You know almost every organization has one in some form or another, and while we aren't some large online corporation or business group, I think what YouTube user Anekantavad (however you pronounce that :P) said in his most recent reply to famous internet atheist celebrity Pat Condell sums up the mission and intended purpose of this blog as a whole. Given that I am a non-Christian staff member/founder of this blog, this is what stands out from our typical rants against Debunking Christianity. We are, in more or less terms, dedicated to providing critical analysis of the New Atheist movement and its various forms. Pat Condell being amongst one of many notable individuals within the movement itself, serve as an example to what I am specifically referring too.
Let this speak for itself. Enjoy:
Showing posts with label Debunking Loftus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debunking Loftus. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Debunking Loftus Challenge
Many people come onto this site with a sympathetic view of John Loftus, the founder and manager of Debunking Christianity. Some individuals, like Sarah Boylen, have admitted to their own ignorance of the issues between the ongoing Holding/Loftus fueds despite the fact that she automatically assumes with Loftus and immediately classifies Holding and myself as antagonists:
"I don't know much about Loftus or Holding.
...From what I can tell Holding has been at this for more than ten years and yet he's still less than a small fry. He appears to be an unrepentant internet bully and cheap insult artist
...Your left handed "Loftus is worse" defense is pretty darned shallow. Especially for a self-important anointed man of God.
...Maybe his piddly little ad hominems and backdoor character assassinations are keeping him right where he belongs. Dancing to the same old worn out children's song.
Again, I'm not very familiar with either of them but unlike Holding, Loftus seems to have learned a lesson. He's getting some positive attention. That must get Holding's ample panties in big old bunch."
Linky: http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2010/08/james-mcgraths-clouded-moral.html?showComment=1281401592161#c1800474317537251355
Doing only the slightest of research and objective measuring of the issues doesn't seem to serve very many people all that well these days. So instead of reciting the same old collected evidence point for point, I am now issuing a challenge to all of those who would rather take Loftus' side than ours, and would rather trust in his judgment rather than actual rationality.
So now it's time to issue our own "challenge" to those of you (and you know who you are) in the audience that are inclined to such a backwards perception. Apparently you guys take the time of day to post on this blog with your comments, surely it must be important enough for you guys to prove to yourselves whether or not Loftus is the lesser of the two "evils."
Put aside your viewpoints, philosophies, and biases for a moment and actually try striking up a challenge to how John runs the show. It's that simple. You owe it to yourself and would be doing a disjustice if you didn't do so. You might want to ask John exactly what he means when he says he isn't insulting the disabled, when he does in fact bring up derogatory references to disabled people not once, but in fact, twice.
Fundamentally speaking, however, only those who are not completely swayed by Loftus' rhetoric will be capable of successfully partaking in the challenge. This is especially geared towards those who choose to sit on the fence and must decide for themselves. The issuance of this challenge is not meant to garner endorsements from participants. It is to hear what your experiences are afterwards. If it can be substantiated that John Loftus is a morally good and sane person, then feel free to show us, then you may lather us all you want with accusations of character assasination and the like.
Until then, as it is often said in these here parts, "put up or shut up."
Oh, and, here are some resources you can use to guide you along in the process:
Procedures of Moral Justification
The Will Theory Approach
KNOWLEDGE, JUSTIFICATION, AND TRUTH
"I don't know much about Loftus or Holding.
...From what I can tell Holding has been at this for more than ten years and yet he's still less than a small fry. He appears to be an unrepentant internet bully and cheap insult artist
...Your left handed "Loftus is worse" defense is pretty darned shallow. Especially for a self-important anointed man of God.
...Maybe his piddly little ad hominems and backdoor character assassinations are keeping him right where he belongs. Dancing to the same old worn out children's song.
Again, I'm not very familiar with either of them but unlike Holding, Loftus seems to have learned a lesson. He's getting some positive attention. That must get Holding's ample panties in big old bunch."
Linky: http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/2010/08/james-mcgraths-clouded-moral.html?showComment=1281401592161#c1800474317537251355
Doing only the slightest of research and objective measuring of the issues doesn't seem to serve very many people all that well these days. So instead of reciting the same old collected evidence point for point, I am now issuing a challenge to all of those who would rather take Loftus' side than ours, and would rather trust in his judgment rather than actual rationality.
So now it's time to issue our own "challenge" to those of you (and you know who you are) in the audience that are inclined to such a backwards perception. Apparently you guys take the time of day to post on this blog with your comments, surely it must be important enough for you guys to prove to yourselves whether or not Loftus is the lesser of the two "evils."
Put aside your viewpoints, philosophies, and biases for a moment and actually try striking up a challenge to how John runs the show. It's that simple. You owe it to yourself and would be doing a disjustice if you didn't do so. You might want to ask John exactly what he means when he says he isn't insulting the disabled, when he does in fact bring up derogatory references to disabled people not once, but in fact, twice.
Fundamentally speaking, however, only those who are not completely swayed by Loftus' rhetoric will be capable of successfully partaking in the challenge. This is especially geared towards those who choose to sit on the fence and must decide for themselves. The issuance of this challenge is not meant to garner endorsements from participants. It is to hear what your experiences are afterwards. If it can be substantiated that John Loftus is a morally good and sane person, then feel free to show us, then you may lather us all you want with accusations of character assasination and the like.
Until then, as it is often said in these here parts, "put up or shut up."
Oh, and, here are some resources you can use to guide you along in the process:
Procedures of Moral Justification
The Will Theory Approach
KNOWLEDGE, JUSTIFICATION, AND TRUTH
Friday, October 30, 2009
Happy Halloween 2009
Halloween is here and with that being said its the perfect time to kick off a toast to our good friend, John W. Loftus, for being such an amazing inspiration. We couldn't celebrate our first-ever Halloween holiday without involving the person in the world we happen to cherish the most. So as a part of our commemoration to John's admirable qualities, here is his picture below. Opportunities for demonstrating certain specific points only come once in a lifetime. Take a good look at it. Notice anything in particular? Look again. Behold the piercing eyes as he gazes at the camera performing the snapshot (but be warned, don't look too much further than this, it isn't meant for the eyes of children):
HAPPY HALLOWEEN from Debunking Loftus.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN from Debunking Loftus.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The FAQ
If you haven't noticed yet, a FAQ was recently added to this blog which appears to be a post that was put up sometime this Febuary. If you've been around here long enough, however, you'd realize that this blog started in March, and not February, of 2009.
Instead of pulling things out of my arse, you'll notice that some of the questions are derived from comments that have actually been posted here. Yes, I do in fact care what you people have to say that I created a real FAQ and not something bogus. Cherish it.
Instead of pulling things out of my arse, you'll notice that some of the questions are derived from comments that have actually been posted here. Yes, I do in fact care what you people have to say that I created a real FAQ and not something bogus. Cherish it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Frequently Asked Questions
Well, every blog has to have them. Here are a list of some questions that have been asked from some of our commenting guests which have become 'regulars' so to speak. Just like any other blog, use this list of questions with their corresponding answers as a reference if you had something in mind to ask at first. If your question hasn't been addressed and answered here, then let us in on your brilliance. :D
The site is not about theology? Is the purpose then really just to bring people together and spend their time on little other than debating: "lookit how dumb Loftus is, hahaha?"
This blog is not strictly about theology. Discussions and debate about theology are to be expected and will come up on occassion, but it's not the only type of content you'll find here. It must be kept in mind that the contributors of this blog have differing perspectives and takes on how we choose to criticize John W. Loftus and his various arguments. For instance, JP Holding usually argues Loftus with Biblical commentaries and his misrepresenations of Christianity, while I will examine the cultural aspect and political motives (this usually concerns TWeb and related affairs) behind Loftus' arguments in general. There is no uniform opinion on Loftus' arguments, say that they are crap and need to be chucked into the recycling bin where they belong.
The only reason this blog exists is because you have some sort of strange, sexually deviant fixation on John and boy is it creeeeeeeeepy.
Wrongo, buddy ol' pal. It is Loftus who has the obsession. See here and here. Note that in the latter, I point out that we are not claiming to ignore John, but John makes this out to be of some focal importance anyway for his own irrational reasons.
Man, this site is boring.
Blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah blah?
How does one become a member of this blog?
Yes, the criteria for earning contributive rights to this blog are allot less strict than the ones you'll find on our counterpart's site. But in case you were interested and this just so happened to be on your mind, there are obviously some factors to take into consideration, like:
The site is not about theology? Is the purpose then really just to bring people together and spend their time on little other than debating: "lookit how dumb Loftus is, hahaha?"
This blog is not strictly about theology. Discussions and debate about theology are to be expected and will come up on occassion, but it's not the only type of content you'll find here. It must be kept in mind that the contributors of this blog have differing perspectives and takes on how we choose to criticize John W. Loftus and his various arguments. For instance, JP Holding usually argues Loftus with Biblical commentaries and his misrepresenations of Christianity, while I will examine the cultural aspect and political motives (this usually concerns TWeb and related affairs) behind Loftus' arguments in general. There is no uniform opinion on Loftus' arguments, say that they are crap and need to be chucked into the recycling bin where they belong.
I have yet to see anything but straw men and personal attacks. Nothing serious takes place here that I can see.
The only reason this blog exists is because you have some sort of strange, sexually deviant fixation on John and boy is it creeeeeeeeepy.
Wrongo, buddy ol' pal. It is Loftus who has the obsession. See here and here. Note that in the latter, I point out that we are not claiming to ignore John, but John makes this out to be of some focal importance anyway for his own irrational reasons.
Man, this site is boring.
Blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah blah?
How does one become a member of this blog?
Yes, the criteria for earning contributive rights to this blog are allot less strict than the ones you'll find on our counterpart's site. But in case you were interested and this just so happened to be on your mind, there are obviously some factors to take into consideration, like:
- What specifically you think you have to contribute.
- This site pulls no punches. If you're troubled by the nature of the "remarks" that are common throughout here, you should consider another online pasttime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
