Pages

Monday, October 16, 2006

John Loftus on Unchained Radio

Back before any of us had heard of John Loftus, he appeared on Gene Cook's radio show. Hear Loftus interact with a few Christian callers (I called in around 46 minutes into the show). What you'll note is that he has not grown in his abilities as an atheologian since his appearance.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN.

21 comments:

  1. Maybe John can explain this. Above he wrote,

    "How did you expect me to deal with someone who dominates a conversation, especially when I couldn't hear you to know when to talk."


    But on his radio sppearance he said,

    "Loftus: All right, I think that you made your point. I'm not saying I have everything... We can carry the discussion in my blog if you want."

    Why would you say Manata had a point when you couldn't hear him?

    Were you lying then, or now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous said:
    ---
    Were you lying then, or now?
    ---

    Answer: Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you listen closely it seemed like Loftus was trying to interrupt Manata a number of times, or literally talk over him so he wouldn't be able to make a full fledged refutation. It didn't exactly work but it did get annoying when both people were talking over each other. Either way, Loftus totally sounded like the scaredy cat at the end. Admit it, Loftus, you couldn't take the heat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All the personal issues aside, since there was a promise to carry on with the discussion on this blog, I do wonder how Loftus would respond to Manata's questions? E.g. the one regarding infinite regress. Or "Your experience is always changing so how did you come to experience something that is not changing?" Etc. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could not hear Manata for much of what he said, but I could gather enough of what he said that I could say he made his point.

    So you knew enough to know that he made a point. Meaning you knew what he said. Gotcha. Now will you answer Paul's question?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Loftus doesn't talk to me because I'm a "bombastic" and "caustic" person.

    I actually have no personal issues with John.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Absolutely amazing! Loftus continues to dodge the question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, Plantinga would say that *strong* foundationalism is dead. But, Plantinga does adhere to a form of foundationalism. John, don't name drop if you don't understand the guy's position.

    At any rate, it was you who chided Gene for not having "evidence" for his beliefs.

    So, you brought up the problem.

    The question is, then, do you now disagree with your former self (of 8 months ago)? The next problem for you, then, is that you'll be moving towards theism given the rest of Plantinga's arguments.

    basically yours,

    PM

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, John, I don't have personal problems with you. take it or leave it. Don't confuse my methods of getting your to self-destruct with having personal problems. I actually think you look good in a cowboy hat, partner.

    "And when I mention Plantinga, who I do understand, having taken a class with Craig on him, he reverts back to the discussion as if it's not to the point. Just because one is good at logical gerrymandering, doesn't mean that one knows what he's talking about or can defend it, or that it's true. Sure I don't conclude what Plantinga argues for. So tell me something new!"

    No, John. You had said that "there are no foundations for knowledge" and that was because "Plantinga destroyed foundationalism." I pointed out that this claim was false. Plantinga does believe there are properly basic beliefs but not in the classical foundationalist sense. His base is more robust.

    Oh, and I fail to see how taking a class from Craig on Plantinga makes you "know what you're talking about" especially when you botched Plantinga.

    "My starting point is with the brute fact of this universe."

    Bully for you.

    "Your brute fact is with an eternally existing complex triune God"

    There are no brute facts and presuppose the Christian worldview, not just a triune God.

    "who has never learned anything"

    Don't really need to "learn anything" when you immediately know everything, now do ya?

    "and has no body (except that now "part" of him is embodied in a man named Jesus),"

    "Part?" Did you ditch school on the day you leanred about the Doctrine of God and Christology?

    I mean, why don't you find a Christian creed that uses this lingo of the hypostatic union.

    You're inncorrect both historically and philosophically.

    "who "acted" in the superstitious past and now demands that those of us in a scientifically literate world believe what these people in the superstitious past claimed"

    Yeah, that's why I'm not a materialist or an evolutionist. It's because people like Epicurus and Anaximander. Don't you know, John, stupid backwards people believed in materialism and evolution.

    Indeed, many ancient dummies "started with" the "brute existence of the world." So, it looks like John's claims refute John's claims.

    John, they say that self-refutation is the worst form of refutation. I was wondering, is that true?

    "that this God did many things and commanded us to do many things which we would regard as unintelligent and immoral by nearly every thinking person on the globe (even if you claim our opinions are subjective)."

    So, since you're a moral relativist, then I take it that this claim fo yours tranlsates thusly:

    "This big ole mean God is immoral according to my unjustified, subjective opinion."

    Sorry if I'm not impressed.

    "I find that there are so many issues to discuss and to come to terms with that we cannot stay on one topic for long."

    The problem is that you are the one who brings all the rabbit trails up. When you get refuted you don't bother admitting it, you just sweep it under the rug and move on to your next re-heated, re-hashed, oft refuted atheological arguments.

    "It's a cumulative case or not at all. I've stated my case in my book."

    See this:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/satans-school-for-girlie-men.html

    "That's why presuppositionalism does not work. It's because of the nature of how we form conclusions, how we first learned them, and how we think those conclusions mesh with other things we believe and/or were brought up to believe, which includes our genetic makeup and social enviroment."

    Well, this is autobiographical. it just shows how much you don't know about a subject.

    Everyone has presuppositions. Everyone has a basic perspective whereby they interpret the world around them. The problem is, your presuppositions undermine epistemology, mine don't.

    ReplyDelete
  11. S&BL,

    How about, "Don't boil a kid in its mother's milk?"

    That's so dumb, I love the taste of milk and meat together!

    ReplyDelete
  12. John Loftus, is that you???
    I thought you did an entry a while back where you said you won't comment anymore on anyone's comment box..
    Or am I to conclude that 'john loftus' is really Frank Walton and Paul Manata hijacking your account?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The eye for an eye.....principle is stupid. You yourselves reject that principle not because you read it in the Bible, but because of other civilized reasons."

    Oh, so Loftus doesn't believe that the punishment should fit the crime?

    ReplyDelete
  14. John W. Loftus: The eye for an eye.....principle is stupid. You yourselves reject that principle not because you read it in the Bible, but because of other civilized reasons.

    Vytautas: Is it because Christ fulfilled the law?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'd like to know what epistemological justification John has for complaining about God killing anybody in the first place? (1) Where does he get his standard from which to judge Yahweh in the first place and moreover, (2) why should I or anybody else accept his standard for judging God as having any relevance or authority over me in determining whether God was just/unjust in His divine decrees?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dusman,

    He doesn't have a standard and he thinks he's giving an internal critique. See here:

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=35918668&postID=116067584778142398

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,

    Slavery is condemned in the Bible:

    Being a slave to sin is condemnd.

    But you think that's hogwash. So, why think that if God were to condemn everything you want condemned now, you'd agree?

    The problem you have with all of God's deed, is that it shows that God, not man, is in charge. You're a humanist John, pure and simple. Your standard of ethics is that man is the highest good and anything done to decrease his "hapiness" (arbitrarily understood by you) is, therefore, "evil."

    ReplyDelete
  18. YOu know John Loftus knows so much, he even knows who anonymous commentators are,
    Makes you have to wonder about everything else he 'knows', no?

    ReplyDelete
  19. S&BL,

    But back to my original question, which of the Ten Commandments do you find to be "unintelligent and immoral". Not the OT theocratic laws, but the Ten Commandments.

    Seriously, dude, the real, surviving tablets, placed into "The Ark of the Covenant", contained, according to Exodus 34, the commandment:
    "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

    That is dumb and immoral. I love milk and meat together. Mmmmm...

    ReplyDelete
  20. John, old man, I'd note that the abolition of slavery in Britain was on the initiative of evangelicals like William Wilberforce who believed the Bible prohibited slavery.

    ReplyDelete