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

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Motives of Disingenuousness

I'm not a fan of going on a full out crusade against an individual (unless of course, you were Osama bin Laden, prior to getting shot in the noggin ;)), and it's certainly no one's business to point out whenever someone gets caught lying or trying to commit other such "sins" on a 24 hour basis. Some people (like Arnold Schwarzenegger and yes, even Mel Gibson) need to be accepted for being human and thus imperfect.

Almost consistently we have attempted to outline a framework detailing the motives of John Loftus. I'm not a fan of Freudian psychoanalysis either, and despite the claims and suggestions of some who have posted here in the past, I'm not obssessed with John Loftus as a subject of study. No, my intent is on unveiling the true substantiated contents (if they could be called such) which are an extension of John Loftus' bodies of "work", so to speak.

That means if John Loftus is going to lie to make a point about an organization that lies to get their way, I would like to clear things up for people that aren't going to notice it at first. This is not based on an opinionated bias as John has admitted in the past (and sorry, you'll need to search through our archives if you're not familiar with the information I'm alluding too) that lies and deceptional tactics are irrelevant to what the goal or objective is. In that sense, John is very much of a utilitarian mindset.

As regulars have probably noticed whenever I log on here I catch a glimpse of news over at Debunking Christianity, just to see if I could venture even slightly into new material for this blog. Sure enough, I found another post in which there are glaringly loose ends that need some serious fastening:

I am against sexism, most emphatically, without any doubt at all. In fact, one of the main reasons I do what I do is because of what religion has done and continues to do to women. I argue against religion for that reason alone. There are a lot of women bloggers for which I am truly thankful. But it seems as if there are few women scholars to link to in the blog world. Several of the ones PZ Myers links to have not yet earned a college degree, or they have just entered into a master's program. Oh, I know, the women atheist scholars of tomorrow are with us today in training, so yes, let's encourage them by all means. But where are the women atheist scholars of today? We need your voices more than ever. Help us, please. We are mere men.

It seems to me that anyone with basic brain functioning would easily pick up on another pattern John has used, and it's no surprise it deals with partial truth (in essence, constituting lies). Is this really why you have a bone to pick with Christianity John? Doubtful. You've blamed your devestation of faith on a woman you chose to have an extra-marital affair with and you hardly own up to any responsibility on your part. Yet you are seriously suggesting that the reason why you are opposed to faith is because it promotes sexism?

For argument's sake it would be a pleasant luxury to actually trust what John relays to people myself included. But it seems he is only capable of producing face-palm tragedies.

Honestly John, what do you really hope to accomplish with this?

Enlightening others to the realization that Christian is false?

Promoting your name to establish a legacy amongst the New Atheist movement?

To alter the cultural perceptions of "religion" as you would call it?

To convince people that atheism is more of a beneficial philosophy to the mind and body of the individual than theism is by comparison?

These goals are more distinct than I think people would like to acknowledge, especially with regard to the culture wars. And more like a professional politician, it would seem that John will make as many stabs as he can at issues which have little to do with each other and string them together to rally support for himself and the establishment of his own legacy. At the end of the day, as has been established in numerous different contexts and in the not-so-distant recorded past, it still stands to reason that actions speak louder than words.

I am not a prude, nor a feminist (at least in a strict sense), and I am not suggesting that John is a mysognist. But this is fishy to say the least, as are most of John's claims about similar issues. John, you cannot essentially put the responsibility of your deconversion on a seduction which you did not have the willpower to overcome and then expect to at the same time be a champion for the cause of female atheists. Because if your deconversion is based mostly on the actions of women that were involved in your life, how can you be combatting religion on the basis that it is sexist against women? Isn't accusing Linda (your partner in the affair) of being nearly wholly responsible for that point in your lifetime sexist by itself?

John and friends miss the point when I bring such things to light in that they will no doubt interpret this as a mallicious strawman or ad hominen tactic. But this is important to discuss nonetheless. If John is truly concerned with being open, honest, truthful, and rational with his intended audience, he would address these issues at some point. Unless he makes the assumption that they are too stupid to figure these tidbits out for themselves.

And of course, if the latter is true, it is not enlightening to suppose that this would make John out to be more like the enemy than even he himself realizes. Suppose that he addresses sexism in order to illicit ranks from an additional demographic that he has only had slight affiliation with in his writing career. If that is the case and he thinks he can get away with this without being caught, then he would indeed be more of a sexist than he would probably be willing to admit.

And while we're at the heart of this therapeutic breakdown, we might as all well be asking John one simple direct question:

Can you tell us how you really feel?


  1. Its pretty obvious why Loftus has taken this line of attack...he knows that he gave the show away when he admitted that Two of the Three main reasons he "left" Christianity were emotional, and the whole mess was set off by his treatment of women.

    Face it, he was the director of a Shelter and had sex with an employee and now trashes her in his book to excuse his actions.

    I wonder how she felt being trashed openly like that? Well, who knows but is certain that John could care less.

    Worse...he trashed his OWN WIFE as "lacking passion". This woman, now his ex, is the Mother of His Children.

    Does he care how SHE feels being trashed like that in his book?

    Does he care how his kids feel about MOM being trashed like that?

    Apparently not, since he did it and defends it.

    Concern for women? No...something else is going on, because his actions reflect the exact opposite.

  2. Worse off Morrison, it's another classic example of where John's arguments are intertwined with his personality and ethical (or lackof) character.

    These are important issues John can't just expect to run away from if he really wants to be taken seriously by respectable individuals who know about these details. He has to own up to them eventually, and if never does, then why should we believe him when he says such things about sexism?

  3. Kind of funny too, the cartoon he uses includes Bible quotes that he has been told -- repeatedly -- are NOT "anti-woman".

    But for John, a cartoon beats sound scholarship any time.

  4. For somebody who claims to be such a 'champion of women's rights' there are precious few female commenters stopping by his blog. Several people with female-ish online names turned up at Freethought recently to complain about more Loftus&crew pile-ons at DC. These people were barred from DC as a result of trying to argue back against accusations of--what else? Stupidity and arrogance. Again. Same old broken record.

    I actually found the kerfuffle on Freethought rather amusing. A translady named Natalie authored a post with some mild, "I like you John, but..." criticisms, which were way too kind, imo. And JWL responded with the usual paranoid and childish rantings about being 'attacked'. The net result of this hissy fit was, of course, 3 posts on his blog and 2 on theirs.

    Does he attack female commenters more often than males? We'll probably never know. We aren't allowed to argue back. He bars us from his blog for telling him he's out of line. I can't speak for other women, but I certainly can't respect anybody who goes into attack mode over every hint of disagreement, or humour. And the drama over the exes? That's why I don't watch Maury Povich anymore. I'm not impressed. Your kids are going to hate you for the way you trashed their mother, John.

    This guy is making male feminist allies look bad, he's making non-theists look bad by trying to align himself with us, and he's completely undermining his own attempts at calling himself a rational thinker.

    I hate to break it to you, John, but you are NOT a friend of feminists and you are NOT rational. You're trying to be a diva when you're nowhere near good-looking enough to get famous for having tantrums, and you're trying to be respected for your IQ while your EQ is pathetic. Grow up. Feminists DON'T want a paranoid whiner like you trying to speak for us.


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.