More Examples Of John Loftus' Irrationality

I've been participating in a thread at Victor Reppert's blog that was supposed to be about the textual transmission of the New Testament. John Loftus has ignored the large majority of what I've said there and has been posting on a lot of other topics. Blogger is being inconsistent in displaying my posts there, sometimes even removing ones that are short. It doesn't seem to be a problem with long posts. Blogger even changed my screen name while I was still logged on, for no apparent reason and without any notification. I've been deleting posts because of those problems. I think I've had more problems with posting at Victor's blog than anywhere else on the web. I've decided to post my response to John here, since I'm having so many problems posting at Victor's blog. If you want the larger context of the discussion, click the link above.

John Loftus,

You haven't addressed the evidence I've cited for my conclusions about the textual record. You've made some claims about my motives without providing any supporting evidence. And you've made some vague assertions about the alleged implications of the Donation of Constantine and other data that have little relevance to the earlier sources I cited. Since my posts here and the series I linked at Triablogue are primarily about the pre-manuscript evidence, why would you respond to me with comments about the lateness of the manuscripts, the Donation of Constantine, etc.? Your behavior here, as elsewhere, is irresponsible and reprehensible. You're making little effort to be reasonable.

On the issue of miracles in the modern world, you could begin by interacting with the evidence Steve Hays and I cited in The Infidel Delusion, namely the paranormal research of men like Stephen Braude and Michael Sudduth. (I've recently written more about the subject here.) You have to know what sort of arguments I would produce for modern miracles, from The Infidel Delusion at a minimum, yet your posts here make no effort to interact with my views. You ignore my arguments about the textual record, and you ignore my arguments about modern miracles.

Your appeal to Bart Ehrman doesn't make much sense, given that I've addressed his position in particular in the Triablogue series I linked and in many other places. As I've documented, Ehrman affirms that most ancient Christian scribes were honest in their textual transmission, which is one of the points I've been making, and Ehrman's view of the text is largely the same as that of a conservative Evangelical. You'll have to explain how your vague appeal to Ehrman supposedly refutes anything I said.

As for philosophy of history, tell me where I'm supposedly wrong and how the same sort of criticism couldn't be raised against your own historical claims. You've been making a lot of historical assertions in this thread, and you do the same at your blog, in books, and in other places. So do your co-contributors in those contexts. If people like you and Paul Tobin can claim to know so much about history, why can't I?

John saw some of my comments before I deleted them at Victor's blog, and he responded. Read those replies and ask yourself whether he actually interacts much with what I said.