Saturday, March 11, 2006

Unbelievers Don't Care About Lying, Stealing, Integrity, and Conviction

The debunked pseudo-debunker, John W. Loftus, posted an email he says an unbelieving minister sent him regarding his status has a shepherd of sheep.

It is doubtful this is a real person given the laudatory nature of his email. Supposedly he thinks Loftus et al. have a good blog which produces "honest and excellent writing." This is directed toward a blog that posted that Cain and Able were removed from the garden, not just Adam and Eve! This directed to a blog that thinks Paul never quoted Jesus. This directed to a blog that says that our beliefs are culturally determined and truth and falsity have nothing to do with them (thus refuting themselves). This directed to a blog that says that logic may be a myth. This directed to a blog that says that there is no purpose. This directed to a blog that says that morality and reason have no ultimate foundation. So, if this emailer is a real person, then he appears to think that people who refute themselves have something of value to say. He appears to be someone who has barely read his Bible. Why are people shocked when they never read their Bible and then become unbelievers? Anyway, let's look at the email:


As a former fundy (and a currently ordained, although deconverted minister pastoring a church!), I greatly appreciate your honest and excellent writing! I'm very much in the theological closet and wish to remain totally anonymous for now, and I'm sure you can understand that.


If this is real, let's look at what Loftus supports. He titles his post "A Non-Believing Minister!" Notice the exclamation point. So, Loftus is excited that another pastor is deconverting. Well,

1. Why is the idea that one can stand in front of a congregation and lie to them, not condemned?

2. Why is the idea that this man can receive a pay check from his congregation while not fulfilling his end of the bargain, not condemned?

3. Why is the idea that you can pretend you believe one thing, but really believe another, not condemned?

4. Why is the act of not having the huevos the stand up for your convictions, not condemned?

You see, Loftus -n- crew actually support being a weak kneed, chicken, cream puff, delicate, emasculate, epicene, nancy, overnice, pansified, pansy, pantywaist, twinkie, lying, backbiting, bent, bluffing, cheating, corrupt, crafty, crooked, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, deceptive, designing, disreputable, double-crossing, double-dealing, elusive, false, fraudulent, guileful, hoodwinking, knavish, mendacious, misleading, perfidious, roguish, shady, shifty, sinister, slippery, sneaking, sneaky, swindling, traitorous, treacherous, tricky, two-faced, two-timing, unctuous, underhanded, unfair, unprincipled, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, villainous, wily, person.

I guess the lengths unbelievers will go to just to support unbelief has no end. That is because truth, honesty, reason, facts, logic, and character take the back seat to deconversion. When they argue with Christians they will hold them to the strictest standards of morality and reason. When an unbelievers acts like a liar and a cheat, all that matters is that they stay unbelievers. The ends justify the means for them. Reason and truth are just a gimmick. They really have not changed. They are still the uneducated, tent- preaching, snake oil salesmen that they always were. They know though that if they held themselves and their unbelieving friends to the same standard they hold the Christian to, they would be burnt to a crisp.

They are all proof of the rationalist-irrationalist dialectic. I spoke on this before. Loftus never responded. I'll repost this tendency instantiated in Loftus:

Lastly, the rational/irrational dialectic. Notice how Loftus expects Christians to act "reasonable" and "test" their beliefs by "reason." Christians are not allowed to be arbitrary, or believe things arbitrarily. Christians must suspend belief about miracles recorded in the Bible because they cast a critical eye on reports of the miraculous today. So we can see that Loftus expects us to be strictly rational. The demands on the Christian are tough. Loftus will not allow us to get away with believing things willy-nilly.

But when it comes to pressing Loftus's beliefs, the story is different. When pressed to justify his beliefs he tells us things like this:

1. "...logic and reason may have no ultimate foundation, much like morals do not have an ultimate foundation."

2. "Maybe reason has merely shown itself trustworthy by pragmatic verification based in the anthropic principle evidenced in the universe--it just works."

3. "... it may be that reason doesn't work as well as the presuppositionalist proclaims."

4. "If this universe took place by chance, then the fact that reason cannot figure it all out is exactly what we would expect. We would not be able to ultimately justify our use of reason..."

5. ..."reason is impotent to help decide between ultimacies..."

6. "I just prefer to accept as a brute fact the existence of this universe. It came without a cause, and it has no purpose."

Therefore we see two-mindsets at work within the one man, John Loftus. He has no problem being strictly rational when it comes to arguing with the Christian, but he, at the same time, has no problem capitulating to irrationality when his views are pressed. For us, there is to be "no more quoting the Bible to defend how Jesus' death on the cross saves us from sins. The Christian must now try to rationally explain it." But for him, he does not need to rationally explain his views but can just say, "reason and order are here, and that's just the way it is, it's a brute fact, I don't need to ultimately give an account for logic, morality, origins, and reason.... I just believe..." But what happens if the Christian tries to pull this? We are told that we have "blind faith." We are told that we can have our faith, but let's not try to pretend it can be justified, or is rational. We are even told that we need to give up our faith if we cannot pass "the test of reason." Is saying, "ThatÂ’s just the way it is!" passing "the test of faith? If so, then Christianity is true, and that's just the way it is. If not, then Loftus must give up his worldview. Either way, Christianity: 1, John Loftus: 0.


  1. Excellent, Paul! You've exposed intellectual hypocrisy at its finest. This is just an example showing yet again that people really don't leave the Christian faith for intellectual reasons.

  2. Paul, don't you have anything better to do? You're pathetic.

  3. Hi John,

    Loftus: "Paul, don't you have anything better to do?"

    Manata: What, I'm debunking you. Are you saying that debunking someone/thing is a waste of time?

    Truth be told, I go to your blog when I need to post something devistating in a matter of minutes.

    Actually, during the time I spent on your post I had one other option before me. I was challenged to wrestle Susie, the block wrestling champion of the 5 yr old division. I took the easy way out and posted on you.

    Loftus: You're pathetic.

    Manata: Hmmm, why do you delete commenters from commenting on your blog for the same behavior you exhibit? Here are some quotes from your post "Our Policy Here:"

    1. "Any intelligent comment that is relevant will be allowed here, so long as it's not disrespectful of us as persons."

    2. "Only people not fully exposed to alternative ways of thinking will claim their opponents are stupid merely because they disagree."

    3. "Any responses that are not deemed by us to be in accord with good etiquette will be deleted."

    4. " But we have no animosity toward Christian believers as people."

    5. "We will do our best to treat our opponents with some dignity and respect, even if we do not believe what they are claiming."

    6. "We choose to follow the Golden Rule, for the most part, even though it isn't to be followed unthinkingly."

    So, who's the "pathetic" one?

    Also, "pathetic" how? What universal standard are you using to detemrine what is pathetic and what is not? Is this just your opinion? Opinion based on what? Why is refuting someone and showing their hypocrist considered "pathetic?" Why is showing how someone is a liar, a cheat and swindler, and a lacker of integrity, "pathetic?"

  4. Loftus said:

    Paul, don't you have anything better to do? You're pathetic.

    Are you suggesting you aren't worth his time?