Oh what a tangled web we weave...

(Posted on behalf of Steve Hays, in response to Loftus' latest post.)

But how in the hell this personality trait of mine can legitimately lead one to reject my arguments is simply beyond me. It is a non-sequitur.

Actually, we used to reject his arguments on their own merits, or lack thereof. But now he's given us two reasons instead of one!

Listen up. Christians are the first ones to say we are all sinners so I don't want to hear that crap coming from them anymore.

But since he rejects Christian theology and ethics, how is that supposed to immunize him from criticism?

Anyway, forgiveness is extended to penitent sinners, not impenitent sinners.

The Bible says we are bascially all liars (Romans 3:12-14), so what's the big deal here, even if I did lie, and technically I didn't.

Once again, why is he defending his conduct by quoting a book he spends all his time debunking?

Also, in Scripture, confession doesn't include "technical" escape clauses.

Anyone who has read Paul Johnson's book The Intellectuals, knows that some of the brightest minds in recent centuries had personal problems, some of them were serious. Mine are not so serious. I may have an arrogant, stubborn streak, but many people who accomplish something in life have the same traits. While I am pretty much a "nobody" when compared to these "intellectuals," their personal problems say nothing about their arguments, and they say nothing against the influence they had on society, either.

It's true that their misconduct doesn't invalidate their arguments. At the same time, it was their misconduct which motivated their arguments, as a rationalization for misconduct. So there is a relationship between misbehavior and self-justification.

As far as my being dishonest goes, technically I was not dishonest, even if I was deceptive.

Hairsplitting sophistry.

One other thing. I am more revealing about myself than probably any other atheist on the web precisely because I have a healthy self-esteem.

This would be more convincing were it not for the following admission:

My personality problem is that I cannot seem to ignore obnoxious people like Holding, and it has gotten me into trouble. He grates on me. But after week upon week of him belittling and berating us, and of me responding rarely, but still too many times, I was done playing around with the likes of him. You may not understand it. I don't expect you to. It's who I am. I have flaws. It is very difficult to think about this objectively while I am involved in it.

It's clear that Loftus suffers from low self-esteem.

Finally, what's ironic about all this is that Loftus has gone on record admitting that he doesn't believe anything is intrinsically right or wrong. So why does he turn and twist to deflect the charge of mendacity? Why doesn't he have the courage of his amoral convictions? Be a consistent nihilist?

Because, deep down, he retains an irrepressible belief in moral absolutes. His atheistic profession is at war with his God-given conscience. Even as a militant apostate, he has enough common grace to bear witness to the God he denies.