Friday, February 24, 2006

Boy, That Was Easy!

Loftus does me the favor of debunking himself in one line. First, the comment from Oliver:

When someone who formerly confessed Christ now openly rejects Him, all it proves is that they never knew Him. They were false professors, clouds without water, tares among the wheat. If they had been true believers they would have remained (1 John 2:19).

Loftus replies:

Oliver, That’s just one of many of your delusions.

One of his delusions? Oliver is delusional when he states that you never knew God? Why? Because you did know God? So he does exist? Boy, that was easy!

No, Oliver is not delusional, not in accordance with either of our worldviews. It is safe to say that, from both of our perspectives, you never knew God. Who’s the delusional one, pal?

17 comments:

  1. So evanmay, try again, which delusion do you think I was referring to with that statement?

    Are you an unintelligent person, or are you so blinded by your faith you cannot think straight?

    I prefer to think it's the latter. But notice this, if I'm right, then you are not thinking correctly when it comes to religious matters.

    How can you trust your thinking skills when it comes to your faith?

    I'll leave that up to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Loftus:

    Do you really think your comment makes sense? It doesn't really make sense to me.

    Here's some questions for you: how do you even know that you have "thinking skills"? Where did they come from? Or, how do you know anything at all?

    How do you know that we are both speaking the language "English"? How do you know the word "how," what it means, and how to apply it?

    I think you've got some 'splainin' to do before you make such comments.

    In any case, what, in particular, was incorrect about my post? How did you not debunk yourself in one line?

    ReplyDelete
  3. evenmay. I've simply had it with you. You are fucking stupid. You are banned from posting anything else on my blog until I see you have grown a brain. You are not worth my time anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. evenmay. I've simply had it with you.

    Who's "evenmay"?

    You are ****ing stupid.

    That's one way to handle life's ultimate questions.

    But please, since you claim to be a rational person, don't just make assertions. Demonstrate your claim. Please write out a quick syllogism that demonstrates that I am stupid. Oh, and, for a logically prior question, please tell me how you came to learn the word "stupid" and how to apply it.

    Do you really think these are stupid questions? If you think so, might I add that you should not be engaging in any attempt at rational dialogue.

    It is not "stupid" to request that someone defend his epistemology. You ask "how can you trust your thinking skills." I asked the logically prior question "how do you know that you have thinking skills." Do you think such things should be taken for granted? You have thus far given me no reason to even assume that there is a human being on the other side of this internet cable.

    You are banned from posting anything else on my blog until I see you have grown a brain.

    What is a "brain," and how do you know that you have one?

    You are not worth my time anymore.

    What is "time"?

    Unless you are able to answer these questions, I think we can conclude that the Christian Worldview is absolutely superior to your assume, assert, and attack joke of a worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mmm. The Vincent Cheung approach. I love it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this guy is really just trying to one up Dave Armstrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. andrew:

    I wouldn't necessarily call it the "Vincent Cheung" approach. All worldviews must ultimately account for their epistemology. But you get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. evanmay:

    Yes I get the idea. I only mentioned Vincent Cheung because he's the apologist with whom I am most familiar. I found his debate with Derek Sansone delightful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. evanmay, if you claim to be able to propoerly exegete the Bible, then I would suspect most of the same hermeneutical principles would help you properly understand my one liner, which is the cause for this post.

    Prove to me that you can properly understand what I meant with my oneliner, and thereby debunk yourself. Or forever be thought of by me as being so blinded by your faith that you cannot think straight.

    Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Loftus:

    Well, it's nice that you've settled down a little bit.

    Here is Oliver's statement:

    When someone who formerly confessed Christ now openly rejects Him, all it proves is that they never knew Him. They were false professors, clouds without water, tares among the wheat. If they had been true believers they would have remained (1 John 2:19).

    There are three assertions here:

    1. If someone claims to be a Christian, but no longer does so, he never knew God.

    2. Such a person, by definition of Christianity, was a false professor.

    3. A true believer, by definition, remains.

    Which one of these statements is delusional? The first one is simply a statement of Christianity. The second and third one are the same.

    The Christian worldview states that someone who claims to be a Christian, but denies the deity of Christ, is not a Christian. In the same way, it also states that someone who claims to be a Christian but ceases to possess faith, by definition, was never a Christian. It is definitional to the word "Christian," just as affirming the deity of Christ is definitional. This is simply the teaching of the Christian worldview. So how is this "delusional," on any standard?

    I'm still curious how you know that you have thinking skills.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I only mentioned Vincent Cheung because he's the apologist with whom I am most familiar. I found his debate with Derek Sansone delightful.

    Yes, that was certainly a fun read.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Or, you can simply do the Christian thing and apologize for purposely misrepresenting me. You misrepresent me all of the time, but this was the last straw.

    Is saying that you're sorry to an atheist too hard to do? Why? I'm a person too ya know. I could be your boss, your neighbor, your co-worker, your relative.

    Come on now. Admit that you did it here, and thereby admit you have a tendency to do it everywhere. Such bias of yours....Tsk Tsk Tsk. Do you really think you approach your faith rationally when you can't approach me rationally?

    ReplyDelete
  13. John,

    What did Evan misrepresent? If he misrepresented you, please show how he misrepresented you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Loftus:

    I'm with Kyle. I still don't know what you are talking about. How did I misrepresent you?

    Furthermore, an apostate attempting to make Christians understand that he was a true believer is just as ridiculous as little red riding hood calling the wolf "grandma" after he had already answered her "what big teeth you have" comment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So you do understand what I meant, enough to criticize what I said, eh? Stay off my blog, idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Loftus:

    What in the world are you talking about? If I misrepresented you, please tell so. If not, drop the issue.

    Stay off my blog, idiot.

    Heh, well that's one way to handle things. But, surely that is not the problem here. Have you seen me stirring up trouble down at your blog? Is that what you have seen?

    Rather, I've written essays on my own blog that have generated so much traffic to your end of the universe that you should be thanking me. But hey, if that is the way you want to be, that is fine. The cause of atheism is a loser's battle anyway; if you're wrong, you lose. If you're right, you still lose!

    ReplyDelete