Inconsistency & Personal Attacks: Why You Should Be Skeptical Of John W. Loftus, II
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Debunking Loftus, John W. Loftus, Thinking Critically on | 7 minutes | 6 Comments →
In his post, Listing of Cognitive Biases, Loftus states, unequivocally, the following:
We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true.
Okay, if there’s one thing I admire in (a)theist discussion, it’s a firmly cemented goalpost, and I think the above certainly qualifies. How about you? If you agree with me, perhaps it won’t be much of a stretch to gain some empathy for my consternation at the transactions that follow.
As I mentioned in the introduction to this series, in his article, Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences, Loftus states, again unequivocally, the following:
[science] has also shown us there was no Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt.
Rhetorically persuasive, perhaps, but the problem is, in direct contradiction to his claim that we should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true, Loftus accepts this as true, without a lick of positive evidence! Worse, as I pointed out, John completely ignores bonafide positive evidence that challenges his claim, like the fact that we find references to a nomadic tribe of Israel in Egyptian epigraphy, for example the Stele of Merneptah, discovered at Thebes by Sir Flinders Petrie. Written in hieroglyphics, the stele records the boasting of Merneptah, who ruled Egypt in the early thirteenth-century BCE and claimed that he had “humbled Israel.” The omission of the customary determinative sign denoting “land” implies that the “Israel” Merneptah humbled was a nomadic tribe. This is significant because a nomadic tribe of Israelites in early thirteenth-century Egypt is most certainly a prerequisite for the Exodus. Further, if Merneptah conquered this nomadic tribe—as the stele records—is it unreasonable that a remnant fled? The point is, Loftus argues from the gaps, plain and simple, after hypocritically crucifying believers over and over for doing the same thing.
Of course, this was all covered in my opening to this series, so, I’d like to introduce a few more examples of Loftus making claims without any positive evidence to substantiate them. From Victor Reppert’s blog, in the context of miracles and their persuasive power:
Here’s a dilemna [sic] for the modern charismatic/pentecostal church: Either their experiences of miracles, speaking in tongues and exorcisms are the same as what the NT believers and disciples experienced, or they are not. If yes, then why is it those experiences do not convince anyone but those who already believe; that is, why is it these miracles have little or no convincing power? [John W. Loftus, comment January 30, 2006 2:43 PM]
You see what just happened there? Never mind what he said earlier about the requirement for positive evidence; Loftus simply asserts what he needs to bolster his case, and again, he ignores bonafide positive evidence that would challenge his claim. In that same thread, in direct contradiction to Loftus’ claim, we find the following two comments:
John, this may be true of your experience, but is certainly not true of mine. I am not a charismatic/Pentecostal, but I attended a Pentecostal church for six years. I went initially because a good friend of mine, a lapsed Catholic and a very intelligent and worldy person (basing his life, on his own admission, on “sex and drugs and rock n roll”) was invited by a friend to attend a vibrant and contemporary Pentecostal church. He was so impressed with the miracles and the apparent work of the Holy Spirit that he came to me as the only “regular christian” he knew to ask me questions. His first two questions were: “Do you believe in speaking in tongues?” and “Do you believe in divine healing?” He was very impressed and ultimately convinced by the things you have just suggested no-one is convinced by… [unkle e, January 22, 2010 5:34 PM]
First of all, let me say that my belief in the miracles of the Bible are not because they are written in the Bible, but because I have seen them today. [Anthony Fleming, February 15, 2011 12:56 PM]
Clearly, Loftus needs to admit he was wrong, retract his claim, make the necessary emendations, and try again. Has he? Not yet. Am I surprised? Not at all. Are you?
Moving along, here are two more examples illustrating why I believe you should be skeptical of John W. Loftus. In his post, Reppert on Ridiculing One’s Opponents, the Loftus tells us:
I totally agree with [Reppert] when he wrote: “I really dislike ridicule, from either side of the fence.” [Reppert] also said, “I consider the ridicule heaped on atheists that I see on some blogs to be a bad witness.” I think the same as [Reppert] does when it’s the atheists who are doing the ridiculing. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for some of it in some forums specifically addressed to the proverbial “choir” for venting and/or entertainment purposes. It’s just not something I pander to here at DC from either side of the fence. [John W. Loftus, emph. and brackets mine]
Really now? Granted, that post was from 2006, but, did John W. Loftus have a change of heart and conveniently forget to tell the world? I ask because, as recently as this month, he’s directed the following towards me:
How old are you CL? I’d guess you have not yet experienced much life. I’d say you were under the age of 21, too young to be here. I don’t give a damn what you think of me of my deconversion at all. You’re too stupid to realize that regardless of it you must deal with the arguments in the book. [John W. Loftus]
I’m seriously considering banning you cl, as I’ve heard you were banned on other sites. You are much too ignorant for us to have a reasonable discussion. [John W. Loftus]
I don’t know about you, but it sure seems to me that Loftus is more than willing to pander to that which he unequivocally claimed he was not. As for the whole “banning” thing, well… guess what? He banned me! Loftus writes:
…what made me decide to ban cl was his statement that he would come back here no matter what I did. I was not going to ban him until he said that. It revealed an utter disrespect for my wishes.
Oh, excuse me! I can’t help but wonder: did John think his insults revealed utter respect for my wishes? Again, we get a double standard. All of a sudden, the Loftus would have us believe that being respectful of one’s wishes is something he’s concerned about. If that’s the case, why did he contradict his stated position on insults by showering them upon me? I assure you, I did not wish to be insulted. Again, what’s good for the goose apparently is not good for the gander. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. You can read all about it, right here. I encourage you to comment, since I can’t defend myself anymore.
So, to summarize: you should be skeptical of John W. Loftus because he holds believers to different standards than he holds himself and his atheist comrades to. You should be skeptical of John W. Loftus because he eschews cogent rebuttals in favor of childish insults. Lastly, and most importantly in my opinion, you should be skeptical of John W. Loftus because, when held accountable to his own claims, he resorts to the aforementioned stratagems borrowed from fascists and other authoritarians throughout history.
Since when has denigration and censorship brought us any closer to truth?
Ronin
says...As you stated in his blog he left the fold for emotional reasons, which I think is the one attribute that overrides his nature and probably why he banned you. Consider the following from Loftus:
When previously said,
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-do-you-know-that-which-you-claim-to.html#disqus_thread
The guy is a clown. Yet, he wonders why Craig will not debate him…LOL! Heck, I admire the fact that you went into that hellhole of a website…
apologianick
says...Cl. Loftus will always change the rules to fit himself. When it comes to why he does things that others approve of, it is never his fault. You will notice this. It is always someone else’s fault.
I like your style Cl. You should come to Theologyweb.com sometime. We’ve got a lot of information on Loftus there.
cl
says...Ronin,
As much as I agree with you, I have to at least try to be charitable to Loftus here. You seem to imply that his initial statement of intent conflicts with his stated reason for banning me. While that might be the case–and in my gut I suspect it is–it might also be the case that my persistent questioning is what initially inspired him to consider banning me, then, the IP comment pushed him over the edge.
I hope I’ve not offended you. Like I said, I agree with you as to the general nature of Loftus and his congregation. I’m just trying to be fair in logic, that’s all. Either way, I think it’s reasonable to assume that people who resort to censorship cannot confront the arguments intelligently or fairly, or that they simply have no interest in doing so. The fact that I never once resorted to ad hominem attacks on John as he did to me further supports this point.
Although, it’s water under the bridge at this point. I’ll still engage John’s arguments, but, I’d like to move forward and forget all about him for a while.
apologianick,
Well, thank you sir. I’ll probably stop by the site you mention, although… I’m content to simply review his book as I promised him. I’ll also continue with this series, but I’m not going to devote too much energy to him. After all, if he won’t listen given the incredibly large number of people saying the same things, why beat a dead horse? I’m pretty convinced that Loftus isn’t going to change.
Still, I’ll check y’all out again… sometime. Thanks for coming around, and I hope you stay a part of the conversations that take place here.
Ronin
says...No offense taken. You wrote:
The IP comment could have pushed him over the edge. However, my point was and still is that the second quote clearly shows he became predisposed or inclined to ban you due to his emotions. Why? Well, I read some of his postings as well as yours and you seemed to have challenged his mode of operation, yet, his replies to you were dismissive and personal attacks. If he has nothing to hide he should not have become such an emotional basket case (calling you names and threatening to ban you), instead, he should have engaged your arguments. I think the IP comment gave him another reason to ban you, but the second quote shows [to me] he had already begun the process of wanting to get rid of you. In conclusion, the IP comment may have given him the “excuse” to ban you, but he clearly wanted to ban you prior to the IP comment.
cl
says...Ronin,
Ah, I see now. Yes, I agree. Here’s another thing that struck me funny: he accused me of “disrespecting his wishes” before he made his decision to ban me! Note that my IP comment was made directly after he simply stated that he was considering banning me. IOW, his wishes hadn’t been clearly stated, such that I could have disrespected him. I left it open, and honestly, I was just trying to cajole him a little. That’s why I said, “whether on this blog or mine.” But yeah, you’re right: pure emotion.
Of course, that’s aside from the fact that he never once respected my wishes to not be called names like “stupid,” or “ignorant,” or “moron.” Again, another double-standard.
Sheila Loftus
says...I don’t know who you are but I really respect your insight .
Feel free to email me