That's a good standard to hold yourself to in terms of justifying what you believe and it works really well in terms of being able to persuade others. To argue against the OTF is to argue for assuming your conclusion in a contentious context. I don't see how you can ever hope to justify that.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  4. Loftus's deconversion had nothign to do with arguments for or against Christianity. He was content being a preacher until the church rejected him after his incident and accusation as he records in his first book. He asl records that arguemnts against Christianity took on a place with him after he decided to leave it.

    The pretence to pick up flawed atheistic arguments already turned down over 100 years ago was only hatred lashing out targeting a wounded audience who could relate to God and church hatred.

    That's all it's about, nothing complicated or complex. I've been commenting there for 3 years almost and have yet to see ONE argument that comes close to anything compelling one to revert from Christianity. I see lots of bible study material and a lot of secular reasononing, some good and some bad, but nothing that invalidates Christianity.

    So in short, there is a delusion, one in which John deludes himself into creating what he considers to be a mountain of evidence or personal reasons why he should not submit himself to God any longer, but as the scripture says..."if I make my bed in hell..."(Ps. 139:8) He can go noplace to escape God and unlike many, I believe John truely once did know HIM.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DSHB,

    I guess it's nice to see that not every Christian jumps on the chance to retroactively invalidate Loftus' Christian experience. However, your judgment about his deconversion process seems to be more about your own convictions about atheist arguments than judging things from Loftus' perspective. I personally think very little of the arguments for Christianity, but I recognize they are persuasive to other people. Your perspective seems like a great way to demonize whomever you disagree with. I'm sure you don't appreciate it when atheists do the same in reverse: "Oh, you must just be a Christian because it makes you feel good about yourself." An atheist who says that presumes that all the arguments for Christianity couldn't possibly seem persuasive at all to others. It doesn't grant Christians the dignity of error.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  6. WOE,

    You said:"However, your judgment about his deconversion process seems to be more about your own convictions about atheist arguments than judging things from Loftus' perspective."

    No, I think not. maybe you didn't read the sad pages of his life he supposedly recorded in his book on pages 24-28. It's clear in fact he says this:

    Some former believers have rejected the faith based upon the evidence itself.My initial arguments for rejecting the Christian faith are not the same one that others have had. Former Christians leave the faith for a wide variety of reasons since there are so many problems with the Christian faith...For me there were three major circumstances in my life that changed my thinking [John Loftus, "Why I became an atheist" pg. 24]

    That has NOTHING to do with evidence...3 major CIRCUMSTANCES! There is no argument against CHristianity that this man embraced that was responsible for his change of mind. To believe so is the ultimate delusion!

    He was upset because his circle bought into the accusation of rape that his mistress or "fling" brought against him. That has nothing to do with arguments for or against Christianity.

    You said:"I personally think very little of the arguments for Christianity, but I recognize they are persuasive to other people."

    I have no credence for arguments against Christianity. There is not ONE which causes me any distress and I've read many of the apostate and anti-Christ advocate authors multiple debates in which atheist invariably loose by by landslides including the 2 terrible defeats that John suffered at the hand of his last 2 Christian opponents. Dinesh destroyed him and the other gentleman crushed him...

    There's a big difference between internet atheism and how atheist propaganda sounds even when it comes out of the mouth of atheists. Something about the sound of even repeating the arguments themselves that sound like loosing arguments. We know most of them are already philosophically and logically unsound, but then when they're repeated they're almost embarrassing.

    I would have buried myself in an unmarked grave before releasing the crap that R. Dawkins released in his delusion...his arguments were a philosophical embarrassment and proved that he didn't know jack about what he was talking about. But yet he's hailed as the atheist champion....PLEASE!!!

    You said:"Your perspective seems like a great way to demonize whomever you disagree with. I'm sure you don't appreciate it when atheists do the same in reverse:

    Spare me my friend...this is what atheists do ALL DAY LONG...In fact John's line when he gets too much disagreement is to ban folk from his comments section. He and his most esteemed cheerleaders are only die-hards that can't even identify when they've lost and argument.

    I asked one of them to prove logic, his response was for me to disprove it???? What the heck??? Stupid is, stupid does!

    Aside from all that arguments don't have to be overwhelmingly convincing to have validity. Christian arguments have the most plausibility when weighed against the alternatives, in many cases they account for the most data and meet principles of parsimony when it's necessary to meet such.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW,

    Now one of those circumstances that John "supposedly" underwent, was when "Larry" gave his some anti-Christ literature that took him 2 years to go through and ultimately reject his faith...during the course of time he felt that his wife should just get better and get past his indiscretion and unfaithfulness and that the church should just say OK, you're fine...

    When this character had to man up and put to much time and energy into rebuilding what he had destroyed, he blamed it all on God saying that God should have kept her (his illicit lover) away from him from the beginning:

    The biggest question of all was why God tested me by allowing her to come into my life when she did if he knew in advance I would fail the test?"[John Loftus, 'Why I became an atheist'pg. 26]

    Now how childish does that sound? We have a man with lust and privilege in HIS heart questioning and accusing God for allowing him to choose what pill he wants to take in life??? What kind of spiritual immaturity is that from a supposed Christian leader at the time???

    I mean he blames everyone...his ex-wife, God, the accuser and the church then claims that he couldn't believe the arguments of Christianity...this is a COP OUT! a DELUSION that he has successfully perpetrated on his eager and willing followers that will eat his trash for breakfast lunch and dinner...

    I have no sympathy or respect for his arguments because all he does is boil things down to a Mormon's approach..."read my book, then come back and tell me what you think" What are we supposed to experience? A burning in the bosom???

    Farce! Utmost and utter farce and JP and those at this site see straight through it just like I do...

    KUDOS!

    ReplyDelete
  8. DSHB,

    I agree Loftus did horribly in the D'Souza debate. I was there and was quite disappointed. I imagine something similar can be said of the David Wood debate, though I have not bothered to watch it in its entirety.

    I also agree that Dawkins' "The God Delusion" kinda sucks. I couldn't get through the first two chapters without deciding I'd rather not suffer through more bad reasoning. He's not much of a philosopher.

    "That has NOTHING to do with evidence...3 major CIRCUMSTANCES! There is no argument against CHristianity that this man embraced that was responsible for his change of mind. To believe so is the ultimate delusion!"

    That's called cherry-picking, dude. Perhaps you can tell us what the exact nature of the second circumstance was. Because, since I am able to read, and have a copy of WIBA in front of me, it seems you've very conveniently excluded part of Loftus' deconversion that doesn't fit your narrative.

    Loftus does blame himself too in the sentences you fail to quote in regards to betraying his god, so he doesn't seem quite as childish as you would like to portray. I see your point about Loftus complaining about failing God's test, but on the other hand, you really do seem to just be reading whatever you want to into his account.

    I agree with many of the criticisms here of Loftus' questionable behavior. But I don't see the merit of misrepresenting him or you guys.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  9. WOE,

    Loftus makes it clear in the statements I quoted what his reasons were for his deconversion. As HE states it had nothing to do with arguments against Christianity. The rest was icing on the cake that compelled him to do what he does...he was justified in his own mind. That's NOT cherry-picking, that viewing it as it is...he says of pt. 2 of his crisis that "Larry's" information as I already have responded to in my previous post, took effect "2 years" later according to him Pg. 27.

    On that same pg. 27...since you have the sad account...he describes how the church rejected him and he didn't feel comfortable attending the church and that Jerry Paul didn't call him.

    He further caps off his sad tirade on pg. 30 and 31...since you have the book, trying to explain why the circumstances surrounding his deconversion should be accepted because he admits on pg. 30 that it didn't happen "strictly" because of epistemic reasons...

    As I stated, the arguments against Christianity had nothing to do with this guys deconversion. If he hadn't heard of the arguments that he claimed were so impacting from Larry before he began pastoring, he WASN'T fit to lead anyway. how can you be a bible teacher, gone through school, as he accounts and not know how to handle and reconcile an arguments such as the age of the universe...i know why? It was because he wasn't a biblical scholar and knew NOTHING of the Old Testament according to posts that he's written at DC.

    This guy was a corporate church leader and totally powerless and inept. That kindergarten age of the universe argument doesn't intimidate anyone with an ounce of biblical knowledge. At least not me for sure!

    At the most they were only a minor part of the whole circumstance.

    Now you say this:"Loftus does blame himself too in the sentences you fail to quote in regards to betraying his god, so he doesn't seem quite as childish as you would like to portray"

    Where is that blame? Point it out where he blames himself.

    This nut, questions himself and his action Pg. 26 then IMMEDIATELY follows up with blaming God. He follows with his sin, mitigating factors and the Christian's who wouldn't forgive him etc...

    There is no acceptance of blame in his statements. Only rationalizations of his current actions and position.

    As I stated name the place where he says that it was John Loftus and his sad decisions that brought pain into his life...HE never says that now does he?

    ReplyDelete
  10. DSHB,

    Whoops, I totally let this thread get away from me. I do apologize. Anyway, if it's not too much trouble, I think I can point out where you may be going astray in your interpretation of Loftus. You said:

    "That kindergarten age of the universe argument doesn't intimidate anyone with an ounce of biblical knowledge. At least not me for sure!"

    It seems you are confusing your subjective reaction to the evidence to the age of the universe with someone else's. You can't just trivialize the impact because you happened to have a different response. If I'm going to take for granted that it has little to no impact on you, then why shouldn't I take Loftus' testimony equally seriously if he claims it had a more significant impact on him? We're not mind readers and plenty of people lose their fundamentalist faith in Christianity over the age of the earth.

    "As HE states it had nothing to do with arguments against Christianity."

    Dude, that's just not what he says at all. He says the exact opposite. Maybe he's flagrantly lying, but that's just not what he *says.* He says there were three reasons and one of those reasons is (page 24), "Larry brought new information into my life."

    However, not to be dissuaded with facts, you say:

    "I already have responded to in my previous post, took effect "2 years" later according to him Pg. 27."

    Now we have EVEN MORE cherry-picking on your part to fit your desired narrative. Do I have to quote it all? (page 26-27) "While [Larry] didn't convince me of much at the time, he did convince me of one solid truth: the universe is as old as scientists say it is [...] This was the first time I really considered the theological implications of the age of the universe. Two corollaries of that idea started me down the road to being the atheist I am today." He then elaborates on those and THEN says it took those two years you mentioned to take full effect. In other words, it wasn't abrupt and arbitrary as you portray it, completely unrelated to the Larry incident. It was a gradual progression of unraveling his faith until it "all just came crashing down."

    "he admits on pg. 30 that it didn't happen "strictly" because of epistemic reasons..."

    Dude. People are emotional/intellectual agents. You can't fully separate one from the other. You are blaming him for being *human.* Aren't you human, too? Don't you know what it is like?

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. ...

    Where is that blame? Point it out where he blames himself.

    Well, okay. Easy enough: (page 26) "I was supposed to be smarter and better than that, or so I thought. How could I have done this? How could I have an affair with her and sin like that against my God and against my family? How could I allow my reputation to be sullied by claims that I and raped her?" We call that blaming ourselves in these parts. Don't know what you Christians think. So as you can see, I've quoted right up until the point where Loftus ALSO blames God. Apparently there's a little rule in your book, that says if you blame God, by definition you can't possibly be blaming yourself, too.

    Loftus isn't of that school of thought. And he continues that theme even in his most recent book, "The Christian Delusion." (page 198) "Christians just want to blame human beings, not God, no matter what the problem is. [...] both sides involved are probably at fault to some degree."

    Oh, but you still have MORE excuses to suit your pejorative narrative don't you? Not good ones though. Let's look at your hairsplitting:

    "This nut, questions himself and his action Pg. 26 then IMMEDIATELY follows up with blaming God." [bold emphasis mine]

    But I'm not going to let you get away with that. Because if we go with your theory here:

    "There is no acceptance of blame in his statements."

    We have to note that Loftus must only be QUESTIONING, *not* blaming God in the "IMMEDIATELY follows up with" part. Because, and I quote, "The biggest question of all was why God..." [emphasis mine]

    Ta da! You're wrong.

    But you STILL protest. How many convenient misrepresentations later? Just one more:

    "As I stated name the place where he says that it was John Loftus and his sad decisions that brought pain into his life...HE never says that now does he?"

    Well, I quoted that part above. Page 26. You just explained it away. You arbitrarily labeled that "questioning" and the blaming God part "not questioning" to fit your anti-atheist prejudices. The evidence is right there in front of you. You've just trained yourself not to see it.

    You have no case. Why can't you just let John Loftus be the fallible human being that he is? It doesn't mean you can't disagree with his worldview.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  12. WOE and I do mean WOE,

    Your apologetic for your atheist friend is only a puff of smoke in a very big sky...

    As I state and restate, Loftus NEVER admits or takes guilt or blame for his situation. The quote, JUST AFTER the ones you emphasize, tells his reconciliation of the whole event...It was GOD's fault not his. Read it again:

    "The biggest question of all was why God tested me by allowing her to come into my life when she did if he knew in advance I would fail the test?"[John Loftus, 'Why I became an atheist'pg. 26]

    The fault is with God, his tryst and ultimately not Loftus. If he takes any blame it's only coincidental blame like being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Don't try that "school boy" word association game with me...it won't and doesn't fly.

    Then after RESTATING what I said about the evidence NOT being a great factor in his deconversion (which you affirm) you ask:

    Dude. People are emotional/intellectual agents. You can't fully separate one from the other. You are blaming him for being *human.* Aren't you human, too? Don't you know what it is like?

    To which I respond, what does that have to do with it? That has no bearing on the subject at hand. The subject was that whatever anti-God evidence that Loftus received had nothing to do with his deconversion...it was an afterthought and after effect. A pillar for him to hang his hat on once he had decided to not follow God.

    You must believe everyone is an idiot...For a minister of over 14 years to not have been exposed to anti-creation and anti-biblical arguments of that magnitude(which the age of the earth is only problematic to some strict fundamentalists) is ridiculous. This man has sat under professors and philosophers who GIVE and TEACH the age of the Universe arguments along with complete apologetic information...and you mean that issue was a great force in his conversion???

    SUCKER!

    If you believe that garbage that's what you are!

    I claim that it would have been impossible for him to have the pedigree that he claims if he wasn't already familiar with Larry's 411...If he wasn't familiar with such, he wasn't qualified and truly was not what he now claims. There is no question about this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WOE,

    You say:"You have no case."

    Well there is a case, then there is an understanding, obviously you have no understanding.

    You asked:"Why can't you just let John Loftus be the fallible human being that he is? It doesn't mean you can't disagree with his worldview."

    Loftus is no different than any other God hater...Letting him be is not my problem, it's your need to reinterpret his deconversion and make him appear to be less self centered than he was that is the problem.

    It was John's world and he was angry that it was invaded by trouble and others as if he should have been in a special class...

    You see we have a model for true and real repentance. David did so:

    Ps. 1:1-4~"1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2-Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3-For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin [is] ever before me. 4-Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest."

    In 4 verses David takes BLAME for HIS sin 6 times without ever once saying, "What did god allow me to see Bathsheba taking a bath out in the open?" "Why did god give me eyes and 20/20 vision so I could see Bathsheba from my rooftop?"..."Why didn't God give me a fear of heights if he knew that i would look over and see Bathsheba from my rooftop and ultimately want to have sex with her?"..."Why did God give Bathsheba such a faithful husband if he knew that I was going to have him killed?"...

    Silly and ridiculous!

    And that's the apologetic of John Loftus for HIS indiscretion and ultimately his sin and chosen path. A person taking blame for their actions looks like that, without excuse...your rationalization only displays the real and significant difference in our worldviews and standards of moral openness...

    Later WOE!

    ReplyDelete
  14. DSHB,

    "It was GOD's fault not his."

    You just have a difference of perspective on how blame works. And you have zero empathy for the guy because he is out to get Christianity. You have to look at his story through his eyes, not yours or you are going to get all these distortions of yours. And it doesn't seem you are willing to do that. I will leave you be then.

    I think my previous comment already set the record straight insofar as Loftus' testimony is concerned.

    take care,
    Ben

    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.