I Am An Unfriendly Not-So-Famous Atheist Who is Not Preaching to the Choir
When it comes to famous atheists (i.e., those who have been on the cover of Time Magazine
as but one example), many Christians will attack their work and them as
people. When it comes to atheists who are not so famous, whether or not
many Christians attack their work and them as people depends. It
depends on whether or not they are considered friendly or unfriendly to
Christianity, and it depends on whether or not they are "preaching to
the choir." I find that there are several books written by unfriendly
non-famous atheists who preach to the choir that get many glowing
reviews from other atheists but are ignored by Christians because they
don't consider their works to be informed.
I am an unfriendly non-so-famous atheist who is not preaching to the choir. ;-) So my work and person gets attacked more than other non-famous atheists. I would hope atheists would understand this. Many do.
I am an unfriendly non-so-famous atheist who is not preaching to the choir. ;-) So my work and person gets attacked more than other non-famous atheists. I would hope atheists would understand this. Many do.
Actually John, to your own credit you are semi-famous, but I think you try to say that you are "not-so-famous" so that you will actually convince people you are a humble person. Lee Strobel and Matt Wittelberg both mention on occassion and know you by name. So you do have a celebrity, you're just more along the lines of being the Tom Cruise of New Atheism.
And you're not "preaching to the choir"? REALLY? How exactly do you have anything groundbreaking to offer people? Many people including myself haven't seen anything new. You spend more time piggy backing other people's celebrities (atheist and theist) to make a name for yourself or to get your face out there. How is that not preaching to the choir?
You write books where most of the content is written by other people, and yet you still pass yourself off as the main author. You're not preaching to the choir, John?
Your OTF argument is your brand name for an argument that is fairly common amongst anti-theists. You know John Hick after all, I have one of his books for a philosophy class I'm currently taking. In his work Philosophy of Religion (which was published in the mid to late 1980's) he writes: "If I had been born in India, I would probably be a Hindu; if in Egypt, probably a Muslim; if in Sri Lanka, probably a Buddhist; but I was born in England and am, predictably, a Christian...Thus Hume laid down the principle "that, in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and the that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation."" (pg. 110). David Hume lived in the 18th century, Johnny boy. What's that about you not preaching to the choir, again?
Wait...stop. He's absolutely right. He's not preaching to the choir because the majority of his audience are people who (as I like to say on one of my other blogs) prefer to wear the words "critical thinking" as a fashion statement rather than acknowledge it for being an individual pursuit that can take many different shapes and forms.
Posts
Loftus, by his own admission, has lied about many important things.
ReplyDeleteHe does not have any credility anymore; remember how he used to brag about the "firepower" at his site with is list of regular contributors?
Except for Avolos, that is all gone. Either the other atheists didn't like his double dealing.
MAJOR DEVELOPEMENT...a NEW edition of WIBA is coming out in March.
ReplyDeleteThere is a major issue exposed in this new edition.
A friend of mine has access to to an advance reading copy, which is coming out in March.
You may recall that in WIBA Loftus gave THREE MAIN REASONS for his "deconversion", two of which were EMOTIONAL...in the New Edition he gives One Main Different Reason.
This clearly indicates that the reasons for his deconversion are "evolving" to fit his his own evolving situation.
If he lied about his deconversion, is it possible he is lying about other things?
Loftus has stupidly denied this over at Triblogue, and I offered to prove it to him if he would allow me to post the info on his blog but he is blocking me.
No matter...the New Edition, which is inferior to the previous edition, will be coming out soon enough.
(Don't worry, he is already working up his excuse for this...apparently he was divorced in Novermber and, in his own words, has been drinking himself to sleep. In such a confused state, he did not edit his proof properly, etc.)
I haven't read his book Why I Became An Atheist. What were the three reasons he gave for his deconversion? I think I heard that one is because of the affair that he had.
DeleteMy comments seem to be disappearing. Have I misunderstood your comment policy, or are they just tied up in moderation?
ReplyDeleteI am trying to focus my criticisms on Loftus' flawed arguments, rather than making statements that come up to the "not allowed on this site" line. I'm for real. If my understanding of your policies needs tweaking, let me know.
ReplyDeleteAs I am reading more and more past articles, I'm seeing that most of my criticisms are nothing new. You have said it all. Loftus and his commenters are like a broken record in that "You're stupid and arrogant" is the alpha and omega of every flawed argument they hurl at people who oppose them: be they theists, or non-theists.
So, if you're deleting my comments because they're just repetiotions of something I didn't know you'd already written, I'll take it. Just let me know if I'm doing something you consider rude, so I can stop doing it and get on with my day. Thank you :-)
xena, the blog has been in limbo for a while and I'm not exactly sure about your situation. But I can assure you you're comments are not being "deleted." If they are, they might be because someone else took the liberty of doing so according to some of the policies here. But I've been gone for a while and wouldn't know about it.
ReplyDeleteIs it me, or does Loftus have an unnatural fixation with William Lane Craig? If you think someone is intellectually wrong, why would you continually bring him up? I can only speculate that the ghost of Craig somehow haunts John Loftus. I do not personally continue to bring up people I think are dubious. To do so only validates and gives credit to such folk. Me thinks he dost protest to much!
ReplyDelete