John Loftus is really really living in a different world of his own imagination. For example:
Earlier I had said that written out discussions are notoriously manufactured. I said that in reference to Randal Rauser's book, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that all of them are to some degree (barring audio or video-taping). This is especially true when one side of a particular debate gets to write them. Now for the Bible lesson of today. Read the chapter I've reproduced below from Luke's Gospel. Have you ever actually seen religious debates like the ones in this chapter, where one side (Jesus) repeatedly and conclusively stumped the other side? I haven't. It's manufactured. Don't trust it to represent what actually happened. Hint: The Pharisees and Sadducees were not convinced, I guarantee it, and they had rejoinders which were never written down by the gospel writers. The Bible is a biased book that needs corroboration at every turn, and it lacks it.
He then quotes Luke 20:1-47. Loftus claims that Luke just doesn't write down the Pharisees' or Sadduceess' rebuttal to Jesus because in his mind they of course had rebuttals. And he further says that he has not seen such a debate where one side conclusively stumps the other side. On one hand I would agree that such things are not common because Jesus being who He is can stump and shut down anyone, but I would disagree that this kind of thing doesn't ever happen. Jesus' opponents weren't just stumped. They were humiliated. For example when Loftus debated David Wood (twice) and when Loftus debated D'Souza this was actually what happened. It was terribly embarrassing...too bad to be humorous. It was like watching a deer caught in the headlights of an incoming mack truck. Loftus is too deluded to realize just how badly he lost. If Loftus disagrees that Jesus' opponents were not stumped, then I wonder how he would have answered Jesus. I doubt he could do it either. It'd be worse than when he debated D'Souza or Wood. Jesus owned him before Loftus even formed his first thought.
Debunking Christianity: Biblical Discussions Are Notoriously Manufactured
Why do you hate John Loftus so much? That's really what it must be. Also, the problem with debates, and amateur online apologists is that they can just claim so and so "won" this or that debate, with no real thought behind it (i.e. Loftus/Wood is not as conclusive or "embarrassing" as you claim).
ReplyDeleteWhy do you hate John Loftus so much? That's really what it must be.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think I hate John Loftus? I don't hate anyone. Pointing out how terrible someone's logic is or that they are wrong doesn't mean that hate them.
Also, the problem with debates, and amateur online apologists is that they can just claim so and so "won" this or that debate, with no real thought behind it (i.e. Loftus/Wood is not as conclusive or "embarrassing" as you claim).
You mean like John Loftus himself? So by your "logic" should I be offended because you disagree with me? Do you hate me because your comments seem dismissive? Even if you did, I have no reason to go there. You're entitled to your opinion even if it's wrong (as in this case). So in your opinion, Loftus lost, but not as badly as I think. Which Debate? John Loftus debated David Wood twice. Maybe you should watch again.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/03/david-wood-vs-john-w-loftus-does-god.html
http://www.problemofevil.org/
***Pointing out how terrible someone's logic is or that they are wrong doesn't mean that hate them***
ReplyDeleteBut that is not something that you do, what you do is you merely assert it.
Maybe you should go back and re-read what I said. My argument is that saying that Jesus did not conclusively stump his opponents while not explaining how he knows that is pointing out Loftus' flawed logic. You and he are the ones making assertions.
ReplyDelete