tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32268056360125689402024-02-19T17:09:46.685-08:00Debunking Loftus: Setting John StraightThis Blog is intended to be serious and straightforward in tone as we (the blog's authors) attempt to debunk and refute the arguments of John W. Loftus and the content that can be found within his blog sites Debunking Christianity, Debunking Creationism, and Debunking the Christian Right. This blog is not maintained strictly by those with a set bias against Loftus and his colleagues. Rather, it is a medium for those who find Loftus' arguments lacking of logical persuasion and worthy of ridicule.Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-49238689144562924222013-01-07T09:28:00.000-08:002013-01-07T09:28:30.899-08:00Ole' Yeller Strikes Again<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
For the new year John somehow thought it would be a great idea to re-post his "Outsider Test for Faith" with some additional updates. These key "changes" he makes are found in his recommendation for atheist and counter-Christian apologetics literature. And...once again, he isn't shy of speaking highly of his own published works, and putting them at the very beginning of his list of recommendations:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><i>The problem this year is that I have five books published in five years and I cannot resist the supposition that my books are the best, sorry. Wouldn't you?</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
That depends on the criteria of comparison that is being used and just how intellectually honest a person is, John. It's all too easy to make the argument that your books are the best because they are <i><u>your books</u></i>. And if you were to look at this with an honest lens, you would realize that it doesn't get much more complicated than this. You tell us (the readers) as the author of these groundbreaking books <i>why</i> they are the best. It isn't a matter of asking the readers if they would judge your books to be best if they were in your shoes or if they happen to be fans of your blog (though the only reason anyone could be a serious fan of yours would be for strictly entertainment purposes). What standard are you using to make such a statement? And why should I take it seriously?<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">In response Christians typically reply to this yearly challenge with their own list of books. So let me state for the record that I have probably read more Christian apologetics books and articles in 40 years then most of them will read their entire lives. So for comparison purposes, if a Christian apologist responds with such a list then tell us just how many atheist books you have read in comparison to me? I'd like to know. I've probably sold or thrown away more of them than you have read. I've probably read 300-350 Christian apologetical works and thousands of articles.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"> </span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></i></div>
Again John, you fail to realize that advertising what you view to be accomplishments and things of worthy note are not actual indicators of your credibility or even your smarts. Someone who continually speaks of their educational history in the manner in which you do would know better than to do that, especially if you are a philosopher. And as a philosopher, this shows your ignorance, tackiness, & carelessness that you would even employ such tactics.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even if what you say is mostly true, none of this shows that you have a grasp or understanding of these read materials. For instance, I have read John Hick and one of my philosophy classes was based largely on his works. Your critique of Hick among other things glossed over some of his core arguments & contentions. So to say that you have read more than the average joe is not something that should be used to impress or inflate...but it is a dead give away as to how desperate & pathetic your want for recognition is. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><i>You might notice that there aren't any philosophical books on this year's list. That's because I only have respect for a scientifically based philosophy, that's why, although I value philosophy in general.</i></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
Another thing to be aware of here John...it also doesn't add to your case when you admit to being an asshole and having limited perspective when at the same time you tout your merits as a "philosopher." How on earth can you manage to criticize someone like Hick with scientific philosophy when their focus is <i>epistemological & theological</i> philosophy? Oh and by the way, I think it would be a really good idea if you decided to become better versed in ethics, because you could use some friend! <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><i>Again, what do you have to lose?</i></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
Time & critical thinking skills???<br /><br />NEXT...Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-29218342664994931642013-01-04T23:55:00.002-08:002013-01-04T23:55:45.588-08:00Are Beliefs That Important?More and more often you see commentators on here that are not of a religious persuasion much like myself. While just about anyone can come on here and post comments at their own risk, more and more of these people mention just how unwelcoming John's DC blog really is.<br />
<br />
One comment has recently grabbed my attention:<br />
<br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #634320; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">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.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #634320; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #634320; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #634320; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">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.</span></i><br />
<br />
We've always repeatedly contended that John's blog doesn't live up to its self purported reputation. But it goes even deeper than popularity contests or theological debates. What about the atmosphere of the establishment itself? Is it not peculiar that there is an increasing consensus amongst visitors of this being their experience as posters on behalf of DC?<br />
<br />
This is one of the reasons I do not subscribe to the New Atheist Movement, and I'm not even hesitant to say opposed to it. The core argument at hand is a dispute between two different viewpoints and their domination or exterminating the other. Generally Christians and atheists both contend that the other's belief systems have worked as a crippling force to the framework of Western society.<br />
<br />
But it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination or a doctorate degree to realize that this battle is an ongoing one with no end in foreseeable sight. Religion is certainly never going to go away. Secular values will continue to permeate systems of law across the world as we try to accomodate the compliant and the variety of their beliefs & lifestyles. So it is a vicious cycle that will seemingly never end, yet both sides continue to hammer away at each other thinking they are fulfilling achievements & accomplishing important life goals.<br />
<br />
A simpler analysis accounting for why we have these problems and their pervasiveness would perhaps be rooted in the psyche of mankind. The wretched human brain. Psychology reveals that no one person is immune to the forces of corruption & mind-altering effects. The differences exist only in the level of susceptibility a person may be exposed too or their biological composition, state of mind & environmental influences. Focusing on the negative/positive influences religious & spiritual beliefs have on the brains seems to be so limited & narrow in scope it is too similar to the mentality of those who would advocate the War on Drugs. Is it really worth our investment to focus our energies on harmful mind-altering drugs when alcohol (one of the three top worst drugs for the human body) remains legal?<br />
<br />
By emphasizing what a person does or doesn't believe, we appear to be focusing on the small details of the painting without realizing the bigger picture. What is that bigger picture? Human nature and the human brain will likely offer the most substantial answers we may be all looking for.<br />
<br />Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-7053392647641158012013-01-04T21:37:00.002-08:002013-01-04T21:37:28.297-08:00Debunking Loftus Is BackAfter a hiatus of almost two years time, Debunking Loftus has been re-activated and is now back in the works. Some new projects are going to be underway to address some changes. I don't have any specific details in mind for now, but stay tuned!Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-43127694270136616402011-10-02T20:27:00.000-07:002011-10-02T20:29:49.662-07:00To Be or Not To Be a Choir Boy?Uhhhhhhmmmmmm..........????????<br />
<div class="descriptionwrapper">
<div class="description">
</div>
</div>
<div id="crosscol-wrapper" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div id="uds-searchControl">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3226805636012568940" name="uds-search-results"></a></div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3226805636012568940" name="3236254363187583610"></a>
<br />
<div id="fecha">
</div>
<h3 class="post-title">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-am-unfriendly-not-so-famous-atheist.html">I Am An Unfriendly Not-So-Famous Atheist Who is Not Preaching to the Choir</a></span>
</h3>
<div class="author-timestamp-comments">
<span class="post-author">
By
<b>John W. Loftus</b>
</span>
<span class="post-timestamp">
at
<a class="timestamp-link" href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-am-unfriendly-not-so-famous-atheist.html" title="permanent link">10/01/2011</a>
</span>
<span class="post-comment-link" style="visibility: visible;"></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>When it comes to famous atheists (i.e., those who have been on the cover of </i><i>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.<br /><br />
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>
</div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
You write books where <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/christianityisnotgreat/">most of the content is written by other people</a>, and yet you still pass yourself off as the main author. You're not preaching to the choir, John?<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-83115284488632392592011-09-12T22:22:00.000-07:002011-09-12T22:22:30.779-07:00John the Seer<i>"Human beings will evolve into different sorts of creatures, perhaps like the Na'vi of James Cameron's movie </i><i>Avatar.
Then the Bible will clearly be an antiquated book. The salvation of the
human race and the incarnation of the second person of the trinity will
have no relevance for the creatures we are yet to become. Christianity
will fall into the dustbin of history just like all other dead
religions. Too bad this assured end is far off into the future. But it
WILL happen, just as assuredly as I am writing this today in the year
2011." - </i>John Loftus' prediction for the future fate of Christianity, as can be found <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/08/without-doubt-end-of-christianity-is.html">here</a>. <br />
<br />
I guess John's enchantment with high-budget CGI blockbusters has caused him to believe that there is some truth and reality to the fictional universe of James Cameron. What really sticks out to me as an eye-opener is this bit: "Human beings will evolve into different sorts of creatures...." Yes, evolutionarily speaking, and if you are convinced that everything should still be in place for that long, we will at some point evolve into "different sorts of creatures." But John gets the strange notion that we will eventually end up like an alien species of tall blue and stalky tribal people. Hmmm......<br />
<br />
I'm not even exactly sure what such speculation this seems to serve or to what good productive informative purpose this post is directed towards. What is the point? A million different things and outcomes could occur. Who is to say we won't be wiped off the planet before the next thousand years pass? Quite frankly unless we have some sort of imminent knowledge and the resources to act, who cares?<br />
<br />
And by stating that the Bible "will clearly be an antiquated book" does John mean to say that it will be regarded as a relic or as a piece of meaningless garbage? Of course we can probably place our bets on the latter, but I would personally "predict" that the Bible will continue to be known as a renowned piece of literature (at the very least) for millenia to come. <br />
<br />
In his emotional plight with his "Christian" past, John seeks to mainly give Christianity a bad name almost to the point of speculating and downplaying Christianity's end. Of course religions have come and gone but the unique thing about Christianity and indeed modern times are a few things to be noted:<br />
<br />
1. For one thing, it is almost undeniable that Christianity has been perhaps the most influential religion in the world for the past two thousand years.<br />
2. Its influence on the world whether by European colonization and conquered land or through modern technological means and networks such as the internet have given it a global-wide presence that has been unlike any other religion in known history.<br />
3. Given population growth, the rich historical influences Christianity has had on almost every Western nation and civilization in existence, and its global presence through technology and extensive membership is likely to ensure that Christianity will remain a permanent piece of civilized history, however long civilization should prosper.<br />
<br />
<br />Even in the event that Christianity should "fade out" in its "validity" or membership does not necessitate that it will be forgotten or even merely regarded as just another "dead religion." Again, John's speculation here comes from wishful thinking. It would seem his past has clouted his objectivity that what he once accepted in his mind is simply unacceptable or most definitely will be for the rest of the living world.<br />
<br />
But it seems to me that while people like Loftus would like to hope for the downfall of the Christian religion, reality will paint a different picture. The best indication anyone has of the future in this instance is that Christianity will likely remain a part of mankind forever in some shape or form, even if it loses its institutional endorsements. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-70068490654115932992011-06-10T15:40:00.000-07:002011-06-10T16:27:45.965-07:00Don't Say We Haven't "Told You So"Remember when I made the prediction that John would continually fall for his own formula with such predictability? A while back I had posted <a href="http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-construct-cash-cow-franchise.html">this</a> before John went ahead and decided to work on <span style="font-style: italic;">The End of Christianity</span>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Books of this type of nature are very much reflective of their titles, and this is intentionally so. John's premise for The Christian Delusion is to quite simply demonstrate that Christianity is based in delusional thinking, not an accurate assessment of reality. Just as well, The End of Christianity is meant to imply that Christianity is a dying movement.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But wait, Sam Harris' book The End of Faith is of the same exact vein. So what grounds does John have for claiming originality or the production of new contributive works?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Is this ultimately the best John has to deal out? <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">The title of his next book might as well be Christianity is Not Great: How Christianity Distorts Everything.</span> This is all in an attempt to divert attention away from the original publication of where this title (and subsequently the premise) is based from, and it seems as if John is fulfilling this predicted line of reason rather unsurprisingly but in a manner which already adds insult to self-inflicted injuries. Sort of like how Stephanie Meyers writes a series of books about old concepts and mythological creatures yet can't get it together to the point of where the story is actually engaging to the reader, or why the reader should even care to begin with. In simpler terms, what does John bring to the table that can't be found elsewhere?</span><br /><br />This I <a href="http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2011/06/end-of-innovation.html">posted</a> a week ago right around when John revealed the time that <span style="font-style: italic;">The End of Christianity</span> would finally be published:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It's a sheer disappointment John can't present a work that doesn't:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">A. Piggy-back the publications of other, more well known celebrity figures.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">B. Start from a point of reference that isn't initially reactionary or an attempt to strongarm the opposing side.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Let's face it though, this is what we have gotten in the past and this is what we are going to receive from John. His whole purpose here is to go out on a limb against Christianity (at least, that's the tentative purpose and it works on the assumption that his blog truly deals with such). Make no mistake my readers, </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">this will be an ongoing pattern to come</span>.</span><br /><br />And now:<br /><br />https://sites.google.com/site/christianityisnotgreat/<br /><br />Hmmm...right before John releases his newest book, he starts work on another (again, with the title derived from a atheist figurehead much more widely known and respected than himself). Is this not an indicator of immense desperation?<br /><br />Eventually John will run out of inspirational material and will be forced to come up with something from scratch. The question is not whether this is a likelihood or a possibility, but if John has the capacity to execute this task when the time comes.<br /><br />Does John have enough to muster an offensive force by himself, like he would have you believe? I suppose in John's mind the rapid rate and frequency by which these books are published would communicate to the world that John is a formidable opponent in the academic world. He can take on anything. He's dedicated to the finish and he won't rest until he sees things through.<br /><br />He lays out his "goal" quite succinctly on the home page to the site for The End of Christianity:<br /><br /><span style=";font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);"><span style="font-style: italic;">My goal as an atheist author and editor is to help provide the intellectual underpinnings of the</span><i style="font-style: italic;"> New Atheist</i><span style="font-style: italic;"> movement with regard to the Christian faith. As best as possible I plan on leveling broadside after broadside after broadside against the Christian faith in hopes that together we can help sink the good ship Christian in this century. As a former evangelical myself I also wish to introduce my evangelical friends to these skeptical authors.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:georgia;" >I think skeptics who are genuine critical thinkers would beg the question: If John's books are based on other people's books which have the intent on changing the mass' minds in regards to religion and faith, then what good do these books serve?<br /><br />If the books John pens due to their ability to incite inspiration already effectively achieve the objective of demonstrating to many that religious faith is a bogus scam, why does John need to get out there and "contribute" in such a manner? If John needs to do this, then there should be at least one individual out there for every single religion known to man, right? We need an atheist or former believer to write books attacking Islam and the same goes for Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, paganism, voodoo, Judaism, Anglo-Saxon Norse mythology, etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Realistically, we are faced by more of a threat from radical Islamic terrorism than we are any other ideology at this point, and <span style="font-style: italic;">on a world wide scale</span>. This is almost indisputable fact. Is the religious right in America a problem for our political system? Yes. Does the Religious Right manipulate and deprive people of their finances and quality of life? Arguably so. These problems do exist and are concerning. But they are not to the extent of such forces as Al-Qaeda, who will stop at nothing to see our climactic demise.<br /><br />So with that said, I say John is doing a greater disservice on behalf of the community than he is doing a service. In essence, he offers nothing that his audiences aren't most likely already convinced of and are aware about. It's just that many of them would rather cling on to a published work which reaffirms these beliefs more and more and more. That's it in a nutshell.<br /><br />And as far as John goes by being diplomatic with those he desires to persuade, it seems that he is again reluctant to acknowledge his own vices:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-this-isnt-deluded-person-then-no-one.html<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-from-my-old-deluded-friend.html<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-old-friend-and-i-are-no-longer.html<br /><br />As I see it, John is utterly and direly confused my friends. He confuses competitive teen-like angst as constructively handling his relationships with others and thinks that he is helping to fortify houses by toppling bricks on top of roof tiles.<br /><br />We can only wonder if and when John will ever learn his lesson.<br /><br /></span></span></span>Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-33978195600305262432011-06-02T09:21:00.000-07:002011-06-02T09:22:27.893-07:00Motives of DisingenuousnessI'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 <span style="font-style: italic;">imperfect</span>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">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. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">I argue against religion for that reason alone.</span> 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.</span><br /><br />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 <span style="font-style: italic;">promotes sexism</span>?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Honestly John, what do you really hope to accomplish with this?<br /><br />Enlightening others to the realization that Christian is false?<br /><br />Promoting your name to establish a legacy amongst the New Atheist movement?<br /><br />To alter the cultural perceptions of "religion" as you would call it?<br /><br />To convince people that atheism is more of a beneficial philosophy to the mind and body of the individual than theism is by comparison?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And while we're at the heart of this therapeutic breakdown, we might as all well be asking John one simple direct question:<br /><br />Can you tell us how you <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> feel?Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-58675410106154788632011-06-01T21:41:00.000-07:002011-06-01T22:05:46.706-07:00The End of InnovationIt's a sheer disappointment John can't present a work that doesn't:<br /><br />A. Piggy-back the publications of other, more well known celebrity figures.<br />B. Start from a point of reference that isn't initially reactionary or an attempt to strongarm the opposing side.<br /><br />Let's face it though, this is what we have gotten in the past and this is what we are going to receive from John. His whole purpose here is to go out on a limb against Christianity (at least, that's the tentative purpose and it works on the assumption that his blog truly deals with such). Make no mistake my readers, this will be an ongoing pattern to come. Here's another promo for his third upcoming release in what seems to be in a line for his second series of sorts:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">This book has taken a year and a half from conception to find its way into your homes. It's been a lot of work but worthwhile nonetheless. It went to press and will be available mid-July. Tell others about it. It's a pretty damn good book, named after Sam Harris' </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwdebunkingc-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">The End of Faith.</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wwwdebunkingc-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0393327655" alt="" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important; font-style: italic;" border="0" height="1" width="1" /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Expect the smear campaign to start soon afterward on Amazon, as it happened (and continues to happen) to my other two books. It's a war over there from deluded believers who think what I'm doing is a much more serious threat to their faith than most others, whether that's true or not (hey, they're deluded so why should we think they know who best to target?).</span><br /><br />John, I know I've spoken about this thousands of times before but, this is actually very counter-productive to what you are hoping to accomplish through all of your efforts. You have to accept and come to terms with "smear campaigns". Do you know anybody that has published anything that has gone uncriticized?<br /><br />And with that said, by utilizing the "deluded" categorization, you are being excessively forceful with your message, and the means by which your package is presented only confirms this and even seems to reveal your desperation for getting others to take you seriously.<br /><br />I would contend that a true artist and visionary does not go out of his way to promote their works, they let the works speak for themselves. They are not vicious and adamant or invested into getting "into the fight", and doing whatever it takes to win. This seems ridiculous to New Atheists because they perceive their circumstances as likened to a civil rights movement, and civil rights movements are not typically won by being passive. But think about the case of Gandhi, who did not advocate physical retaliation against the oppressive forces of his time.<br /><br />Tactics can only be successfully counteracted by tactics, and the tactics used in counteraction should be chosen wisely. It is almost never in the case that using the same tactics as the enemy will bring you victory, you must devise a means of circumventing the traps and expectations the enemy has planned for you to bring you to your defeat, and this is still an issue of tactics, except that they are not drawn up in a sloppy fashion.<br /><br />It is unwise for instance, to stoop to the anticipations of the enemy by playing out your counteraction strategy by going with full head on force, this should be a contingency of sorts you rely on as a last resort. Therefore John, your campaign must be one that innovates, and you have yet to do anything of the sort.<br /><br />Perhaps you will come to terms with your flawed approach and learn this lesson for the next installment. I would actually be interested if you do start becoming more creative and original. But seeing as you would currently rather mock and choose to ignore your critics suggestions and takes, this could only be considered a pipe dream.Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-39715283927094716002011-03-15T09:02:00.000-07:002011-03-15T10:09:38.467-07:00John's PsychoanalysisHere's one trend that's becoming common over at John's circle, and it involves a great deal of attempts at trying to encompass the mentality and mindset of Christians and reduce it to psychological terminology. While seemingly parroting this trend from the likes of folk such as Richard Dawkins, John Loftus seems fond of pointing out that a great deal of the Christian opposition is "<a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-mark-of-deluded-person.html">deluded</a>" and does so with the same flippant regard as Dawkins:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Many Christians treat skeptics like me as if I am the enemy to be debated and not a fellow human being interested in the truth. That is surely one of the marks of a brainwashed or deluded person too.</span><br /><br />This is deliciously ironic. Seeing as John spends his time venting about how primtive and superstitious it is to subscribe to the tenets of Christianity, is it any mystery that he would, to some degree, be perceived as an "enemy to be debated"? In fact, the existence of DJ's blog doesn't really indicate he's interested in anything else but debating with Christians. He aims at trying to conjur up arguments and push the envelope of controversies in many cases. Now the question is, what is his aim when he writes posts such as these?<br /><br />Perhaps it requires going back a little further in time to the original post John alludes too:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Below in no particular order are what I consider the ten marks (or characteristics) of a deluded person. I think even educated Christians will agree with most of them. </span><br /><br />The fascinating thing about this line of reasoning is that we see it stemming from individuals totally without credentials in a psychological field, and yet nonetheless, these individuals (some of them highly respected and credible scientists like Dawkins) proceed to make psychological assessments. At first this seems harmless, but the effects of such statements and their influence on the impressionable (which in modern times seems to be the majority of the worldwide web) have dangerous and detrimental implications. The definition of delusion used here by John is defined on his own personal parameters, which in turn translates to his own opinionated viewpoint, not based on anything that mental health professionals deem to be "deluded." In essence, such a wreckless use of words means that anyone may call someone "not in tune with reality" delusional because they derived the defintion from Answers.com or other such similar means.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You might want to consider from this checklist how many of them apply to you. To the degree that more of them apply then the more likely you are deluded by your faith. Now it's quite possible that Christians can be deluded and yet their faith is true, in the same sense that a person might be brainwashed or indoctrinated into believing the truth. But the point is that if you're deluded then you have no reason to believe.</span><a style="font-style: italic;" name="more"></a><br /><br />Overall, John is correct. And as a matter of fact, many Christians believe in their faith for no other good reason than they were brought up in those traditions, or it just so happens to be the religion of choice because they are most familiar with it. Not because they have examined and analyzed different perspectives or compared their own faith to other religions. Not because they have considered the possibility that they might be dead wrong. In other words, no critical thinking is included in the puzzle.<br /><br />But now that we've already established the opinionated bias for this defintion of what it means to be delusional, what follows is going to be rather suspect. In the same light of John's opening statement here, it is also true that John may arrive to the right conclusions all for the wrong reasons (is John delusional perhaps?).<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> A deluded person is more likely than not one who...</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">2) As an adult never adopts nor cultivates the adult attitude of doubt. All adults must revisit the religious faith taught to them by their parents since #1 above is undeniably true. That means they must doubt. Doubt is the adult attitude. </span><br /><br />This is of course dependent on the presence of a "religious faith" by which one has to be brought up in, unless of course John is meaning to imply that atheism, agnosticism and deism can be included in the list.<br /><br />Furthermore John needs to establish the extent by which doubt is necessary to cultivate "the adult attitude of doubt." Is it more wise to be a skeptic or a cynic? Is doubt needed with regard to everything or only in the cases of religious faith? How can John except people to follow along with this reasoning if the words being used are not defined in specific terms?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> 3) Never reads widely or is exposed to other points of view in the media. I'm talking about non-fiction works about the sciences, different cultures, different faiths, and those written by skeptics or non-believers. To escape from being deluded, believers should read books that are written by people within different cultures and faith communities, and watch programs on the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, 60 Minutes, Dateline, and yes, YouTube.</span><br /><br />Very nice John, well done. This means we can pretty much classify those living in third world countries without access to the internet, television, print, and the media as "deluded" for having the beliefs that they do. Let's also not forget scientific illiteracy. After all, it is the fault of the people in these given nations for not boning up on their organic chemistry and quantum physics, even if it might mean certain death for them at the hands of their own government or socioeconomic class. Bravo, bravo.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4) Does not travel widely including travel into different cultures. A deluded person only experiences a small slice of the pie. One must experience the world to see how others live. The more the better. Such a person basically stays within the social confines of like-minded religious people. The Amish are the extreme examples of this. Many believers only have believing friends. Even if believers cannot travel the world they can still step outside their social grouping to meet other people who think differently. Most believers do not trust people of different faiths or non-believers. Seek them out. Attend a freethinker's group meeting. Get to know them. Become friends with them.</span><br /><br />More of a reiterated version of the previous point, and one that still doesn't do much justice for itself, let alone serve as sound advice on the behalf of others. Again, third world countries? What about India and the Caste System? If you are an untouchable, what then John? They are restrained to their own delusional prison imposed on them by government sanction and thousands of years of tradition?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">5) Never studies deeply into the nature of his or her adopted faith. The more you know the less you believe, the less confident you become, and the more you doubt.</span><br /><br />A reiteration of the first point (which we have already addressed) in that one is deluded by subscribing only to the faith they were brought up in. I tend to agree completely with John on points like these, but the only problem with this is that John must demonstrate that it is universal that the more one knows about their faith, the less they believe in it. This is not always true, and it may be that one chooses to study the "nature" of their faith and becomes even more convinced of it, even if it is contrary to common sense and logic. Allot of it just depends on the person more than what the person has studied and how much they know about their particular religion.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">6) Lies in order to defend one's faith. There are plenty of examples of this, from faking stories about finding Noah's Ark, to fudging the truth when there is no reasonable response, to making up personal healing stories, to claiming a conversion from a position of intellectual atheism (versus a practical atheism) to Evangelical Christianity like Lee Strobel and David Wood, to personal and unjustified attacks on anyone who questions one's faith in order to poison the well against them, to debate tactics like the ones used by Bill Craig and Dinesh D'Souza who as debaters, just like boxers in a ring, are out to win the debate no matter what must be said in order to win it. These are liars for Jesus to various degrees. If you have to lie to defend your faith then you need help. </span><br /><br />Trashing the name of your "former mentor" again are we John? It is funny that John has continued to push for a debate with Dr. Craig, but yet behind his back he chooses to make as many fatal jabs as he can.<br /><br />Maybe there is something here which might indicate John suffers from a projection complex, now that we are referencing the subject of psychology. Because it is certainly the case, as we have often discussed in the infancy period of this blog, that John will also lie to save face, even when his position is without defensive merit. Need we dig up the past once more?<br /><br />http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?97534-Doubting-John-He-Still-Lies-Today!<br /><br />And John's truthful and <a href="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?97534-Doubting-John-He-Still-Lies-Today%21&p=1973315#post1973315">intellectually honest</a> response:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Technically, I didn't lie.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Prove to me I did.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Besides, it doesn't matter that you know I started the Blog. I don't care. People will still visit there regardless, and I will continue sending people there.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> You are the dishonest one. </span><br /><br />Hmmm..very interesting. John certainly seems like he's qualified to point out the delusion of lying for a position that clearly can't be defended, <span style="font-style: italic;">even through lying</span>. That's because of course, despite the age of the incident itself, John is guilty on all counts of this himself.<br /><br />Moving on...<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">7) Preaches to people who think differently rather than rationally engaging them. I am constantly amazed, bewildered, frustrated, and bored with the kind of responses I see from believers who comment here at DC. They come here preaching. They pontificate. They quote mine from the Bible. They even say we're going to hell with glee. Many of them merely mouth the words of the creeds and affirm what they believe, rather than actually engaging us with a rational discussion about the basis for believing in the first place. They come here preaching to us from an ancient superstitious set of texts rather than showing us why we should believe them in the first place. </span><br /><br />Well John, again, that is really reflective of the type of atmosphere you create. You play mostly on the emotional aspects of Christianity rather than rationally engaging believers. Your blog is a treasure chest of arguments on how the existence of suffering negates an omnipotent and caring deity. You point to recent disasters (like the earthquake in Japan) as reasons for why God can't and doesn't exist. You hardly ever address things besides. You do not explain why calamities in the present support your arguments and yet those of the past do not matter so much (and this is not to say that your point isn't realized, I understand you do this to communicate to believers) and most importantly, you never address the fact that the people of ancient times were well aware of natural disasters simply based on the fact that suffering is a common theme throughout the Bible, and natural disasters have persisted <span style="font-style: italic;">forever</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">8) Claims he or she does not need evidence to believe. Take notice Alvin Plantinga and Bill Craig! This is utterly delusional thinking especially when we consider all of the things they must take as properly basic beliefs coming from the witness of the Holy Spirit. As someone said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Anyone who claims his or her faith does not need evidence, even if true, </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/07/reality-check-what-must-be-case-if_06.html" target="_blank">ought to take a reality check</a><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span><br /><br />Fair enough, but this means that the skeptic "community" can no longer define fatih as "belief in something without evidence." Right?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">9) Must be convinced that his or her faith is impossible before seeing it as improbable. Time after time believers will claim I have not proved that their faith is impossible, and so lacking this kind of proof they still claim to have a reason to believe. However, we're always talking about probabilities. So even if it's still possible to believe in light of a number of problems for faith, it's still an improbable faith and that should be good enough.</span><br /><br />Shaky grounds here. There are plenty of skeptics who would pick at aspects of religion (like the resurrection of Jesus) as impossible, and they play on this to suggest that without some sort of possibility factored into the equation, we can automatically reject the faith.<br /><br />So this is a matter of whom you are addressing. And of course, it's one-sided and directed only at believers of faith.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">10) Must denigrate the sciences in order to have faith. This is what I see time after time. Believers denigrate the sciences in a number of ways in order to believe. That's because faith demands it. Some believers don't even know what I'm talking about. Since science tells us prayer doesn't work then it doesn't work. It tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old. It tells us we evolved. It tells us there was no Israelite Exodus from Egypt. It tells us the Nativity stories in the Gospels could not be true. It tells us virgins do not have babies. It tells us that dead people do not bodily rise from the grave. Christians must denigrate science in order to believe. Science or Faith? Science has a track record. Faith flies planes into buildings. Science all the way, hands down. End of story.</span><br /><br />And now ladies and gentlemen, the jaw-dropping unanticipated climax to John's rant on psychoanalyzing religious believers.<br /><br />Science tells us prayer doesn't work? Science says virgins don't have babies? All of this is of course in light of the fact that John moans about how believers don't engage him with rational discourse. Well, if one were to put faith into a box comprised of denial and refusal to consider evidence, and defines faith as a reliance on these aspects yet expects believers to back their faith with evidence, then it stands that John would have believers do the logically impossible. Contradict their own stances while somehow maintaining them in a non-contradictory fashion.<br /><br />Clearly someone doesn't take the time to work out the kinks to their own arguments and assessments of mind.Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-78590064676796909782011-03-11T14:07:00.001-08:002011-03-11T14:07:42.890-08:00New Sister Site: Introducing the WBC WatchdogThis may not interest anyone who reads this, but I've finally made the committment to create a website on the Westboro Baptist Church and stick with it. You'll find the link on the sidebar.<br /><br />The catch to this blog is that, while it does not show any sympathy for the Phelps' extremist views, it also dispells the popular myths surrounding the church, and will attempt to document facts about them and their philosophies in order to better "know thy enemy".<br /><br />If you happen to be interested, go and check it out. It's of course still a work in progress, but with the passing of time I'll be adding more material and beefing it with more resources.<br /><br />Thanks anyway.<br /><br />- TBTTruth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-47243475804654502712011-03-11T09:45:00.000-08:002011-03-11T10:22:32.624-08:00"Evidence"???Nick (ApologiaPhoenix) a somewhat contributor here and frequent moderator over at TheologyWeb, brought this to my attention as I was skimming the March 2011 Screwballs thread:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/devastating-tsunami-hits-japan-you-want.html#disqus_thread<br /><br />If you've kept up on any recent news lately, you'd know perfectly well that John is talking about the tsunami mass earthquake which hit Japan sometime mid to late evening yesterday.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span>Now it's not so much that I disagree with John's viewpoint on the nature and extent of these disaster and their implications for theological beliefs. It's just, well...<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span>Check out the title: <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/devastating-tsunami-hits-japan-you-want.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Devastating Tsunami Hits Japan. You Want Evidence There Isn't a Good Omnipotent God? Here it is.</a><br /><br />*Sigh*....does this sound like anything new from Debunking Christianity? If you answered no, then you would most certainly be correct. Anything bad that happens in the world on a major scale is likely to get pinned down by John and like-minded folk as evidence that there is no good omnipotent God.<br /><br />Except when these arguments turn into a formulated pattern, and become a franchise just like the majority of John's other arguments and propositions, then where does there effectiveness lie? Where is the substantial content? Where is this "evidence" that John speaks of. At some point it becomes an "argument" which relies on your emotional suggestiveness. Does it actually address anything on a cerebral level? Does it provide anything of coherent structure? NO. It's really quite similar to the tactics used by one of my favorite and often mentioned domestic terrorist groups, PETA. I have compared John to people who endorse PETA (even though I cannot state as a matter of fact that John would be amongst those who do) because he relies mostly on the power of suggestion rather than the power of reason. What does PETA do to convince people that eating meat is wrong and abhorrent? They compare eating chicken McNuggets to the Concentration Camps, they prey on children with videos of the horrific and illegal torture of endangered species. Do they at all attempt to explain such statements as why eating meat is "wrong" for humans to do? Never.<br /><br />In the same sense, does John provide anything of content beside videos and soundbites, news clips, and rehashed arguments? We await the day that John could commit to actual substance. That is a hope and anticipation of ours here on this blog. And if somehow John could explain in this particular instance, how its implied significance is different or moreso than in other previously mentioned cases, then we will afford John that merit.<br /><br />John writes just above the embedded video:<br /><br />"Here it is. Try explaining this rather than explaining it away."<br /><br />And in conjunction with a comment made this very morning:<br /><br /><div class="dsq-comment-header-meta-wrapper"> <cite id="dsq-cite-164087679" class="dsq-comment-cite"> <span id="dsq-author-user-164087679">johnwloftus</span> </cite> <img src="http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1299805542/images/themes/narcissus/moderator.png" class="dsq-moderator-star" title="Moderator" height="14" width="15" /> <span class="dsq-comment-header-time"> <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/devastating-tsunami-hits-japan-you-want.html#comment-164087679" title="Permalink">Today 09:10 AM</a> </span><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/devastating-tsunami-hits-japan-you-want.html#comment-164083703" title="Jump to comment" class="dsq-reply-link">in reply to Mike B.</a> </div> <div id="dsq-comment-body-164087679" class="dsq-comment-body"> <div class="dsq-comment-message" id="dsq-comment-message-164087679"> "Mike, I written about tragedies before and every time I do some people say I'm insensitive. But if I wrote about a distant event in the past it would not be fresh on people's minds."</div> </div><br />Well John, maybe you could look at this way: You do make a fuss about just any type of calamity that comes to your attention. You have a tendency like that of the media to skew these events to fit your perspective, just like the media's allegations that Jared Loughner was a right-wing conspirator, not a registered Independent with severe psychological problems not related to religious affiliations or even politics.<br /><br />And something else you fail to touch upon is what I've already brought up in this post: You fail to explain how the recency of an event makes it much more signficant than those of the past. What does this earthquake prove about anything? What could it possibly indicate? You leave these questions hanging in the air for the individual to decide. That's employing the same reasoning used by Creationists, John. What does this prove that couldn't somehow be proven from the distant past?<br /><br />Keep in mind that because calamities have always been a fact of life, such instances were happening even during the time the Bible was being written. Does this make the Bible true? No, not by necessity. But it does show that it is a very small probability that ancient people were ignorant and oblivious to natural disasters. The key is to pinpoint what the ancients were conveying about their world at the time that they wrote this material which is now affecting our contemporary society. John makes no effort really to address any of these topics. This is why his arguments fall flat on their face.Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-66532931467156914532011-01-13T14:09:00.000-08:002011-01-13T14:19:23.020-08:00Our Mission StatementYou know almost every organization has one in some form or another, and while we aren't some large online corporation or business group, I think what YouTube user Anekantavad (however you pronounce that :P) <strong><a id="watch-username" class="inline-block" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Anekantavad"><strong></strong></a></strong>said in his most recent reply to famous internet atheist celebrity <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ff3Qg6B_WY">Pat Condell</a> sums up the mission and intended purpose of this blog as a whole. Given that I am a non-Christian staff member/founder of this blog, this is what stands out from our typical rants against Debunking Christianity. We are, in more or less terms, dedicated to providing critical analysis of the New Atheist movement and its various forms. Pat Condell being amongst one of many notable individuals within the movement itself, serve as an example to what I am specifically referring too.<br /><br />Let this speak for itself. Enjoy:<br /><br /><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-W3vKNH4jI?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-W3vKNH4jI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></embed></object>Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-32928629296725244892011-01-11T12:51:00.000-08:002011-01-11T13:52:27.857-08:00Are There Really Atheist/Skeptic Apologetics?Guest commentator Morrison recently wrote that we have become inactive here with our posts and updates while John Loftus of Debunking Christianity ups his level of "aggressiveness." While this means very little in terms of significance to myself and JP Holding (because what we are usually faced with is what John has discussed plenty in detail before and it can only become irritatingly repetitive), I figure what the heck as usual. This blog exists for a reason. Keep in mind, however, the reasons for such sporadic intervals in updates is simply based on two major factors: 1) This blog is not our lives and neither is John Loftus, believe it or not, and 2) There are, admittely, more important priorities at stake other than debating on the internet. I'm sure even our detracting critics can agree with these sentiments, even if they don't believe for a second they apply to us the staff. This blog is somewhat fun to manage and it also gives us a medium for calling out John's material in a way he despises and would preferably censor [except when he attempts to do so here, he gets bitch-slapped, not us ;)], it's not a career job for us and this blog has made very little in terms of profit and income. After all this is <span style="font-style: italic;">Debunking Loftus</span>, not<span style="font-style: italic;"> Debunking Christianity </span>(:P), and our approach to these subjects of discussions stems from an entirely different even if somewhat similar rationale.<br /><br />The title of this post was prompted by John's self-defense against <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-so-called-failure-of-outsider-test.html#more">a skeptic's critique</a> of his infamous but ineffective and shortcoming OTF (otherwise spelled out as "Outsider Test for Faith" for you noobs). To those of you that have kept up with this blog since the exact date of inception, what you are about to skim over is probably not something that will keep you too terribly interested or will really stick out in your mind as intriguing or intellectually stimulating, but we'll take a jab at it anyway.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">John Loftus: </span><span style="font-style: italic;">I will offer a brief response to Thrasymachus who claims that the </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://thepolemicalmedic.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/on-the-failure-of-the-outsider-test-for-faith/" target="_blank">Outsider Test is a failure.</a><a style="font-style: italic;" name="more"></a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> I'll place his words in blockquotes:</span><br /><blockquote>I’m not a believer, but I’m also not convinced that the OTF is the rhetorical silver bullet it is made out to be. I hope to clarify and augment the OTF to avoid some of the more common criticisms, and hopefully cut through some of the confusion between Loftus and his detractors. In the final reckoning, though, I will show the OTF isn’t a significantly persuasive force for Atheism.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The OTF is no silver bullet. There are no silver bullets. If that is the standard then all counter Christian apologetics fail.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Our commentary:</span> There are no "silver bullets" lurking around that you might be able to spot John? None at all? If there are no "silver bullets" than by what term or labeling reference do we ascribe to the intent of bolstering confidence in your arguments, your colleagues' arguments, or even the arguments of New Atheists in general? If there are no arguments out there that stand out from the rest, then isn't it a rehashing of old and limited materials to defend a worldview/cause not worth defending?<br /><br />As I penned back in 2010 in one of the entries to my logic series concerning John's favorite forms of argument, I specifically listed <span style="font-style: italic;">the fallacy of equivocation</span> (i.e., double meaning for a single, specific word) as one argumentative pattern trait we can attribute to this line of reasoning. To what exactly am I referring too? John's strung together sentence of "counter Christian apologetics."<br /><br />Now I may appear to be a pain in the ass for going here, but why should a "counter Christian" worldview (more specifically in this case, atheism/agnosticism/skepticism) need apologetics at all? Again, atheism according to many belonging to the New Atheist movement and related groups state with fervor that atheism is merely the disbelief in the existence of God or a god. What exactly is there to defend here?<br /><br />And of course, without having self-recognition or introspection in mind, John has argued this too. So, it would seem quite strange that one would be an apologist for a worldview that espouses nothing more than a disbelief in deities, wouldn't it?<br /><br />There's an interesting trip wire that never seems to get answered/resolved by John and the like. Instead, it usually boils down to dealing justice against Christians because they are running the spinwheel like a high speed car chase, and someone needs to put them in their place.<br /><br />And let's just take away atheism from the picture for a second. Now what are we left with exactly? "Counter Christian apologetics" conveys unspecified and undefined meanings. It fails for explaining things. Are we rooting for pagans? Muslims? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Oh, none of the above?<br /><br />So what is it really? It's the defense of a negative, a position not swayed or determined by the tenents of any faith or doctrine. It's just intended to counteract the nonsense of religion and its grip on society.<br /><br /><blockquote><b>What’s the test?</b><br /><br />What exactly is the outsider test? “to test their own adopted religious faith from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism they use to evaluate other religious faiths” isn’t entirely clear. This lack of clarity – both from Loftus and his critics – makes the argument very hard to dissect indeed.</blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">John Loftus:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> I'm sorry, what isn’t clear about it? I first proposed it on a blog post and have refined it since then. What matters is how I articulate it now.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Our commentary:</span> Yes and no, John. If you are going to put forth a faith-shattering argument, it should account for any potential loopholes. Even if you are a human being and therefore incapable of constructing the perfect argument, your goal is to bring a religion down to its needs and then sever its head from the rest of the body. And Thrascymachus did specify what wasn't clear about your argument. You boldy propose that the primary mechanism for getting your argument off the ground is to create more doubt in one's religious beliefs by cross-examination. However, this falls flat on its face because you are making an erroneous assumption about individuals based on groups. You are defying categorical logic.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">John Loftus:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">I have defined the outsider as the consistent skeptic, a person who uses the same level of skepticism to evaluate all religious faiths. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Our commentary: </span>Again, you spell your defiance and reluctance to embrace categorical logic in spades with this statement. Your argument is improbable by its very first premise, and by this it cannot lead and follow into subsequent premises and is deprived of a valid conclusion. You tread into deep territory with this one, because consistency once again varies from individual to individual, and furthermore because humans are fallible and without a constant system of checks and balances of the self, you run short on ammunition as to what a "consistent skeptic" is (think 9/11 truthers, many of whom may and do have valid political points about the government, yet are relunctant and unwilling to see the reality of September 11, 2001: That is to say, it was not plotted by the United States government, it was a successful terrorist attack employed by Al Qaeda).<br /><br />Now it's time to go back to the drawing board. I'm sure many of you will enjoy ripping this to shreds, but I need to do more important things now. Until my next post...Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-78621329818901123722010-10-28T12:12:00.000-07:002010-10-28T12:15:05.843-07:00HIC!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2B6iNvgnCW4EtECrNj3EqI6iO78-tL9p7V7JIy2SXD3asrbfFu96Fd3lbWmtywv17rYEFSf_YsKq-CFrZ2I6r8LPUMwqN_MxPQO3SVFhArpjssyRLv2qofoby-sYxzJxFAEEkYCQ2FOtY/s1600/loftdrunk.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2B6iNvgnCW4EtECrNj3EqI6iO78-tL9p7V7JIy2SXD3asrbfFu96Fd3lbWmtywv17rYEFSf_YsKq-CFrZ2I6r8LPUMwqN_MxPQO3SVFhArpjssyRLv2qofoby-sYxzJxFAEEkYCQ2FOtY/s320/loftdrunk.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533177469893405762" border="0" /></a><br />It's nice to know that with all the serious problems with alcoholism in this country -- the broken homes, the fatal and dismembering auto accidents, the abused spouses and children, the climbing rehabilitation costs, and so on -- John is once again setting a fine, sober example by bragging about how "sauced" he was at one of those freethought meetings. How 'bout it, John?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Who, me? HIC!"<br /></span><br />Thanks, John.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-77560479593425797802010-09-07T12:22:00.001-07:002010-09-07T12:25:04.460-07:00John the Marketing Maven<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgceqtk7aV5kOwRuiPCvmBlU8d1JY1Hc6T5wi6dekQC6kUYP5uRimd3UM7qMYT9w2US_OtLapw01ul_1H7HJlnhWNL-o_gdQeYs3PTJZYRP4tw1P80zfFdJVtbg1exui_WsSbqHDJArjVuV/s1600/OutsiderTestMug.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgceqtk7aV5kOwRuiPCvmBlU8d1JY1Hc6T5wi6dekQC6kUYP5uRimd3UM7qMYT9w2US_OtLapw01ul_1H7HJlnhWNL-o_gdQeYs3PTJZYRP4tw1P80zfFdJVtbg1exui_WsSbqHDJArjVuV/s320/OutsiderTestMug.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5514254576832474114" border="0" /></a><br />Oh wow. John has hit a new low (awful hard for him) when it comes to narcissistic product marketing, with this "Outsider Test for Faith" coffee mug.<br /><br />Now all he needs is an "I Can't Understand the 7th Commandment" t-shirt.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-25493097887730043272010-08-28T09:00:00.000-07:002010-08-28T09:03:29.382-07:00Maybe He Needs an Outsider Test?John just committed unintended irony #5,764,382 with this one...<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Quote of the Day by a Christian Named Marcus McElhaney</span><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;" class="quote"> By John W. Loftus at 8/27/2010<br /><br />" Emory and Greg, I concede that the Bible is indeed confusing...to both of you! Other people don't agree with you[r or] Greg's thoughts on how confusing the Bible is. Maybe you just need to study harder."<br /><br />This quote is utterly ridiculous to the nth degree. If we study harder then we'd come to Marcus's conclusions, right? Right! With thinking skills like the ones Marcus displays here at DC, no wonder he believes. If Marcus is the example then we need to be almost brain dead to believe. </blockquote>Uh....but who was it who said in defense of his "Outsider Test" that the main sign of whether you pass is that you come to believe the same things John Loftus does?<br /><br />The more John talks, the more he helps us out!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-36885415361684035652010-08-16T09:51:00.000-07:002010-08-16T09:52:10.570-07:00Another Moral-Cesspool "Christian" for Loftushttp://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=3052496&postcount=442<br /><br />And be sure to check out Stark's reply, which sounds an awful lot like something Loftus would say. Separated at birth?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-45706798729208949582010-08-13T06:32:00.000-07:002010-08-13T06:37:55.962-07:00Quote of the Day by John LoftusJohn seems to have decided to turn himself into one of those goofy desktop calendars over at DC, as he posts some "quote of the day" from some rabid fundy atheist friend of his that he no doubt thinks is somehow profound -- which is a way of saying, it's something he might not even understand, so he's impressed by it.<br /><br />So how about we do a feature like that here -- only each day, it will be something profound by John?<br /><br />Let's see -- how about this one?<br /><br />"<span style="color: black;" lang="EN">I'm sorry but it's very hard for me not to just lash out at you with all kinds of phrases that indicate your very low intelligence level."<br /><br />Or this one?<br /><br />"</span>You are an idiot. Anyone who will take the time to read through the <acronym>thread</acronym> “Is There Such a Thing as an Honest Doubter?” <span class="GramE">Will see that.</span> I cannot discuss anything with you because you simply cannot understand a <span class="SpellE">mildy</span> [sic] complex argument. You shouldn't even be on this website until you finish your high school level degree. Anything I say gets twisted by you (probably this post as well), so there isn't even a basis for a discussion at all, and I have better things to do. If you were even a half-wit thinker you could answer every one of the questions you asked of me. "<br /><br />Or even better:<br /><br />"I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I'm probably not going to waste my time on him, except to point out what others are saying about him."<br /><span style="color: black;" lang="EN"><br />Maybe the best of all though:<br /><br />"Seventh commandment? What seventh commandment? It's not clear."<br /><br />Well, OK, that wasn't a direct quote, but still...<br /><br />Anyway, <span style="font-style: italic;">Cowboys Who Talk Through Their Hats </span>is coming along nicely. You'd think John would try to make it harder on us....<br /><o:p></o:p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-86531157042187612102010-08-11T17:39:00.000-07:002010-08-11T18:14:59.404-07:00John Loftus for PETA?"Since human beings have evolved from the lower animals we would expect the lower animals to exhibit some of the traits we have developed more fully. There is plenty of evidence they can remember, have emotions, and feel compassion. They also know in limited ways that they are doing wrong. I see this in my cat every day. When we say no he throws a temper tantrum. Some dogs poop on the carpet when neglected to get our attention, if we're gone too long. This evidence bolsters the claim that morality evolved and it also presents theists with what I call "The Darwinian Problem of Evil.""<br /><br />It just so happens that I've picked up on another trait of John's that is common with his DC articles, and this time it is a matter of self-referencing. In an effort to look smart and creative, John coins some fancy schmancy term that has been probably been used elsewhere in the past or is a rip-off of something he most likely found in a philosophy book. Anything to make himself look like he is actually a doctor in the subject. But that is neither here nor there...<br /><br />The more enlightenment John has to shed about the Animal Kingdom the more and more convinced I become that John just might endorse the animal rights extremist group, PETA. What reasons do I have? Well...<br /><br /><ul><li>John advocates that a "perfect" hypothetical world would be one without any predation, where every living being (excluding plants of course) would be vegetarians.</li><li>John obsesses on animals, and continually points to the Animal Kingdom as a source of argumentation against the theist worldview.</li><li>John assumes that the emotional displays and gestures of animals are almost exactly the same as humans, hence:</li><li>John comes up with some rinky-tink term like "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" with many several philosophical errors. First off, do animals have a concept of evil? Do they even view suffering in the same way that humans do? If they don't, then there is no "problem of evil" because it does not apply to animals who are without a concept of good and evil.</li></ul><br />There is no beating around the bush that humans are animals just like non-human animals are animals. We share what are called sets of basic instincts. But beyond this, it is not surprising that our minds work differently because of our occupational niche'. Believe it or not, the niche' is what in turn molds us into how we look at the world. If this were not true than it would not be the case that the American economic system has been able to pick itself up even in the midst of crises, such as the one we are currently facing now. In America, people are allowed to build a career out of their passions, in turn offering vitality and strength to the American economy. When concerning matters of evolution, you must never disregard the niche', it is a powerful driving force.<br /><br />On some common denominator animals can relate to us and foster connections even if we are a different species, such as dolphins having the altruistic ability to save drowning household pets. But again this is almost purely reliant on basic and natural instincts. Keep in mind as animals we share the same genetic code as everything else in life, but what makes the difference is how our genes are <span style="font-style: italic;">expressed</span>, i.e., how they conform to our environment.<br /><br />If we were to take John's philosophical argument seriously even for just a minute, what would stop us from feeling sympathy for flies and insects when we kill them? What about ants? Spiders? Ticks?<br /><br />And just like PETA, John assumes that animals have a concept of morality in the same sense that humans do, despite that almost no non-human species out there uses reason or logic to their advantage. Just as PETA suggests that animals out to be treated humanely, without thinking of what it means to be <span style="font-style: italic;">humane</span>.<br /><br />"Why do they suffer so much if a perfectly good God exists?<a name="more">"</a><br /><br />Oh, and, another thing, how do animals suffer in the human sense, John? Do apex predators suffer or something?Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-85437041996866720982010-08-10T19:43:00.000-07:002010-08-10T20:36:04.411-07:00The Debunking Loftus ChallengeMany people come onto this site with a sympathetic view of John Loftus, the founder and manager of Debunking Christianity. Some individuals, like Sarah Boylen, have admitted to their own ignorance of the issues between the ongoing Holding/Loftus fueds despite the fact that she <span style="font-style: italic;">automatically assumes</span> with Loftus and immediately classifies Holding and myself as antagonists:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"I don't know much about Loftus or Holding.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">...From what I can tell Holding has been at this for more than ten years and yet he's still less than a small fry. He appears to be an unrepentant internet bully and cheap insult artist</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">...Your left handed "Loftus is worse" defense is pretty darned shallow. Especially for a self-important anointed man of God.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">...Maybe his piddly little ad hominems and backdoor character assassinations are keeping him right where he belongs. Dancing to the same old worn out children's song.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Again, I'm not very familiar with either of them</span> </span>but unlike Holding, Loftus seems to have learned a lesson. He's getting some positive attention. That must get Holding's ample panties in big old bunch."</span><br /><br />Linky: http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2010/08/james-mcgraths-clouded-moral.html?showComment=1281401592161#c1800474317537251355<br /><br />Doing only the slightest of research and objective measuring of the issues doesn't seem to serve very many people all that well these days. So instead of reciting the same old collected evidence point for point, I am now issuing a challenge to all of those who would rather take Loftus' side than ours, and would rather trust in his judgment rather than actual rationality.<br /><br />So now it's time to issue our own "challenge" to those of you (and you know who you are) in the audience that are inclined to such a backwards perception. Apparently you guys take the time of day to post on this blog with your comments, surely it must be important enough for you guys to prove to yourselves whether or not Loftus is the lesser of the two "evils."<br /><br />Put aside your viewpoints, philosophies, and biases for a moment and actually try striking up a challenge to how John runs the show. It's that simple. You owe it to yourself and would be doing a disjustice if you didn't do so. You might want to ask John exactly what he means when he says he isn't insulting the disabled, when he does in fact bring up derogatory references to disabled people not once, but in fact, twice.<br /><br />Fundamentally speaking, however, only those who are not completely swayed by Loftus' rhetoric will be capable of successfully partaking in the challenge. This is especially geared towards those who choose to sit on the fence and must decide for themselves. The issuance of this challenge is not meant to garner endorsements from participants. It is to hear what your experiences are afterwards. If it can be substantiated that John Loftus is a morally good and sane person, then feel free to show us, then you may lather us all you want with accusations of character assasination and the like.<br /><br />Until then, as it is often said in these here parts, "put up or shut up."<br /><br />Oh, and, here are some resources you can use to guide you along in the process:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.csmn.uio.no/research/moral-agency/proc_moral_just.html">Procedures of Moral Justification</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#SH4c">The Will Theory Approach</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ditext.com/bonjour/bonjour0.html">KNOWLEDGE, JUSTIFICATION, AND TRUTH</a>Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-37751524233923564382010-08-09T09:48:00.000-07:002010-08-09T10:11:13.151-07:00The Cowboys Who Talk Through Their Hats<div style="text-align: center;">2010 is the official year of the new decade.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;">On August 31, the Internet will once again be exposed to another entry in the "Contra-Loftus" series.<br /><br />Featuring James Patrick Holding of Tektonics.org, Nick a.k.a. "ApologiaPhoenix" of TheologyWeb, amongst many others old and new.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Introducing:</span><br /><br /><img src="file:///Users/Jonathan/Desktop/attachment.jpg" alt="" /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB4_JiUQ4OGr3oRc6RIMeSkVLhLOWJmJBd_xo5NS37SGAMl6VrGkXtEZM_797T7GCNp6y7ZztrqhI0Y9PhhQnZP_6XvZMZnIZjdGFKLX7aLbwrRmOZlFYh5dImjwn6AK6lUNU1AzBfZsM/s1600/attachment.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 385px; height: 73px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB4_JiUQ4OGr3oRc6RIMeSkVLhLOWJmJBd_xo5NS37SGAMl6VrGkXtEZM_797T7GCNp6y7ZztrqhI0Y9PhhQnZP_6XvZMZnIZjdGFKLX7aLbwrRmOZlFYh5dImjwn6AK6lUNU1AzBfZsM/s400/attachment.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5503457479639301298" border="0" /></a><br />The follow-up and subsequent entry to 2009's "The Cowboy Who Wasn't There", this time serving as a reponse to one of Loftus' latest releases, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Christian Delusion</span> (early 2010).<br /></div>Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-34052109857360433712010-08-09T06:54:00.000-07:002010-08-09T07:56:52.993-07:00James McGrath's Clouded Moral Loftusvision<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >It’s become clear that James McGrath, who wrote an ill-advised endorsement of John’s book <span style="font-style: italic;">The Christian Delusion</span>, has a wee little problem with the practice of truth-telling. What we mainly have here is someone who doesn’t tell the whole story and then behaves like the child who has been caught pocketing Skittles at the five and dime. I’ll comment on a few other things as well.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >McGrath:<span style="font-style: italic;"> I was astonished at the level of ire from someone with whom I had never exchanged e-mails or otherwise communicated at any previous point. Is it just a sign of my old age that I think people would normally be properly introduced before attacking one another?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><br /><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >I don’t know about “old age” but it is definitely a problem of narrow perspective. This idea that you have to be “properly introduced” before you can go critique people’s work is a peculiar fancy, one that seems designed to shut down deserved criticisms by hedging them in with a host of contrived rules and regulations.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >McGrath is a person with a public record (as am I). I attacked/addressed nothing but the contents of that public record: His book, his endorsement of Loftus’ book. The contents of these things are hardly of insufficient depth for a criticism to be unwarranted. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >For years I have been “attacked” by atheists who have never “properly introduced” themselves (whatever that might be defined as this week). I never complained of it on those terms once. Nor have countless other apologists, whether Christian, Mormon, etc. I can’t imagine Daniel Peterson of FARMS, for example, making such a transparently contrived excuse. He and I have had our moments both ways, but neither of us has complained that the other had not been “properly introduced” to us.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >If McGrath can’t stand the scrutiny of being a public figure who issues comments on matters of public interest, he should stick with Twittering and stop writing books and book endorsements.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >Throughout history, criticism has been leveled by perfect strangers against one another. Jesus and the Pharisees did not hoist beers together before Jesus let them have it. Paul didn’t sit down for hot dogs with the pro-circumcision party before he blasted them. From the other side of the fence, Robert Ingersoll certainly didn’t sit down with the authors of the Bible before he wrote all of his works taking them to task. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >McGrath needs to stop making up rules that are obviously designed to stop him having to endure the rigors of criticism.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >I found it particularly ironic because this individual's main complain (sic) was that, by suggesting that Christians could learn from reading a certain book by multiple authors that presents atheists' viewpoints, I had associated with a person (the editor of the volume) who is, in this apologist's words, ‘of such disreputable character.’ Since when did writing something like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003OIBSAG?ie=UTF8&tag=jamefmcgrshom-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B003OIBSAG">this</a> (just click through and search for my name) constitute an endorsement of the behavior of a volume's editor?</span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >McGrath here is hiding much of the truth. I did far more than simply point out the disreputable character of Loftus with a mere vague phrase. I gave some rather concrete examples – this is exactly what I said in the email:</span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-style: italic;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-style: italic;font-size:12pt;" >Your endorsement of John Loftus' latest book, The Christian Delusion, is something I found exceptionally disturbing. Apart from the fact that the quality of the arguments he and his crew produce is exceptionally poor, he is an unusually despicable character who has an extended track record of dishonesty. He is willing to do anything to promote or justify himself; in particular, he debated a friend of mine on an online forum, whom he afterwards derided as a<br />‘handicapped Wal-mart clerk’ after the consensus emerged that he had lost the debate. He gave his own earlier book a glowing 5-star review on Amazon, which he later erased, and later denied having written. That is just the tip of the iceberg and not the worst of it.</span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >I can forgive McGrath for not realizing that TCD is composed of poor arguments, since it is clear that he isn’t much of a critical thinker himself. But he has continued to refuse to acknowledge the specific serious moral lapses of Loftus that have been presented to him, both in this message and in subsequent postings by others on his blog. This is not honest. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >If McGrath would simply have replied to my email by saying:</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >“I was not aware of these things. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.”</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >..it would have been enough. But no: He has chosen the route of disingenuous self-justification instead.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >As for the last bit, I have never directly said that what McGrath wrote was an endorsement of Loftus’ behavior. However, it may as well be in practice.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >Generally, it is recognized that when a person is of a certain level of moral degeneracy, they are supposed to be isolated and cut off from normal human interaction. To use an extreme example for illustrative purposes, no one with any moral sense would write an endorsement of a book written by Pol Pot, even if it were on the subject of tomato gardening. The excuse would not do (as McGrath tried) that the purpose was to encourage others to listen to others’ viewpoints. As I also pointed out to him, but to which he has never replied:</span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >Good point about listening to a range of atheist viewpoints. How about you next write one for say, Kenneth Humphreys, so that we can have a ‘useful opportunity’ to ‘listen to a range of viewpoints’ about how Jesus didn't exist? Better yet, there's a UFO cult I know of that would love to have others get a "useful opportunity" to "listen to a range of viewpoints" about how we can all get a UFO ride to Paradise. Can I put you in touch? And if you're really bold, maybe Prometheus can get you to write one for one of their X-rated videotape guides. A lot of people find those ‘viewpoints’ to be ‘useful’.</span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >In a nutshell, McGrath here puts utilitarianism above moral consideration. The only real question is whether Loftus has done enough to be placed in the category of a moral offender serious enough to be shunned.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >He is no Pol Pot of course, but major figures have been shunned for far less serious offenses than denigrating the disabled publicly, or creating fake blogs. (Funny too: McGrath is on about those who conduct “anonymous” criticism on the Internet – that’s exactly what Loftus did with his fake blog about me.)</span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >McGrath:<span style=""> O<span style="font-style: italic;">r do we live in an era in which, before writing a blurb for a book, one is expected to first spend time searching the internet for evidence of inappropriate behavior?</span></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >To put it in a nutshell, yes. The Internet has made it possible to do this, and it takes no more than five minutes – McGrath spends more time than that on Twitter each month. He also has a huge blogroll listed, and a huge list of “interesting sites,” as well as offering listings of interesting blog posts he is reading. He can’t take a few minutes from this busy, important list of tasks to check out the background of someone for whom he is writing a book endorsement – one that will appear in a book that will be purchased by, say, at least a dozen people? (wink) </span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >Perhaps all of this chatter on McGrath’s blog is a sign that McGrath has become one of Foreman’s “pancake people” – “spread wide and thin, as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” In that case it is quite understandable that he is not up to the task of being a responsible information broker.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >In this day we have even fast-food employers scouring online looking for prospective employees’ Facebook pages. When it comes to responsibly brokering information, we should expect no less from a reputedly serious scholar like McGrath.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-style: italic;font-size:12pt;" > <span style=""><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%; font-style: italic;font-size:12pt;" ><span style="">If we're supposed to search online and get to know those we interact with, then there is still further irony, since it was clear that this apologist had never read my blog (since he sarcastically asked whether I would endorse someone who says Jesus does not exist.)</span></span><o:p></o:p></p> <u4:p style="font-style: italic;"></u4:p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >How would this make any difference? McGrath wrote the endorsement for a book of atheists, which implies that he didn't have any objection to writing endorsements for books he had such wide disagreements with. His lack of epistemic consistency means that I have no reason to think he would never endorse a Christ-myth book. Even a direct profession that he would not wouldn't prove he would not at this point.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >I’ll leave McGrath’s further comments about alleged hostility aside; I have some comments on those on TheologyWeb, save to point out that McGrath isn’t really succeeding in obscuring his own passive-aggressive hostilities. His own posting is an act of “war” by his own definition. Just because he decorates his gun with perfumed flowers doesn’t mean he isn’t shooting to kill.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: arial;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" face="arial"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:12pt;" >Bottom line though – it’s not hard to see why he wrote an endorsement for Loftus. He has the same problems telling the whole truth.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-70793081762833745582010-07-21T07:38:00.000-07:002010-07-21T07:40:53.896-07:00Triablogue Makes Loftus Souphttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/infidel-delusion.html<br /><br />I'll be starting my own rebuttal of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Christian Delusion </span>next month, but meanwhile, here's one written by the team at Triablogue. This is a descriptive blog post; there's a link to a PDF of the 250+-page rebuttal within.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-29732462280703054692010-07-07T13:58:00.000-07:002010-07-07T14:04:47.782-07:00"Reality Check" Series Coming SoonIn light of my most recent post <a href="http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2010/07/scronny-brained-scholar.html">The Scronny-Brained Scholar</a>, I have decided to come up with a third series of posts on this blog which will help bolster its intended functional purpose. In addition to the series on logic and the yet-to-be-introduced series on ethics, I am also instating a response-series to John's "Reality Check" (which supposedly lays out the criteria for the hypothetically assumed reality we would be stuck with in the event Christianity was true. I invite every contributor on this blog to participate). Introducing:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 204);font-size:180%;" >Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if John Knows Anything about Debunking Christianity?</span><br /><br />I hope the majority of you like it.<br /><br />More to come.<br /><br />- TBTTruth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3226805636012568940.post-5625875180952872422010-07-07T12:31:00.000-07:002010-07-07T13:56:49.009-07:00The Scronny-Brained ScholarIt shouldn't surprise anyone that actually knows about our subject matter here but John shot himself in the foot again. Here we've run across an interesting admission on John's parts. All it takes is for one to connect the dots, using only John's own words and claims, to make a pretty substantial conclusion about his work ethic.<br /><br />Though it's not usually the case (like with everyone else) that they will come out and say something which may be revealing of one of their weaknesses/vices in a such a way as it is impossible to conclude otherwise, it requires very little psychoanalytical effort to examine the meaning behind many of John's assertions. There is also no difficulty in assuming that we can take on John's perspective for just a second, to see that his claims and his viewpoint leave us with only one dead end: John just doesn't care about true authenticity of genuine sincerity.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, others have made observations of John's weaknesses in his methods of attack. Someone (presumably Christian) writes to John's blog saying he needs to deal with intellectual "heavyweights", something John seems <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-you-need-to-deal-with-heavyweights.html">eager to dismiss</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In my opinion there are no heavy weights for Christianity just as there are no heavy weights for Scientology or Islam or Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism. It's all improbable to the core and I see no reason why one religious myth's scholar is any better than another.</span><br /><br />Oh, and did I mention logical inconsistencies, as well? We can clearly see this being the case, that John does disregard Christianity as superstitious nonsense and won't even bother dealing with its various shades. It's all stupid and without merit. Period.<br /><br />But somehow John seems bent on debunking it. He seems bent on ranting about William Lane Craig and clearly has an obsessive interest.<br /><br />Again, why John, do you insist on debunking something that is stupid and outdated and superstitious in the first place? Aren't you preaching to the choir when you do this? You don't even want to handle the complex arguments being put forth in defense of Christianity. You admit to this.<br /><br />But when the opportunity arises for showmanship, you can guarantee John arrives to the scene. He eagerly and hastily flaunts his debates with notable Christian figures like Dinesh D' Souza. He wants to broadcast his name in show lights. He cannot deny this.<br /><br />There is no mistaking the fact, however, that John admits to his intellectual laziness, even if he doesn't think so:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">My specific target audience is conservative "Bible believing" fundamentalist evangelicals. In order to do an effective job of debunking religion one must specialize, you see. So I do. Since I know the most about Christianity I focus on that. And even that's not specialized enough. The Christian religion is too large to take aim at because no matter what I write there will always be Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, or liberals who will come along and claim I'm not saying anything against REAL or TRUE Christianity--their version of it. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> My goal is a negative one. I aim to push evangelicals off dead center so they will have to start thinking for themselves rather than proof-texting from an ancient canonized set of barbaric and superstitious writings. While I do point Christians in the direction of atheism I leave it to others to take up where I left off. Keep in mind that I'm not ignorant about liberal versions of Christianity. I was once a liberal myself after leaving evangelicalism then drifted toward agnosticism and ended up being an atheist.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Cheers,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> John W. Loftus</span><br /><br />John reads our material? NO WAY! Far out, dude!<br /><br />It's funny though, John, just how intellectually lazy you are and everything. Let me see if we can put to test your claim of how "specialization" is required to debunk a set of kooky beliefs:<br /><br /><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/07/reality-check-what-must-be-case-if_2374.html">Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?</a><a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/07/reality-check-what-must-be-case-if_2374.html"> (#28)</a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!</span><br /><br />Now personally speaking, based on my lack of life experiences and short-lived time here on this planet, I can say that I know of NO evangelical non-denominational apologist who would agree with this in any sense that it is being said. No apologist I have ever read has argued along this line of reasoning, but rather, the exact opposite. From my knowledge of general Christian apologetics, the argument goes that those ignorant of Christianity <span style="font-weight: bold;">cannot be held accountable</span> for their particular beliefs, even if they run counter to Christian theology.<br /><br />Time to add some meat to those bones, girly man...Truth Be Toldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02054029140219121029noreply@blogger.com3