Thursday, October 26, 2006

How To Debunk John Loftus

It’s simple, really. Just let him keep talking.

John refuses to engage in rational debate. He wanted to push the lying issue, but the problem is that I've done nothing wrong and so one will be hard pressed to make a case against me. In fact, to the extent that one does, one will come out looking rather foolish.

**********
Three things Paul. 1) When we skeptics write about you lying, we are offering what you call an internal critique of your behavior. It makes no difference if we are godless heathen without a moral compass. You claim to have one, so we've asked you to defend your claim. You cannot offer up a red herring that turns it back on us in this situation. That's a different argument, one we've tried to discuss reasonably with you before to no avail. Stay on topic, please.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/qed.html#comments
**********

A bunch of things:

1. I’ve made many points, forget what you call the red herring and deal with the others. Actually, this is your red herring.

2. I’m at a loss as to how this is in internal critique. Here’s some statements you’ve made, John:

S1: “For the record, I do not post anonymously or under a different name, I do not lie to make a point, and I do not knowingly or purposely misrepresent my opponent's views to ridicule them.”

S2: “ See, once he admits he does it, then it calls into question every anonymous post here at Triablogue. We simply no longer know whether it's Manata defending himself. And that's the whole reason I don't do it.”

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html#comments

And here’s some statements your fellow “skeptics” have said:

S3: “Lying for Jesus. Cute. Thinking Gods thoughts again. The unrepentant heart of a psuedo-Christian.”

S4: Why should anybody read the frantic scribblings of an admitted liar? "Apologetical" tactic = lying. Arguing for the faith by lying. Just like the Apostle Paul.

And

S5: “I suspect “Brother Blark” is you. (You can deny it, but hey—lying is in your creed, right? That is what stinks about the loss of credibility.)”

a) Where in S1-S5 is an “internal critique?”

b) Exactly what is the internal critique supposed to be? That I lied? But if you’ve paid attention to Steve’s posts, John Frame’s paper, and my posts then you’d know the case was made that “not all lies are wrong, even according to the Bible.”

c) Maybe your internal critique is that I “claim to be a Christian but I sinned. Well, (i) this begs the question against (b), and (ii) how is this even remotely and “internal critique” given the fact that, assuming you’re right, I sinned? This is what the Bible predicts. So, you’re claim actually assumes the truthfulness of my worldview and the falsity of yours. Hence you’re just confirming biblical data about man.

d) Take S3 and S4. Is this what you thought was an “internal critique,” John? If so, the problem is that S3 and S4 tell us that God and the apostle Paul are liars. Hence, if I’ve sinfully lied then it’s not an “internal critique“ to point out that I’m acting just like God and the apostle Paul!

e) Dagoods claims in S5 that “lying ruins your credibility.” Am I to understand that John Loftus believes that if Christians lie then they have no credibility but if atheists do then they retain theirs? I mean, exactly what here is supposed to be an “internal critique?” Do you even know what one is, John?

3. I did defend my claim, now it’s your turn to rebut it. See here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/truth-telling.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/qed.html

You’re falling behind, John.

**********
2)Although I did wrong as a Christian and had an illicit affair with my first wife, something you won't understand given the nature of that affair and the accusations when I cut it off, I am a changed man. I am completely and thoroughly faithful and monogamous to my wonderful wife. I love her with all I've got. You see, the past is the past. I deconverted, just as you converted, and all my past "sins" are as if they are no more. It would be as if I continually brought up your past when you went around beating up strangers with a baseball bat. I don't do that, unless you first bring up my past, and you do that all of the time (I did it just now in response to your claim that I am a liar. I am not a liar. I lied, yes. We all do. But that was pre-deconversion days, friend, and you know that with such a (de)conversion we all change! ;-)
**********

This is interesting on many levels:

4. If the past is the past then why did you claim that :

C1: “I dare say, you'll never be able to escape your past.”

C2: “Just like those who have been molested usually become molesters, so also, those raised in an environment like yours with the hate you express will usually beat their wives. These are facts, based upon science and probability.”

So let me get this straight, you can escape your past and your influences, but child molesters and people who had violent upbringings can’t?

5. Before you had an affair you were “completely and thoroughly faithful and monogamous to my wonderful wife.” And you “love[d] her with all [you] got. I can play the same game, John. So, why should anyone believe you, you’ve been a proven liar (and let’s note that my parody is in a different league than lying to your spouse). You started this game, finish it.

6. It would be “as if I continually brought up your past when you went around beating up strangers with a baseball bat. I don't do that…” Here’s some more quotes, John.

Q1: “You were an evil person, Paul, there's no other way to describe it. And it seems as though you still are glorying in those days…”

Q2: “You're still beating up on people aren't you? You're beating up on someone again, and liking the power you get from it. Aren't you so cool?”

Q3: “But now a former bully is bullying still, this time with Biblical precedent (Ps. 139.21). This could get scary for me.”

Q4: “I don't think people who randomly beat others with a baseball bat, with the goal to beat someone from every state in the nation, change behaviors permanently that quickly.”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/paul-manatas-wife-and-his-ugly-past.html

And so it appears that you in fact do “continually bring up my violent past.”

7. You don’t “bring up my past” […] “unless you first bring up my past, and you do that all of the time.”

The problem here is that this is the first time I’ve brought up your past. Indeed, I just heard about it from Steve’s review of your book (which you still haven’t responded to, btw). So, I never took shots at your family. I took shots at your intellect, yes, I did. Given how you portray yourself, this is fully warranted. If you admitted you didn’t know much about Christianity, and that you were a sincere and honest thinker, it would have been different. However, your “intellectual achievements” are a cornerstone of your atheological tactics. Then, when you claim that God made the earth in 7 days, you rightly should be called on the carpet. I mean, that’s in the first chapter of Genesis man. So, a guy who brags about his intellect, and how much he knows about Christianity, makes huge errors on basic issues which every Sunday school kid knows, rightly deserves to have that thrown out there for all to see and, rightly in my opinion, laugh at.

8. You claim, “I am not a liar.” But, above (7) I just showed another lie. You claim to not “bring up peoples past unless they bring up yours” but in fact we saw that just the opposite is the case. Furthermore, when Frank Walton posted your picture you said, “Frank, are you sure that's me?” This obviously is misleading. So, John, this is the game you chose to play. I want rational debate, you want to name call and push this lying issue. Fine. You lost.

**********
3) One last thing. While I do think you are a present embarrassment to Triablogue and should be given the boot, what I think doesn't matter one bit, now does it? I know I wouldn't have someone with your ethics and attitude on my blog for one minute. But hey, I'm just an "unprincipled moral heathen," right?

All I ever want from you (or anyone who disagrees with me) is a respectful discussion of the ideas. That's all. But you have never given that to me.
**********

9. As I said before, if I were you I’d want Steve and I gone as well. Heck, all of the T-bloggers have fed you’re your lunch, you probably want T-blog to shut down.

10. What “ethics and attitude?” How about if I was a member of your blog and I said this about someone:

John Loftus: “Mark my words, Paul, you will beat your wife when she disagrees with you in the future. If I were her I would be scared to marry you.”

John Loftus: “Berate me all you want to. [Paul’s] wife may thank me, which is more than she can say about you.”

John Lofus: “As far as I'm concerned you have already hit your wife or threatened her, and yet you have the gall to berate me for warning you about this possibility.”

John Loftus: “"She (my wife) must be the silent type, the agreeable type, the humble/submissive type, and the doting wife."

What if someone had the above attitude? So, you can see that your claim about the ethics and attitude of bloggers if pretty laughable. John, you’re loosing on every front. You wanted to play this game and not the reason giving game.

10. You claim that, “All I ever want from you (or anyone who disagrees with me) is a respectful discussion of the ideas. That's all. But you have never given that to me.” Oh cry me a river. You’re like the Rodney King of atheist/theists debates. I’ve never stooped to your level. I’ve always critiqued you intellectually and mocked you intellectually. That’s fair game, not other people’s wife. Get real John. I think you seriously live in a delusion. You constantly scream at people in all caps, you pick on their wives, you call them idiots, and yet you claim you want a love fest.

21 comments:

  1. somehow, in your stirring reubttal above, you missed this comment from the 'liar liar' post:


    Paul "Blark" Manata says above:

    "Anyway, Brother Blark is not me."

    However...you've already stated elsewhere:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/lucky-charms-atheology.html

    "I'm not brother blark.

    The discomfiter claim to be brother blark because he knew that would silence his attemtp at parody.

    I claimed to be brother blark and atheists banned him from their blogs and would not read his parody blog."


    so, Paul, you claim to be brother blark, you claim not to be, your alter ego claims to be, what are people supposed to think?"

    Why is it so hard for you to just admit that you did wrong here, and lied? Even if you weren't "brother_blark," and don't like "brother_blark," you think it is OK to flat out lie about being him?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Manata: The problem here is that this is the first time I’ve brought up your past.

    This is a bold faced lie! YOU almost always bring up things I've said and done in the past. And when you do, you do so before I say anything about what you've said and done in the past--ALMOST ALWAYS! But you are not about to waste one hour more of my time to go catalog and find all of those occasions. I challenge anyone who has the time to find each and every one of the times you've done that. You, my friend, are a liar, plain and simple. And this isn't about anything you've said in the past. You lied just now! I knew someone like that once. Her name was Linda. I loathe liars on the scale I've seen coming from you. You are very deceptive.

    How is this NOT internal critique of what you just wrote, since you are explaining away your lies?

    Good luck in life, my friend. And may you have a superior memory to know who you said what to.

    I think "you doth protest too much." Now I understand why.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Besides, you have said that it's probable that my wife and I will divorce, since statistically that statement is probably true. Have I ever disagreed with you on this? No. Have I ever got upset when you pointed this out? No. Why? Because that's what the statistics say. So tell me again that it's probable my wife and I will divorce. Go ahead. Tell me once again. And then again. One more time. You'll get absolutely no complaint from me. Why? Because it's true.

    Now tell me why you dispute what is statistically true with regard to your past?

    Again, I think "you doth protest too much."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again, as I have said over and over again. Can we just have a respectful discussion? Can we? If we can't, and I am giving you more and more the benefit of the doubt, hoping, wishing, wondering over and over again against the evidence, that we can, then I'll go away.

    Why do you have such a belittling and demeaning attitude here? I am just a person with disagrees with you. I'm a good, friendly person. And for all you know I'm your next door neighbor, or co-worker. Atheists are everywhere. You know them. You just don't know them to be atheists. You like them. You just don't know who we are. But since you don't know me, you berate me. To me that's a sick attitude, but hey, as I've said before, I'm just someone who "has no moral compass." But I'd stack my "unprincipled morals" against yours right now.

    There, you just let me do more talking. Have I once again debunked myself? I'm sure you'll tell me that I did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and I'm not yet done debunking myself here. I do believe your wife must be the silent type, the agreeable type, the humble/submissive type. Opposites attract. Seeing your behavior leads me to conclude this. When I said this I was commenting on who you were more than her. Pychologists can easily predict this without knowing her.

    Are you going to protest, again?

    ReplyDelete
  6. John Loftus, old chap. I suspect someone's worked out how to duplicate you picture as well as your name.

    And, last John Loftus, may I note that most people can predict a lot without knowing people. For example, I can predict that you are twelve feet tall.

    Being correct. Now, that's something else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, Richard, and I can predict that you are a man.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John,

    You wanted to play this game. You've bit off more than you can chew. Let's just drop it. I actually don't really want to embarrass you in this way. I'd rather debate the intellectual issues.

    Actually, I never said that you would probably divorce your wife.

    Indeed, that was Frank Walton who said that, see here. I don't condone that. What I do is tell you that my six year old could shred your atheology book.

    But, why did you accuse me of saying you would divorce your wife when you already KNEW that Frank Walton said that, not me.

    So, will you apologize for your lies, John? You've been caught lying again.

    Realy, is this how you want to play? Don't you think this is ridiculous? I do. But that's because I'm not afraid of the inellectual battle. With your weapons, i mcan understand why you would be, though.

    I never said I don't bring anything up from your past. For example, I bring up the fact that you were edumacated under Bill Craig.

    I've never brought brought your personal life and non-combatants into it. That's always been you.

    I quoted you as doing so, you claim that I've done so, but refuse to doccument it? Dagoods should have a talk with you about making false charges.

    So, you've been debunked... again. Even in a debate where reason doesn't really matter, you still loose. You called down the thunder, John.

    So, let's re-cap:

    1. I've done nothing wrong.
    2. To say you can't believe anything I say anymore reduces you to global skepticism.
    3. To say that since I "lied" no one should listen to my arguments is self-refuting since John Loftus lied and so he should't believe himnself about not believing me.
    4. John takes shots against people's wives.
    5. John brings up irrelevant information about people's past.
    6. John tries to accuse me of the same but I cite where it was someone else, and John knew it. Hence another "lie."
    7. John's been debunked now every wich way from Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous,

    "Why is it so hard for you to just admit that you did wrong here, and lied? Even if you weren't "brother_blark," and don't like "brother_blark," you think it is OK to flat out lie about being him?"

    I've admitted that I lied about being Brother Blark. I admitted that I lied. But what you're not getting is that I've offered 4 posts now arguing that the kind of lying I did was not wrong. So, I can't admit I've done wrong here.

    The only come back you can have is that all lying must be wrong. In which case you're reduced to absurdity by saying soldiers can't where cammo's and people can't throw surprise parties, and people can't do parody.

    Since those are false, I think you must admit that it's not always wrong to lie. So, for war purposes (believers and unbelievers are at war), I deceived. Indeed, Brother Blark was "lying" about being a Christian but you only moan about my atheist persona "lying" about being a guy who was "lying" about being a Christian??? Get real. If this kind of stuff bothers you so much then stay of the big klds play ground and go play hoola hoop with the toddlers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul,

    so I can impersonate you on blogs, and its OK, because its "war?"

    good to know!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Regarding Steve's review of my book, I really haven't taken the time to read it through, sorry. I have glanced through it, is about all I can say at this point, sorry again.

    And tell me what the difference is between the following two statements: 1) "The seven days of creation," and 2) "God created in seven days."

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're good at this predicting lark, John. Would you care to predict the winner of next year's Cheltenham Gold Cup?

    But, more importantly, would I place a bet on that authority?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "And tell me what the difference is between the following two statements:1) "The seven days of creation," and 2) "God created in seven days."

    There is no difference, other than structure, they're both false.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nathan Burbalinski10/26/2006 2:31 PM

    John,

    The difference is that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th...

    ReplyDelete
  15. If Paul posted under someone else’s name as a parody, then, in my opinion he exercised poor judgment. Doing parody in THAT way opens the door too wide to the possibility of misunderstanding. If his INTENT was misrepresentation, then he sinned, but that is between God and him (unless John L. can establish defamation of character or something).

    He claimed misrepresentation was not his intent, and I take him at his word.

    I hope all the folks who undertake parody here can agree that we should NOT assume the identity of a fellow contributor, even if we THINK the content of the post makes it obvious that we are not, in fact, that person. Is it not a “no brainer” that this should be a rule of engagement?

    Maybe I’m missing something here. I must admit, I’ve not followed all the details of what transpired between Paul and John, nor do I intend to. It is just that my eyes are beginning to glaze over and so I’d really like to see those guys turn their talents back to something more substantive.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To Paul Manata, The Discomfiter, Brother Blark, anonymous, or whatever name you're going by now.

    Posting anonymously or under a different name makes it appear as if you have more supporters than you do, doesn't it?

    But doing so is deception, plain and simple, although no ones knows when you do it, unless you really believe God exists and is watching.

    Be a man. Be like me. Own up to what you say or don't say anything.

    My challenge to you is to tell everyone in a separte blog entry that you will never post anonymously or under a different name again.

    I'm just trying to help you here, save some face. You'll no longer have credibility until you do.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John Loftus said:

    This is a bold faced lie! YOU almost always bring up things I've said and done in the past. And when you do, you do so before I say anything about what you've said and done in the past--ALMOST ALWAYS! But you are not about to waste one hour more of my time to go catalog and find all of those occasions.


    Let’s call your bluff John. Support your assertion or withdraw your statement. Man-up, are you mistaken, or you are lying? Can you demonstrate? Which is it?

    Be a man. Own up to what you say or don't say anything.

    I'm just trying to help you here, save some face. You'll no longer have credibility until you do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Does John Loftus the adulterer, liar, apostate have any credibility anyway? Just wondering, it just sounds funny for him to hop on a moral soap box given what he's done and what he professes to believe...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have changed my mind. I no longer am a believer. I Discomfited myself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I cant stand people posting under fake names.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Be a man. Be like me. Own up to what you say or don't say anything

    Be like you? What is this, some childish game? Grow-up and do something with the time you have. Pointing fingers and claiming that they are lying isn't going to do you any good. It would be better that you refrain from saying anything.

    ReplyDelete