Getting away from the usual Loftus and Debunking Christianity subject matter (don't worry, there is another post I will be finishing up here soon), I think it's somewhat of an important issue to get this out here and in the open.
Many people will get the impression that because this website is run by myself and JP Holding, who has assisted me in most of my major web projects thusfar, that I am probably a Christian myself or that I am part of what might be considered the 'typical' TheologyWeb mindset. I'm here to put these myths to rest to establish what the purpose of this website is and why it is important. Not that I haven't done this before, but this takes on a slightly different degree of shading.
The issue of rampant and unjustified censorship on the part of the TheologyWeb forums has generated a great deal of complaints in the past from both atheists and Christians, as well as other theists. The management behind TWeb has all the right in the world to impose restrictions it sees fit, but the point is that many of TWeb's rules are just flat out ridiculous, and in saying this I am making explicit that I have no official endorsement of TWeb's policies nor do I agree with many of them. I am primarily referring to TWeb's restriction on citing sources that may contain profane or extremely offensive language, even if it is not directly quoted within the citation. For a website like Theology Web, it is noble to uphold standards that make the site "family safe", however....
The internet is the internet. My generation and those to follow are literally surrounded by electronic devices and the conveniences the internet now provides that didn't even exist more than a decade ago. TWeb fails to account for the accessibility of information across a wide range of topics, and it's always important to remember the internet does not filter its own content. It is what it is. Ultimately it is the responsibility of one's self or their caring social environment (i.e., family and friends) to dictate whether or not someone should have the means of accessing adult materials or coming across "profane language" even it will indeed threaten their wellbeing within the respective environment.
Think about this for a moment: If profanity is of such a concern to upholding family values, then maybe it is time to consider whether using a keyboard contributes to anything positive for families to begin with. How far would universities get if they were to instill standards limiting students and faculty to quoting and citing references authored only by individuals who have never made any known offensive statements in their work and in other related entries?
No message board that exists has the capacity to do a complete background check and to verify the age of a user who has several different ways of remaining anonymous. It's silly and completely unreasonable to restrict the citation of sources which may contain "adult" language, only because somewhere down the line, someone who shouldn't be exposed to such intense materials will discover them out of a type of rebellious nature. Prohibition, anyone?
There is perhaps some truth to the statements about non-Christian discrimination at the TWeb boards as well, even though in most cases they stem from the bickering of individuals that have certain extremist strides within them, and seek only to be divisive and difficult to deal with. I am not one of those individuals. But I am one of the many who has been slapped on the wrist many times at TWeb for committing arguably petty offenses. "Blasphemy", (a crime of which I have been apparently guilty of) can consist of simple postings phrased in manners such as these: "Oh my God! etc., etc., etc...." Yet to classify these as blasphemous is without logical merit. It is not being charitable to the intent by which the words were arranged within the post, and it unreasonably demands that individuals of a different belief system act according to a religion that doesn't apply to them or that they would otherwise never adhere too in their daily lives.
Many of whom I would call my bretheren on sites such as these hail from TWeb and may even call it their cyber home. But make no mistake that much of my activity is limited on the forums simply for reasons such as these and more. My blog was created to assess and evaluate the rationality behind the mindset of such prominent philosophies such as the ever-growing New Atheism, more specifically a blog which has gained popularity within the New Atheist movement. Being the founder of this blog, I want to make clear that I do not take sides with the management or concept of TheologyWeb, just as I do not take sides with the management or concept of Debunking Christianity. My motive can be derived from a philanthropic desire to spread the true faculties of reasoning onto the rest of the world, but doing so in a conservative fashion. Yes, I am a political conservative, but I am also for the progression of ideas and the betterment of a society. I refuse to side with the extremists. I do not endorse extremist viewpoints, whether they are generally maladaptive and harmful or if they simply mistake censorship for righteousness.
It should also not go without mentioning to say that individuals who venture onto cyber-space should not be allowed free reign to the extent that potential predators and unwanted websites and organizations start retrieving information and or gaining control over your computer and confidential data contained therein. But these are simply matters of the law, and the law is different from aspects of ethics. The law in the simplest of terms can only be used as a successful tool for maintaining order and structure, it cannot be used to control and to persuade. Those are determined by the willpower of the individual alone.
As a prospective philosopher the world must be acknowledged for what it is, and I do not doubt for a second that various world perspectives, whether religious or political, can come to this understanding and find commonality. The world has always had its dark aspects in reality, but we are now living in a time where globalization has a overwhelming involvement with about 98% of our daily activities. We can no longer expect ourselves to resolve our crises and overcome challenging obstacles by giving into our egos and letting our ideologies rule our lives. Now is the time to come together in a true and fruitful manifestation of progressivism. We cannot let the future become a world where the majority will profess logic but will disregard ethics as lovey dovey nonsense. We also cannot override logic with our emotions. We must seek the doctrine of the mean. If you do not seek balance in virtue, then the only expectation is that you will seek out vice.
Going back to TWeb I fear that it misses the degrees of extremity and contextual meaning behind certain things much in the same way that Loftus is blinded by his own embitteredness that on some level he is unable to recognize his highly flawed arguments or even his own condemning hypocricy. For TWeb, it is much like a parent restricting a child from having any exposure to nudity as if nudity was the same as pornography. Many TWebbers would undoubedtly be quick to point this out as being an extreme and misrepresentative analogy on behalf of the policies established by TWeb management because it is not as though the people at TWeb are oblivious to such things. But this point still remains: You cannot strip reality of all of its horrors and truths, because as soon as you do, you only set yourself up for delusions and a mentality of fear.
Places such as TWeb and Debunking Christianity may attempt to be forums of open and healthy exchange, and even while TWeb is the lesser of two evils (in a more or less sense), it remains that both are unfortunately based in insecure fragility. Period.
Showing posts with label Debunking Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debunking Christianity. Show all posts
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Results Are In
Is John an egoist? You decide:
That is, until he becomes better educated and also comes up to the adult world of respectful discourse.
Consider this: John admits to slanting the questions in order to produce presupposed answers, and based on this fact now argues that the voting participants deliberately and purposefully voted against JP. We ask you rational people, is this an honest inquiry or is it meant to personally attack and demean?
My Point About JP Holding is That He Can Safely Be Ignored.
I'm probably not going to leave this post up for long since I don't want to give him any more attention than I must do in order to make my point. My point can be found in the percentages in the poll I conducted in the sidebar for two weeks, not the actual number of votes themselves (most visitors to DC by far didn't even vote). For if I left the poll up for another two weeks or months the percentages of votes among people who are interested in the God-hypothesis on the web would probably be the same, except that he would run out of ignorant Christian friends who voted as they did (he cultivates them). Look at the poll and the percentages with me:What Do You Think of JP Holding?Sure I slanted the poll by how I phrased the questions, but I did give people the option to vote positively if they wanted to. Of the people who know him 81% don't think he's important enough to engage (from 1-3), while 56% of this same grouping think he's a total embarrassment to the faith he seeks to defend. Still an additional 46% of the people who voted don't even know he exists (from 4). Add them together and that means nearly 90% of the people interested in the God-hypothesis don't know him or care to hear about him (from 1-4). That's why I usually ignore him, because if we subtract the 25-30 votes from his ignorant Christian friends who cannot think for themselves who voted for him (from 1, and come on, that is the only reasonable explanation for many of these votes since only ignorant Christian friends who do not know of Swinburne, Plantinga, Craig, Copan, Moreland, and others, would vote that way), then he can be safely ignored. He is no threat to skepticism. My goal is to marginalize him, and I will.
1) One of the best apologists around (I’m an ignorant Christian) 47 (10%)
2) An average dime-a-dozen wannabe apologist 59 (13%)
3) An obnoxious hack who is an embarrassment to Christianity 137 (30%)
4) I don’t know of him 207 (46%)
That is, until he becomes better educated and also comes up to the adult world of respectful discourse.
Consider this: John admits to slanting the questions in order to produce presupposed answers, and based on this fact now argues that the voting participants deliberately and purposefully voted against JP. We ask you rational people, is this an honest inquiry or is it meant to personally attack and demean?
Monday, October 5, 2009
"It's Not Personal, Really!"
I don't know what it is about a man that just can't keep to his own word. What's even more of a shocker is that people actually listen to such a person and actually take his claims and assertions seriously. This alone is enough to compel someone to lose faith in all of humanity, a boat that has long sailed as far as I'm concerned.
Readers: Is there anything peculiar about this(???):
What do you think of JP Holding?
This poll literally came out of nowhere. The last post prior to the poll was this.
In fact, it was only a couple of days ago this week where John added a little intro tidbit into one of his latest here. That particular tidbit reads:
I have usually ignored JP Holding for the most part this past year or so and I was just wondering what people thought of him. Check out the following redated post and the poll to the right in the sidebar. Until he comes out of the sewer and up to the adult civilized world of discourse my plan is to ignore him. I call on both Christians and skeptics to do likewise.
Hmm...that's....odd, to say the least. What did Holding do this time to upset John?
Is it this post right here? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=132208
Funny that post is a result of John's own stupidity. JP is only guilty of posting the thread documenting his idiocy. It's not JP's fault that John is a total asshat.
In response to the poll, Holding posted a parody comeback on TWeb here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=132677
And so it is in these regards John thinks it's appropriate to bring up Holding's name, for the millionth time.
John's followers seem to be too stupid to figure it out for themselves: Why would Loftus make a spontaneous poll about JPH and then argue that if Holding somehow doesn't change his ways, he's going to be put on "ignore" (something Loftus has said countless times)? Furthermore, why would we CARE??? John isn't and has never been that important. Anyone who thinks that Holding does it just to get Loftus' "attention" is just about as deranged and deluded as Loftus is himself.
What's clear is that John suffers from delusions of grandeur, or delusions of an exceedingly high and undeserved status of significance and worth. But his followers keep lapping it up. They are oblivious to the patterns of behavior. There is simply no good reason that Loftus should have posted the poll in the first place other than Loftus' inability to deal with his own shortcomings when they are made explicit by someone else.
What's the difference between what us TWebbers say and do to what John says and does? The answer: We don't claim to ignore anything John has said or continually says. This blog wouldn't be here if our main objective was to ignore him. It's here to point out what should be obvious to the general public, but the gene pool has determined otherwise. The only claim ever made by this site which even remotely reflects what John has said is in offering civil discussion and debunking the claims coming from the other side. But everything else is a matter of words and actions, and how well the two line up with each other.
John complains about the superstitiousness of modern-day people, and yet his followers don't know or even want to willingly consider the lies and half-truths that John has thrown out to the world under the guise of free speech and civility. He really is just as bad as the Pat Robertson types, and about as intelligent. I would suspect that these claims would eventually end their cycles of repetitiveness and redundancy, but it's best to realize that John is a broken record. We should expect more of these instances to come in the future and we should also expect that John will blame his own faults on what Holding has to say or what he has done in the past. This is just standard Loftus-protocol.
Recently Mike Huckabee (trust me when I say that I would not normally quote this man) said the following on his show:
"You know it's foolish for us to act as though our point of view makes us always right and the other guy always wrong. Having different views is a good thing. But having different standards is not. If something is right, it's right. And if it's wrong, it's just wrong. Diversity is a good thing, but duplicity is not."
The primary error in John's thinking is that this blog is going to disappear and vanish long before Debunking Christianity actually "closes shop" for real. But the truth is is that even after Debunking Christianity goes bye bye for good, we will still be here.
So John, it's time for you to accept the fact that you're not that special. Deal with it.
Readers: Is there anything peculiar about this(???):
What do you think of JP Holding?
One of the best apologists around (I’m an ignorant Christian) | |
An average dime-a-dozen wannabe apologist | |
An obnoxious hack who is an embarrasment to Christianity | |
I don’t know of him |
This poll literally came out of nowhere. The last post prior to the poll was this.
In fact, it was only a couple of days ago this week where John added a little intro tidbit into one of his latest here. That particular tidbit reads:
I have usually ignored JP Holding for the most part this past year or so and I was just wondering what people thought of him. Check out the following redated post and the poll to the right in the sidebar. Until he comes out of the sewer and up to the adult civilized world of discourse my plan is to ignore him. I call on both Christians and skeptics to do likewise.
Hmm...that's....odd, to say the least. What did Holding do this time to upset John?
Is it this post right here? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=132208
Funny that post is a result of John's own stupidity. JP is only guilty of posting the thread documenting his idiocy. It's not JP's fault that John is a total asshat.
In response to the poll, Holding posted a parody comeback on TWeb here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=132677
And so it is in these regards John thinks it's appropriate to bring up Holding's name, for the millionth time.
John's followers seem to be too stupid to figure it out for themselves: Why would Loftus make a spontaneous poll about JPH and then argue that if Holding somehow doesn't change his ways, he's going to be put on "ignore" (something Loftus has said countless times)? Furthermore, why would we CARE??? John isn't and has never been that important. Anyone who thinks that Holding does it just to get Loftus' "attention" is just about as deranged and deluded as Loftus is himself.
What's clear is that John suffers from delusions of grandeur, or delusions of an exceedingly high and undeserved status of significance and worth. But his followers keep lapping it up. They are oblivious to the patterns of behavior. There is simply no good reason that Loftus should have posted the poll in the first place other than Loftus' inability to deal with his own shortcomings when they are made explicit by someone else.
What's the difference between what us TWebbers say and do to what John says and does? The answer: We don't claim to ignore anything John has said or continually says. This blog wouldn't be here if our main objective was to ignore him. It's here to point out what should be obvious to the general public, but the gene pool has determined otherwise. The only claim ever made by this site which even remotely reflects what John has said is in offering civil discussion and debunking the claims coming from the other side. But everything else is a matter of words and actions, and how well the two line up with each other.
John complains about the superstitiousness of modern-day people, and yet his followers don't know or even want to willingly consider the lies and half-truths that John has thrown out to the world under the guise of free speech and civility. He really is just as bad as the Pat Robertson types, and about as intelligent. I would suspect that these claims would eventually end their cycles of repetitiveness and redundancy, but it's best to realize that John is a broken record. We should expect more of these instances to come in the future and we should also expect that John will blame his own faults on what Holding has to say or what he has done in the past. This is just standard Loftus-protocol.
Recently Mike Huckabee (trust me when I say that I would not normally quote this man) said the following on his show:
"You know it's foolish for us to act as though our point of view makes us always right and the other guy always wrong. Having different views is a good thing. But having different standards is not. If something is right, it's right. And if it's wrong, it's just wrong. Diversity is a good thing, but duplicity is not."
The primary error in John's thinking is that this blog is going to disappear and vanish long before Debunking Christianity actually "closes shop" for real. But the truth is is that even after Debunking Christianity goes bye bye for good, we will still be here.
So John, it's time for you to accept the fact that you're not that special. Deal with it.
Friday, September 18, 2009
John W. Loftus, Friend of the Disabled
I'll start with an admission of bias: I'm someone who has been around people with disabilities for a long time. My stepfather and grandfather were totally blind. My mother was a teacher of students with disabilities for many years. I married a wonderful woman who is legally blind and has other minor health issues.
That's why John Loftus is about to get his can kicked again by me here, for his birthday post titled, "At 55 Today I'm Wondering If I Can Book This Guy in Advance to Sing at My Funeral! LOL"
In case he takes it down....John links to a YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ZU3YpLM18 in which a man in church with some sort of speech impediment works his way through Amazing Grace. The video title (and whoever posted it this way deserves as much scorn as John does) implies that the man is a former crackhead, though it's far from clear that he is. He may have some type of disability; a speech impediment like this one could have any number of causes. But regardless of the cause, to post such a thing in mockery is a disgrace, and for John to make fun of it this way is triply disgraceful.
Let's be reminded that John has a record for mocking people with disabilities. As Truth be Told, our host here, noted in his chapter for The Cowboy Who Wasn't There:
***
Perhaps one of the most shameful moments for Loftus came after a time after he debated TWeb member "ApologiaPhoenix" (Nick Peters) on the problem of evil. The consensus of TWeb members was that Nick handily defeated Loftus in debate. To set this up, it should be noted that Nick has a disability (Asperger's Syndrome, with some autism). After realizing that he was not the recognized winner of the debate, Loftus wrote:
No one but the ignorant would claim that I am ignorant.
To me Nick is just like a very bad Karaoke singer but doesn't know he is one, so he continues to badly sing out his song of arguments
Because he's handicapped, Christians here won't tell him otherwise. He's going to study to be an apologist, but he will fall flat on his face. There are a great many people in ministry who will fall flat on their faces because no one told them the truth that they should not pursue such goals. Nick is one of them. But since Christians believe God can make clay into gold they encourage him in faith, even though deep down inside they really don't believe it.
Tell him the truth! Save him from pursuing what will be a dead end career for him.
Nick, when you realize you don't have the brain power for being an apologist and your hopes and dreams are dashed, and possibly even you faith, remember who told you the truth. It was me.
Do something else with your life, and I'm serious.
For the record, it should be noted that even at this early stage in his career, several notable names have recognized Nick's talent in this area, notably Norman Geisler.
***
Although John's arm was twisted to the point that he issued a half-hearted apology for this commentary, it is obvious from this last post of his that he hasn't learned his lesson. I often say that fundy atheists like John retain a certain amount of bigotry from the fundy past, and this is a classic example.
And of course, typical of John, he can't even own up and makes excuses when called down. "Rob R" gave John a good lashing for this that deserves to be noted:
Do we know that this guy actually damaged his mind on drugs? He could've been born with mental retardation.Careful John. You know what scripture says about those who mock the poor (and it would seem the same logic of that consideration applies to the poor of mind).So just what human dignity and worth can we say that he has in a materialistic picture?
Loftus' reply speaks for itself in terms of his arrogance and ignorant bigotry:
You're a killjoy Rob. It's my birffday and I can have fun if I want to. So there.
You're absolutely right, John. It's your birthday. Go out and have some fun. Why don't you celebrate some more by pulling crutches away from people with polio, giving blind people the wrong bill back for change, and kicking Stepen Hawking's wheelchair down a steep incline? How about you start a show titled America's Funniest Disabilities? You'd be the perfect host since you obviously have a very serious one. Unfortunately, there's no cure or medication for the one you have, which is outright bigotry combined with magnified stupidity.
Happy Birthday, John, you jackass.
That's why John Loftus is about to get his can kicked again by me here, for his birthday post titled, "At 55 Today I'm Wondering If I Can Book This Guy in Advance to Sing at My Funeral! LOL"
In case he takes it down....John links to a YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ZU3YpLM18 in which a man in church with some sort of speech impediment works his way through Amazing Grace. The video title (and whoever posted it this way deserves as much scorn as John does) implies that the man is a former crackhead, though it's far from clear that he is. He may have some type of disability; a speech impediment like this one could have any number of causes. But regardless of the cause, to post such a thing in mockery is a disgrace, and for John to make fun of it this way is triply disgraceful.
Let's be reminded that John has a record for mocking people with disabilities. As Truth be Told, our host here, noted in his chapter for The Cowboy Who Wasn't There:
***
Perhaps one of the most shameful moments for Loftus came after a time after he debated TWeb member "ApologiaPhoenix" (Nick Peters) on the problem of evil. The consensus of TWeb members was that Nick handily defeated Loftus in debate. To set this up, it should be noted that Nick has a disability (Asperger's Syndrome, with some autism). After realizing that he was not the recognized winner of the debate, Loftus wrote:
No one but the ignorant would claim that I am ignorant.
To me Nick is just like a very bad Karaoke singer but doesn't know he is one, so he continues to badly sing out his song of arguments
Because he's handicapped, Christians here won't tell him otherwise. He's going to study to be an apologist, but he will fall flat on his face. There are a great many people in ministry who will fall flat on their faces because no one told them the truth that they should not pursue such goals. Nick is one of them. But since Christians believe God can make clay into gold they encourage him in faith, even though deep down inside they really don't believe it.
Tell him the truth! Save him from pursuing what will be a dead end career for him.
Nick, when you realize you don't have the brain power for being an apologist and your hopes and dreams are dashed, and possibly even you faith, remember who told you the truth. It was me.
Do something else with your life, and I'm serious.
For the record, it should be noted that even at this early stage in his career, several notable names have recognized Nick's talent in this area, notably Norman Geisler.
***
Although John's arm was twisted to the point that he issued a half-hearted apology for this commentary, it is obvious from this last post of his that he hasn't learned his lesson. I often say that fundy atheists like John retain a certain amount of bigotry from the fundy past, and this is a classic example.
And of course, typical of John, he can't even own up and makes excuses when called down. "Rob R" gave John a good lashing for this that deserves to be noted:
Do we know that this guy actually damaged his mind on drugs? He could've been born with mental retardation.Careful John. You know what scripture says about those who mock the poor (and it would seem the same logic of that consideration applies to the poor of mind).So just what human dignity and worth can we say that he has in a materialistic picture?
Loftus' reply speaks for itself in terms of his arrogance and ignorant bigotry:
You're a killjoy Rob. It's my birffday and I can have fun if I want to. So there.
You're absolutely right, John. It's your birthday. Go out and have some fun. Why don't you celebrate some more by pulling crutches away from people with polio, giving blind people the wrong bill back for change, and kicking Stepen Hawking's wheelchair down a steep incline? How about you start a show titled America's Funniest Disabilities? You'd be the perfect host since you obviously have a very serious one. Unfortunately, there's no cure or medication for the one you have, which is outright bigotry combined with magnified stupidity.
Happy Birthday, John, you jackass.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Our Gift to John
As was expected, John had been venturing around TWeb anonymously scanning traces of his name to and fro to find something good he can pick at and inflate his ego to newer and more lengthier heights.
Earlier today John added a music app titled "Godless songs" fashioned after the music app I put up on your right, which contains the featured song "Sad, Sad Doubting John" written by JPH and sung by TWebber "Andius" a new favorite of mine. What made this suspect was that the app John had uploaded was from the same exact site mine is: http://www.mixpod.com There would be no reason to be alarmed over this if it weren't for the fact that only after a couple of days of embedding it here, John proceeded sometime either this late morning or mid-afternoon to follow suit. That's just one of many reasons, at least, to suspect that watching eyes are upon our community, even if John claims otherwise.
Now to be truthful here, I did personally send John an e-mail notifying him of the YouTube video version of the song to your right. And was it done in the manner of "sticking it to him"? Almost so. I just happen to know that the outcomes and reactions coming from Team Loftus are almost always of predictability, and I want Loftus to know that he can't just waltz through arenas without first being challenged by a gladiator or two.
Contrary to the first impression you might have from this newest post, John has known for at least a week now of our upcoming plans for him. This isn't necessarily news. And another thing, if John really had so much disdain for TheologyWeb, why does he go through its threads? (Case in point):
JP Holding promises to write a rebuttal to my work. He (or someone with his approval) wrote:
"John W. Loftus continues to be one of the most well-known internet celebrities of atheism ever since the publication of his collective biography entitled Why I Became an Atheist. In it, he argues that he was once a champion of Christian moral values but was later ostracized by his local faith community for committing adultery and was subsequently overwhelmed by intellectual arguments in which he advocates that by these arguments alone Christianity hangs by a very thin rope. For these past years since the publication of his book, Loftus' writings have remained unchallenged, or at least, have been challenged inadequately."
Thanks JP. Is there anyone saying the same kind of things about you and your arguments?
;-)
Loftus doesn't even provide a link of where he got that. But the answer is right here: http://thecowboywhowasntthere.yolasite.com That's the companion website, (similar to what Richard Carrier had created for John's new book, The Christian Delusion) to our little "project", by the way. Funny that it had only been created yesterday, while the e-mail I sent out to John is nearly a week old. Loooooks like somebody hasn't been true to their word lately. ;)
Two other points:
A) John expresses his paranoia by supposing that the site was created by Holding, as always. NEWS FLASH FOR THE DAFT: Most of the new Loftus sites that have or are coming out these days (including this one) have been or are created by ME. And another thing, I don't need or require Holding's "approval", Johnboy. Usually what happens in these circumstances is that a website is created first, and I consult JP second. Projecting yourself onto others does the world no good, Johnny...
B) The fact that the paragraph being quoted is only a fragment of what is on the site just makes John out to be a snake in the grass. If that was all that was written, it certaintly would compliment him in such a way as to warrant a boosted ego and sense of self. But here's what John left out for his own convenience:
But like most things with humanity, there is always another side of the story. The upcoming e-book "The Cowboy Who Wasn't There" is a substantial rebuttal (and in some respects, a refutation) to the writings of John W. Loftus and his philosophical arguments against "religion." The Cowboy Who Wasn't There will not only analyze the primary arguments set forth by Loftus, but in doing so will demonstrate how the "New Atheist" movement and their arguments are based on stereotypes and oversimplifications. With a jab of humor mixed in with direct confrontation, the book sets out to convince the reader that emotional stakes can and do run high on both sides of the God debate. This book is not arguing mainly against atheism in favor of Christianity, it also advocates for a middle ground in which both atheists and Christians can have intellectual dialogue safely and respectively. It advocates for the integrity of scholars and the ultimate search for truth despite what may be considered popular and appealing to a specific demographic.
If John had included the rest of that paragraph, there is no way he would have been able to make it look like it was being complimentary, as it was never even intended to be interpreted in such a way. Just because one might describe a person as "well known" doesn't really say that they are of admirable character. Barack Obama won the presidency because he was a popular icon of appeal, not because he was actually a straightforward candidate or the best man for the job. John teaches what again?
At least we now have proof that John just can't let things go. He is always watching for opportunities.
Earlier today John added a music app titled "Godless songs" fashioned after the music app I put up on your right, which contains the featured song "Sad, Sad Doubting John" written by JPH and sung by TWebber "Andius" a new favorite of mine. What made this suspect was that the app John had uploaded was from the same exact site mine is: http://www.mixpod.com There would be no reason to be alarmed over this if it weren't for the fact that only after a couple of days of embedding it here, John proceeded sometime either this late morning or mid-afternoon to follow suit. That's just one of many reasons, at least, to suspect that watching eyes are upon our community, even if John claims otherwise.
Now to be truthful here, I did personally send John an e-mail notifying him of the YouTube video version of the song to your right. And was it done in the manner of "sticking it to him"? Almost so. I just happen to know that the outcomes and reactions coming from Team Loftus are almost always of predictability, and I want Loftus to know that he can't just waltz through arenas without first being challenged by a gladiator or two.
Contrary to the first impression you might have from this newest post, John has known for at least a week now of our upcoming plans for him. This isn't necessarily news. And another thing, if John really had so much disdain for TheologyWeb, why does he go through its threads? (Case in point):
JP Holding promises to write a rebuttal to my work. He (or someone with his approval) wrote:
"John W. Loftus continues to be one of the most well-known internet celebrities of atheism ever since the publication of his collective biography entitled Why I Became an Atheist. In it, he argues that he was once a champion of Christian moral values but was later ostracized by his local faith community for committing adultery and was subsequently overwhelmed by intellectual arguments in which he advocates that by these arguments alone Christianity hangs by a very thin rope. For these past years since the publication of his book, Loftus' writings have remained unchallenged, or at least, have been challenged inadequately."
Thanks JP. Is there anyone saying the same kind of things about you and your arguments?
;-)
Loftus doesn't even provide a link of where he got that. But the answer is right here: http://thecowboywhowasntthere.yolasite.com That's the companion website, (similar to what Richard Carrier had created for John's new book, The Christian Delusion) to our little "project", by the way. Funny that it had only been created yesterday, while the e-mail I sent out to John is nearly a week old. Loooooks like somebody hasn't been true to their word lately. ;)
Two other points:
A) John expresses his paranoia by supposing that the site was created by Holding, as always. NEWS FLASH FOR THE DAFT: Most of the new Loftus sites that have or are coming out these days (including this one) have been or are created by ME. And another thing, I don't need or require Holding's "approval", Johnboy. Usually what happens in these circumstances is that a website is created first, and I consult JP second. Projecting yourself onto others does the world no good, Johnny...
B) The fact that the paragraph being quoted is only a fragment of what is on the site just makes John out to be a snake in the grass. If that was all that was written, it certaintly would compliment him in such a way as to warrant a boosted ego and sense of self. But here's what John left out for his own convenience:
But like most things with humanity, there is always another side of the story. The upcoming e-book "The Cowboy Who Wasn't There" is a substantial rebuttal (and in some respects, a refutation) to the writings of John W. Loftus and his philosophical arguments against "religion." The Cowboy Who Wasn't There will not only analyze the primary arguments set forth by Loftus, but in doing so will demonstrate how the "New Atheist" movement and their arguments are based on stereotypes and oversimplifications. With a jab of humor mixed in with direct confrontation, the book sets out to convince the reader that emotional stakes can and do run high on both sides of the God debate. This book is not arguing mainly against atheism in favor of Christianity, it also advocates for a middle ground in which both atheists and Christians can have intellectual dialogue safely and respectively. It advocates for the integrity of scholars and the ultimate search for truth despite what may be considered popular and appealing to a specific demographic.
If John had included the rest of that paragraph, there is no way he would have been able to make it look like it was being complimentary, as it was never even intended to be interpreted in such a way. Just because one might describe a person as "well known" doesn't really say that they are of admirable character. Barack Obama won the presidency because he was a popular icon of appeal, not because he was actually a straightforward candidate or the best man for the job. John teaches what again?
At least we now have proof that John just can't let things go. He is always watching for opportunities.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Take Biology Classes Online, With Debunking Christianity!
Joe E. Holman hits up this one as he goes into a nonsensical rant trying to get a valid point across to Christian fundamentalists. As with most of my posts, I give you the link to this grand stupidity which will soon follow:
Imagine you are hiking in the woods. As you pass by a pond, you get a glancing view of some scavenging birds as they fly off some ways away from you. You make nothing of it. You keep walking. Then you spot it in the distance—the reason the birds flew away. A deer comes ripping through the bushes as he’s being chased by a grizzly. You hide quickly as best you can. With any luck, you’ll go unnoticed and that deer will be the thing’s lunch instead of you.
As you've seen, not only is he big, but boy does he move! He's strong too. One good swat from him is equal in force to a small piano (about 450 pounds) being swung from the height of a second story window. You know that if caught, he could literally knock your head off! You’d need a good gun to fend him off if he had his mind set on rending your flesh like the skin off a thigh from Church’s Chicken. But thankfully, you don’t have to go up against him. He’s gone now and so you can forget about him just like humans do all the things on planet earth that God creates which are deadly.
Better rocks than other lifeforms, but maybe plants would be a start. Even...hair grease..would be better than having a deity who has creatures killing and consuming other lifeforms for sustainance.
Sounds like Holman has a thing for P.E.T.A., or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I'm much more Ted Nugent inclined myself. And with that said, what I'm about to say will be addressed to both Holman and the idiots who support P.E.T.A.:
It's funny when animal rights activist complain of people eating other "lifeforms", or that animals have the same basic societal rights and priveleges as do humans (that might be even moreso if humans were allowed to defecate in public; oh wait...dammit). Those poor animals. Humans don't need meat as part of their food intake. Animals should just be left alone! We all need to refrain from the ingestion of animals and animal products. We should just eat plants. If that happened, we'd have no more political scandals, wars in the Middle East, or even human genocide. There you go. Problem solved.
I guess it never occurs to this crowd that plants are LIVING? Yes, living. They're alive. They grow, like humans and animals do. Why would you make such a fuss over the consumption of animals and not defend plants while you're at it? Maybe if PETA and Greenpeace got into a confrontation, their philosophies of non-violence would quickly dissappear, ya think? Exactly...
"Who wants to learn more from Debunking Christianity?"
My answer:
NO THANKS, I'll invest my money with employed professional professors, not internet bloggers...
Imagine you are hiking in the woods. As you pass by a pond, you get a glancing view of some scavenging birds as they fly off some ways away from you. You make nothing of it. You keep walking. Then you spot it in the distance—the reason the birds flew away. A deer comes ripping through the bushes as he’s being chased by a grizzly. You hide quickly as best you can. With any luck, you’ll go unnoticed and that deer will be the thing’s lunch instead of you.
As you've seen, not only is he big, but boy does he move! He's strong too. One good swat from him is equal in force to a small piano (about 450 pounds) being swung from the height of a second story window. You know that if caught, he could literally knock your head off! You’d need a good gun to fend him off if he had his mind set on rending your flesh like the skin off a thigh from Church’s Chicken. But thankfully, you don’t have to go up against him. He’s gone now and so you can forget about him just like humans do all the things on planet earth that God creates which are deadly.
So forget about the bear.
Now imagine you are at the same pond, seeing the same birds fly away. This time, you are startled to see a red beast with big red eyes, with scales instead of fur, and fangs and canines just like the bear. If you will, he has a pointed tale and horns. Hiding, you are hoping that this deer-chasing demon is no smarter or more observant than that bear.
The demon is so different from the bear, but strangely, he’s no more or less terrifying than the bear. Let’s switch them; let’s say the bear was the mythical beast and the demon was the evolved creature. Would the raging bear not be exactly as terrifying or more than the demon? Would not someone who was sheltered from nature’s harsh realities feel the same fear as if that someone saw a traditionally described demon? Of course that person would.
So, let’s say you did see that bear. And let’s say you happen to be a Christian, but then it dawns on you (if you’re a halfway thinking Christian) that all this time you’ve been afraid of the Devil when you should have been afraid of (and prepared to face) things like bears—of things that are real and that you have a much higher chance of encountering, of things that are deadly and everywhere, just waiting to bring your life to an end.
And then, for the first time, it starts to occur to you that you’ve been praising a God for building a world for his people that is full of unspeakable horrors. You are now starting to realize that anything you ever saw on Friday the 13th or Halloween or The Outer Limits is no more horrifying than what God has exposed his people to and that we take for granted on this planet.
"Ooooh boy, it sure is! We live in such a vicious cycle of nature!"
Once more, the chances of someone getting mauled to death by a grizzly is slim to nothing unless a person should cross the path of the grizzly, and almost in deliberate fashion. You still have better chances of getting struck by lightning, as popular statistics have shown and demonstrated. The Great White shark is not the beast portrayed in the movie Jaws. Most predatory animals are not out to get humans for the following: 1) We are organisms foreign to their native habitat, and consequently are not a typical or convenient food source for their dietary requirements, 2) Humans possess industrial and mechanical resources and it follows that most animals would rather stick to their business than go around walking the streets of Manhattan or New York 3) We are the most dangerous animal in the world. No other creature has been capable of what we have done to other humans in the history of the world, to include torture.
It strikes me as appauling that atheists would try to argue based on emotions rather than intellect, something they primarily accuse Christians of doing almost all of the time. In his own little way, Joe is arguing about just how "evil" nature is, especially evolution. Hypocrites, perhaps?
Alright, so it can be pretty much said that Holman, like Loftus, is ignorant of basic zoology. But ignorance is not perhaps the best word to describe this:Better rocks than other lifeforms, but maybe plants would be a start. Even...hair grease..would be better than having a deity who has creatures killing and consuming other lifeforms for sustainance.
Sounds like Holman has a thing for P.E.T.A., or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I'm much more Ted Nugent inclined myself. And with that said, what I'm about to say will be addressed to both Holman and the idiots who support P.E.T.A.:
It's funny when animal rights activist complain of people eating other "lifeforms", or that animals have the same basic societal rights and priveleges as do humans (that might be even moreso if humans were allowed to defecate in public; oh wait...dammit). Those poor animals. Humans don't need meat as part of their food intake. Animals should just be left alone! We all need to refrain from the ingestion of animals and animal products. We should just eat plants. If that happened, we'd have no more political scandals, wars in the Middle East, or even human genocide. There you go. Problem solved.
I guess it never occurs to this crowd that plants are LIVING? Yes, living. They're alive. They grow, like humans and animals do. Why would you make such a fuss over the consumption of animals and not defend plants while you're at it? Maybe if PETA and Greenpeace got into a confrontation, their philosophies of non-violence would quickly dissappear, ya think? Exactly...
"Who wants to learn more from Debunking Christianity?"
My answer:
NO THANKS, I'll invest my money with employed professional professors, not internet bloggers...
Friday, August 21, 2009
Yes He's Back. Back Again...
Loftus makes all sorts of promises that he never keeps. This time he says that he "ignores" these types of blogs, usually the types of blogs that criticize and question John on matters that really count. They're direct, you see. Loftus prefers it that his critics keep hush hush about certain details and go about things nicely instead of realistically. Isn't John supposed to be the individual that acts on realism instead of acting on niceness? Well, the best answer to that question is that it's all a facade. It's a fraud. John is a self-serving person. His interests aren't in establishing truth, except that which he considers to be "truth", but it's too debauched to really be considered by the rest of the world as such. Tidbits and pieces don't constitute whole truths. They do, however, settle for half-truths, or LIES.
In order to maintain "consistency" John makes several response posts to this blog without officially calling us out by name or blog title. He figures no one will notice because his audience is stupid and gullible enough to believe it or to justify John for making these responses out of ambiguity. His expectations and standards he sets for his subscribers may not be far off from what is reality, and in that sense we may call John a realist.
So as of early this morning (by the way folks, I shouldn't even be here doing this this early in the morning; I had ROTC class today but missed out because my alarm didn't go off when it was supposed too) John says:
Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and kicks off this Blog anyone who disagrees with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain and that I am cheating the authors in my new edited book, The Christian Delusion, out of their expected royalties.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such drivel. I know that I cannot satisfy the people making such charges as I’ve responded to some of them several times already. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But I just want to respond to my readers so they know the truth even if others won’t accept my answers.
You sure have responded to us "several times already" in a very coherent and specific manner, haven't you John? But another thing you won't voluntarily mention is that this is a fairly new and recent charge being brought against you. So you haven't responded to this one yet at all. You are cunning like a snake but as dumb as a box of rocks, my friend. And whowouldathunk, if John didn't go into some sort of self-justifying modus operandi with the complementary victimization complex.
In the first place, even if these accusations are true, which they are not, they do not make me a bad person. Just think of the things Hollywood stars are accused of every day. I’m not being accused of anything like they are. And these accusations do nothing to answer my arguments. I’m told someone will be publishing a book filled with these kind of accusations. I won’t dignify that person by mentioning his name, but he thinks the justification for doing so is because Elijah, Jesus and Paul railed against their opponents. Leaving that bogus justification aside, the truth is that Christians have accused their detractors of some of the most heinous crimes merely because they attacked their faith. So I stand in a long line of skeptics who have been falsely accused simply because I’m doing so. The real question is why they are focusing on these things rather than answering my arguments. I suspect it’s because they can’t respond to my arguments. If they could do so, then why don’t they?
You never learn, do you, John? But you're preaching to the choir here. Your "arguments" are indiscernable from who you just happen to be. You've made this known on numerous occassions. Your "drive" to debunk Christianity comes from your personal feud with Holding, and nothing more. YOU said that. No one else. You have also said that your goal is to debunk JP's "certain faction" of Christianity, rather than the whole picture. Your arguments are not only based on personal issues of seeking revenge against your long-time internet foe, they are limited in scope, and purposely done so. That in itself pretty much goes for "answering" your arguments.
Am I egotistical? So what if I am? Am I a self-promoter? Why shouldn't I be? Do I want financial gain? Why not? Do I want fame? Who doesn’t? An egotistical person is usually in the eye of the beholder anyway, and since it takes one to know one, the person making that accusation is probably more affected by that disease.
Elementary school logic is not going to get you anywhere from the face of criticism. This is not based on the answerability of your arguments. It's because you're pathetic. You play on the notions of relative perceptions to make justifications for your own immoral actions. You probably would be best described as an anarchist in terms of your political sways. But by playing on relativism, you are digging yourself further into a hole, and sensible people will begin to think less of you. It does not matter whether your "detractors" are atheist or Christian, you'll find something to accuse them of being, while you yourself are portrayed in a honest and ethical light. You're a coward John. Cowards are only good for running, and, as you seem to be a fan of cliches, "you can run, but you can't hide."
The truth about me is that I lack a whole lot of self-esteem. I’m never satisfied with my efforts. I always find fault with them. I continually think I don’t measure up. So when people tell me I did something great I get excited about it. If I appear egotistical then it’s merely because I’m overjoyed and excited that people tell me I did something great. This is what people are telling me about my efforts to debunk Christianity. And fame is a double edged sword, anyway. The more famous a person is the more that person has problems.
We've been saying that all along, John. At least I have if nobody else. But you should probably learn to establish a better self-esteem. I don't have the greatest self-esteem in the world. I certaintly have my own set of potholes. Do I let these things get ahead of my thinking and allow for them to construct personal agendas? No. By your logic, anyone who criticizes you has more problems, or at least they share the load in whatever disease they accuse you of having. So if your "detractors" have a better time dealing with the same disease that you have than you do, it still falls back on your face. You can't escape your inevitable blame here.
As far as financial gain goes, when I got my first (and only) royalty statement for my book Why I Became an Atheist, it said I owe them $1,100. I don't actually owe them any money. It's just that it hasn't produced enough sales to merit any more than the couple thousand dollars they advanced me. Yeah. I’m in it for financial gain…right! I barely make a living as it is. This winter I had some water damage to my house and had to use some of the insurance money to pay long over due bills. I didn't have the money to fix the house completely, so this is what my living room ceiling looks like (see picture). My porch ceiling and a wall in another room look just as bad. THAT’S why I appreciate any financial help I can get from people who click on the donate button in the sidebar.
Alright, we'll give John the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to check out his donation entry and see what it says as being reflective of this statement. Let's see:
Help me stay alive in these hard economic times. I need your help. I need people who are willing to donate on a regular basis, a monthly commitment if you can. Unless more money comes in I’ll be forced to get a second job. Spinoza ground lenses during the day and researched at night. What if he had to have two jobs? I’m no Spinoza by a long shot, but what if Spinoza never had to grind lenses and could research and write all day long? How much better would his arguments be?
Is it possible for John to get a second job in academia? Expand upon the scholarly credentials perhaps?
Here's what I don't understand: John constantly brags about the reviews his book receives, and now, when it is most convenient, he says that his book doesn't make enough sales. He says that he isn't bringing in enough income due to "hard economic times" (you have your own vote to thank for that one, John). If it is such a matter of difficulty and hardship, why doesn't John just consider free publishing? Does it make him less of a serious author if he were to go with a free publisher like LuLu? I'm not doubting that maybe John doesn't do it merely for profit (although I don't know if I necessarily believe him; how can I trust him about anything he says?), but he could at least make 20 times more than what he does for every book sold. From LuLu's website:
During the publishing process, Users are asked to choose the amount of creator revenue they will receive for each piece of Content sold. If Lulu sells your content, and we receive payment, Lulu will pay you the creator revenue amount you chose. In general, Lulu's service fee is 20% of the gross margin resulting from the sale of Content. The gross margin is the net amount actually received for your Content after freight and manufacturing costs are subtracted.
I think John is relunctant because he wants to have the spotlight that Promotheus provides. I say, however, that it would be much better if John were to have a general publisher, instead of an atheist one. Sure his book is much more likely to be found with an atheist publisher, but aside from this I see no merits in doing so. The publishing company is already in agreement with what John probably has to say. Additionally, I wouldn't appreciate my scholarly work being on par with pornographic literature.
I have a few internet stalkers, several trolls here at DC, a few websites dedicated to trashing me, along with one published book against me and two more promised ones coming down the pike. They say you can tell how famous a person is by the number of stalkers he or she has. Well I have some. Woooo! Hoooo! The problem is that people hate me for what I’m doing. I’m not famous. I’m infamous. Yeah, that’s what I want…right.
Stalkers? Where do you come up with this stuff? Where's your evidence? Proof? Yeah, that's right, you have none. Just a whole bunch of paranoia as far as I'm concerned. And until anything is documented and not something that is just your mere speculation, that's all it ever be.
As far as my new edited book goes, I rejected five chapters written by five different authors for various reasons having to do with word limit concerns, deadlines, and content. These were tough decisions, but I had to make them. By doing so I pissed off one person, maybe more. But I still had to do it.
Fair enough. I wouldn't want to make a defense of McCall by any means, unless it concerns moral deviations.
I only “censor” comments here at this Blog by the same standards any newspaper editor uses when deciding whether to publish a “Letter to the Editor.” That’s because I want a civilized and intelligent discussion of the ideas that separate us, or none at all.
Repeating it does not make it so. The use of the world "asshole" when referring to someone who says something in a way you do not like, is also the wrong way to go about it, if that's your genuine intention.
As far as kicking team members off DC who don’t agree with me goes, I open myself up to this accusation because I allow people to become team members here in the first place. This is my Blog. It’s my house. I invite guests here into my house. If they don’t respect me or if they somehow begin to think they own it, there can be problems. It's something like herding cats.
Agreeably understandable. But it doesn't really address anything if the issue concerns disagreement, as opposed to disrespect, which are two entirely different things.
Nearly all of the other Bloggers who have left DC fall into one of two categories. They either did not publish often enough or they asked to be removed for various reasons unrelated to me.
They didn't "publish enough", John? DC seems pretty staffed as it is. Why insist on having a posting quota if you have so many authors that are willing to contribute in the first place? You don't need one to get going. On average there are about 4-5 posts made every week on your blog, with about 1-3 of those being your own? That's just the typical average. I make most posts around here and I believe some members have expressed their desire to be taken off from the list. I haven't removed them yet because things are liable for change. But it's your blog, John. Unlike you, I won't chastize you for running things your own way, even if I question your motives and boundaries.
There are other accusations. Expect them. Just tell my accusers to produce evidence, think about them, and then tell these accusers to try to answer my arguments.
John wants EVIDENCE? Are you kidding me? This isn't a challenge and anyone asking for this "evidence" will be provided with it asap. I'm not going to repost it for the umpteenth time though, as I and others have beaten this to death before in the past. Contrary to what John might believe, the book that is coming out contains a whole compiled chronology of such evidence of the reasons why John isn't very trustworthy. The book will put an end to the question of whether or not the evidence actually exists, which it does. But it's rather surprising, that John, without revealing any specifics to his blog "trolls" would demand evidence of why he shouldn't be trusted. John, don't make this the end of the road for you, for your own sake.
NOTE: Once again, something of our interest coming from John has come up again. In the same post we've cited here, John removed some comments he didn't approve of, most likely after they had been brought to the world's attention through TheologyWeb, a site John claims he ignores as much as possible. The catch? John claims to be on "vacation" and won't return until August 27, meaning that only his fellow bloggers can post comments. Or can they?
In a long past case similar to this, John claimed at the very end to having put on an act to somehow demonstrate the inferiority of his critics. But surely enough, the only thing he seems to demonstrate effectively is his own inferior mentality.
In order to maintain "consistency" John makes several response posts to this blog without officially calling us out by name or blog title. He figures no one will notice because his audience is stupid and gullible enough to believe it or to justify John for making these responses out of ambiguity. His expectations and standards he sets for his subscribers may not be far off from what is reality, and in that sense we may call John a realist.
So as of early this morning (by the way folks, I shouldn't even be here doing this this early in the morning; I had ROTC class today but missed out because my alarm didn't go off when it was supposed too) John says:
Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and kicks off this Blog anyone who disagrees with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain and that I am cheating the authors in my new edited book, The Christian Delusion, out of their expected royalties.
I’ve tried to resist responding to such drivel. I know that I cannot satisfy the people making such charges as I’ve responded to some of them several times already. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But I just want to respond to my readers so they know the truth even if others won’t accept my answers.
You sure have responded to us "several times already" in a very coherent and specific manner, haven't you John? But another thing you won't voluntarily mention is that this is a fairly new and recent charge being brought against you. So you haven't responded to this one yet at all. You are cunning like a snake but as dumb as a box of rocks, my friend. And whowouldathunk, if John didn't go into some sort of self-justifying modus operandi with the complementary victimization complex.
In the first place, even if these accusations are true, which they are not, they do not make me a bad person. Just think of the things Hollywood stars are accused of every day. I’m not being accused of anything like they are. And these accusations do nothing to answer my arguments. I’m told someone will be publishing a book filled with these kind of accusations. I won’t dignify that person by mentioning his name, but he thinks the justification for doing so is because Elijah, Jesus and Paul railed against their opponents. Leaving that bogus justification aside, the truth is that Christians have accused their detractors of some of the most heinous crimes merely because they attacked their faith. So I stand in a long line of skeptics who have been falsely accused simply because I’m doing so. The real question is why they are focusing on these things rather than answering my arguments. I suspect it’s because they can’t respond to my arguments. If they could do so, then why don’t they?
You never learn, do you, John? But you're preaching to the choir here. Your "arguments" are indiscernable from who you just happen to be. You've made this known on numerous occassions. Your "drive" to debunk Christianity comes from your personal feud with Holding, and nothing more. YOU said that. No one else. You have also said that your goal is to debunk JP's "certain faction" of Christianity, rather than the whole picture. Your arguments are not only based on personal issues of seeking revenge against your long-time internet foe, they are limited in scope, and purposely done so. That in itself pretty much goes for "answering" your arguments.
Am I egotistical? So what if I am? Am I a self-promoter? Why shouldn't I be? Do I want financial gain? Why not? Do I want fame? Who doesn’t? An egotistical person is usually in the eye of the beholder anyway, and since it takes one to know one, the person making that accusation is probably more affected by that disease.
Elementary school logic is not going to get you anywhere from the face of criticism. This is not based on the answerability of your arguments. It's because you're pathetic. You play on the notions of relative perceptions to make justifications for your own immoral actions. You probably would be best described as an anarchist in terms of your political sways. But by playing on relativism, you are digging yourself further into a hole, and sensible people will begin to think less of you. It does not matter whether your "detractors" are atheist or Christian, you'll find something to accuse them of being, while you yourself are portrayed in a honest and ethical light. You're a coward John. Cowards are only good for running, and, as you seem to be a fan of cliches, "you can run, but you can't hide."
The truth about me is that I lack a whole lot of self-esteem. I’m never satisfied with my efforts. I always find fault with them. I continually think I don’t measure up. So when people tell me I did something great I get excited about it. If I appear egotistical then it’s merely because I’m overjoyed and excited that people tell me I did something great. This is what people are telling me about my efforts to debunk Christianity. And fame is a double edged sword, anyway. The more famous a person is the more that person has problems.
We've been saying that all along, John. At least I have if nobody else. But you should probably learn to establish a better self-esteem. I don't have the greatest self-esteem in the world. I certaintly have my own set of potholes. Do I let these things get ahead of my thinking and allow for them to construct personal agendas? No. By your logic, anyone who criticizes you has more problems, or at least they share the load in whatever disease they accuse you of having. So if your "detractors" have a better time dealing with the same disease that you have than you do, it still falls back on your face. You can't escape your inevitable blame here.
As far as financial gain goes, when I got my first (and only) royalty statement for my book Why I Became an Atheist, it said I owe them $1,100. I don't actually owe them any money. It's just that it hasn't produced enough sales to merit any more than the couple thousand dollars they advanced me. Yeah. I’m in it for financial gain…right! I barely make a living as it is. This winter I had some water damage to my house and had to use some of the insurance money to pay long over due bills. I didn't have the money to fix the house completely, so this is what my living room ceiling looks like (see picture). My porch ceiling and a wall in another room look just as bad. THAT’S why I appreciate any financial help I can get from people who click on the donate button in the sidebar.
Alright, we'll give John the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to check out his donation entry and see what it says as being reflective of this statement. Let's see:
Help me stay alive in these hard economic times. I need your help. I need people who are willing to donate on a regular basis, a monthly commitment if you can. Unless more money comes in I’ll be forced to get a second job. Spinoza ground lenses during the day and researched at night. What if he had to have two jobs? I’m no Spinoza by a long shot, but what if Spinoza never had to grind lenses and could research and write all day long? How much better would his arguments be?
Is it possible for John to get a second job in academia? Expand upon the scholarly credentials perhaps?
Here's what I don't understand: John constantly brags about the reviews his book receives, and now, when it is most convenient, he says that his book doesn't make enough sales. He says that he isn't bringing in enough income due to "hard economic times" (you have your own vote to thank for that one, John). If it is such a matter of difficulty and hardship, why doesn't John just consider free publishing? Does it make him less of a serious author if he were to go with a free publisher like LuLu? I'm not doubting that maybe John doesn't do it merely for profit (although I don't know if I necessarily believe him; how can I trust him about anything he says?), but he could at least make 20 times more than what he does for every book sold. From LuLu's website:
During the publishing process, Users are asked to choose the amount of creator revenue they will receive for each piece of Content sold. If Lulu sells your content, and we receive payment, Lulu will pay you the creator revenue amount you chose. In general, Lulu's service fee is 20% of the gross margin resulting from the sale of Content. The gross margin is the net amount actually received for your Content after freight and manufacturing costs are subtracted.
For example, if a User publishes a book that costs $5.00 to manufacture and chooses to receive $4.00 in Creator Revenue, Lulu will set the price of your book as follows:
| Manufacturing cost: | $5.00 |
| Creator Revenue: | $4.00 |
| Lulu service fee: | $1.00 |
| Final price of book: | $10.00 |
In this example, the gross margin is $5.00, of which you get 80% ($4.00) and Lulu gets 20% ($1.00). Regardless of the foregoing, the minimum mark-up for Lulu's service fee is nineteen cents ($0.19). However, if you choose to make your Content free, Lulu waives its service fee altogether. Exceptions to the 20% margin rule may be applied in the case of special offers or discounts to Users who purchase their own Content in bulk.
Plus, another benefit is that there is no limit to the amount of content in a given project. So, why not go free?I think John is relunctant because he wants to have the spotlight that Promotheus provides. I say, however, that it would be much better if John were to have a general publisher, instead of an atheist one. Sure his book is much more likely to be found with an atheist publisher, but aside from this I see no merits in doing so. The publishing company is already in agreement with what John probably has to say. Additionally, I wouldn't appreciate my scholarly work being on par with pornographic literature.
I have a few internet stalkers, several trolls here at DC, a few websites dedicated to trashing me, along with one published book against me and two more promised ones coming down the pike. They say you can tell how famous a person is by the number of stalkers he or she has. Well I have some. Woooo! Hoooo! The problem is that people hate me for what I’m doing. I’m not famous. I’m infamous. Yeah, that’s what I want…right.
Stalkers? Where do you come up with this stuff? Where's your evidence? Proof? Yeah, that's right, you have none. Just a whole bunch of paranoia as far as I'm concerned. And until anything is documented and not something that is just your mere speculation, that's all it ever be.
As far as my new edited book goes, I rejected five chapters written by five different authors for various reasons having to do with word limit concerns, deadlines, and content. These were tough decisions, but I had to make them. By doing so I pissed off one person, maybe more. But I still had to do it.
Fair enough. I wouldn't want to make a defense of McCall by any means, unless it concerns moral deviations.
I only “censor” comments here at this Blog by the same standards any newspaper editor uses when deciding whether to publish a “Letter to the Editor.” That’s because I want a civilized and intelligent discussion of the ideas that separate us, or none at all.
Repeating it does not make it so. The use of the world "asshole" when referring to someone who says something in a way you do not like, is also the wrong way to go about it, if that's your genuine intention.
As far as kicking team members off DC who don’t agree with me goes, I open myself up to this accusation because I allow people to become team members here in the first place. This is my Blog. It’s my house. I invite guests here into my house. If they don’t respect me or if they somehow begin to think they own it, there can be problems. It's something like herding cats.
Agreeably understandable. But it doesn't really address anything if the issue concerns disagreement, as opposed to disrespect, which are two entirely different things.
Nearly all of the other Bloggers who have left DC fall into one of two categories. They either did not publish often enough or they asked to be removed for various reasons unrelated to me.
They didn't "publish enough", John? DC seems pretty staffed as it is. Why insist on having a posting quota if you have so many authors that are willing to contribute in the first place? You don't need one to get going. On average there are about 4-5 posts made every week on your blog, with about 1-3 of those being your own? That's just the typical average. I make most posts around here and I believe some members have expressed their desire to be taken off from the list. I haven't removed them yet because things are liable for change. But it's your blog, John. Unlike you, I won't chastize you for running things your own way, even if I question your motives and boundaries.
There are other accusations. Expect them. Just tell my accusers to produce evidence, think about them, and then tell these accusers to try to answer my arguments.
John wants EVIDENCE? Are you kidding me? This isn't a challenge and anyone asking for this "evidence" will be provided with it asap. I'm not going to repost it for the umpteenth time though, as I and others have beaten this to death before in the past. Contrary to what John might believe, the book that is coming out contains a whole compiled chronology of such evidence of the reasons why John isn't very trustworthy. The book will put an end to the question of whether or not the evidence actually exists, which it does. But it's rather surprising, that John, without revealing any specifics to his blog "trolls" would demand evidence of why he shouldn't be trusted. John, don't make this the end of the road for you, for your own sake.
NOTE: Once again, something of our interest coming from John has come up again. In the same post we've cited here, John removed some comments he didn't approve of, most likely after they had been brought to the world's attention through TheologyWeb, a site John claims he ignores as much as possible. The catch? John claims to be on "vacation" and won't return until August 27, meaning that only his fellow bloggers can post comments. Or can they?
In a long past case similar to this, John claimed at the very end to having put on an act to somehow demonstrate the inferiority of his critics. But surely enough, the only thing he seems to demonstrate effectively is his own inferior mentality.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Demagogue Mania
John's ego must have taken another hit for the worst. I've been occupied with some matters of schooling and will probably only contribute and update the blog on occassion, but J.P wrote me recently on a book project coming out soon that will be based on Loftus and serves as a compilation for why he is full of crap. Yes, I am one of the contributing authors to the final product.
Question of the day: Is John an abusive modern-day demagogue? He absolutely hates dissent when it concerns his arguments, websites, book(s), etc. But another thing not mentioned often enough that John also hates seems to be any sort of dissent from those he appoints to his blog. On numerous occasions over the years, people have come and go from the Debunking Christianity author list, some for different various reasons, most because they have in some way or another, upset John. And he gets his revenge simply by (in the words of Matthew Green) "writing (them) off".
So who is the one individual to receive the boot this time? Is it Ed Babinski? Nope. Even if I were told this, I would doubt it only because Babinski has a subtleness to him, and a tedency to be a real brownose. Dr. Hector Avalos? Good guess, and it probably will happen someday, but for now John would consider him to be a reputable scholar, so long as he doesn't say anything in disfavor of John and his course of actions. So...JUST WHO IS IT? The answer: Harry McCall.
Yes, the same exact Harry McCall that went around here posting perverted and sexually deranged comments. The same Harry McCall who addressed me on this very blog as if he was still a "minsterial student." The same Harry McCall whose picture gave you the sense he might be a child sex offender, or as J.P. used to refer to him as "Chester the Molester." Hey, child rape isn't funny. True, but there's no arguing that Harry was a creep, and did resemble someone who might in fact have those types of "urges."
Someone will have to relay more of the specific details of what happened (although I doubt this ever being the case, mostly because of John's repetetive behaviors and his personality; secondily, for the reasons I will show down below), but it's true. As always, when hearing about such news, I quickly rush to DC or the Google search engine just like any other person would. Currently as of August 19, 2009, Debunking Christianity's list of authors now includes only the following names in their respective order:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851
His short autobiography and personal details have been whiped out completely. Even his "Chester the Molester" face is gone. Why exactly? That's a question I would like to know myself. For now, we'll suppose that Harry's exile from DC has given him the indication that his internet career is otherwise useless without being a component of something in the New Atheist movement. But let's not get on the wrong foot about this issue: This isn't to sympathize or feel remorse for Harry. It's not even so much that John is an egotistical demagogue who makes appeals to a certain demographic for making profit. It might even be in John's moral favor for him to do this. Could it be that the reason why John severed ties is because Harry was a self-admitted stalker perhaps?
Oh wait....
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/08/dennis-collis-aka-dencol-wins.html
DenCol has been banned as an ignorant abusive troll. I'm not exactly sure why he's here or what he actually believes, but for the most part he does not try to interact with us at DC. Once banned he starts another Blogger account and this process starts all over again. He has been banned as Rob, savedbygrace, tyler, Richard2, Rich386 and others. Right now he's commenting as Cool Running. He does not respect our wishes to go away and so he apparently does not think the Golden Rule should be followed when it comes to skeptics...Nonetheless, it's beginning to look to the first time visitor as if we are banning a whole lot of people. It's just one person! Fair warning to everyone. If you engage this troll you will be frustrated. I recomend just ignoring him. Or you can email him at dencollis@juno.com. As you can tell, I don't care for him at all.
Publicly posting someone's e-mail address to carry out retribution out on a supposed "troll"? Yeah John, there's nothing tasteless about that...
ADDED NOTE: JPH sent me this last word from Harry McCall, which sure enough is actually here on our very own blog. I made sure as always, to put emphasis on areas that I think really count:
Nice count Holdie, but as of July 27 I am no longer associated with either John Loftis or his DC blog. There will be no more 10% post from me or any posts from me on his blog; ever again.
My name is removed as a contributor and I have broken all contacts with him and his blog. I told him he could ban me from DC as I don’t give damn! Screw him!
If you two want to bitch and bash each other’s character brains out for a cash first, be my guess!
John and his ego blog are history for me!!
Well, well, well...the evidence just keeps piling up against John, even as he negligently spirals down a path of self-sabotage.
Question of the day: Is John an abusive modern-day demagogue? He absolutely hates dissent when it concerns his arguments, websites, book(s), etc. But another thing not mentioned often enough that John also hates seems to be any sort of dissent from those he appoints to his blog. On numerous occasions over the years, people have come and go from the Debunking Christianity author list, some for different various reasons, most because they have in some way or another, upset John. And he gets his revenge simply by (in the words of Matthew Green) "writing (them) off".
So who is the one individual to receive the boot this time? Is it Ed Babinski? Nope. Even if I were told this, I would doubt it only because Babinski has a subtleness to him, and a tedency to be a real brownose. Dr. Hector Avalos? Good guess, and it probably will happen someday, but for now John would consider him to be a reputable scholar, so long as he doesn't say anything in disfavor of John and his course of actions. So...JUST WHO IS IT? The answer: Harry McCall.
Yes, the same exact Harry McCall that went around here posting perverted and sexually deranged comments. The same Harry McCall who addressed me on this very blog as if he was still a "minsterial student." The same Harry McCall whose picture gave you the sense he might be a child sex offender, or as J.P. used to refer to him as "Chester the Molester." Hey, child rape isn't funny. True, but there's no arguing that Harry was a creep, and did resemble someone who might in fact have those types of "urges."
Someone will have to relay more of the specific details of what happened (although I doubt this ever being the case, mostly because of John's repetetive behaviors and his personality; secondily, for the reasons I will show down below), but it's true. As always, when hearing about such news, I quickly rush to DC or the Google search engine just like any other person would. Currently as of August 19, 2009, Debunking Christianity's list of authors now includes only the following names in their respective order:
- Marlene Winell
- Lee Randolph
- John W. Loftus
- Valerie Tarico
- Dr. Hector Avalos
- Joe E. Holman
- Edward T. Babinski
- Jason Long
http://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851
His short autobiography and personal details have been whiped out completely. Even his "Chester the Molester" face is gone. Why exactly? That's a question I would like to know myself. For now, we'll suppose that Harry's exile from DC has given him the indication that his internet career is otherwise useless without being a component of something in the New Atheist movement. But let's not get on the wrong foot about this issue: This isn't to sympathize or feel remorse for Harry. It's not even so much that John is an egotistical demagogue who makes appeals to a certain demographic for making profit. It might even be in John's moral favor for him to do this. Could it be that the reason why John severed ties is because Harry was a self-admitted stalker perhaps?
Oh wait....
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/08/dennis-collis-aka-dencol-wins.html
DenCol has been banned as an ignorant abusive troll. I'm not exactly sure why he's here or what he actually believes, but for the most part he does not try to interact with us at DC. Once banned he starts another Blogger account and this process starts all over again. He has been banned as Rob, savedbygrace, tyler, Richard2, Rich386 and others. Right now he's commenting as Cool Running. He does not respect our wishes to go away and so he apparently does not think the Golden Rule should be followed when it comes to skeptics...Nonetheless, it's beginning to look to the first time visitor as if we are banning a whole lot of people. It's just one person! Fair warning to everyone. If you engage this troll you will be frustrated. I recomend just ignoring him. Or you can email him at dencollis@juno.com. As you can tell, I don't care for him at all.
Publicly posting someone's e-mail address to carry out retribution out on a supposed "troll"? Yeah John, there's nothing tasteless about that...
ADDED NOTE: JPH sent me this last word from Harry McCall, which sure enough is actually here on our very own blog. I made sure as always, to put emphasis on areas that I think really count:
Nice count Holdie, but as of July 27 I am no longer associated with either John Loftis or his DC blog. There will be no more 10% post from me or any posts from me on his blog; ever again.
My name is removed as a contributor and I have broken all contacts with him and his blog. I told him he could ban me from DC as I don’t give damn! Screw him!
If you two want to bitch and bash each other’s character brains out for a cash first, be my guess!
John and his ego blog are history for me!!
Well, well, well...the evidence just keeps piling up against John, even as he negligently spirals down a path of self-sabotage.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
John's Economic Stimulus Package: Gimme More, Gimme, Gimme More
Alright...alright...alright, so this is going to be another post on the moral descension that Debunking Christianity seems to be progressively making these days. This time, I'm aiming my criticisms at the ever-improving "new look" featuring all sorts of advertisements and gimmicks that John has uploaded in hopes of his readers pouring out their hard-earned cash whether it be business adverts or instant messaging conversations with "the man" himself.
Let me explain: As of the current timing this is being posted, John has uploaded an advert on the top right hand corner of DC's main page which reads "Your Ad Here" with a caption above which also reads "Click the image to find out more." By clicking on the image, you are lead to this link, within (no surprise) Debunking Christianity: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/would-you-like-to-reach-potentiallly.html It reads:
Would You Like to Reach a Potentially Huge Audience?
Sitemeter informs me that DC reaches over 40,000 visitors a month. We consistently rank among the top Atheist sites on the web too. Unreasonable Faith ranked us 4th, while Common Sense Atheism ranked us 6th.
To find out how you can reach these people with your product or service, no matter what page in our archives they visit here at DC, e-mail me. Serious inquiries only. Send me a description of your product or service, and/or a link to your site or Blog. The cost is reasonable, just ask.
Thanks so much.
I'm a bit lost here with precise logical objective in the adverts: Since when did the business of debunking the Christian religion turn into an avenue for revenue? And it becomes even more confusing when the exact incentive, other than gaining web traffic, is never really specified in having their website advertised on DC.
Well, confusing is actually the wrong word here. It's pretty obvious what this is all about. And me being a skeptic of the Christian religion, I can honestly say there is nothing that would compell me to "advertise" on a site like that run by a man like John. The number of web traffic does not impress me in the slightest, and I don't see why it should appeal to anyone's interests. Neither should the "it's a reasonable cost...trust me" string of reasoning appeal to anyone with the cognition of a chimpanzee. And with that said, it doesn't seem as if this money-making attempt is having even remote success, as there are no advertisements on Debunking Christianity than aren't from John & Friends themselves.
The "Big One" is our next exhibition, which instead of merely providing you with a bogus service for an ambiguous "reasonable cost" offer, John has allowed his readers the opportunity to debate with him for a fixed rate: 75 cents a minute!
Sure...75 cents isn't allot of money when you look at it for its face value. Yet most conversations on average last for much more than a single measly minute, especially instant-messaging. The numbers begin to add up when minutes turn into half hours and half hours turn into full-fledged hours. Obviously the cost will begin to climb exponentially, if you have a brain to realize this. But here is some mathematical evidence to prove my point anyway:
30 minutes: .75 x 30 = $22.50
1 hour: 22.50 x 2 = $45.00
Within one hour's time John has just made a profit of nearly half a hundred dollars, just for having an instant-message chat with someone who just drools over the concept of being able to talk directly with John at instaneous speed. Now, let's suppose that the maximum average time length for these conversations is 3 hours time. Once more:
45.00 x 3 = $135.00
So, is 75 cents asking for a bit much? If you still don't think so, then take into consideration that Alexa Web Trafficking services show that the average daily visit to John's blog is within the 4-5 people a day range (which, not so surprisignly, also happens to be the statistic to this very blog). Soo we'll take the maximum average of 3 hours and multiply it by the maximum number of visitors to John's blog to produce the highest number in profit that John could or does make in a day off of this simplistic gimmick:
135.00 x 5 = $675.00
With that type of money made in a single day while doing minimal "work", John could go out and buy himself a nice stereo or home theatre system for his house. Maybe he could buy a nice lawnmower. Or even an automatic robotic voice-command lawnmower, so that he doesn't get his new suit he just picked up covered in grass clippings.
For the love of logic, why would anyone want to spend 75 cents a minute talking in an instant messaging window just to talk with someone who thinks he's about as important as Joe Rogan thinks he is at being near the top of the food chain? Why would I want to spend that kind of money to talk to John on a live connection when I could just post a response to one of his inane ramblings on TheologyWeb.com for FREE?
There is no rocket science to the money-making desperation that is so Loftus-personality laced. John commits to the biggest culturally universal sin of them all: Greed. And while it's his blog and he does with it what pleases him, there is no reason for any logical person (or even a fan of Loftus) to engage him in IM by paying his lazy-ass money as an alternative to A) Posting a comment on his blog, or B) Posting a response in the TheologyWeb message boards without costing you a penny. And at the end of the day, if you're unsure on whether or not to side with John, would you really give out your hard-earned money to someone who is essentially a "stranger"? You might do it for strippers, but would you do it for someone whose motives you are unsure of? Their intents? What that money of yours that you might be throwing away will end up going towards? And if you don't end up liking this person, even if its for good reason, you're the only person who will suffer afterwards.
Save your money and spend it on something more worthwhile. If you are absolutely dying to speak to John, you can do it in one of two places: 1) John's blog (for the time being while the commenting section is available to you free of charge but with restrictions), 2) TheologyWeb.com, where it's always been free to talk to John, and it always will be...
Let me explain: As of the current timing this is being posted, John has uploaded an advert on the top right hand corner of DC's main page which reads "Your Ad Here" with a caption above which also reads "Click the image to find out more." By clicking on the image, you are lead to this link, within (no surprise) Debunking Christianity: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/06/would-you-like-to-reach-potentiallly.html It reads:
Would You Like to Reach a Potentially Huge Audience?
Sitemeter informs me that DC reaches over 40,000 visitors a month. We consistently rank among the top Atheist sites on the web too. Unreasonable Faith ranked us 4th, while Common Sense Atheism ranked us 6th.
To find out how you can reach these people with your product or service, no matter what page in our archives they visit here at DC, e-mail me. Serious inquiries only. Send me a description of your product or service, and/or a link to your site or Blog. The cost is reasonable, just ask.
Thanks so much.
I'm a bit lost here with precise logical objective in the adverts: Since when did the business of debunking the Christian religion turn into an avenue for revenue? And it becomes even more confusing when the exact incentive, other than gaining web traffic, is never really specified in having their website advertised on DC.
Well, confusing is actually the wrong word here. It's pretty obvious what this is all about. And me being a skeptic of the Christian religion, I can honestly say there is nothing that would compell me to "advertise" on a site like that run by a man like John. The number of web traffic does not impress me in the slightest, and I don't see why it should appeal to anyone's interests. Neither should the "it's a reasonable cost...trust me" string of reasoning appeal to anyone with the cognition of a chimpanzee. And with that said, it doesn't seem as if this money-making attempt is having even remote success, as there are no advertisements on Debunking Christianity than aren't from John & Friends themselves.
The "Big One" is our next exhibition, which instead of merely providing you with a bogus service for an ambiguous "reasonable cost" offer, John has allowed his readers the opportunity to debate with him for a fixed rate: 75 cents a minute!
Sure...75 cents isn't allot of money when you look at it for its face value. Yet most conversations on average last for much more than a single measly minute, especially instant-messaging. The numbers begin to add up when minutes turn into half hours and half hours turn into full-fledged hours. Obviously the cost will begin to climb exponentially, if you have a brain to realize this. But here is some mathematical evidence to prove my point anyway:
30 minutes: .75 x 30 = $22.50
1 hour: 22.50 x 2 = $45.00
Within one hour's time John has just made a profit of nearly half a hundred dollars, just for having an instant-message chat with someone who just drools over the concept of being able to talk directly with John at instaneous speed. Now, let's suppose that the maximum average time length for these conversations is 3 hours time. Once more:
45.00 x 3 = $135.00
So, is 75 cents asking for a bit much? If you still don't think so, then take into consideration that Alexa Web Trafficking services show that the average daily visit to John's blog is within the 4-5 people a day range (which, not so surprisignly, also happens to be the statistic to this very blog). Soo we'll take the maximum average of 3 hours and multiply it by the maximum number of visitors to John's blog to produce the highest number in profit that John could or does make in a day off of this simplistic gimmick:
135.00 x 5 = $675.00
With that type of money made in a single day while doing minimal "work", John could go out and buy himself a nice stereo or home theatre system for his house. Maybe he could buy a nice lawnmower. Or even an automatic robotic voice-command lawnmower, so that he doesn't get his new suit he just picked up covered in grass clippings.
For the love of logic, why would anyone want to spend 75 cents a minute talking in an instant messaging window just to talk with someone who thinks he's about as important as Joe Rogan thinks he is at being near the top of the food chain? Why would I want to spend that kind of money to talk to John on a live connection when I could just post a response to one of his inane ramblings on TheologyWeb.com for FREE?
There is no rocket science to the money-making desperation that is so Loftus-personality laced. John commits to the biggest culturally universal sin of them all: Greed. And while it's his blog and he does with it what pleases him, there is no reason for any logical person (or even a fan of Loftus) to engage him in IM by paying his lazy-ass money as an alternative to A) Posting a comment on his blog, or B) Posting a response in the TheologyWeb message boards without costing you a penny. And at the end of the day, if you're unsure on whether or not to side with John, would you really give out your hard-earned money to someone who is essentially a "stranger"? You might do it for strippers, but would you do it for someone whose motives you are unsure of? Their intents? What that money of yours that you might be throwing away will end up going towards? And if you don't end up liking this person, even if its for good reason, you're the only person who will suffer afterwards.
Save your money and spend it on something more worthwhile. If you are absolutely dying to speak to John, you can do it in one of two places: 1) John's blog (for the time being while the commenting section is available to you free of charge but with restrictions), 2) TheologyWeb.com, where it's always been free to talk to John, and it always will be...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
"I Just Can't Live Without You..."
It seems that public commenting has returned to the Debunking Christianity blog. Surprise, surprise. Well...almost, at least.
Seems this time 'round John decided to make a 'blog owner approval' policy for comments. This obviously came from one of his bogus polls, asking readers if public commenting should be re-implemented after John's exasperated ego got the best of him for the umpteenth time. Funny thing is, John must either be stupid enough to think that readers would elect an alternative option besides having public commentary re-implemented. First John's ego takes a beating, and he invites fellow blog owners to use their sites as their own mediums of criticisms. Now, he's back to letting the dice roll in his favor, and his pons are unsuspecting of this. Yowser.
I think some irony should point out the inconsistency of John's mentality to the point where anything he tries to pass off is usually done under some self-serving facade he tries to pass off. Unfortunately for John, he doesn't have his head screwed on tight enough to keep up with the act, and then he manages to fall flat on his face. But we have alluded to plenty of past examples of that being the case already. This time John is still wearing his masked personality, it's just a little more subtle than on average. Consider this: If John were truly concerned with keeping it "civil" over at DC, why couldn't he have just switched to where comments would have been under his approval in the first place? Instead, he went into a power frenzy about his own personal identity issues. It turned into another endless game of figurative cat and mouse (John plays both roles, interchangeably, if you don't understand what I mean by this). In other words, John portrays himself both as the hunter and as the prey, it's all a matter of circumstantial context. John clearly stated before that only the staff at Debunking Christianity would be permitted to commit. Usually he makes this out as his final decision, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But it never is. Eventually, in due time, despite John's assertions that words do not affect him and that he is anything but insecure, he always comes crawling back to the approval of other people. Even when it's his blog to begin with. Undoubtely, he may still be checking up on this blog every once and a while, even if he isn't outright about it.
Let's just say John could use a little therapy in establishing and maintaining priorities. Because priotization seems to be John's biggest of weaknesses.
Seems this time 'round John decided to make a 'blog owner approval' policy for comments. This obviously came from one of his bogus polls, asking readers if public commenting should be re-implemented after John's exasperated ego got the best of him for the umpteenth time. Funny thing is, John must either be stupid enough to think that readers would elect an alternative option besides having public commentary re-implemented. First John's ego takes a beating, and he invites fellow blog owners to use their sites as their own mediums of criticisms. Now, he's back to letting the dice roll in his favor, and his pons are unsuspecting of this. Yowser.
I think some irony should point out the inconsistency of John's mentality to the point where anything he tries to pass off is usually done under some self-serving facade he tries to pass off. Unfortunately for John, he doesn't have his head screwed on tight enough to keep up with the act, and then he manages to fall flat on his face. But we have alluded to plenty of past examples of that being the case already. This time John is still wearing his masked personality, it's just a little more subtle than on average. Consider this: If John were truly concerned with keeping it "civil" over at DC, why couldn't he have just switched to where comments would have been under his approval in the first place? Instead, he went into a power frenzy about his own personal identity issues. It turned into another endless game of figurative cat and mouse (John plays both roles, interchangeably, if you don't understand what I mean by this). In other words, John portrays himself both as the hunter and as the prey, it's all a matter of circumstantial context. John clearly stated before that only the staff at Debunking Christianity would be permitted to commit. Usually he makes this out as his final decision, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But it never is. Eventually, in due time, despite John's assertions that words do not affect him and that he is anything but insecure, he always comes crawling back to the approval of other people. Even when it's his blog to begin with. Undoubtely, he may still be checking up on this blog every once and a while, even if he isn't outright about it.
Let's just say John could use a little therapy in establishing and maintaining priorities. Because priotization seems to be John's biggest of weaknesses.
Monday, April 20, 2009
DC's Untimely Deterioration
DL frequenter and commentator Blogger user Andrew has notified us of the following in the previous post before mine:
News Flash! As of an hour or so ago, John has broken down!
NO MORE COMMENTS!
BLOG MEMBERS ONLY!
DISCUSSION TOTALLY SHUT DOWN!
John made an especially rambling rant last night, and received a number of well placed comments. He couldn't take it, and has...per his recent post...completely shut down comments!
Could it be true? Well.....
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/ive-decided-no-more-comments.html
I regret to inform regular readers of this Blog of something I've just decided. I am not going to allow any more comments except from other team members here at DC.
There was never a doubt in my mind that this was bound to happen...
I’ve been online arguing for about five years or so. When I first got online in some forums and on some Blogs I was personally attacked and mocked because I revealed a lot of damaging information about myself in my previously self-published book, which was picked up by Prometheus Books, and is getting some astounding reviews. I was also impersonated as saying horrible things, which I never said. I was repeatedly lied about and personally maligned. So I felt compelled to defend myself and attacked back.
Give or take, things happen on the internet all the time. When you somehow gain popular attention on the web with a large following, you're going to have impersonators getting at your goat. I wonder what he means by "impersonators" anyway, cause if he is referring to the John W. Locust account, he still doesn't get the value of parody or what is obviously intended to be taken as fictional. The solution to the problem is just to brush it off your shoulder, and not let it nag at you like the devil with the pitchfork.
And then there's this bullshit about being "personally attacked and mocked" for revealing "a lot of damaging information about myself". WHAAAAAAAAA! I don't think so. Here's the link to where the Holding-Loftus conflict seeded itself. People need to be able to judge for themselves, but realistically speaking, John is just in a state of delusion, BIG TIME.
It's an interesting phenomenon really.
An "interesting phenomenon really"? No, NOT REALLY!
I post under my real name. So when personally attacked I can and did attack back. When I did so other readers thought to themselves what childish behavior of me, not considering how they would feel or respond to these personal attacks if they were to post in their real name.
This has no relevance to the issues whatsoever, Looney Tunes.
Some of the relationships I had with people who attacked me has degenerated to the point where all I do any more is blast them for their idiocy and deceit. I really do not care at all about some of these idiots.
You do that regardless. Anyone who criticizes you in a negative light is best described (by YOU mostly) as "ignorant", "idiots", "naive" and or uneducated. In order for someone to criticize you, they need to fufill the following criteria established by your exclusive standards of thinking:
1) We must have read John's book to a capital T. Without reading John's book, you can't deal with the arguments he publicly posts on his public blog.
2) You must be "nice" to John, even when he's being a complete "asshole" to put it into his own words. You must respect him, and you must also tone down your negative criticisms of him even on your own blog, otherwise you'll lose your priveleges to play in the DC sandbox.
3) You must be "rational" by John's own standards, whatever they are. Naturally I would question the standards set by an individual who makes up a sockpuppet blog just to gain vengance, and then when caught, outright denies any allegations of being responsible or taking responsibility even when in their own pockets of incoherence they admit to being responsible unintentionally as being pretty suspect.
4) You have to "come to the adult world of civilized discussion", whatever Loftus means by that. Just more of the same ass-kissing that John expects of the world.
These personal attacks are getting stronger and more and more desperate with each passing week, probably because I'm making a difference. And the Christians doing so are increasingly becoming frustrated because I will not link to them or mention their names, since they want to be noticed. A few of them have come out of the sewer of a particular forum to post comments here that are disrespectful and slanderous in order to disrupt the decent, civil discussion I have always wanted between believer and non-believer.
When Loftus blabs on like this, I am reminded in some aspect or another of Alfred Hitchcock's cinematic character figure, Norman Bates.
They think that atheists are angry and malicious people. But I appear to be decent and civil, until personally attacked, and I am. Unlike other atheists who just don’t give a damn, I do. I suppose that galls these ignorant Christians to no end. This can’t be, that an atheist cares about a civil, reasonable, and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. But I do. I have only wanted this.
I'll be fair and concede that John's "fairness" can have a temporary impression. But once a person gets to interacting with John more, we see that his egotist philosophy dictates how he perceives the world and social situations, even when the sane world castrates him for it, and rightly so.
Now the whole "atheists are angry and malicious people" is a bullshit strawman and John probably knows it. There are a handful of atheists and skeptics from TWeb which are openly accepted without any negative criticism on their records: CodewordConduit, Anon, The Moonshield, and myself are just a number of examples in an ever-growing group of people whom are not as stupid and as immoral as John and his like. In many instances, to say that most atheists are malicious and angry is not far from reality. In no such certain terms does John have the right to proclaim himself as an exception to the atheist stereotype and as the archetype for the 'friendly atheist'; such has already been claimed by other radical extremist groups such as the Rational Responders, who also fail to be consistent with their claims of peace and civil discourse.
I’ve decided that the time is to move on. I’ve got many things to do, not the least of which is to begin writing and editing a new book just accepted by Prometheus Books, which will include several great chapters in it, from some scholars and others you know from this blog.
And the book will more than likely be titled "Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Preacher, Popular Blogger, and Enlightened Thinker/Former WLC Student Explains; The Revised 16th Edition".
This emphatically does NOT mean I will be posting any less here at DC. I will. It’s just that I do not want to spend the time responding to idiocy, especially from a few of the regular Christian commenters.
What was that about peace and civil discourse, which is usually tied in with tolerance?
For the record, and as an afterthought, to several Christians who were banned from DC but kept coming back anyway, sometimes 3 and 4 times a day with slanderous comments, you didn't win anything. In fact, I thank you for teaching me that it can be useless to try to reason with you. I was only beating my head against the wall with the likes of you. I'm better off realizing this.
This "interesting phenomenon" John is describing here is the point in which his behavioral monitor has gone so far off the radar he has resorted to bashing his head against a brick wall until he is left with only but a nice mix of pulp and scrambled eggs.
Already Christians are seriously claiming that one reason I decided not to allow comments is because I could not deal with their arguments. And this comes from the very idiots I spoke about!
That sounds like something you think goes on when people lash out at you John. You fail to recognize that the true reasons for you being flogged by others (i.e., the folks at TWeb) is because you are dishonest, self-serving, and intolerant of others. Get a clue why don't you?
Onto another entry of John's which intrigues me: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/amazing-race-and-amazing-grace.html
While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share.
My, oh my, oh my, oh my......ignorance abounds.
Sometime mid-last month I suggested (humorously) that John should go work for Google and become a Communist. What does this have anything to do with China? Read on, kiddies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm
In case John or his bud buds happen to question the authority of the source, I will remind them that the BBC is the same broadcasting network that has its affliations with many of Richard Dawkin's television programs.
Does John think before he types? Many if not most of countries in the far eastern reaches of Asia are propaganda machines that pass themselves off as things they are not. Asians hold a sense of traditional integrity and honor to the point where it is embedded into their skulls. It doesn't take an anthropologist to realize this. I personally have spoken to those who have visited China for themselves, and their testimonies have collaborated that of many of its rumored discussions. One such example is the amount of pollution in China, which was only dispelled temporarily for this year's Olympic games: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/6934955.stm
And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]
Treading on dangerous grounds there, Johnny. Best to be outright with everyone including yourself that fundamentalism was the starting basis for your faith, and it was also the destructive factor.
News Flash! As of an hour or so ago, John has broken down!
NO MORE COMMENTS!
BLOG MEMBERS ONLY!
DISCUSSION TOTALLY SHUT DOWN!
John made an especially rambling rant last night, and received a number of well placed comments. He couldn't take it, and has...per his recent post...completely shut down comments!
Could it be true? Well.....
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/ive-decided-no-more-comments.html
I regret to inform regular readers of this Blog of something I've just decided. I am not going to allow any more comments except from other team members here at DC.
There was never a doubt in my mind that this was bound to happen...
I’ve been online arguing for about five years or so. When I first got online in some forums and on some Blogs I was personally attacked and mocked because I revealed a lot of damaging information about myself in my previously self-published book, which was picked up by Prometheus Books, and is getting some astounding reviews. I was also impersonated as saying horrible things, which I never said. I was repeatedly lied about and personally maligned. So I felt compelled to defend myself and attacked back.
Give or take, things happen on the internet all the time. When you somehow gain popular attention on the web with a large following, you're going to have impersonators getting at your goat. I wonder what he means by "impersonators" anyway, cause if he is referring to the John W. Locust account, he still doesn't get the value of parody or what is obviously intended to be taken as fictional. The solution to the problem is just to brush it off your shoulder, and not let it nag at you like the devil with the pitchfork.
And then there's this bullshit about being "personally attacked and mocked" for revealing "a lot of damaging information about myself". WHAAAAAAAAA! I don't think so. Here's the link to where the Holding-Loftus conflict seeded itself. People need to be able to judge for themselves, but realistically speaking, John is just in a state of delusion, BIG TIME.
It's an interesting phenomenon really.
An "interesting phenomenon really"? No, NOT REALLY!
I post under my real name. So when personally attacked I can and did attack back. When I did so other readers thought to themselves what childish behavior of me, not considering how they would feel or respond to these personal attacks if they were to post in their real name.
This has no relevance to the issues whatsoever, Looney Tunes.
Some of the relationships I had with people who attacked me has degenerated to the point where all I do any more is blast them for their idiocy and deceit. I really do not care at all about some of these idiots.
You do that regardless. Anyone who criticizes you in a negative light is best described (by YOU mostly) as "ignorant", "idiots", "naive" and or uneducated. In order for someone to criticize you, they need to fufill the following criteria established by your exclusive standards of thinking:
1) We must have read John's book to a capital T. Without reading John's book, you can't deal with the arguments he publicly posts on his public blog.
2) You must be "nice" to John, even when he's being a complete "asshole" to put it into his own words. You must respect him, and you must also tone down your negative criticisms of him even on your own blog, otherwise you'll lose your priveleges to play in the DC sandbox.
3) You must be "rational" by John's own standards, whatever they are. Naturally I would question the standards set by an individual who makes up a sockpuppet blog just to gain vengance, and then when caught, outright denies any allegations of being responsible or taking responsibility even when in their own pockets of incoherence they admit to being responsible unintentionally as being pretty suspect.
4) You have to "come to the adult world of civilized discussion", whatever Loftus means by that. Just more of the same ass-kissing that John expects of the world.
These personal attacks are getting stronger and more and more desperate with each passing week, probably because I'm making a difference. And the Christians doing so are increasingly becoming frustrated because I will not link to them or mention their names, since they want to be noticed. A few of them have come out of the sewer of a particular forum to post comments here that are disrespectful and slanderous in order to disrupt the decent, civil discussion I have always wanted between believer and non-believer.
When Loftus blabs on like this, I am reminded in some aspect or another of Alfred Hitchcock's cinematic character figure, Norman Bates.
They think that atheists are angry and malicious people. But I appear to be decent and civil, until personally attacked, and I am. Unlike other atheists who just don’t give a damn, I do. I suppose that galls these ignorant Christians to no end. This can’t be, that an atheist cares about a civil, reasonable, and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. But I do. I have only wanted this.
I'll be fair and concede that John's "fairness" can have a temporary impression. But once a person gets to interacting with John more, we see that his egotist philosophy dictates how he perceives the world and social situations, even when the sane world castrates him for it, and rightly so.
Now the whole "atheists are angry and malicious people" is a bullshit strawman and John probably knows it. There are a handful of atheists and skeptics from TWeb which are openly accepted without any negative criticism on their records: CodewordConduit, Anon, The Moonshield, and myself are just a number of examples in an ever-growing group of people whom are not as stupid and as immoral as John and his like. In many instances, to say that most atheists are malicious and angry is not far from reality. In no such certain terms does John have the right to proclaim himself as an exception to the atheist stereotype and as the archetype for the 'friendly atheist'; such has already been claimed by other radical extremist groups such as the Rational Responders, who also fail to be consistent with their claims of peace and civil discourse.
I’ve decided that the time is to move on. I’ve got many things to do, not the least of which is to begin writing and editing a new book just accepted by Prometheus Books, which will include several great chapters in it, from some scholars and others you know from this blog.
And the book will more than likely be titled "Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Preacher, Popular Blogger, and Enlightened Thinker/Former WLC Student Explains; The Revised 16th Edition".
This emphatically does NOT mean I will be posting any less here at DC. I will. It’s just that I do not want to spend the time responding to idiocy, especially from a few of the regular Christian commenters.
What was that about peace and civil discourse, which is usually tied in with tolerance?
For the record, and as an afterthought, to several Christians who were banned from DC but kept coming back anyway, sometimes 3 and 4 times a day with slanderous comments, you didn't win anything. In fact, I thank you for teaching me that it can be useless to try to reason with you. I was only beating my head against the wall with the likes of you. I'm better off realizing this.
This "interesting phenomenon" John is describing here is the point in which his behavioral monitor has gone so far off the radar he has resorted to bashing his head against a brick wall until he is left with only but a nice mix of pulp and scrambled eggs.
Already Christians are seriously claiming that one reason I decided not to allow comments is because I could not deal with their arguments. And this comes from the very idiots I spoke about!
That sounds like something you think goes on when people lash out at you John. You fail to recognize that the true reasons for you being flogged by others (i.e., the folks at TWeb) is because you are dishonest, self-serving, and intolerant of others. Get a clue why don't you?
Onto another entry of John's which intrigues me: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/amazing-race-and-amazing-grace.html
While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share.
My, oh my, oh my, oh my......ignorance abounds.
Sometime mid-last month I suggested (humorously) that John should go work for Google and become a Communist. What does this have anything to do with China? Read on, kiddies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm
In case John or his bud buds happen to question the authority of the source, I will remind them that the BBC is the same broadcasting network that has its affliations with many of Richard Dawkin's television programs.
Does John think before he types? Many if not most of countries in the far eastern reaches of Asia are propaganda machines that pass themselves off as things they are not. Asians hold a sense of traditional integrity and honor to the point where it is embedded into their skulls. It doesn't take an anthropologist to realize this. I personally have spoken to those who have visited China for themselves, and their testimonies have collaborated that of many of its rumored discussions. One such example is the amount of pollution in China, which was only dispelled temporarily for this year's Olympic games: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/6934955.stm
And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]
Treading on dangerous grounds there, Johnny. Best to be outright with everyone including yourself that fundamentalism was the starting basis for your faith, and it was also the destructive factor.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Fudged by Easter: Whining + Chocolate
Here I am once more on the topic of Easter. I'm only addressing it a second time because DC just can't let the topic go, and, well, frankly, I find their commentaries on the holiday to be bigotted and shallow, like most of what has been quoted and responded too here.
Nothing to do with Loftus here as addressed in the previous Easter post. This time, I take on a new target, someone never done before, and someone I could care less about in general as far as Debunking Christianity goes: Joe. E. Holman.
Holman's Easter Sunrise Blasphemy is just more of the same ol' same ol' coupled with extreme and outlandish statements. Clearly these people don't sleep at night very well because the Christian Right along with Evangelism are haunting their psyches' because of bad past experiences. I don't want to be insensitive and innappropriate here, but they mine as well have been molested as children by some evangelical preacher with serious sex orientation issues. If this isn't the case, something just as extreme is....
Let's begin my critique:
It's Easter today and that means countless Christians will be at their respective houses of worship praising and thanking the god that made them for sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins and for his being raised from the grave. You may or may not be planning to attend one of these pagan put-ons known as Easter sunrise services, or like me, you may actually despise them. Either way, I want you to hear why I feel the way I do.
This is where the whining begins to ensue:
I hate Easter. About the only thing I love around this time of year are those discounted chocolates in pretty-colored packages that are on sale in the stores. But that's it. I hate everything else about it. The cool weather leaves and the warmer weather comes. What's to like?
You hate Easter?! Gee, I never would have guessed....
As far as I'm concerned, I much prefer warm weather over cold. At least warm weather can be tolerated longer than cold. Cold doesn't even give you a choice for tolerance.
I hate that it's a holi-(read “holy”)-day. To me as an atheist, this is a red flag reminder that society is still not above having holy days—days with vile histories that have been exalted by blood god worshippers through the centuries who possess the arrogance to think that the world would end without their putrid, bloody offerings. It’s sick, I tell you!
The biased fundamentalist thinking is strong in this one. By this line of reasoning, all holidays are religion-affliated. But the reality is, not quite. I wonder what Holman has to say about Veterans Day, Memorial Day, July the Fourth, Presidents Day, Thanksgiving, St. Patrick's Day, Valentines Day, Martin Luther King Day, etc. All of which these are hardly even remotely related to religion or religious affairs! Only one of these are brute in their origin (Valentines) but still have absolutely zero to do with religion. In fact, many of these holidays are festive remembrances of those that have dedicated their lives to civil rights, helped found and mold the democracy of the United States, and so on. Most of these holidays are days that are reserved for personal family time, yet the people at DC have no complaints about them. It comes with points like these that we must take the binky out of our mouths and stop sucking on our thumbs.
Add to that, Easter time means that the religious nuts can't help but wear their nuttiness on their sleeves with their nauseating talk of alters and blood and redemption and how worthless and worthy of burning we humans are. It's creepy stuff!
Holman doesn't realize that these complaints come from atheists and upset "non-believers" on a daily basis. Shut up and enjoy the candy, already.....
Easter means I have to see those big, “in your face” banners that spread across intersections and streets that advertise these sacred bunny events, and that means more people are out and about shopping. But the restaurants I love will be closed! That frustrates the hell out of me (or hell into me, depending on how you look at it.) Sometimes, I swear up and down that this is how Jeebus is getting back at me for defecting!
Nevermind that in most cases, most stores and restraurants close early on regular Sundays and will also close on holidays such as the ones already mentioned. But perhaps Holman should take the time to consider that people which usually cater to the needs of others have personal lives too, and that Holman isn't the only person in the world with needs and demands. ;)
Then there are the radio broadcasts and telecasts of emotional preachers who have to remind everyone with emphatic, high-pitched voices that a dead guy came to life on a certain day and how that event long ago will someday help us. But it hasn't helped us yet. None of our friends and loved ones and family who died in war or of cancer or Legionary’s Disease have come out of the ground yet. They're still there, but that shouldn't surprise us. Religions are big on making big claims, including impossibly big claims like the dead being raised to life.
Oh really, Holman? You mean to insult us by informing us that a large organ with electric-like impulses is impossible to recover? And what about the braindead whose hearts are still beating? Holman hasn't thought much on the possibility that resurrecting someone through scientific means is very much a possibility, and you don't need a degree in neuroscience to realize this. And if "resurrecting" someone from the dead can be achieved through science, why not open the possibility of this occuring through supernatural means? The likelihood or improbability of something confers that something is possible nor impossible, Joey boy.
But what's the real import of this holiday? Like Christmas, it's not really spiritual. It never was. Spiritual is a man or a woman who tells the truth even though doing otherwise would not result in being caught.
??????????????
All this oohing and ahhing to a ghost, all these churches filled with believers, all these prayers and colored baskets of eggs and pretty banners and billboards that say “He is risen” won't move God to rid the world of a single evil. It won't stop lunatics from shooting up malls or post offices. It won't stop one child from dying of starvation or dear sweet Aunt Olga from dying of breast cancer. And all the church-sponsored Easter egg hunts in the world won't cause God to bless one infertile churchgoing couple who can't have children of their own, and it won’t stop unfit parents from doing the naughty and having more kids they can’t take care of.
Holman's point is????? There are some Christians that don't involve themselves with Easter, and Easter is not a holiday intended to rid the world of its illnesses and dysfunction. Does Christianity even try to pass itself off as the magical miracle pill? I don't think so. Christianity is in fact a religion which acknolwedges the world's imperfections and makes statements about their ongoing reality. In fact, it's supposed to get worse before the end. Not better. Holman is whacked.
I'm going to be sleeping in this Easter like I have for the last seven. Together with my cozy bed and the internet, I'll make it. These big bags of chocolates will help!
A silly nilly will bunny wabbit does deserve an egg basket of confinement every now and then. :D
Nothing to do with Loftus here as addressed in the previous Easter post. This time, I take on a new target, someone never done before, and someone I could care less about in general as far as Debunking Christianity goes: Joe. E. Holman.
Holman's Easter Sunrise Blasphemy is just more of the same ol' same ol' coupled with extreme and outlandish statements. Clearly these people don't sleep at night very well because the Christian Right along with Evangelism are haunting their psyches' because of bad past experiences. I don't want to be insensitive and innappropriate here, but they mine as well have been molested as children by some evangelical preacher with serious sex orientation issues. If this isn't the case, something just as extreme is....
Let's begin my critique:
It's Easter today and that means countless Christians will be at their respective houses of worship praising and thanking the god that made them for sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins and for his being raised from the grave. You may or may not be planning to attend one of these pagan put-ons known as Easter sunrise services, or like me, you may actually despise them. Either way, I want you to hear why I feel the way I do.
This is where the whining begins to ensue:
I hate Easter. About the only thing I love around this time of year are those discounted chocolates in pretty-colored packages that are on sale in the stores. But that's it. I hate everything else about it. The cool weather leaves and the warmer weather comes. What's to like?
You hate Easter?! Gee, I never would have guessed....
As far as I'm concerned, I much prefer warm weather over cold. At least warm weather can be tolerated longer than cold. Cold doesn't even give you a choice for tolerance.
I hate that it's a holi-(read “holy”)-day. To me as an atheist, this is a red flag reminder that society is still not above having holy days—days with vile histories that have been exalted by blood god worshippers through the centuries who possess the arrogance to think that the world would end without their putrid, bloody offerings. It’s sick, I tell you!
The biased fundamentalist thinking is strong in this one. By this line of reasoning, all holidays are religion-affliated. But the reality is, not quite. I wonder what Holman has to say about Veterans Day, Memorial Day, July the Fourth, Presidents Day, Thanksgiving, St. Patrick's Day, Valentines Day, Martin Luther King Day, etc. All of which these are hardly even remotely related to religion or religious affairs! Only one of these are brute in their origin (Valentines) but still have absolutely zero to do with religion. In fact, many of these holidays are festive remembrances of those that have dedicated their lives to civil rights, helped found and mold the democracy of the United States, and so on. Most of these holidays are days that are reserved for personal family time, yet the people at DC have no complaints about them. It comes with points like these that we must take the binky out of our mouths and stop sucking on our thumbs.
Add to that, Easter time means that the religious nuts can't help but wear their nuttiness on their sleeves with their nauseating talk of alters and blood and redemption and how worthless and worthy of burning we humans are. It's creepy stuff!
Holman doesn't realize that these complaints come from atheists and upset "non-believers" on a daily basis. Shut up and enjoy the candy, already.....
Easter means I have to see those big, “in your face” banners that spread across intersections and streets that advertise these sacred bunny events, and that means more people are out and about shopping. But the restaurants I love will be closed! That frustrates the hell out of me (or hell into me, depending on how you look at it.) Sometimes, I swear up and down that this is how Jeebus is getting back at me for defecting!
Nevermind that in most cases, most stores and restraurants close early on regular Sundays and will also close on holidays such as the ones already mentioned. But perhaps Holman should take the time to consider that people which usually cater to the needs of others have personal lives too, and that Holman isn't the only person in the world with needs and demands. ;)
Then there are the radio broadcasts and telecasts of emotional preachers who have to remind everyone with emphatic, high-pitched voices that a dead guy came to life on a certain day and how that event long ago will someday help us. But it hasn't helped us yet. None of our friends and loved ones and family who died in war or of cancer or Legionary’s Disease have come out of the ground yet. They're still there, but that shouldn't surprise us. Religions are big on making big claims, including impossibly big claims like the dead being raised to life.
Oh really, Holman? You mean to insult us by informing us that a large organ with electric-like impulses is impossible to recover? And what about the braindead whose hearts are still beating? Holman hasn't thought much on the possibility that resurrecting someone through scientific means is very much a possibility, and you don't need a degree in neuroscience to realize this. And if "resurrecting" someone from the dead can be achieved through science, why not open the possibility of this occuring through supernatural means? The likelihood or improbability of something confers that something is possible nor impossible, Joey boy.
But what's the real import of this holiday? Like Christmas, it's not really spiritual. It never was. Spiritual is a man or a woman who tells the truth even though doing otherwise would not result in being caught.
??????????????
All this oohing and ahhing to a ghost, all these churches filled with believers, all these prayers and colored baskets of eggs and pretty banners and billboards that say “He is risen” won't move God to rid the world of a single evil. It won't stop lunatics from shooting up malls or post offices. It won't stop one child from dying of starvation or dear sweet Aunt Olga from dying of breast cancer. And all the church-sponsored Easter egg hunts in the world won't cause God to bless one infertile churchgoing couple who can't have children of their own, and it won’t stop unfit parents from doing the naughty and having more kids they can’t take care of.
Holman's point is????? There are some Christians that don't involve themselves with Easter, and Easter is not a holiday intended to rid the world of its illnesses and dysfunction. Does Christianity even try to pass itself off as the magical miracle pill? I don't think so. Christianity is in fact a religion which acknolwedges the world's imperfections and makes statements about their ongoing reality. In fact, it's supposed to get worse before the end. Not better. Holman is whacked.
I'm going to be sleeping in this Easter like I have for the last seven. Together with my cozy bed and the internet, I'll make it. These big bags of chocolates will help!
A silly nilly will bunny wabbit does deserve an egg basket of confinement every now and then. :D
Friday, April 10, 2009
Rotten Easter Egg Spoils
Happy Good Friday world! Two days from now, we will be witnessing another Easter Sunday, a special time for all, and in particular, church-going Christians!
Let me ask you of what seems to be a random question on the surface of things: If some Christians can get passed the ghoulish costumes worn around the Halloween season and regard it simply as a cultural holiday of fun and candy, then can't atheists get passed the fact that Christianity does not have a monopoly over Easter and just consider it a Chocolate Bunny Rabbit Day instead?
I'm sure that some do. However, like the fundamentalists they used to be and still are today, some folk at Debunking Christianity just can't get over the fact that Easter has something to do with a religion they really don't like because they used to "belong". In their own little way, they make the situation out to be as if they just transitioned over from skinhead Nazism and had an epiphany about the origins of the different human races. Actually, in a way, the DC folks once did belong to a form of skinhead racist philosophy, if you account for the ignorance it bestows in much of the same fashion that fundamentalists have justified their own beliefs. The situation at hand clearly demonstrates that the ignorance of Loftus n' Friends are what made them deconvert and use a different style of ignorance to counter the ignorance they once had before. But as they say, you can't fight fire with fire....
Several recent posts on DC have all been revolving around the origins of the death and resurrection concept, or i.e., Easter. Now that DJ is a Christian-turned atheist as he claims, he's accustomed to accepting the contents of popular atheist writings and literature quite uncritically. It is similar in the manner of Acharya S' zeal after having come out with a fifth book dealing with the "mythological Christ", so to speak. Case in point: It's an unhealthy obsession, and whether people choose to admit it or not, there are lies and distortions coming from both sides of the plate. One such example comes from Loftus himself:
Even if someone is way out of bounds with what I think can be rationally defended, I can still say, "but she makes a good case against Christianity...she makes me think."
It's not worth saying this is a puzzling statement. What is there to "think" about something that is misconstrued and distortionally inaccurate? The provocativeness of it all amounts to how someone is able to connect the dots where none exist conclusively or substantially. That's the only provocativeness we need to be concerned with, because everything else is beyond the shadow of a doubt, false and misplaced, and is therefore not worth the time investment. Hence, there is already a preconceived bias to believe most anti-Christian notions of history, even if John willingly acknowledges them as false in their entirety.
Another example, not directly related to Easter, comes from a post about Acharya S and Dr. Robert Price a few years back:
John W. Loftus said...
I know about both of their views.
Let me state for the record that I am a freethinker first, and an atheist second. No freethinker faces a potential excommunication or heresy trial for not abiding by the party line as far as I'm concerned. I left Christianity partly over this party line attitude. Acharya S. was a Blog member here for a week until she recused herself because of her critics, and I have invited Bob to be a member here with no luck yet.
Where I agree with people, I agree. Where I disagree with people I disagree. That's it. For instance, I do believe Jesus was a historical figure in the 1st century unlike them. But I learn from everyone.
The goal here at DC is to Debunk evangelical Christianity. This could be done by a Deist, a new age pantheist, an agnostic or an atheist.
2:54 PM, September 02, 2006
The debunking of evangelical Christianity is open up to everyone, except for non-evangelical Christians. Hmmm. That's suspicious. Keep in mind that John's blog is titled "Debunking Christianity" not "Debunking Evangelism" or "Debunking Evangelical Christianity". The latter is a long title for a blog, but it does coincide with what John argues about in his already existent blog. Could this serve as proof that John not only has a clearly established and biased agenda, but that it is also related to his narrow scope based on his lack of experience with general Christianity? These are questions that need answering. I want to see if John (or any DC poster) can answer them directly and straightforwardly. If not, DC does not have a case for anything it proposes. Zero...nada...zip.
Keep this in mind when you happen to come across some bogus argument based on a discontent for Christianity's relation to Easter and a desire to link the New Testament resurrection with Sumerian paganism directly: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/valerie-tarico-on-ancient-sumerian.html (The person mentioned in the article's title is a DC contributor, which, for some unknown reason, was unable to post this herself):
"If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it's ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ's torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist."
I think it's time for John to rename his blog to a much more appropriate title. He also needs to broaden his staff to the non-evangelical, if indeed he is so bent on exterminating evangelism from this country. Will John do this? Probably not. Is it possible that he uses Debunking Christianity to gain a wider web traffic and to get better marketing? Possibly so. In the end, only John truly knows. ;)
Let me ask you of what seems to be a random question on the surface of things: If some Christians can get passed the ghoulish costumes worn around the Halloween season and regard it simply as a cultural holiday of fun and candy, then can't atheists get passed the fact that Christianity does not have a monopoly over Easter and just consider it a Chocolate Bunny Rabbit Day instead?
I'm sure that some do. However, like the fundamentalists they used to be and still are today, some folk at Debunking Christianity just can't get over the fact that Easter has something to do with a religion they really don't like because they used to "belong". In their own little way, they make the situation out to be as if they just transitioned over from skinhead Nazism and had an epiphany about the origins of the different human races. Actually, in a way, the DC folks once did belong to a form of skinhead racist philosophy, if you account for the ignorance it bestows in much of the same fashion that fundamentalists have justified their own beliefs. The situation at hand clearly demonstrates that the ignorance of Loftus n' Friends are what made them deconvert and use a different style of ignorance to counter the ignorance they once had before. But as they say, you can't fight fire with fire....
Several recent posts on DC have all been revolving around the origins of the death and resurrection concept, or i.e., Easter. Now that DJ is a Christian-turned atheist as he claims, he's accustomed to accepting the contents of popular atheist writings and literature quite uncritically. It is similar in the manner of Acharya S' zeal after having come out with a fifth book dealing with the "mythological Christ", so to speak. Case in point: It's an unhealthy obsession, and whether people choose to admit it or not, there are lies and distortions coming from both sides of the plate. One such example comes from Loftus himself:
Even if someone is way out of bounds with what I think can be rationally defended, I can still say, "but she makes a good case against Christianity...she makes me think."
It's not worth saying this is a puzzling statement. What is there to "think" about something that is misconstrued and distortionally inaccurate? The provocativeness of it all amounts to how someone is able to connect the dots where none exist conclusively or substantially. That's the only provocativeness we need to be concerned with, because everything else is beyond the shadow of a doubt, false and misplaced, and is therefore not worth the time investment. Hence, there is already a preconceived bias to believe most anti-Christian notions of history, even if John willingly acknowledges them as false in their entirety.
Another example, not directly related to Easter, comes from a post about Acharya S and Dr. Robert Price a few years back:
John W. Loftus said...
I know about both of their views.
Let me state for the record that I am a freethinker first, and an atheist second. No freethinker faces a potential excommunication or heresy trial for not abiding by the party line as far as I'm concerned. I left Christianity partly over this party line attitude. Acharya S. was a Blog member here for a week until she recused herself because of her critics, and I have invited Bob to be a member here with no luck yet.
Where I agree with people, I agree. Where I disagree with people I disagree. That's it. For instance, I do believe Jesus was a historical figure in the 1st century unlike them. But I learn from everyone.
The goal here at DC is to Debunk evangelical Christianity. This could be done by a Deist, a new age pantheist, an agnostic or an atheist.
2:54 PM, September 02, 2006
The debunking of evangelical Christianity is open up to everyone, except for non-evangelical Christians. Hmmm. That's suspicious. Keep in mind that John's blog is titled "Debunking Christianity" not "Debunking Evangelism" or "Debunking Evangelical Christianity". The latter is a long title for a blog, but it does coincide with what John argues about in his already existent blog. Could this serve as proof that John not only has a clearly established and biased agenda, but that it is also related to his narrow scope based on his lack of experience with general Christianity? These are questions that need answering. I want to see if John (or any DC poster) can answer them directly and straightforwardly. If not, DC does not have a case for anything it proposes. Zero...nada...zip.
Keep this in mind when you happen to come across some bogus argument based on a discontent for Christianity's relation to Easter and a desire to link the New Testament resurrection with Sumerian paganism directly: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/valerie-tarico-on-ancient-sumerian.html (The person mentioned in the article's title is a DC contributor, which, for some unknown reason, was unable to post this herself):
"Some stories speak to people in a deep spiritual way. These sacred stories are what are called "myths" in the field of religious studies. Despite our common usage, a myth traditionally is not just a false tale. Rather, it is a story that, at least at one point in time, had a very powerful spiritual resonance. The story of death and resurrection is one such story. In the Sumerian tradition, in which much of the Bible is rooted, the story is called, "From the Great Above to the Great Below" or "The Descent of Inanna." There is also a Babylonian version of the myth, which is called "The Descent of Ishtar," and she is known elsewhere as Astarte."
I would think there would be three factors to take into consideration before making direct connections with these: Time period, context, and technical details. It's an obvious fact that most if not all dying and rising pagan myths are centered around the symbolic represenation of the withering and blossoming of cultivated plantation. This is an extremely pantheistic view and not one that I don't think fits well with meaning of the Christ story. Christ's resurrection is one of salvaging his followers from the afterlife torments of death, not a symbolism of Mother Nature. Perhaps there are some cultural influences and assimilations involved, but to me this resembles the dilemma of fitting a square peg into a round hole.Another thing I think is more to the point than merely assuming a copy cat thesis are the similarities in cultural language. So some of the linguistics and literary figures such as the numeric similarities between Mesopotamian myths and the counterpart tales found in the Bible are due to similar cultural exposure, rather than deliberate plagarism. These similarities could get fused together and thus end up in the unconcious assimilating of these stories that we modern people today would perceive as religion carrying on and refining the traditions of much older religions that today no one practices. I can't argue against that on all accounts, but I believe in order to truly understand the languages and contexts of these myths and their belief systems, we must understand the culture and psychology that was present at that relative point in time.
Like previously before with John's arguments on Christianity being a "cult", the article John references is one big gunshot to the foot:"If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it's ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ's torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist."
I think it's time for John to rename his blog to a much more appropriate title. He also needs to broaden his staff to the non-evangelical, if indeed he is so bent on exterminating evangelism from this country. Will John do this? Probably not. Is it possible that he uses Debunking Christianity to gain a wider web traffic and to get better marketing? Possibly so. In the end, only John truly knows. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
