Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus? - Responding to Chuck O'Connor

Image via Wikipedia

I've been having a discussion with Chuck O'Connor in the comment section of the one of the comment sections of John Loftus' blog posts - link at the end. I posed several questions to Chuck O'Connor that he was gracious enough to write answers of his own. I pasted his answers and making my own full responses. The points and has comments are in black and my remarks are in red.

Marcus,

"1. Can you point out an example and show why it showing deceit and dishonesty?

Ted Haggard operating as the President of the Evangelical Churches Association all the while snorting crystal meth and fucking men while demonizing homosexuals.

In asking for example, I wanted to bring up the question why does it matter. How does what Ted Haggard's sins - for that is what deceit and dishonesty are - sins -  invalidate Christianity or bolster atheism? IT doesn't.

2. What criteria are you using to judge truth and honesty? 
A person says what they mean and they mean what they say. They don't demonize a minority while ingesting illegal drugs and paying men for sex.



So? Agreed Haggard is wrong.. So what? How does that validate your atheism? It doesn't. If you could show that Haggard is only following the commands of the Bible instead of outright rebellion, you'd have a point. But the Bible condemns him just as much as it does the homosexual and all who practice sin.

I mean if morality is subject and truth a matter of preference how did you come to your conclusions? And what standard are you using to make your judgements? That is a strawman argument. I never said that.


So there is an objective, higher standard? Many atheist disagree. If you agree with me that morality and truth are objective, then where does it come from?  I made an assumption not a straw man argument. If you don't agree other atheists than I apologize for my mistaken assumption. I should have given you more credit.

Where did that standard come from? The standard comes from living in a democracy where respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law win out.


A standard that in no way can be said to be universal or perfect. Respect for the individual? Seriously? Yes, things are better but no where they ought to be. Rule of  law? More like who can afford the most justice gets justice. These: "respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law" are far from universal. This answer is far from answers the question. Nazi Germany would not accept your standard. What makes us right and them wrong? Communist China is beginning to agree more and more but what makes them wrong and us right? Saudi Arabia and whole bunch of nations disagree with our moral standards and lack of moral standards. What makes us right and what makes them wrong? As for those things that everyone almost universally agrees are right and wrong (adultery and theft  for example), where did that come from?

3. Accusing Christians of lying or deceit is accusing us of being sinners. So?
I never accused you of being a sinner. I don't believe sin exists. It is a mythological concept that has no relevance outside of primitive justice customs. It is a byproduct custom of ancient religious people looking to create order in barbaric times.

Lying and deceit are defined in the Bible as sins. Sin is rebellion against God at the core - transgressing God's standard. It's just as valid today as it was when Adam disobeyed God because neither God or those standards change.

The Bible says the same same thing.

The bible is a book of ancient myths.

In order to assert this, you have to show that a story in the Bible did not happen...not that you don't believe it could happen.  You are making a claim that the Bible says things happened but they didn't. Can you prove that? You could say that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it did happen, but if you are claiming it didn't you can't just say that without proof. The best you can say and be honest is that you don't know for sure.

We know. We agree. That is why we trust Jesus and ride his coattails because we know we are not good enough on our own. We agree it is wrong to lie. Why do you say it's wrong to lie?

I don't say it is only wrong to lie. I illustrate the lies of Christians to implicate their hypocrisy. They "ride the coat-tails" of the divine yet do not behave in an accountable way for their own behavior. Always blaming a mysterious supernatural "sin" state that allows them to absolve themselves without changing. It is your pretentiousness and that I judge.


See? I never said that you believe that lying is the only morally reprehensible behavior one can engage in. I used it because it's the most ubiquitous. Everyone lies and knows its wrong. "Sin" is not a scape goat to use to absolve yourself. It is name given to that part of all of us that fails to toe the standard that our conscience knows is there. Sin bring condemnation not absolution. The Bible challenges us to change not give us an out. When I talked of "riding Jesus' coattails", I was referring to the fact that none of us can do enough to balance the debt we owe because of our sins...not that you get to live any kind of way you want and get off scott free. If you continue sinning constantly in practice. that proves that you are in Christ. Chuck accused me of suggesting he believes something he doesn't, hasn't he done the same to me here? Yup. What kind of Christians does he talk to? What Bible is he reading if he thinks that is what Christians think?

I say it's wrong because it reflects poorly on God and it's disobedience.

How does the lies of a finite being impact an infinite omni-powerful character in any way at all? Your theology is incoherent.

This question means that Chuck does not understand who God is or what sin is. God is infinitely Holy. Anything that isn't Holy is an affront to God's being. Chuck's understanding of humanity and God is incoherent, not my theology. Look at it this way: When your children commit a crime, it reflects on you, your person, your teachings, and your character. It hurts you. This is exactly the same thing with us and God. God is personal and relates with us...like how a parent relates with their child.

4. How do Christian sinning invalidate or falsify the Bible?
Christians lying doesn't falsify the bible in any material sense it simply falsifies the claim christians have when they state an authority to revealed morality within. If the bible is magic it seems that its efficacy is variant and can't be seen as predictable or real.

Christians are not claiming an "authority to revealed morality  within." I am arguing that the revealed morality is written on our own hearts and seared into our consciouses and in the Bible. Even if a person does not have all of the revealed truth..we are responsible for what we do know - for what we do have. Where does Chuck get the idea that the Bible is magic when it says that we should have nothing to do with magic?  Just because people cherry pick, twist, and subvert scripture does not mean that it's not predictable or real. It is consistent and makes sense if you let the text speak for itself and not read your own biases into it. One sure way to tell if you are applying bias is to see if you can find a passage that refutes what you just assumed the text is saying.

One more thing Marcus. I was a lay-minister, missionary and evangelical christian for the past 7 years. I know the bible and your superficial theology. I practiced it.

The last thing I have to say about Chuck's comments is that apostasy is proof that he doesn't understand the Bible, my understanding of, and that he did not live it consistently.  If he was truly born again, God will reclaim him and if he was not, I hope he will be in the future. The way Chuck describes sin or salvation is not the way the Bible does. As for my authority to say such thing, another way is to ask the question: "Who died and elected me and other born-again Christians to the right and position to have salvation and proclaim the Gospel? Jesus! And He validated it with His resurrection!

Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus?

YouTube - John Loftus vs David Wood Problem of Evil

I've had an occasion to listen to John Loftus' debate with David Wood regarding the question of does the presence of evil invalidates the existence of God. Loftus wrote some comments that can be read here. And David Wood's comments can be found here. I was really disappointed I expected something new from Loftus that I never heard before but nada.What I saw is what I always see when atheists try to object to the existence of God using the existence of evil. The thing is that just doesn't add up is that the way they describe God does not describe the God in the Bible. The thought is that if there was a God then there would be no evil - no one would hurt anyone else and there would be no suffering. When I look at the world, I notice that if there were no war...no crime...no evil...none of us would exist. I mean if there had been no slavery in the United States, me and everyone I know would not exist. Had there been no WWII, my parents most likely would have never met. Further, for the sake of argument, if God decided to annihilate all evil in an instant, every single person would cease to exist. It would be over. If I decided to kill all evil people, I would have to start with myself. No one deserves death more or less than anyone else. Truth is the Bible more thaan explains why there is suffering. The Book of Job discusses it in great detail. For God's answer look at Job starting at chapter 38. And Jesus said in Luke 13:1-9

 ¹Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ²Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
 ⁶Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. ⁷So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'
 ⁸" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. ⁹If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

YouTube - John Loftus vs David Wood Problem of Evil 1/10

YouTube - PZ Myers talking about his debating experience

Image via Wikipedia

I'm sorry that PZ Meyers has had poor experiences debating Christians. If what he has said is true about that radio program where he debated Geoffrey Simmons then it was wrong. That doesn't make his atheistic evolution correct however. I'd love to see PZ Myers Debate Stephen Meyers in a public, moderated debate complete with cross examination.






YouTube - PZ Myers talking about his debating experience