Wednesday, July 21, 2010


Over on Loftus's blog, Ken Pulliam is telling John to ignore The Infidel Delusion. Here’s what Ken said:


These guys at Tribalogue are not worthy of a response. First, they are not scholars as were the authors of TCD. Second, because they are not scholars they don't understand the issues involved. They just merely presuppose that their holy book is perfect and that anyone who disagrees is of the devil. Third, any response only gives them credibility.

Since I’ve actually read what was written, I find this laughable. But for the record, Ken, you can feel free to do this (and this won’t even require you to actually read the ebook). Download The Infidel Delusion and open it in Adobe. Use the search feature and look for “devil.” You will get zero results.

So look for the word “Satan” instead. Here’s what you find.

Page 65: The parallel passage in Luke 4:5 refers to how Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms “in a moment of time”. Jesus is shown the kingdoms. He doesn‘t move around to look at them. And it happens in an instant. Apparently, Satan is supernaturally bringing images before Jesus.

Page 104: A passage written by a Jew, in which another Jew refers to some other Jews of first-century Israel as children of Satan (John 8:44-45), is described by Loftus as supporting “anti-Semitism” (191). Using Loftus’ reasoning, passages like Ephesians 2:3 and Colossians 1:13 must be expressing hatred of every race, since they refer to all humans as condemned and coming from Satan’s kingdom.

Page 134: Angels, both good and evil, are involved as well, and Satan took part in bringing about the fall of mankind.
And that’s it.

What of the word “presuppose” then? Well, we get this:

Page 17: It has no bearing on whether reasoning presupposes theism.

Page 200: Science presupposes the reliability of our cognitive faculties, but what does the conjunction of naturalism and evolution—Carrier‘s position—do to this?

Page 204: Next, science presupposes logical and mathematical truths.

Page 204: Speaking of antirealism, Robert Koons has argued that naturalism cannot hold to scientific realism (which the book presupposes) “since scientific realism entails the falsity of naturalism.”

Page 208: The quasi-prophecy [11:36-39] closes with an evaluative summary of Antiochus‘s religious attitudes as king…The ‘him’ [11:40-45] again presupposes that ‘the northern king’ is the same person as that in vv21-39.
And that’s it.

I dare say, Ken, that you start worrying about your own credibility before worrying about ours.


  1. When reading Loftus and the comments I had the problem of trying to laugh and yawn at the same time. I couldn't.

    Y'all better keep your credibility safe though, it looks like Loftus is gunning for you.

    I saw him in the saloon no more than 15 minutes ago spinning his Smith & Western.

  2. Ken's comments are embarrassing.

  3. When I saw the Infidel Delusion it made my day! My MONTH!

    Its time someone delivered a counterattack to Loftus and his continual lying. He is so far gone, he does not even know he is doing it, but others need to seem him exposed.

  4. If only "scholars" are capable of understanding the issues in the book, then why did they write it an encourage non-scholars to read it?

  5. I guess they want to uphold the title of the book: The Infidel DELUSION.

  6. Brett,

    Not only that, but not everyone who contributed to TCD was a "scholar" either. For that matter, the claim of scholarship is a naked appeal to authority. It's the first place of refuge for those who have no argument.

  7. Hey guys,

    Been reading your Infidel Delusion. Good stuff. I don't always agree with what you guys say on this blog (In fact, as a evolution-accepting Catholic, I disagree with much), but the fact is you guys - abrasiveness aside - often produce thoughtful and strong materials and arguments. Loftus and company? Not so much. Hell, anyone familiar with Loftus' record with regards to sock-puppeting, fake blogs, etc should know enough to regard him as little more than a carnival barker.

    But in particular, the "scholar" stuff is a load of crap, and Ken should be ashamed of himself for trying to play that card. Better not take Socrates very seriously! He wasn't a scholar, you know. In fact, he was a dirty lawbreaker too.

    Great work. (Came here via The Maverick Philosopher, who saw fit to pass on your guys' efforts. Having read the first couple of chapters myself, I can say you're making mincemeat of TCD.)

  8. Enjoying the book. I'm glad you guys made it a little entertaining; I'd have gotten bored reading page after page of continuous refutation otherwise. Don't know how you stood reading all of TCD.