This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
VictorThat's not a review.
True. It's more like a burial at sea.
I thought it was rather like a roundhouse kick to the brain.
Thanks for the link Victor but I must point out that the review was only posted by me, it was written by Matthew Flannagan (the other M at MandM).The comments above me made me chuckle :-)
Its more than a review, its a total expose of the double standards of the Loftus Gang!
Well said Steve.
"True. It's more like a burial at sea."What? Like Osama bib Laden?
Keep hoping finney.I understand New York has now passed gay marriage legislation. Another little bit of dismantling the christian edifice, brick by brick.Just a couple of home runs on the board:Darwinian evolution's in the bag, apart from a few nibblings around the edge from the likes of the Discovery Institute, Templeton Foundation, Christian Ministries International and the Creation Museum, together with the Southern Baptist Convention and the pope. The neuroscientific understanding of why the brain and genetics predisposes homo sapiens to project superstitious supernaturalism onto their natural world existence, is unfolding pretty much as researchers are hypothesizing and confirming that it will. Pretty predictable really. It is early days yet but the evidence is piling up.Incidentally Madeleine, what makes you think the christian fable isn't like any other extinct and/or extant religion? Why is it you apply the OTF for every other religion and find them fallacious, basing your arguments that from the basis of the OTF, and yet you are reluctant [frightened?] to apply those very same arguments? Madeleine, what Morrison just commented; now *that* really made me chuckle.
What I love about Papper's response is that, mangled as his logic is, he agrees Loftus didn't come up with the OTF. Why, everyone's been using the OTF well in advance of John, and they've been applying it to other faiths. John's an unoriginal hack, according to him.Of course, Papper's afraid to actually evaluate the evidence of faiths other than his own. He's frightened that his atheism may be less warranted than some other religion, including ones he hates. He's an old man, you see, and the idea that he's based his beliefs on a lie is too much for him to bear.Have pity on him. This is a man in the throes of denial and fear.
"What? Like Osama bib Laden?"Come on Papa I expect more from a fellow Aussie. No wonder our stocks are so low, in regards to the gentleman's sport. If we can't return a sledge with subtly, wit and gut wrenching emotional barbs, we have no hope of ever getting The Ashes back.Surely as a former teacher who have the ability to cut down a student cold at 5 yards."But Sir I have a headache?" "Son, if I had a head like yours it would hurt too."
No Anonymous, John developed the OTF, don't kid yourself. And the question to Madelaine is why she doesn't use the exact same evidential parameters that she uses to disqualify all the other religions, and yet she is loathe to subject her religion to the same rationale. That is classically termed: a 'double-standard', something Apologetics is very au fait with in its syncretic and harmonizing strategy for minimizing cognitive dissonance in interpreting the christian fable.If 61 is old, then I am old, Anonymous. But I am sure your christian 'good will' puts more invective and vilification into the imagery than simply acknowledging that I am old. Anonymous, you say, "mangled as his [Papalinton's] logic is, he agrees Loftus didn't come up with the OTF. Why, everyone's been using the OTF well in advance of John, and they've been applying it to other faiths. John's an unoriginal hack, according to him."Where did I say this?
Sorry JakeI thought all Australians were dinkum reasonable people. Clearly you haven't jumped out far enough out from the branches of the tree and are still hanging there with Pel and Jensen and Abbott etc.Clearly the christmyth has you by the knackers and you can only squeak when he squeezes his fist.
"No Anonymous, John developed the OTF, don't kid yourself."Really? Then how was it possible for Charles Williams to discuss the OTF (under a different name) in 1945 in his book "Flecker of Dean Close"? Or even more tellingly, how could G.K. Chesteron have written a book-length treatment on the subject, "The Everlasting Man", even earlier (published in 1925).Both these works, by the way, embrace the OTF concept as a VALIDATION of the Christian Faith. The two writers positively encourage all Christians to examine their beliefs from an outsider perspective, knowing that their faith can only emerge the stronger for having done so.Papalinton, you are constantly projecting your own intellectual insecurities onto others, who don't seem to fear differing perspectives as much as you do. I challenge you to read Chesterton's "Everlasting Man", and see for yourself that Christians have absolutely nothing to fear from the OTF, no matter what it is called.
David Hume discussed a version of the Outsider Test back in the 1760's.But what is really funny is that Loftus is trying to school Matthew Flannagan on Science.Loftus has had no advanced courses in science and...let us remember because he talks about it in WIBA...he couldn't even get past getting D's in High School Algebra.What Loftus knows about Science could apparently be scribbled on about a dozen 3 by 5 cards.As a measure of his scholarhip in this area when he discusses the origin of the universe in WIBA he quotes other atheist authors like Ramsey Steele who are not even scientists.Why are you taking his pronouncements in these areas seriously?And I see he is sending his flack Papalinto over here to argue for him...and, rest assured, that is what he is doing! LOL!
Anyone notice how if someone says the took the Outsider Test and applied it to themselves...and passed!...that Loftus has a fit and says they must not have REALLY taken it?No True Scotsman, at your service.
@ B Prokop"Both these works [Williams and Chesterton], by the way, embrace the OTF concept as a VALIDATION of the Christian Faith. The two writers positively encourage all Christians to examine their beliefs from an outsider perspective, knowing that their faith can only emerge the stronger for having done so."Of course they did, Bob. But your example remind me of Dracula being put in charge of the Blood Bank.For Chesterton and Williams, it was simply an exercise in 'confirmation bias'.
you are invited to follow my blog
B. Prokop, tell me, did William Lane Craig develop the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Yes or no? Don't bother, we both know that he did even if it was proposed earlier by Muslim scholars, or do I need to inform you of this?B. Prokop said I challenge you to read Chesterton's "Everlasting Man", and see for yourself that Christians have absolutely nothing to fear from the OTF, no matter what it is called.Cool, then we are in agreement!Do it then and see what you get. I have not seen one Christian meet my argument head on. All I ever see is special pleading, begging the question, red herrings, the denigrating science, and ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.
Papa, the comparative ecstasy of squeaking seems much more intellectually stimulating then your squawking.You never were really on friendly terms with wit. Thankfully in giving up teaching, you spared your students such an easy target.
Just as I predicted, Lofus comes on here essentially saying that no Christian could have REALLY taken his so called test and passed it.After all, if they passed it, they must not have DONE IT RIGHT!No True Scotsman, there you have it.
I had teachers like Papalinton...arrogant, sarcastic, etc.I know they turned some kids off of education.He is just a flack for Loftus, and no sooner did I mention that in a previous post here comes LOFTUS! Welcome to the tag team.
John, I have pointed out that you have no advanced training is Science.Your response? ...cricketts chirping...So maybe you should quit posturing about how "science" proves your claims when it does no such thing.What do ya think, sport?(P.S. I was going to comment on the pages and pages of your new book now available on Amazon and its lack of use of science but I realize that YOU DIDN'T EVEN WRITE MOST OF IT so I will say more later.)
Morrison, it's a dangerous thing for your faith to have dogged my steps for as long as you have using the false names of Emmanuel Goldstein, Winston Smith, Andrew here, while on Amazon using KC_James, Ana B., and perhaps D. Christensen.Keep it up. As you grow up you may become a moderate then a liberal and you may even lose your faith.So it's a dangerous thing for your faith.I know you'll deny all of this since you are a liar for Jesus. God needs your help, right? He cannot take care of this by himself, right? You are that important, right?Then you have no faith to begin with.
Would someone here please explain to me what the point of engaging with Mr. Loftus is? The majority of the posters on this blog believe him to be the quintessential example of intellectual dishonesty, given his decorated track record and all, and thus a priori no one puts any stock in his responses. It has been decided at the outset that whatever he says will not cause them to change any of their core beliefs.Similarly, Mr. Loftus believes that all of the theists here are either willfully deluded and thus dishonest, or accidentally deluded and thus naive, and hence whatever they say towards him will not affect him in the least bit. To him, their thoughts are not worth taking seriously.So what's the point?
Ah, here is Loftus himself attacking me!With a series of lies no less because I am not any of the people he has named.That doesn't bother John, because he knows he can just smear people and move on...after all, he did it in a published book!So, prove your accusations LOFTUS!But you can't. Your silence will say all that needs to be said.
And while you are facing the fact that plenty of people know your claims are false...Why don't you tell us about your SCIENCE education since you rely on it so much?And if you can't do that...Remember how you said you would debate anyone, if they could set it up?I WILL DEBATE YOU!I have a group that will pay your transportation costs to Lawrence, Kansas and put you up in a good hotel.YOUR CHANCE TO BEAT ME IN A DEBATE and record it!!!As you always say...WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?
Anonymous...you actually raise a good question.But the point is...I WANT TO DEBATE LOFTUS! He said he would debate anyone if they can set it up and I can.As he always says...What does he have to lose?
Morrison, type these words for me if they are true:I, Morrison, do not use the sock-puppet Emmanuel Goldstein, nor do I use the sock-puppet Winston Smith, nor do I use the sock-puppet Andrew at Blogger, nor do I use the sock-puppet KC_James on Amazon, nor do I use the sock-puppet Ana B. or D. Christensen on Amazon, or any of them at all, or may my God in Jesus Christ condemn me for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Morrison, add the sock-puppet Anonymous to the list as well.
I am not any of the people you have named.YOU MADE THE CLAIM.You prove it! You are always saying the one making the claim has the BURDEN OF PROOF.PROVE IT!(And I never joke about blasphempy of that kind, Loftus, nor would I swear by God, and you know it! You claim you used to be a preacher, so you should know no Christian could do that...which makes me wonder about your claims to have ever have actually been a Chrstian for you to even ask someone to do such a thing.)NOW...as to my debate challenge,I pay for your trip, and you get to videotape the event.Just think of the ad in the student paper...Punk Christian Kid debates Atheist With the "EQUIVALENT" of a PH.D.!WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?His reputation as an intelligent, threatening debater and wrihahahahaHA.Nope, couldn't type that one with a straight face!C'mon, John. Let's see you get stomped in debate yet again. That never gets old. ;)By the way, does anyone see the irony in John of all people accusing others of attacking him under a false screen name? Talk about projection.
Papalinton: Actually, some of the people that made the recent legislation possible in NY are Christians, like myself. The neuroscientific findings suggest that we ascribe teleological explanations for things, including behavior of people as well as behavior of comets and asteroids. There's no word for "superstition" there..
What about my debate Challenge, Loftus?!Your transportation costs will be paid, and we will put you up in a good Hotel in Lawrence.Can't you see it now?Punk Christian debates Old Man with the "Equivalent" (not) of a PH.D.You can record everthing!You know what you always say:WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?What's a matta, brother?Are ya...CHICKEN?
Morrison, or Emmanuel Goldstein, Winston Smith, Andrew, KC_James, or Ana B., whoever you are"(And I never joke about blasphempy of that kind, Loftus, nor would I swear by God, and you know it! You claim you used to be a preacher, so you should know no Christian could do that...which makes me wonder about your claims to have ever have actually been a Chrstian for you to even ask someone to do such a thing.)"You do ever so publicly in a court room [I solemnly swear.. ...so help me God]. It is good enough inside the courtroom, so why is it suddenly not good enough outside the courtroom, Emmanuel Goldstein? Yeah, you are a liar for jesus.You know, deep down, have always known deep down, that the christianities is based in myth. In this case a mythtake, a very big mythtake, and you have no idea how you can extricate yourhtelf.
Ah, so Loftus runs away and sends in Papalinton to tell lies for him!Just as I predicted in posts above. Truly amazing. (You do know he has admitted telling lies about people don't you? That he set up a fake blog about J. P. Holding? That he alters posts on his blog? Sure you do...I bet you were just as arrogant and sarcastic to your students as you are here.)Well, Papalinton, since you now make the claim, YOU PROVE IT or be exposed as a Liar for Loftus.In the meantime, I would not swear in a courtroom...witnessess are allowed to affirm rather than swear.And the fact that Loftus would ask such a thing as he did above shows that he was most likely never a Christian himself or he would understand the problem.IN the meantime...tell John to meet my debate challenge.As he loves to say...WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?
@ finney"Papalinton: Actually, some of the people that made the recent legislation possible in NY are Christians, like myself."I am so pleased to hear that you voted that way. I am so pleased that you had the courage of your own convictions to defy what the bible demands we should do to homosexuals. I am glad that you have defied the teachings of Yahweh. I am glad that you have taken the humanist approach to 'interpreting' scripture. Homophobia is lo longer considered an expression of religious freedom. Such religious teaching is anathema to fairness and justice. It is now considered anti-social, anti-society and must be consigned to the wastebin of history. This is something that should have been done a millennia ago, but for the excesses of religious discrimination.Finney, when you strip away all the christian and theist bunk and crud of godism from the fable, the brightest aspects that shine like a sunbeam through the mire are the universal principles of humanism and secularism. That is the quintessential message that transcends the boundaries of community, society and religions.
@ John LoftusIt seems Morrison or Emmanuel Goldstein, or Winston Smith, or Andrew, or KC_James, Ana B., or D. Christensen, or whoever, as well as Anonymous, are beginning to use CAPITALS in the CONVERSATION. You had better watch out or you might be crushed under the 'death of a thousand UPPER-CASE LETTERS'.@ Jake ElwoodAnonymous and Winston Smith use of capital letters. Now *that's* squawking.
Papalinton, do I see you using CAPITAL LETTERS?Do you really think that will hide the fact that you know Loftus makes stuff up about people and SO DO YOU?Do you really think that will hide the fact that you are making claims that you can't prove because they are false?That's, well, that's kind of dumb.Of course, you picture yourself with Dan Barker, another preacher who lied to his congregations when he no longer believed so I am starting to see the pattern here.I bet you were a lousy teacher.
Papalinton, when atheists like you get control, will you try to eliminate Christians just like every Officially Atheistic Government in World History has?After all, won't your "universal principles" of secularism and humanism demand that you STRIP OUT ALL THE Christian and theist crud and bunk?What are you going to do when your "universal" rule is resisted?
Lofty is obsessed with his One Good Idea, which turns out not to be such a good idea after all.
Hey AnonymousAre you the one that has been blocked at Dawkin's website?I've been banned at Triablogue, and as a result their site is as dead as a maggot. In fact all commenters outside the Triablogue brains-trust and accredited sycophants are banned from the site.Just interested.
Just read that excellent review and now I will not be picking up the book. Hector Avalos' bizarre, sickening claim that Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust is indubitable proof that one can be a PhD-holding academic and yet not know what the hell one is talking about. Talk about turning truth completely upside down. Definitely among the most outrageous statements I've ever heard.
"I am glad that you have defied the teachings of Yahweh."Yahweh never exercised capital punishment of people who weren't citizens of Israel, so by agreeing that the state endows homosexuals the right to marry doesn't put me at any odds with the teachings of Yahweh.
Hi Emmanuel Goldstein, Morrison, Winston Smith, Andrew, KC_James, Ana B., D. ChristensenYou ask, "After all, won't your "universal principles" of secularism and humanism demand that you STRIP OUT ALL THE Christian and theist crud and bunk?"Fear not, Andrew, I have no need or desire to ethnically cleanse the christian story. Everybody has a right and are free to believe in whatever they wish. That is what makes secular humanism such a compelling idea. No need for little clubs of christians, and little clubs of Muslims or little clubs of practicing jews to develop sectarian neighborhoods.Isolationism and street-gang club mentality is a function of religiosity that has separated people and humanity at large for millennia. How about this recent example of 'religious cleansing?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyiTlLEfxHsand http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general-discussion/101786-strict-roman-catholic-town-florida.htmlWho is it again, Ana B, that wants to cut out humanity" Who is it again who wants to establish ghettoes either to pen out others, or for themselves? I would suggest only the religiose are driven by such anti-social segregative behaviour spurred on by the mythos of their brand of god.Christian behaviour is becoming more shrill and aberrant, particularly the fundies, as community pressure to justify extraordinary claims increases.
@ Anonymous"Hector Avalos' bizarre, sickening claim that Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust is indubitable proof that one can be a PhD-holding academic and yet not know what the hell one is talking about. Talk about turning truth completely upside down. Definitely among the most outrageous statements I've ever heard."Doris L. Bergen writes in her “Nazism and Christianity: Partners and
Rivals? A Response to Richard Steigmann-Gall, 'The Holy Reich. Nazi
Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945'″ (Journal of Contemporary History Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol 42(1), 25–33. ISSN 0022–0094.DOI: 10.1177/0022009407071629)“Richard Steigmann-Gall has vigorously argued (following here some other scholars) that ‘the insistence that Nazism was an anti-Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years’.While Bergen generally agrees, she identifies certain weaknesses both in the analytical framework and the empirical adequacy of Steigmann-Gall´ work. In effect, Bergen argues that Steigmann-Gall both overplays and underplays his case. One cannot make any justice to the insights of either Steigmann-Gall or Bergen, but the following crucial point stressed by Bergen should be widely known:“The overwhelming majority of Germans remained baptized, tax-paying
members of the official Christian Churches throughout the 12 years of nazi rule. In hindsight, it may seem impossible to reconcile the vicious hatreds of nazism with Christianity’s injunction to ‘turn the other cheek’ or to square the circle of nazi anti-semitism with Christianity’s obvious origins in Judaism. But the vast majority of Germans — over 95 per cent by the last count in 1939 —evidently had no problem doing so.”Indeed. The Nazis could never have overrun Germany except by appealing to interests, beliefs, hopes and fears of Germans who viewed themselves as good Christians. The Nazis did not come to power thanks to some imagined ideological void following the acceptance of “God is dead”. They came to power on the shoulders of German Christianity.”
AnonymousYou say, "Hector Avalos' bizarre, sickening claim that Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust is indubitable proof that one can be a PhD-holding academic and yet not know what the hell one is talking about. Talk about turning truth completely upside down. Definitely among the most outrageous statements I've ever heard."Yes it is the most outrageous statement you've ever heard, but it was not Avalos's. It was Matt and Madeleine that made that statement:"In chapter 14 Hector Avalos selectively argues that Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust."Which is called lying. The closest Avalos makes the connections, and rightly so on the evidence, given the very long and appalling history of christian Anti-semitism from Catholics to Luther's 7-point plan to Calvin's judeo-phobia, is to expose the complicit nature of religion:"Nazism, indeed, was very much at home in a long tradition of Christian anti-Judaism".
@ AnonymousTo this very day, to this very minute, Hitler has not been excommunicated by the Catholic Church. His soul was baptized into the Catholic Christian religion and he remains to this very day 'a catholic kid'. The evidence is still on the record for all to see. His soul didn't go into limb because he was baptized a Catholic. Hitler's soul remains a catholic soul as heinous as it is. He sits right now at the right hand of god having a chuckle. He got away with it under god's supervision. Now *that* is what I call a miracle.
I invoke Godwin's Law (chuckle).
Godwins Law...excellent call.Papalinton loses, again. In the meantime he ignored the fact that Hitler's alleged Catholic beliefs (the evidence ia that he hated the Church and planned to destroy it after he had won the war) were nullified by his Final Act.Suicide. Game over for Hitler.
Papalinton was generous enough to come on the thread making various accusations agasinst me, at the behest of Master Loftus, and then simply ignore the request for proof of his claims, and he has demonstrated that his capacity for blatant Lying equals that of Loftus himselfThat's why it funny to see him accuse others of Lying.What a fine teacher he must have been: not.And I can now state, with Immense Satisfaction...and refer to the evidence on this thread...that I Challenged Loftus to a Debate, offered to pay transportation and lodging expenses, and LOFTUS RAN AWAY.I call that a WIN. LOL!
It has also been established that Loftus himself, who has previously been caught lying to his congregation and family, has been caught making fake blogs about people, and who has demonstrated that he alters posts on his blogs, had no compunctions about just making things up as he goes along and then running away from any challenges.I seriously think he is getting worse, and does not even realize it.But the proof is preserved in this very thread...I am a little suprised that he was so accomodating to tag team with Papalinton and join him in providing so many examples in one convenient thread, which I shall reference on other blogs.It was a good day.Kudos.
So Ana B, or whatever your name is"In the meantime, I would not swear in a courtroom...witnessess are allowed to affirm rather than swear"So, even in a courtroom god can't be trusted to support the truth, so that you have to 'affirm', just like any atheist does. Double-standard Morrison. Yep, too frightened to take the lord's name in the courtroom for fear of lying to the judge.Two-faced and double standards. You present the chimera that is christianity.@ WilliamSorry William you have missed the boat in invoking Godwin's Law. That honor goes to Anonymous who first raised the spectre of the Hitlerian involvement in the Holocaust, six comboxes up from yours.@ Emmanuel Goldstein, Morrison, Winston Smith, Andrew, KC_James, Ana B., D. Christensen, whatever"Papalinton loses, again."Shadow boxing again. I mean, you've had a lot of practice, what with bible-god, bejebus, satan, angels, spirits, devils, all floating around you like a bad smell, as well as all those things that go bump in the night."Papalinton was generous enough to come on the thread making various accusations agasinst me, at the behest of Master Loftus ..."Accusations against you? They are all factual just as Loftus says. And your silence on the matter is a confession of complicity. Morrison, you've been caught out so badly by the god-shaped vacuum in your intellection that reality is but a fleeting moment, a brief and transient glimpse into the natural world you eschew.
I don't see that Morrison has been silent on this issue. Pretty loud mouthed in fact.What is now in question is your honesty, Papalinton (and you are obviously posting for Loftus as this is a tactic he uses to smear people who don't give him positive reviews on Amazon) as you keep making accusations while simply ignoring any challenges to them.The only support you offer is a reference to Loftus himself, a man who has been caught faking blogs and posts. So you are either delusional, in denial, or Willfully Ignorant.As to Christians swearing by God, if Loftus was really the preacher he claimed he was, he would know that Christians are eschewed from taking such oaths. So this tactic lends more credence to the idea that Loftus was never a Christian at all, as has already been pointed out.So, yeah, I thinks its fair to say you lose Papa.A Theist
This site used to have good discussions. WTF.
John Loftus showed up and started having Papalinton start attacking people.I think I will call him Papaloftus from now on.
I must say the discussion is not as enlightening as I would have liked.
Victor,I agree that the overall tone on this thread has been pretty deplorable. But the discussion over on the website you linked to is even worse (I've been making most of my comments over there on this subject).
Usually, when the topic has something to do with John Loftus, the quality of the combox discussion goes to dogs. Just something I've noticed as of late.
Your right BDK and Dr Reppert. Papa and myself have the excuse that we are Australians and as such our comments (sledges, pleasantries, gamesmanship) are just made to try and put people off their game. It's a cultural thing. We do have to be careful in going to far but the ultimate goal is to win. It obviously does not work to well in academic circles, but the in regards to the sporting and political fields it's brilliant. Papa does not play the absurd card becuase it is his nature but becuase it's puts people off their game. Look how Morrison has replied to him. Clearly this is working.Unfortunately for us all there is not umpire or electorate who can say "Out". So this type of behaviour will continue. Papa did you coach league when you were a teacher?
Jake, thanks for letting us know that Papa is just trying to win, and is not really interested in that humanist truth he was talking about.But he did a pretty good job of showing himself to be a liar, and was obviously fronting for Loftus, who, like all would be bullies, is a coward.Oh My! Did I use some ad hominems there!Tough. I am not impressed with Aussies anyway.Prophet Chuck
Chuck When you understand why your not impressed with my nationality you will understand why I am not impressed with yours.”
Jake,I've told this story once before on this website (last August), but it bears repeating:The Lord God had gone missing for 7 days in Heaven, before the archangel Michael discovered Him resting on a cloud, looking quite pleased with Himself. Michael approached His Omnipotence and said, “Lord, we haven’t seen you for days! What have you been up to?”The Almighty turned to Michael and, beaming broadly, replied, “I’ve been creating! Take a look!” Michael gazed out into the void, and gasped at what he saw – the world! “It’s beautiful!”, the angel exclaimed.“Yes”, said the All-knowing. “And best of all, everything is in balance. Look – it’s cold at the poles, and hot in between. Here is a continent of white people, and over here is a continent of black people. It is wet and rainy over here, and dry and desertish over there”.Michael continued to marvel at the globe as it spun before his gaze. Then he noticed two islands coming into view far in the south. “And what is that?”, he asked the All-seeing.“Ah”, came the reply. “There you see my masterpiece! I call it New Zealand. A land of strong men, fair women, gorgeous scenery, rich in natural resources, and home to the most feared rugby team in the universe!”Michael was speechless with awe, as he contemplated this wonder. But then, somewhat confused, he asked, “But Your Everlastingness, you said everything was in balance. Where is the balance for New Zealand?”“Well asked!” responded the All Powerful, “Just take a look at the continent of loudmouthed, arrogant tossers I’ve put right next to it!”
So much discussion here, and none of on the Water Balloons post.
Not to mention 252 comments (so far) on the M and M website!
Jake, sorry but there are two problems.One, you don't know my nationality, and two, you have already given the game away when you admitted that Papalinton was just out to throw people off their game and not trying to promote that secular and humanist truth he was claiming.But you don't get it, do you?This isn't really about atheism or theism at this point, its about Loftus.You see, he seems to have forgotten that he writes about all the people he hurt in his book and throws some of them up for ridicule. Heck, he attacked his own cousin and has posted videos ridiculing his own brothers beliefs on his site. That piece of garbage doesn't care who he hurts.Especially the one he calls 'linda'. Apparently it never occured to him that people who knew her would seriously consider publishing their own version of events.Do you think Loftus will be laughing then? Did that fool think he could smear her and no one would ever call him on it?Wait and see.
Hi Blue Devil Knight"This site used to have good discussions. WTF."I have been dragged down unwittingly into the mire to pitch at the level that christianity best works, at the faery-land level, deep in the bowels of occultic christianity. I don't pretend to not enjoy such discourse but clearly the 'christian' message of its adherents are no better than mine. I don't pretend to be pious, holier than thou, or that because god-faery is on my shoulder I can do anything because it is what god wants me to do.. Christianity, as represented by commenters on this thread, are not leaders and exemplars in morality and ethics as they would want you to believe. Indeed there is absolutely nothing that distinguishes a christian, or marks them out as different, from any of the rest of the population. The christian ethic and the christian ethos is but a charade.Under the pressure of a little challenging, and they are at your throat without compunction. It is symptomatic of a 2,000 year social experiment that has largely failed and is no closer to the truth than the 1stC CE. As christianity and Islam and Judaism have never come close to reconciling their differences and their hatreds during those two thousand years, indeed they relish the prospect of perpetuating it [because it is their only strategy for distinguishing their particular brand of mythos from the others], is it any wonder that people are now calling for a different and a fresh set of eyes.A fresh set of eyes now must look to placing morality, and ethics and justice on a surer footing based on empirical and measurable principles that drive improved standards of behaviour for, and the well-being of, not only fellow humans but all creatures and the environment we inhabit. We share this planet, we *don't* have 'dominion over the birds, and the fishes and the things that crawl' as the religiose profess.
A fresh set of eyes, as Dr Sam Harris [his book The Moral Landscape] is suggesting, would be a good start in excising morality and ethics from the undeserved grasp of religion.
PapaLoftus, you weren't dragged in here unwittingly. Quit trying to weasel out of your complicty.Loftus egged you on, and you acted as his front man.Oh, and you certainly do claim to be a becon of morality as you posture about the shining light of secular and humanist values.Your referencing Sam Harris says it all. That is the man who said "Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."The man who defends pre-emptive nuclear war, the wars in the middle east, torture, the Mecca option and who declared that the Jews had themselves to blame for their own victimhood.I see no superiority; I see men who will tell lies to "win" as your pal Jake did when he let it all out.
@BobYes Bob it is worth repeating, as its frustratingly appropriate in regards to the people. In regards to natural beauty I have to disagree.I know but cannot share it,My love is otherwise.I love a sunburnt country,A land of sweeping plains,Of ragged mountain ranges,Of droughts and flooding rains.I love her far horizons,I love her jewel-sea,Her beauty and her terror -The wide brown land for me! Remember as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI repeated we are the "Great Southern Land of the Holy Spirit". That must be a tick surely?@Anon (Chuck?)Sorry as an Australian I have a very dry sense of humour which is only exacerbated by reduced ability of the internet to communicate subtleties. Anon I can't actually admit anything for Papa, I just made a personal judgment on what I saw as probable likelihood, due to my understanding of our - Papa and I - shared culture. There was a subtleness to my comment about Papa's technique that obviously did not translate well. Sorry. @PapaLike Winston Smith, I have won the victory over myself. I love your discourse. An awesome display of satire -satire at it's best. I apologise for mocking your gamesmanship abilities. (its just your one liners are a disappointing shadow to your prolonged discourse). What was teaching discipline?
VictorI must say I was disappointed by the manner in which this thread unfolded. And yes I was the target of the melee. I was unwittingly drawn into it. My first comment in this thread was to indicate that the mandm article was not a review. In fact, it was a response directed personally to you; "Victor, that is not a review". I made not one other reference but just an open statement in contra to your heading of the OP. I made no value judgements about the content of the mandm piece. It was a comment on your titlepiece. This was followed by:1. "True. It's more like a burial."2. "I thought it was like a roundhouse kick to the brain."3. "It's more than a review, it's a total expose of the double-standards of the Loftus Gang.4. "Well said Steve." These four responses set the scene, the level of the discourse was established, and it was all downhill from there. I was unwittingly dragged into what could only be described as a feeding frenzy and I needed to protect myself. To suggest that mandm's comment was "a roundhouse kick to the brain', overstepped the bounds of civility and decorum.I am sorry for my part in this thread. Perhaps I should have walked away and have left those 'christians' feeding on my carcass.
JakeYou may be a god-botherer but your mind is right.I must confess though I was somewhat startled by your comment, "Well said Steve". Your motivation? I cannot say. You execution? Disappointing. But then, we are all prone to error of judgement.
PapaLoftus, you leave the thread with yet another lie...That you were "unwittingly drawn into".And when you made accusations, and ran away from the challenge to show your claim, and realized you had lost you try to weasel your way out of it.So like your pals Loftus and Barker.And I have the immense satisfaction of saying...which I assure you I will say on other blogs...that I challenged Loftus himself to a debate and he RAN AWAY!LOL!
BDK, I agree with you. I use to come here in order to have a break from Facebook debates where the general populace doesn't seem to care if they are making a fallacious argument or not.
Post a Comment