Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Internal Inconsistencies in Loftusianity

How could an all-wise Loftus offer such bad Loftusian arguments? Since Loftus could reason better, he would. He doesn't, therefore Loftus doesn't exist.

Loftus, for some reason, puts a lot of stock into the: "God could do X, therefore you have no reason to believe He wouldn't do X" argument. I've already discussed this type of atheist strategy elsewhere.

One of Loftus' favorites is this one: "God could deceive you, therefore you have no reason to believe He wouldn't, therefore you can't trust your reasoning."

It's an obvious non sequitur. That Loftus could beat his doggie doesn't entitle me to believe that he would beat his doggie. Similarly, that Loftus could offer a somewhat logical argument does not entitle me to believe that he ever would do so.

Loftus offered his above favorite "God could do X" argument in the combox of the above linked post of mine. He was responding to Steve, and Steve responded to Loftus. And, Steve is right, he's already discussed this issue with Loftus in previous exchanges. But, Loftus goes on living as if people never respond to him, this way he can continue to recycle his bad arguments. Loftus thinks that saying something a multitude of times will change the outcome of his arguments. Loftus is like a man who believes that 0 + 0 = 0 but 0 + 0 + 0 does not = 0. For some reason, he thinks his arguments, which equal zero, can add up to more than zero if he just adds some more zeros to the equation.

I also responded, but since it is buried in the thread I didn't want Loftus to miss it. This post will serve as more documentation to cite the next time Loftus tries to add a zero to his other zeros.

**********

"Steve merely believes what God sovereignly decrees him to believe, and he has no basis at all to think what he believes is true and based on the evidence, or that he will be rewarded after he dies because of what he believes. NONE. All he can say is that he believes what his God decrees him to believe, period."


1. The first thing to note is that (a) if theism is true, and Loftus' claims are true, then Loftus has no reason to believe what he's written. And, (b), via tu quoque, if Loftus' physicalism is true, he has no reason to believe his charges here. So, if either (a) or (b) are the case, and what Loftus says is the case, Loftus has, by believing the conjunction of the two, a defeater for his beliefs, esp. his beliefs in his argument here. On top of that, if Loftus holds to Naturalism and Evolution, he has no reason to believe his cognitive faculties are reliable. Why would evolution select for truth *content?* It would seem that content would be invisible to evolutionary processes. Unless, of course, Loftus wants to identify content with syntax? But then why think that the *truth* of a proposition has any bearing on neural structures. Presumably a "false" neuron is the same, physically, as a "true" neuron - this is supposing we can make sense of "false and true" *neurons.*

2. Loftus' mere say-so that Steve has no basis for his beliefs does not, no matter how much Loftus wishes, mean that what he says has any basis in reality. Indeed, it does not make the argument stronger because Loftus writes "NONE" in all caps.

3. How does Loftus know that Steve has *no* reasons? How could be possibly know that? It’s not an analytic truth, i.e., there's nothing in the proposition "God decreed S's beliefs," that entails the claim, "therefore S has no reason to believe that his beliefs are true." So, how does Loftus propose to argue for this universal negative?

4. Say that something roughly similar to Plantinga's model is correct. That is, say that God designed us with cognitive faculties that were successfully aimed at being reliable in belief production. Surely this isn't a logical impossibility. Hence, Loftus cannot say that there are *no* reasons to think our beliefs are successfully aimed at the production of true beliefs.

"Moreover, the God doing the decreeing of Steve's beliefs could be so much different than the God he believes in."


Notice an instantiation of the type of arguments I discuss in this post. It baffles me how Loftus can think that his mentioning of "could" has any argumentative force, at all. If the fact that God "could" be different that Steve's conception is meant to conclude, "therefore Steve has no reason to believe that God *is* like Steve believes," then it appears that we can prove that God *is* quite like how Steve believes him to be. Counter:

(*) "God *could* be like the God Steve believes to be, therefore, God is (or most probably is) how Steve believes him to be."

So, it appears that (*) counters John's argument. If not, how does John suppose his argument to work?

Furthermore, why suppose that God *would* do something like this? Because of the broadly logical possibility that God *could* be deceiving Steve are we supposed to conclude that God *would* deceive Steve? That's the relevant question. If God *wouldn't* do X, the fact that he *could* doesn’t really matter. Loftus has given us no reason to think that God would do anything like what Loftus suggests.

"There may be no atonement, no creation, no incarnation, no resurrection, and no afterlife at all."


Say I have a model of faith roughly modeled after knowledge by testimony. We must agree that the testimony of others is a valid way to gain knowledge. Some estimates put it that 98% of what we know is based on the testimony of others.

Say that testimony is a basic belief, and hence not subject to having to be "justified" or "proven" by appeal to propositional evidence in its favor.

Further, given this model, and a model of warrant similar to Plantinga's: A person S has warrant W for his belief that P only if the testifier T has W for P. If T is warranted in believing P, then S, the testifiee, has warrant for believing in P. Surely God, as conceived in the Christian tradition, has supreme, or maximal, or super warrant for his beliefes (in an alagous way). And, taking his testimony, which I have no reason to doubt (indeed, a case can be made that it is irrational to doubt his testimony since he is the supreme testifier. If His word should be approached with doubt, then we should never take anything on the testimony of others), I am warranted in believing in those doctrines.

Moreover, taken detailed defenses and explanations of defeaters by those like Bergman, Plantinga, Otte, et al., you can't defeat this by the mere mentioning that God could be lying. Trust in the word of God, especially if it has the epistemic role of ultimate authority, can trump some defeaters. Just like if all the circumstantial evidence pointed to me as being the dognapper of Franklin Loftus, my belief, based on clear and impressive memories that I was walking in the park 50 miles away at the time of the crime, serves to defeat those defeaters. If I have not called in to question the testimony of the word of God, then it remains undefeated for me, and I am warranted in believing in those doctrines because they have warrant (in an analogous way, maximal warrant) for God. Now, *you* may doubt his word, but that doesn't mean that *I* have to. If I should, why shouldn't I doubt every thing I know from testimony? The only thing Loftus can say here would, I think, confuse the *de jure* with the *de facto* questions.

"How in the world could you possibly argue this is not possible? Everything you say to argue against this is something your God decrees for you to believe and to say. YOU CAN'T!"


Well, I gave a few ways above. But, there's two points here:

(i) That ~P is *possible* does not entail that we can't know that P. John's placing an infallibilist constraint on knowledge. He must first defend infallibilism if he wants to proceed.

(ii) Since John is in the realm of *possibility* then all I need to do to refute it is offer a logically *possible* state of affairs where the negation of his conclusion obtains. I have done this (indeed, John cannot claim that my scenarios are logically *impossible,* therefore they are possible). Now, though I think my models are more than "just possible," I think something like it is the case. Nevertheless, I don't need to prove something that strong since Loftus chose to frame the debate in the broadly logically possible.

"So let's have done with this crap that you raise every time I back you in a corner by saying I think there is nothing intrinsically good. You have no reasons for what you believe...at all!"


i. We've seen that, per John's own argument, he has "no reasons" for what he believes; including that Steve has no reasons!

ii. Supposing that John did this, it was Pike he "backed into a corner" (though this is false), and not "Steve." More evidence that John can't trust his monkey mind (i.e., a mind evolved from an ape-like ancestor).

iii. That one isn't *absolutely certain* (granting that Steve isn't) does not logically entail "therefore he has no reasons for what he believes... at all!"

"Pardon me if I'm no Michael Martin, BTW. But you're no John Calvin or John Frame, either."


But certainly that's not the proper analogy. Steve is not John Frame is equal to the claim that John Loftus isn't Brian Sapient.

John Loftus is about 100*100 times below a Martin while Hays is 1*5 times below John Frame (btw, that's no insult to Frame, it's a compliment to Steve!).

32 comments:

  1. Paul: One of Loftus' favorites is this one: "God could deceive you, therefore you have no reason to believe He wouldn't, therefore you can't trust your reasoning."

    It's an obvious non sequitur.


    The point is that you cannot, nor did you, offer any reason why God isn't deceiving you right now. The "could" I refer to is that you have no good reason for not believing God could be doing as I say he might. *NONE*

    Again, you cannot offer one single reason for the hope you have that God is not deceiving you. Not one. *NONE*

    And by your own admission your God isn't the all benelovent kind, anyway. Maybe he's Descartes' demon?

    So what do you do with that? First you offer up a critique of my beliefs, a red herring. It's diverting attention away from a problem you cannot answer. I answered my problem.

    You respond with Reformed epistemology. I find that epistemology laughable, not in the sense that we don't have beliefs for which we have no evidence, but when it's applied to the Christian (i.e. Reforemed) viewpoint.

    It now looks like anyone can use it to defend almost anything they want to believe. All they have to do is to claim it is a properly basic belief. The problem is that even Reformed epistemologists are having as much trouble specifying what a properly basic belief is that it reminds me of those who could state a verification principle that didn't apply to those who wanted to exclude the principle itself.

    Once again, what reason do you have for claiming what you believe is the truth about God? This time no red herrings. This time no appeals to laughable Reformed epistemology.

    You have none.

    NONE.

    So now what? You have no justification for your faith.

    NONE.

    NONE.

    You are actually a Fideist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Loftus said,

    "The point is that you cannot, nor did you, offer any reason why God isn't deceiving you right now. The "could" I refer to is that you have no good reason for not believing God could be doing as I say he might. *NONE*

    Actually, I did. or, maybe I should say: Actually, I *DID!* Argh! So, deal with my post.

    "Again, you cannot offer one single reason for the hope you have that God is not deceiving you. Not one. *NONE*"

    Didn't you just say this?

    0+0 = 0, but 0 + 0 + 0 does not = 0, right?

    "And by your own admission your God isn't the all benelovent kind, anyway. Maybe he's Descartes' demon?"

    I don't know what you mean. Benevolence is relational. I'm not benevolent to my wife they same way I would be with your's. I gave a model, you didn't refute it.

    "So what do you do with that? First you offer up a critique of my beliefs, a red herring. It's diverting attention away from a problem you cannot answer. I answered my problem."

    You owned up to your problem by saying,

    "I will own up to my difficulty."

    So, you have zero reasons to trust your beliefs. *ZERO.* If the *possibility* that God could be deceiving me means that I "have no good reason" to believe anything, the same goes for John.

    John's argument is self-refuting. if it's true, he as no good reason to believe it.

    "You respond with Reformed epistemology. I find that epistemology laughable, not in the sense that we don't have beliefs for which we have no evidence, but when it's applied to the Christian (i.e. Reforemed) viewpoint."

    And, so what? Big deal. John Loftus "finds it laughable." Oh no. What should I do with that information? I don't think I can handle it. Perhaps I could offer a Loftusian reply: Your comment is laughable.

    "It now looks like anyone can use it to defend almost anything they want to believe."

    This has been discussed by Plantinga, Belby, and Sudduth, to name a few. Why would you gufaw at a position you clearly don't understand and clearly are not up on the literature. You're such a scholar John. John, answer me this, did Bill Craig pass you when you refuted critiques to the Kalam Cosmological argument by saying, "This guy's critiques are laughable."

    "All they have to do is to claim it is a properly basic belief."

    An obvious mischaracterization of RE. This has been discussed in the literature. Show some familiarity with the subject you're scoffing at, will ya. Plantinga discusses what a basic belief is, and so not "any" belief meets the criteria.

    "The problem is that even Reformed epistemologists are having as much trouble specifying what a properly basic belief is that it reminds me of those who could state a verification principle that didn't apply to those who wanted to exclude the principle itself."

    This is discussed in the literature as well. Joh's simply giving us a glimpse into hsi reading diet, or lack thereof.

    "Once again, what reason do you have for claiming what you believe is the truth about God?"

    I gave you two in my post.

    "This time no red herrings. This time no appeals to laughable Reformed epistemology."

    I didn't offer a red herring but a valid tu quoque objection with nullifies your argument. And, you can't ignore my answer by calling "laughable." If that is a valid objection, then here's my answer for how I know God isn't deceiving me: It's laughable to think he is.

    "So now what? You have no justification for your faith."

    Look, the guy who knows his Plantinga talks about "justification." Loftus obviously doesn't have a grasp on the literature in this field. And, yes, I do have "justification." But that's not enough for knowledge anyway.

    John, the 70's are calling, they want their arguments back.

    "NONE.

    NONE.

    You are actually a Fideist.


    SOME.

    SOME.

    I am not a fideist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From John's post where he "answers" the tu quoque,

    "So this is what I conclude, and I am within my epistemic rights to believe what I conclude, simply because I cannot bring myself to believe against my conclusions. That would be ridiculous, now wouldn’t it?"

    We're not talking about epistemic rights, John. Anyway, the fact that you continute to believe in the reliability of your cognitive faculties R does not entail that R is the case.

    Of course proper function would demand continued belief in R, but this is not because this portion of your cognitive faculties are aimed at truth, but, rather, at the avoidance of cognitive disaster. A person S may be in a situation - say, lost in a snow storm on top of a mountain - and S may see a ridge that S thinks could be leaped to. Based on perception, this belief is basic to S. But, S would not have thought this if S were not in this survival situation. So S maintains this belief that the chasm is able to be jumped. Proper function requires this belief to be maintained. The optimistic overrider has kicked in. But the faculties governing this have some other virtue in mind - survival rather than true belief. In normal, reflective situations, S would not form said belief.

    Or, suppose S ingests agent XX, a hallucinate drug, producing hallucinations in 90% of those who take XX. Proper function would require assuming R so as to avoid cognitive disaster. So, S has powerful inclinations to continue on in belief in R, even though S has come to believe that P(R / XX) is low or inscrutable, and S may take it in a basic way, but of course these powerful inclinations don't count as evidence for R. S would have this inclination whether she was in or out of the lucky 10%.

    "Let’s say this is the case, i.e., that our moral and religious beliefs are completely determined by our genetic makeup, and by when and where we are born. It still doesn’t follow that what I believe is false. I may be lucky and just happened to get it right."

    My argument isn't that your beliefs *are* false (though there's a good probability that they are). My argument, rather, is that R is defeated. There is no reason, according to what you admit, to believe R.

    Now, you may say that we "got lucky" and attained R via evolution. You hit the evolutionary jackpot. The problem here is that this can be used to defeat a paradigm case of defeat. If the defeater defeates a paradigm case of defeat, the defeater isn't really a defeater.

    The lotto belief doesn't seem to work. Suppose that your friend F ingests XX, but you notice R holds for him for the 5 years you've known him. You then find out your friend ingested XX 5 years ago. You then find out that XX causes hallucinations in 90% of the cases. You could then say that he "won the XX lottery." But apply this to yourself. With F, you were an objective observer, but XX specified to yourself, there is no objective observer. Say you believe you ingest XX, and you also believe that it causes hallucinations in 90% of the cases, it would thus appear that "I won the XX lottery" is not a defeater-defeater or a defeater-deflector for you.

    To say that R is reliable begs the question (see reply to Bergmann). I don't think it can be conditionalized upon, and seems to fall under T. Reid's objection that "If a man's testimony were called into question, it would be ridiculous to refer to the man's own word as to whether he was honest or not."

    Why could not the lotto comeback be used to defeat any defeater for a low or inscrutable probability of X? Say S believes that the existence of evil E makes the existence God G low or inscrutable, then S believes in G&E. So P(G/E) is low or inscrutable, but S replies, "well, I guess we won the divinity lottery." Do you seriously consider that a defeater-defeater? If not here, why there?

    Lastly, if Loftus defends R (which is not the same as saying his beliefs may hit upon truths, and so he doesn't even get the objection) by appealing to the evolutionary lottery, then I appeal to the divinity lottery. My beliefs are reliable and God wouldn't deceive me because I've hit the divinity jackpot!

    Loftus isn't even into the debate. He has no grasp on the issues involved. Typing in all CAPS does not make his sorry arguments any better. Loftus has been answered. Let's see if he offers a substantive reply.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All right Manata, listen up...

    0+0=0, but 0+0+0= 0.001 Okay? Get it, dummie?

    0 is not a number anyway.

    ZILCH

    NADA

    NONE

    So, if you really want to refute me, deal with:

    The Outsider Test

    The Bird-man argument against the existence of God

    "If God existed he would be just like me" argument

    And...

    The Problem of Evil with regard to the treatment of puppies

    In spite of all your wordy replies to me in the past, you still haven't touched those irrefutable counterarguments. So, study up chump...

    ReplyDelete
  5. John can't even see that his own argument defeats his own argument. He has no reason to believe that Paul has no reason to believe.

    NONE.

    NONE.

    So now what? John has no justification for his faith.

    John's a secular fideist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John is a kind of ethical and epistemic anarchist or suicide bomber who's prepared to destroy everyone and everything in sight to "prove" his own position. Put another way, it's not about proving his position, but disproving every position—as if that would be some sort of gain. Now that he doubts everything, no one else has a right to believe anything.

    Its the psychology of the schoolyard sniper, who’s mad at the world, and takes it out on whoever stumbles into the crosshairs. Or a terminal cancer patient who has decided that if he can’t live, then everyone else should die.

    And, of course, he also ignores the elementary truism that global scepticism is self-refuting.

    On the other hand, there’s his alter-ego—the Loftus who poses as a moralist and appeals to the assured results of modern science, Bible criticism, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul, I had a class with Bill Craig in 1985, called simply, "Plantinga's Thought." I took the class probably at the same time you were in diapers. We read most everything he had written, plus some, and we discussed it.

    I had a great deal of difficulty with it then, and I don't accept it now. Why do you continue claiming you know so much more than me, as if that's so important to you. Do you actually think that the reason people like me don't believe is because we don't know as much as you do? Your theology says otherwise, you know.

    There is so much to say about RE that I'll just refer you to the literature. Try the latest stuff from Nicholas Everitt, for instance, on the Non-Existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  8. *ahem*

    Now that Steve and Paul believe, no one else has a right to doubt anything.

    Remember, it was Triablogue which engaed me in a debate in the first place. I didn't even know you existed until some of you started attacking me.

    You're still attacking me, claiming to know my motivations, even though I spelled out my motivation on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, if you'd prefer that I go away then here's the deal. Stop personally maligning me. Deal in a dispassionate way with my arguments all you want to, but refrain from belittling and demeaning me, and I'll let you go on your merry ways.

    I bristle when you do this. It makes me want to engage you. And I think you know this. But I suspect you won't refrain. It makes you feel superior. It makes you feel you have a superior belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And in the 20 years since Lofty took a class on Plantinga, he's managed to forget everything about it quite nicely. Just like he's apparently forgotten everything that was ever taught in SUNDAY SCHOOL, let alone the weightier matters.

    Frankly, all Loftus's argumentation does is make me doubt his credentials. I can't see someone actually graduating from any institution (aside from publik highskrewls) with this complete non-understanding of basic logic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John W. Loftus said:
    Actually, if you'd prefer that I go away then here's the deal. Stop personally maligning me. Deal in a dispassionate way with my arguments all you want to, but refrain from belittling and demeaning me, and I'll let you go on your merry ways.

    I bristle when you do this.

    **************************

    And why would Loftus bristle? He doesn't believe that it's intrinsically wrong to malign, belittle, or demean him. Anyway, I'm sure he'll forgive us. After all, even if he thinks our characterizations are unjust, what does justice have to do with forgiveness?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and for the record, we've dispassionately dealt with his "arguments" ad nauseum. But he would rather pass over our counterarguments in silence—since he can't answer them—and simply repeat himself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I thought he said he was "done" with all this anyway! Why does he keep coming back then? Some sort of masochistic tendency? Seriously if this is so maligning and demeaning then move on and forget it. It's not good for your health....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Loftus doesn't want to deal with my arguments and refutations of his positions, and so he's decided to talk about all sorts of stuff *besides* my arguments. His tactic is to malign and belittle us ;-), so that, he hopes, people will ignore our arguments and side with poor John and spend time discussing his hurt feelings rather than his bad arguments. But, even his rabbit trails are subject to refutation. See below:

    JL: Paul, I had a class with Bill Craig in 1985, called simply, "Plantinga's Thought." I took the class probably at the same time you were in diapers. We read most everything he had written, plus some, and we discussed it.


    PM: And? I mean, his warrant trilogy was all put out after the 90's! All his big stuff on RE was *after* 85, John. So, John's classes actually bear very little on the discussion.

    And, this does nothing to show that you understand Plantinga, or have an answer to my arguments against you, and my answers to your"arguments."

    JL: I had a great deal of difficulty with it then, and I don't accept it now. Why do you continue claiming you know so much more than me, as if that's so important to you. Do you actually think that the reason people like me don't believe is because we don't know as much as you do? Your theology says otherwise, you know.

    PM: And? If you had difficulty with 1+1 equaling 2 should I bow down to that and find mathematics "laughable?"

    And, I know I know more about Plantinga's thought than you do. But, I'm not basing any argumentative weight on it. It's just a fact. Your statements prove you're very unconversant with his thought. Knowing a few Plantinginian buzz phrases isn't going to scare me into believing that "Loftus knows his Plantinga."

    And, I don't think you have "reasons" for not believing.

    Lastly, this does nothing to show that you understand Plantinga, or have an answer to my arguments against you, and my answers to your "arguments."

    JL: "There is so much to say about RE that I'll just refer you to the literature. Try the latest stuff from Nicholas Everitt, for instance, on the Non-Existence of God. "

    PM: What about it, John? Do you seriously think that name dropping is going to scare me? Do you think that just mentioning a name, and telling me to read the literature, is supposed to get you off the hook?

    Lastly, this does nothing to show that you understand Plantinga, or have an answer to my arguments against you, and my answers to your "arguments."

    JL: "Remember, it was Triablogue which engaed me in a debate in the first place. I didn't even know you existed until some of you started attacking me."

    PM: Actually, John, you should get your dates straight. I had been discussing the idea that all men believe in God on Reppert's *before* I ever heard of you. It was then *YOU* who wrote a (sorry) response to the argument. I then refuted your response, showing *how bad* you were unfamiliar with presuppositionalism, and so it was me who *responded* to you. I then called in to you on Gene Cook's radio show (where you stammered and studdered, admitting you couldn't answer me). So, Press The Antithesis *responded* to you and *then* T-blog jumped into the discussion. So, it was *John* who "engaged" me in debate in the first place. So, it looks like any weight you think your point had must now be used against you.

    And, this does nothing to show that you understand Plantinga, or have an answer to my arguments against you, and my answers to your "arguments."

    JL: "You're still attacking me, claiming to know my motivations, even though I spelled out my motivation on my blog. "

    PM: I've been attacking your arguments. Rather than deal with my arguments and answers you're attempting to make people throw a pity party for Loftus. Woe is Loftus.

    And, this does nothing to show that you understand Plantinga, or have an answer to my arguments against you, and my answers to your "arguments."

    I have answered Loftus. I have also refuted his arguments he thinks allows him to avoid my tu quoque. So, I've shown that we can trust our beliefs, and I've shown that Loftus cannot trust his (as aimed at producing true beliefs). Loftus therefore has a defeater for *all* of his anti-theistic arguments. He must doubt *all* of them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. “So let's have done with this crap that you raise every time I back you in a corner by saying I think there is nothing intrinsically good.”

    Well, John, I’m much too genteel to indulge in bovine metaphors, yet if you yourself admit to the high agricultural content of your value-system, who am I to take issue with your candid self-criticism?

    But be that as it may, I can well understand how humiliating it must be to have someone quote your own words back to you and hold you to the terms of your stated position. Life is so unfair.

    “You're still attacking me, claiming to know my motivations, even though I spelled out my motivation on my blog.”

    Hmm. And this is some of what Loftus has to say on that score:

    “Atheists have offered suggestions why people turn to religion. Sigmund Freud claimed that religion is an expression of the longing for a father figure. Ludwig Feuerbach claimed that God didn’t make man in his image, but rather we made God in our image. Karl Marx taught that religion is the opium of the working class people. It is funded and pushed by the rich class in order to numb the working class from trying to right the injustices put on them by the rich class. Religion keeps the working class focused on a hope of bliss in the hereafter. Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that religion endures because weak people need it. For Jean Paul Sartre, God represented a threat to authentic morality.”

    Wow. It sure looks like our fiend John Loftus doesn’t hesitate to psychoanalyze the motives of Christian believers.

    “I am a teacher, so I’m also against people believing in wrongheaded Christian ideas that I tend to think are based upon ignorance, although that’s the stuff that maddens me, since many apologists don’t seem ignorant at all!”

    But you don’t believe that ignorant, wrong-headed idea are intrinsically wrong.

    “I also believe that life it better from my perspective, having been a former Christian myself. I can be more...well...human.”

    But you don’t believe the secular lifestyle is intrinsically better than Christianity.

    “Church people are stuffy people who are so judgmental.”

    But you don’t believe that it’s intrinsically wrong to be stuffy or judgmental.

    “Don’t get me wrong here, I still am every bit the honest and good person I was before.”

    Why, John? You don’t believe it’s intrinsically good to be a good person. You don’t believe that honesty is an intrinsic value.

    “And I love the fact that my thinking is not hamstrung by fear of being cast into hell, hence I'm a freethinker.”

    But you don’t believe that fear of hell is intrinsically wrong.

    “I also love being good to people just because I want to, and not because I have to, and I am.”

    But you don’t believe it’s intrinsically good to be good to people.

    “Lacking this intimacy some of them have resorted to the crime of molesting altar boys, and have received prison sentences and the disgrace of it all.”

    But you don’t believe that child molestation is intrinsically evil.

    “Atheists generally think Christian theism inhibits scientific progress, creates class struggles, sexism, homophobia, racism, mass neurosis, intolerance and environmental disasters.”

    But you don’t think it’s intrinsically wrong to inhibit scientific progress, creates class warfare, sexism, homophobia, racism, mass neurosis, intolerance, and environmental disaster.

    “Christians have a false and irrational hope, but just don’t know it.”

    But you don’t believe that a false and irrational hope is intrinsically wrong.

    “ They are simply deluded into thinking their lives have some grand ultimate purpose.”

    But you don’t believe delusional thinking is intrinsically evil.

    “In my opinion Christianity is an extremely guilt producing faith, and I only realized it after I left it.”

    But you don’t believe that guilty feelings are intrinsically evil.

    Sorry to keep reminding you of your own disclaimer. But since you constantly pose as a moralist, we need to remember that your every indignant value-judgment comes with a little asterisk.

    “If I see a pretty girl I can imagine what she looks like naked if I want to.”

    Ah, we finally arrived at his true motive for defecting from the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "“I also believe that life it better from my perspective, having been a former Christian myself. I can be more...well...human.”"

    Isn't this from the same guy that said he wanted to be a dog, or a bird, or something?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Guys, Loftus never committed adultery, that's his cover story. He failed my theology 101 class. He came to me, crying, and said that his Mum wouldn't pay for his education anymore, nor would she send him money to go to Family Fun Center (that's what it was called back in '85). To be honest, I saw him playing miniature golf while all his friends where studying. He missed an easy shot through the windmill and started raging on the little kids! It was unbelievable! Anyway, Loftus came to me after school one day. He started "YELLING" at me and saying things like:

    "Billy, you don't know anything about theology. NOTHING. Be honest. You got your Ph.D. from a diploma mill. Answer me and do not lie! NOW!"

    I'm serious. Well, I had to call security. Loftus was removed from campus, but soon after we started having cherry bombs going off in the boy's bathrooms. I just know it was Loftus.

    Anyway, Loftus tried to threaten me. He sent me a letter (on a Hello Kitty note pad of all things?) and said that he would become an atheist if I didn't give him at least a C-. I, because of my convictions, wouldn't agree. He then sent me his last letter and said, "Billy, I am now an atheist. Try and live with the guilt. THE GUILT!"

    I have never told him this but... I actually wanted him to become an atheist. He was my worst student and I just knew he could do theism more good as an atheist than a theist.

    Anyway, jokes on you, John. Cat's out of the bag now. The truth has set us free. I've been waiting 22 years to tell that story. Oh and by the way, in gym class the students at TEDS used to give John melvins in the locker room. You should have heard him: "Don't touch me, I'll tell Bill on you. You will all suffer. SUFFER!. I'm going to be the greatest theologian alive. GREATEST. ALIVE. THEOLOGIAN!"

    Ahhh, those were great years.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Okay, that one was good. I'm not an advocate of the style many of the Triablogue guys, just not my personal temperment. I don't say what they do is wrong, per se, just a different style, I guess. However, I would say that I don't see an alternative when talking to John Loftus. He ignores almost every point and argument you guys make, and constantly changes the subject. Objective, detached, honest, and sarcasticless dialog seem impossible. So, with John Loftus (and maybe a few others) I fully support your approach.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm still trying to figure out this quote:

    "John Loftus is about 100*100 times below a Martin while Hays is 1*5 times below John Frame (btw, that's no insult to Frame, it's a compliment to Steve!)."

    Are you saying that Hays is equal to Frame, since "1 to the 5th" is still equal to 1?

    My math is fuzzy, but don't blame me, I went to private school.

    ReplyDelete
  20. * is a multiplication symbol

    ReplyDelete
  21. So, if I read this out lout it says:

    "100 times 100 times below...."

    Is that special "Bible Math," similar to PI = 3?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think it means Loftus is 10,000 times lower in his intelleigence than Sapient is. Use the little brain God gave you, little fella.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nice comprehension skills, Mr. Moody. Do you have the special atheist reading glasses on, or something?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Moody said,

    "So, if I read this out lout it says:"

    I actually don't know what it means if you read it out "lout." Is that special atheist language? Secret atheist code?

    Lout can mean:

    a) an awkward, stupid person; clumsy, ill-mannered boor; oaf.

    b) to flout; treat with contempt; scorn.

    And so when I import the definition into the word, the sentence doesn't make sense.

    Perhaps you're trying to say that if you act like a jerk when you read the sentence in the said post, you have a hard time understanding it just because you want to treat theists with contempt? Or, perhaps you're an oaf?

    I don't know, I guess I'll never be smart enough to be an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  25. HAW HAW HAW!!!

    Those atheist morons that love to come on here and post.

    DUH!!!! Atheist scum!!! don't you know the Bible doesn't even mention exponentials, or algebra? MORONS!!!!

    Sheesh. I'm glad God blessed me with half a brain, compared to those atheists that only have 10*.06 times a brain.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow. Look at the atheist get so upset. I feel bad for these guys. They're so easy to get flustered. They're like a little candy dispenser; put in a quarter, get a reaction. Happens every time. Must suck to be them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I hear ya, anon.

    Those atheists are just like puppets, dancing to the strings of the puppet master...

    almost as of their moron actions are predetermined....

    oh wait, they are! I can't forget my Reformed Theolgy.

    Atheist = moron

    QED

    ReplyDelete
  28. As I travel around the blogosphere, I have noticed much confusion concerning these concepts. I have noticed some angry and judgemental words being spoken against anyone suggesting that what is wrong for them might also be wrong for another thus causing them to be judgemental, which is hateful. As a result, I am going to clear this concept up once and for all.

    Now the first rule concerning sin is that it doesn't exist outside of your own life and the reality of that said life. This is true for all people and binding so as to prevent any personal moralities from being imposed on another. As with all rules however there are exceptions. The first exception is that since something that is wrong for you is not necessarily wrong for someone else so there is a sub-rule to the that rule which is that Its forbidden to forbid. There are exceptions it seems to this also in a general sense. The first exception is that it is forbidden to judge. Again there are exceptions to that one too. Its OK to judge people that do judge as being intolerant, which is a bad thing which makes it immoral, which is OK I guess because to be immoral would require an over riding objective reality which will not be tolerated because it doesn't exist which is why forbidding in the first place is judged as oppressive given that over riding objective realities don't exist except for those exceptions fore-named which are to be tolerated so that intolerance want be forbidden. Wait a minute... intolerance is forbidden, which means that not only can judging be forbidden, but also intolerance, which means that forbidding, and intolerance find themselves in the exception clause of the do not forbid rule above, making it OK to impose on another a non existent non objective and overriding morality because since those things don't exist its OK to impose them, making it OK to judge those that do impose them as as intolerant and so also bigots.

    Above all we are to love one another and not hate. We know that hate is the result of intolerance and that only those that do try to impose their morality on another are ultimately capable of hating unless the morality imposed is that we should love and not hate which judged by the exceptions fore mentioned would be impossible because of the prerequisite of an overriding morality which which is known not to exist and so therefore is forbidden thus will not tolerated, lest one be judged as a bigot, which I can't think of anything worse that could happen to anyone, can you?

    You see, its all very simple so the next time you see any intolerant behavior suggest to that intolerant bigot that he be less hateful, *HATEFUL*, and more loving like us, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  29. What he said.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just noticed that my above post came as anonymous: "as I travel around the blog..". That was not intentional.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Danny, don't impose your morality on us.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Listen up, I'm tired of you guys making fun of me. I know when I'm not wanted. You do this to atheists when you can't answer their *arguments*. So, I'm off this site. I'm done with you guys. I'll leave you to your self-delusion. I'm done with you.

    DONE.

    (well, at least for the next 40 minutes or so. Unless you say something that bothers me before then)

    ReplyDelete