John W. Loftus said:
"Whoever said anything about my pure bred Basset Hound."
Ah, yes, a "purebred" Basset Hound.
"Nuts to mutts!" That's his campaign slogan.
No doubt he believes in separate fire hydrants for mongrels and purebreds.
Loftus is a canine racist. The Jim Crow of canines. The David Duke of dogs.
This is also dovetails with his belief that there should only be one human race.
If elected public dog catcher, Loftus will put an end to canine miscegenation.
Yes, that'll be one of my campaign promises. "Don't neuter 'purebred' (okay, okay) dogs."
ReplyDeleteMutts like you guys can do as you like. Bob Barker can have his way with you all!
Here's my real campaign slogan: "Loftus for God-catcher." Now this has a ring to it.
If John can't catch him, no one can.
But then your God sings back to me, "Can't cath me I'm the Gingerbread man."
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThough I vehemently disagree with your Christian views, I must give you props for calling out atheists such as John Loftus. Speciesists, like Loftus, don't seem to realize how inconsistent they are. They correctly blame God (if he were to exist) for creating different "races," since that causes racism, and they correctly note that we have evolved, just like all other animals--having no special claim to superiority, even over parasite ridden ants, but then they smuggle in their speciesist ideas into their household pets.
It's okay for Loftus to create different breeds of dogs, but not okay for God to create different breeds of people. An omni God can't create "races," but an all good Loftus can create different breeds of dogs.
So, I thank Steve and hope that Loftus will join me, Pete Singer, and the rest of the consistent atheists out there.
in Mother Nature,
Peter
C'mon, partner. Seeing Loftus complain about an all-good God alowing parasites to thrive in the heads of ants, while knowing that innocent cows had to die so that John's cowboy hat could thrive on his head, is just too much for a good ole boy like me.
ReplyDeleteBoy, howdy, what a rootin tootin hootin hollerin time Loftus gives y'all. John, I'd take a longer break than you did, spend some time in the saloon, dust your chaps off and spend a few months on the range collecting your thoughts by the fireside, if you know what I mean, partner.
yee-haw,
John
The truth guys, is that I don't have to worry about being inconsistent when compared to your God. (Quote me accurately here).
ReplyDeleteI can be inconsistent (even though I don't think I am).
But your God cannot be inconsistent at all.
So from now on please compare me to the perfect being you keep comparing me with. While every human being is inconsistent at some point, your God cannot be so at all.
God is *in*consistent with what? Allowing parasites to feed on ants? Where did God ever promise or reveal to you that he had a problem with that? Where did he say something which, when compared with his allowing ants to be fed upon by parasites, could be taken together with his other claims and get him the title of "inconsistent one?"
ReplyDeleteYou see, John, all you do is recycle your assertions. We've been asking for these internal critiques forever, when we do, you claim that you must add external critiques as well.
See, I don;t thik God is *in*consistent with anything He's revealed. Now, you may think he's inconsistent with propositions *you* want to ascribe to him, or think shold be ascribed to him, and that's fine. But, and here's the rub, when I import my external consideration on to you, you become every bit as inconsistent as my God. So, is that the way we want to play?
John, don't tell me that your case against theism boils down simply to a case of name calling? Tell me you didn't write books that, once analyzed (and you've still to respond to Steve's critique of your book), boil down to the claim that God can't be real if the world is like John Loftus says it is.
John, if so, don't you think you've been wasting your time and efforts? Spend more time with your wife and Franklin. We already know your *mere opinion* about what God should and shouldn't do. You don't need to torture us by seeing how many different ways you can phrase said opinion.
Judging from the quick response, and from the info recalled, I'd venture to say that "anonymous" is someone at Triablogue.
ReplyDeleteI do not comment as an anonymous person...ever.
I challenge everyone at Triablogue to state the same thing.
This is a different anonymous. Are you going to answer the first anon's post, John?
ReplyDeleteWell, John, and when I give my name you use that as an excuse to ignore what I say since I'm a "big meany."
ReplyDeleteAn end to canine miscegenation? The bastard!
ReplyDeleteI do not comment as an anonymous person...ever.
ReplyDelete