Sunday, November 6, 2011

The "Debunking Christianity" anti-Christian support group cries out for help | True Freethinker

Mariano has been one of those following the arguments discussions with JohnnyP over an essay he wrote that was posted on John Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity throughout the month of October. I appreciate him posting his thoughts on the exchange. I only hope that atheists everywhere will come clean with the truths that God has placed in their hearts and turn to Him. In John Loftus' case, he reads the Bible and History and shore up his own flawed logic. If you look in every atheist's life I'm sure you can come up with some kind of logic like this (Thanks, Mariano) graphic which sums up Loftus "De-Conversion" logic. It amounts to: I love my sin, and no, I'm not going to repent for it. When you listen to Loftus he barely stops short of saying "If God's real, it is all his fault not mine.


The "Debunking Christianity" anti-Christian support group cries out for help | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

58 comments:

  1. If you look in every atheist's life I'm sure you can come up with some kind of logic like this (Thanks, Mariano) graphic which sums up Loftus "De-Conversion" logic.

    Not true in my case. Be careful with statements that include "every" and "I'm sure".

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From what I can tell yours is more like:

    1. A good God would not allow evil and suffering.
    2. There is a great amount of evil and suffering in the world today.
    3. There is no God.

    Yup...that is loads of different from John Loftus.

    But I think the following aptly applies even more to you.

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. - Romans 1:18-23

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, really? The problem of evil doesn't bother me in the least. Perceptive, you are not...

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are the one who said "the problem of evil" was a powerful argument that Christians need to deal with. Truth is I can't read your mind, but if you explained why you left the church and left God, I can very easily demonstrate your "reasons" are no better that Loftus' "reasons".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Truth is I can't read your mind...

    "If you look in every atheist's life I'm sure you can come up with some kind of logic like this...

    ...but if you explained why you left the church and left God, I can very easily demonstrate your "reasons" are no better that Loftus' "reasons".

    Can you? You sure? This would be another example of you working backwards from an inconclusive but predetermined conclusion. Putting the cart before the horse as it were. Maybe someday you'll fix your flawed epistemology. You're welcome...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can you? You sure? This would be another example of you working backwards from an inconclusive but predetermined conclusion. Putting the cart before the horse as it were. Maybe someday you'll fix your flawed epistemology. You're welcome...

    Yes, I know you are an atheist because somewhere along the line you missed something. I don't need to be able to read your mind to know that. And I don't know where you missed it but somehow your reasoning is just as flawed as John Lofus' logic. If you'd bother to present your "reasons" why you are an atheist, the failure by which you have come to that conclusion would be apparent. It's not because I am better or smarter than you but because of who God is. If you really wanted to know where you missed it, you can find out. I hope someday you will truly search your soul and allow God to reason with you and show you where you went wrong. I'm not holding my breath however.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I know you are an atheist because somewhere along the line you missed something.

    You don't know that. You might think you do, but you also don't know what "know" means, so no wonder you think you know that.

    If you'd bother to present your "reasons" why you are an atheist...

    Remember my rule about not repeating myself more than twice to you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You don't know that. You might think you do, but you also don't know what "know" means, so no wonder you think you know that.

    If you did not miss something then you would be a born-again, spirit-filled Christian.

    As for asserting that your "reasons" for being an atheist are better than Loftus', prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brother Marcus,
    I wish that I could say that the image and statement therein are a bad joke in bad taste but they are accurate paraphrases of what Loftus actually claims:
    http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/review-john-loftus-%E2%80%9Cwhy-i-rejected-christianity-former-apologist-explains%E2%80%9D-part-1-2

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marcus; why would I "prove" something you are more than capable of finding in your blog archives?

    If you did not miss something then you would be a born-again, spirit-filled Christian.

    Maybe you're missing something? I think you are. I've been where you are and was like you, so odds are if I'm missing something, you don't have it either. Maybe our Buddhist or Muslims friends have what we're missing? Maybe it's the Hindus? Or maybe one tiny obscure sect of Hindu? Can you say with absolute certainty they don't?

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Ryan

    You never actually clearly and distinctly said "I became an Atheist because ______________."

    Can you say with absolute certainty they don't?

    Yes, I can. If you explain clearly what it was that lead you to atheism, I'll be happy to explain why the other religions are wrong. If I was not sure I would not be a Christian today and I have very good reasons to be sure. All you have to do is to look at what they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Mariano

    I realize you are totally right about Loftus. I've actually heard him in a podcast talking about it. He doesn't see a problem with that. He claimed that it started him to question what he thought he believed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I became an Atheist because I conquered the fear of death and also realized there is actually no conclusive evidence for a deity, souls or supernatural realms.

    This was long after I stopped being a Christian, for that story, which is actually what you want me to tell you (again, and again), you can search your past posts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I became an Atheist because I conquered the fear of death and also realized there is actually no conclusive evidence for a deity, souls or supernatural realms.

    If you had been a "Christian" because you feared death you were a Christian for the wrong reason. If you don't see that human beings have souls, how do you conclude and weigh the value of human life against other forms of life? What would you consider as conclusive evidence.

    The only thing I can remember of you saying about why you stopped being a Christian was because you stopped believing that the Bible was the infallible word of God, but to be honest you haven't demonstrated the skills to make such a determination. You need to look again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...but to be honest you haven't demonstrated the skills to make such a determination.

    And you can barely string a sentence together, so...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Umm...prove that. Do you seriously think that is true? Your logic and "exegesis" are truly horrible. I don't even think you can comprehend anything the Bible says to a point that you are worthy enough to determine if its true or not. Please, please get some help.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Umm...prove that.

    Yes, your blog is a wasteland littered with many near unreadable sentences, many of those, not even complete sentences.

    If you had been a "Christian" because you feared death...

    Hey Mr. Logical and Exegetical Genius, where exactly did I say that was the case?

    If you don't see that human beings have souls, how do you conclude and weigh the value of human life against other forms of life?

    I'm not sure that I do, but a boy's gotta eat. But seriously, how about evolved loyalty to ones species? Or perhaps you go off the average level of degree and complexity of consciousness per species? There are lots of ways to um... "conclude and weigh the value of human life against other forms of life", but guess what, if you posit a soul for humans, I'm pretty sure you are stuck (assuming a minimal level of intellectual honesty) positing souls for the other apes too (at a minimum). But the "how do you..." really doesn't have anything to do with if they actually exist or not, does it?

    What would you consider as conclusive evidence.

    For souls? Something beyond mere argumentation.

    ...you haven't demonstrated the skills to make such a determination.

    There are a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholars who disagree with you. But either way, one doesn't need to know Hebrew and Koine (although I do to a degree, which I'm positive is more than you) to determine that stories about talking donkeys, global floods, living in the digestive tract of a fish, cursing fig trees, walking on water and rising from the dead are nothing more than myth anymore than one needs to understand the finer points of reading Tarot cards to know it's bunk. In fact I would maintain that understanding the finer points of reading Tarot cards actually could put one in a disadvantage when discussing the overall validity of the Tarot. This is much like the disadvantage you constantly find yourself in, in that you know it's bunk, but you've given too much and too many people have too many expectations so you're stuck in a self perpetuating bullshit spiral.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Umm...prove that.

    Yes, your blog is a wasteland littered with many near unreadable sentences, many of those, not even complete sentences.

    That's more assertion and not example.

    If you had been a "Christian" because you feared death...

    Hey Mr. Logical and Exegetical Genius, where exactly did I say that was the case?

    I didn't say you were afraid of death, you did. And I said "IF" you had been a Christian because you feared death, not that you were a Christian because you feared death. Reading comprehension is not just a novel concept.

    If you don't see that human beings have souls, how do you conclude and weigh the value of human life against other forms of life?

    I'm not sure that I do, but a boy's gotta eat. But seriously, how about evolved loyalty to ones species?

    So Hitler or Dahmer were less evolved? Gotcha

    Or perhaps you go off the average level of degree and complexity of consciousness per species? There are lots of ways to um... "conclude and weigh the value of human life against other forms of life", but guess what, if you posit a soul for humans, I'm pretty sure you are stuck (assuming a minimal level of intellectual honesty) positing souls for the other apes too (at a minimum).

    Not stuck at all. I think you have a bigger problem. . You deny the soul because it means having to figure out at which point hominids had one. Just because we have souls doesn't mean apes have souls.

    But the "how do you..." really doesn't have anything to do with if they actually exist or not, does it?

    I never claimed that it did. Just like your "ideas" doesn't mean that there are no souls.

    What would you consider as conclusive evidence.

    For souls? Something beyond mere argumentation.

    Looking into your own heart doesn't work for you. Shame!

    ...you haven't demonstrated the skills to make such a determination.

    There are a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholars who disagree with you.

    Yup and there are a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholars who agree with me. So What?

    But either way, one doesn't need to know Hebrew and Koine (although I do to a degree, which I'm positive is more than you) to determine that stories about talking donkeys, global floods, living in the digestive tract of a fish, cursing fig trees, walking on water and rising from the dead are nothing more than myth anymore than one needs to understand the finer points of reading Tarot cards to know it's bunk. In fact I would maintain that understanding the finer points of reading Tarot cards actually could put one in a disadvantage when discussing the overall validity of the Tarot. This is much like the disadvantage you constantly find yourself in, in that you know it's bunk, but you've given too much and too many people have too many expectations so you're stuck in a self perpetuating bullshit spiral.

    I'm not certain you adequately comprehend English let alone ancient Greek. As for the validity of the miracles in the Bible - they are miracles. Why would you expect to be able to explain all of them? Feel free to disprove them with more than argumentation. But pontification is all you have.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yup and there are a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholars who agree with me.

    Wow, you know a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholars who think I, personally, can't comprehend anything the Bible says to a point that I'm not worthy enough to determine if its true or not.

    Do name some names.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wow, you know a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholars who think I, personally, can't comprehend anything the Bible says to a point that I'm not worthy enough to determine if its true or not.


    No, I know there are a number of ANE and Rabbinic scholar who not only don't know who you are but couldn't care less about what you think (likely ALL of them). What I mean is that there are a number of scholars who agree with me that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

    If you took the sentence that way, then you must think that there are a number of scholar who think you know how to interpret the Bible. Why don't you name them, so I can e-mail them and tell them they are mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you took the sentence that way, then you must think that there are a number of scholars who think you know how to interpret the Bible.

    That is exactly how I meant it. Not to mention a couple ministers and a one priest. But no, an internet apologist, lowest form of the apologist (and apologist itself is pretty low on the totem pole as it is), knows better…

    Why don’t you name them, so I can e-mail them and tell them they are mistaken.

    Well, at least two are dead (I’d imagine another two are as well, but don’t know), I am still very good friends with a professor out of Xavier (Old Testament) and another two from Central Florida (Koine and Latin/Church Fathers). And no, I would never give a friend or colleagues contact information to a half-literate internet bible thumper. To illustrate the idiocy of your request, how about you give me the name and email of your favorite professor…

    ReplyDelete
  23. That is exactly how I meant it. Not to mention a couple ministers and a one priest. But no, an internet apologist, lowest form of the apologist (and apologist itself is pretty low on the totem pole as it is), knows better…

    Are you really that deluded? Do you really think that 3 people's opinion is equal to the vast number of scholar alive and dead who hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They disagree with you and would not think you have a clue you know what you are talking about.

    And no, I would never give a friend or colleagues contact information to a half-literate internet bible thumper. To illustrate the idiocy of your request, how about you give me the name and email of your favorite professor…

    So can I name a scholar you can email who agrees with me but disagrees with you and provide contact information? Easily.

    James White - http://www.aomin.org/
    Darrell Bock
    Ben Witherington
    Claude Mariottini
    Tim McGrew

    Fill free to Google them. They make their contact information public.

    And Dr Tim McGrew truly disagrees with you.

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/04/undesigned-coincidences-in-gospels-by.html

    check the comments

    ReplyDelete
  24. Marcus, the question wasn't inerrancy, it was my capacity to determine inerrancy. Dimwit.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ryan, given that there are so many scholars who have concluded that the Bible is inerrant and given your inability to grasp that despite the evidence, I'm forced to conclude that you do not have the ability to determine if the Bible is in error. It also doesn't help that you comprehension of really simple passages is really pathetic. I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister and you ain't.

    The one who is dull of wit, is most definitely you, but Jesus can fix that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You're apparently unaware of "so many scholars" who have also concluded the bible is not inerrant.

    I am a minister and you ain't.

    I am. I preformed a wedding last spring. Why is it you are always wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You're apparently unaware of "so many scholars" who have also concluded the bible is not inerrant.

    Yeah, I know that there are scholars who have come to the conclusion you have but I think it is you who have forgotten the many scholars who disagree with you.


    I am. I preformed a wedding last spring. Why is it you are always wrong?


    Minister of what? You're an atheist. What church has licensed you? Who are you working for? Who called you? Satan? You said there is no God. Seems like you have no idea what a "Minister" is according the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ryan, there is much in the Bible referring to you. Here is the perfect passage about a person who would deny God yet want to be a minister. The Bible says they have a form of godliness but deny the power of it (2 Timothy 3:5) A minister doesn't just perform weddings. A civil judge can do that. What in the world makes you think you are a minister.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister and you ain't.

    Minister of what?

    What's it matter? Apparently being a minister is the only requirement to being able to make an informed decision about the inerrancy of the bible. Nice try.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Obviously it's not enough if you are a "minister", you flub it up all time. You are the one who brought up you being a "minister" all I asked was what does it mean being you deny God. If it didn't matter why did you bring it up? I can't even call that a "nice try". Stupid, very stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  31. =You are the one who brought up you being a "minister"

    Um, no.

    I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister and you ain't.

    I just pointed out that I also am a minister, so your claim that being a minister qualifies you to make such an observation is obviously unfounded.

    If it didn't matter why did you bring it up?

    Again, you were the first person to mention anything about being a minister.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I was not saying you were the first to bring up being a "minister". I am saying you brought up you being a "minister" and don't want to answer any questions or providing any qualification or evidence for why you should be considered a "minister". Performing weddings don't cut it. You are not a minister - just like you were never a born-again Christian (just like you admit that you weren't). You have qualification to determine nor any evidence that the Bible is not errant.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You have qualification to determine ... that the Bible is not errant.

    Thanks.

    PS: I am actually a minister. Can you admit that this sentence was a bit of a stretch on your part (i.e. flat out wrong) "I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister and you ain't."?

    You may be qualified* but it is not because you are a minister. Do you think Rob Bell or Bishop Spong are qualified? Do you think Unitarian ministers are qualified?


    * You are not qualified however, if this blog is indicative of your ability to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  34. PS: I am actually a minister.

    Prove it! Answer the questions I as asked.

    Yes, let us talk about logic shall we?

    You claim to be an atheist
    You claim that the Bible is not true
    You claim that you are minister.
    Of what and how you are a minister you pretend is irrelevant.

    You ignore the context of you saying that ministers agree that you are qualified to determine Biblical inerrancy and I was pointing out that being a minister I don't. I was not saying that being a minister is all you need to know enough to understand the Bible. Obviously, you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was not saying that being a minister is all you need to know enough to understand the Bible.

    I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister...

    ReplyDelete
  36. I would also bet $100 I could get a 95% or greater on whatever test was required for you to get your minister credentials. If you can get me a free copy I'm happy to 'make it interesting' (I'm assuming you didn't just do a mail in)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, you seem to be unable to understand context. No wonder you can't understand the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No wonder you can't understand the Bible.

    $100, should be easy money for you, no?

    ReplyDelete
  39. And what about the test you took already for your "minster's" license. Come clean on what you did to get to be a minister and at what church/organization credentialed you before you start saying you could do what I've done to get mine.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And what about the test you took already for your "minster's" license.

    It was waived because of my undergraduate degree.

    ...before you start saying you could do what I've done to get mine.

    That's why it was a bet. Plus it would have the added benefit of shutting you up about me not knowing anything about the bible or christian theology.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You still haven't answered my questions. But since you want a test, Why not one question That I made up?

    Three parts.

    Fill in the blank

    The ____ hath said in his heart, There is no God.

    And where in the Bible is this from?

    What does that say about you?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Good one. Fool. You can paypal the $100 to wranderson74@aol.com.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You didn't answer all three parts, Fool. You loose. But you can keep your money. I'm merciful.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Psalms 14

    Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh and the phrase is in more than one verse and you didn't name both of them. Too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Still, I'm positive I could get 95% on whatever test you were required to take. Chicken to find out if that's true?

    ReplyDelete
  47. You can't even find the correct chapters and verses of a simple passage. You're not chicken. You're Biblically illiterate.

    ReplyDelete
  48. BOK BOK BOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You realize your ministers credentials are worthless, right?

    ReplyDelete
  49. If my ministers credentials are worthless, then yours must be worth even less.

    And you still failed a simple 3 question test. A longer test won't make any difference.

    ReplyDelete
  50. If my ministers credentials are worthless, then yours must be worth even less.

    Less than worthless? OK...

    A longer test won't make any difference.

    Let's see. Email it to wranderson74@aol.com. I know you won't, because you can't risk not being able to baselessly claim I'm ignorant. Of course you mistake apathy and disinterest with ignorance. But you mistake a lot of stuff.

    Chicken?

    ReplyDelete

  51. Let's see. Email it to wranderson74@aol.com. I know you won't, because you can't risk not being able to baselessly claim I'm ignorant. Of course you mistake apathy and disinterest with ignorance. But you mistake a lot of stuff.


    So you can be disinterested and apathetic about a challenge you asked for, but I can't be disinterested in giving you a challenge you don't care about? That makes a lot of sense. You have demonstrated your ignorance on multiple occasions I see no reason in embarrassing you further.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I see no reason in embarrassing you further.

    No, please, go for it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh wait, did your minister credentials even require a test?

    If not, this begs the question, why would you even think to say something like "I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister and you ain't."?

    ReplyDelete
  54. If you would explain why you think you are a minister, and what you did that you think qualifies you to call you a minister, I will tell you how a person becomes clergy in the Church of God In Christ.

    Don't forget you didn't answer just the three questions I gave you correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I applied for ministers credentials through my former church, I was not required to take a test because of previous educational experience. I've performed marriages in SC, Illinois and Florida, so as far as those states are concerned, I'm a minister. Also, I have a cool card and a Federal ID#.

    Note: I'm not the one claiming that "I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister..." which is hilarious given how easy it is to become clergy.

    Send me that test, assuming you were required to take anything.

    ReplyDelete

  56. Note: I'm not the one claiming that "I'm qualified to make such an observation given that I am a minister..." which is hilarious given how easy it is to become clergy.


    But you are the one who claimed that 2 ministers could testify that you are Bible literate. So now being a minister is not enough? How is that?

    Send me that test, assuming you were required to take anything.

    In the Church of God in Christ, just like in the Church you left (that means you ain't a minister anymore), a written test is not necessary. If you want to be an Elder, you need to take an oral exam from Bishops and Elders in your area. Looks like COGIC is more strict than your old church, given that you managed to slip through the cracks and then out of the church. You weren't born-again. But seriously, it could happen at any church or denomination. It explains a lot however. As for sending you a test, You still haven't managed to answer all of the questions I already sent you. You owe me money, but like I said I'll let you slide.

    ReplyDelete
  57. But you are the one who claimed that 2 ministers could testify that you are Bible literate. So now being a minister is not enough?

    Not really, I threw them in for good measure, after the scholars.

    ReplyDelete