Loftus-Delusion by David Reuben Stone

April 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM 4 comments

John W. Loftus wrote a book a while ago claiming that he was once an authentic Christian, who was also a preacher, but through a series of events, he wound up not only walking away from the ministry and Christianity, but has also become an avowed atheist.

I actually do not like bringing up John’s name here because he is so into having people critique him, or his book that he labels people like myself “fleas.”  He unfortunately believes that if someone negatively reviews his position or his book, they do so only because they want to ride his shirt tails to success, or the limelight.  He believes this and takes his cue from atheist Dawkins who essentially coined the term.

However, what I have recently come across has brought a smile to my lips.  When I first sent a copy of my book – The Anti-Supernatural Bias of Ex-Christians – to him (as a courtesy since I had spent 110 pages reviewing his book), he told me that my book was “lame,” and had “no substance.”

That did not really bother me at all.  What bothered me is that he simply set my review aside without responding directly to it.  Apparently, Loftus believes (at least with my book) that if he approached it with the attitude that there was really nothing there to respond to, that would take care of it, no further comment needed.

Since then, I have entered into several discussions with John on Amazon.com and have found that he does the same thing there.  No matter what is stated to him, rather than respond to comments made, he prefers to simply make generalizations or declarations about the comments.  He will also completely ignore cogent points made to him, preferring instead to go around the comments altogether, in effect redirecting the conversation.

As stated, I thought it was just with me, but quite by accident I came across a website by David Reuben Stone he created called “The Loftus Delusion.”  What is interesting is that Stone has also published a book by the same name and believe his book is a careful, insightful, and defininite rebuttal to Loftus’ position.

I have ordered the book (available through Amazon) and will offer a review of it in the near future.  Stone sent Loftus a courtesy copy of the book and asked him (Loftus) to read through it, offering a critique of it, in the interest of open dialogue.  Loftus did so (or says he did), and offered a critique of it on his own blog.  What I found extremely interesting however is that true to form, Loftus’ made sweeping generalizations like Stone’s book “is not a well planned out book,” or “It’s really too bad I didn’t even bother to follow it, as I think most readers won’t.  For there is nothing about the ID thesis I find compelling at all, and it does not lead reasonable thinkers to conclude anything other than that some trickster god exists,” or still, “It’s just that I have lots of reasons for thinking it’s not worth it, so I didn’t” referring to why he did not bother to deal with Stone’s arguments against Loftus’ position.

I then began to see that this is how Loftus deals with things of this nature.  On one hand, he is attempting to project the demeanor that to really address my book’s comments, or Stone’s book is beneath him (Loftus), and it’s almost through a type of sleight of hand (except with words) that he casts disagreement off to the side.  He is attempting to make people believe that the folly of mine or Stone’s arguments are so obvious that anyone with half a brain would see through the arguments.  However, it is all too clear that Loftus is doing nothing more than sidestepping issues.

Loftus has no answers and certainly no adequate answer at all for an honest critique of his books.  Sure, if you travel over to Amazon.com, search for his books and read through the comments, an overwhelming majority are fully in favor of what John Loftus has written.  However, it is more than interesting to read comments by Edmund G. Lowrie, who seems to be fairly unbiased in his review, and yet even he comments that some of Loftus’ arguments are simply “silly.”

John W. Loftus and his buddy atheists are militant in their attacks of Christianity.  They do not attack Islam, Hinduism or religions of that nature.  They attack Christianity and they do so with a vengeance.  My own book (Anti-Supernatural Bias) has its share of negative reviews, thanks to atheists who pretend they have read it, but their comments are so general, they could have been reviewing any Christian-themed book out there!  One reviewer made the comment that a much better book than mine to read would have been Dan Barker’s book (in which he also claims to have been a Christianity evangelist who left Christianity).  The problem of course, is that my book is nothing like Barker’s book.  If truth be told, why would the reviewer recommend Barker’s book since it was essentially like Loftus’ book?  He obviously compared mine to Barker’s, yet other reviewers denied that this is what he was doing.

It’s a game these people play.  They believe if they can pan a Christian-related book that critiques or questions one of their own, then people will not buy it.  If people do not buy it, then they will not read about the holes in Loftus’ analysis of Christianity, and why he thinks he was one to begin with.

Regardless of what Loftus or any other atheist thinks, he needs to get off the “Iwas a Christian, but no longer” train.  He was NEVER a Christian.  He merely acted the part.  He did things Christians do, but according to Jesus’ own words, John W. Loftus was not a genuine Christian, since there was absolutely no new birth, or spiritual transaction, which Christ speaks of in John 3.  Loftus has admitted as much, yet refuses to back off on his claims.  I guess it’s profitable wearing the “ex-Christian” badge on your sleeve.

It’s really funny in a way.  Though Loftus fully rejects Christianity, preferring to believe that no personal God of any kind exists, he certainly does not mind making money off the subject, does he?  In truth, he’s no different than the charlatan evangelists who appear on the TV, or we hear on the radio.  After all, they are guilty of panhandling for Jesus Christ.  John W. Loftus and his ilk are merely guilty of using Jesus Christ to panhandle for themselves.  In the end, there is really no difference, because both groups are making their money off of Jesus Christ and Christianity, while both are also pretending that they are altruistic in their motives.

John W. Loftus is not only not altruistic in his motives, but people are beginning to see that he is completely dishonest in his reasoning, his thinking and his conclusions about Christianity.  Loftus needs to wake up and stop claiming to have been something he was not.  That won’t happen, since it would drastsically affect his wallet, negatively.

If you would like to keep abreast of the running debate between Loftus and Stone, I recommend checking out Stone’s website at:

http://www.loftus-delusion.com/answeringjohnwloftus.html

Stone not only shows Loftus for who he truly is, but makes it impossible for intelligent people to miss the fact that Loftus has no response, but prefers to pretend that he has no interest in what Stone has written.

Sorry John, but that’s not going to keep working.  Unlike what you actually believe about yourself, you are not a genius who does not need to stoop to respond to arguments you believe are beneath you.  People are realizing that it’s a facade, and that you in fact have no answer at all, and your attempts to brush off Stone’s arguments, mine or anyone else’s is merely a smoke screen that shows you for who you are – a fake.

The militancy of the atheists who hang around Amazon.com is obvious.

Entry filed under: Atheism and religion, Demonic, Eastern Mysticism, Life in America, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation. Tags: , , , , , .

Unique Identification Number Is Up and Coming! Noah’s Ark Finally Found! NOT

4 Comments

  • 1. Yochanan Schloftus  |  February 3, 2011 at 11:15 PM

    Isn’t it implicit in being an “ex-Christian” that one would accept an “anti-supernatural” conclusion? I’m not sure coming to accept naturalism as a conclusion of a process of experience and reasoning constitutes a bias; in fact, it sounds like the opposite of a bias.

    • 2. modres  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:34 AM

      The main reason I chose the title of my book as The Anti-Supernatural Bias of Ex-Christian… was because that was the conclusion that John arrived at in his book. He believes that he and others like him have an anti-supernatural bias, which ultimately means that the path they choose for themselves is due to that particular bias. In other words, BECAUSE John is anti-supernatural, he then BECAME what he calls an “ex-Christian,” not the other way around.

      I see where John is going but I also agree with you that it may in fact be the opposite of a bias. John fully believes he makes a good deal of sense, when unfortunately, it can be and has been clearly shown that he does not. This fact does not deter John. I have noticed that one of his favorite responses to anything critical of his position is something along the lines of “there’s really nothing in there that warrants a response.” He has done this so many times that it has become laughable. What he is really saying is that any revelatory information that may in fact, point out the holes in his argument is really nothing. I’ve critiqued his work, David Reuben Stone has critiqued it, and others have critiqued it. We can’t all have said nothing, but that is the way John prefers to view things, with his arguments apparently being insurmountable. Tragically, they are not at all insurmountable and in fact, many of his arguments are simply juvenile.

      On one hand, it’s too bad that Loftus has received so much press from those who disagree with him because it makes him believe that his arguments are really way beyond critique. In truth, the reason many have critiqued his work is simply because the holes are obvious, though John prefers not to see that. It could be said that not only does John have an anti-supernatural bias, but he also has an anti-truth bias as well.

  • 3. modres  |  April 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM

    Thank you for writing, John. You see the problem one way, but it is seen by others another way. You SEEM to very cavalierly dismiss points of contention from people who disagree with your current belief system. You did this with mine stating that as simply having “no substance,” and “lame.” You seem to have done the same thing with Stone’s response to your rebuttal, but with different verbiage.

    I don’t see Christians as always having the last word, John. We are completely outnumbered. This seems especially so when we are constantly ganged up on by militant atheists.

    I honestly do not believe that Christians expect Dawkins to respond to ALL comments and criticisms of his books and/or opinion. Many could actually care less. What is expected is a seasoned, intelligent response to at least the most important aspects of what he (or in your case, you) are espousing. That is certainly not unreasonable at all and authors experience this all the time. It comes with the territory.

    YOU have published two books, which either directly or indirectly attack the tenets of Christianity. For you to think that no one is going to respond with rebuttals to your position is naive. For you to ALSO believe that by simply saying (as you did above), “Stone did not refute me in the slightest” does not work in any kind of setting, much less an academic one.

    Can you imagine in a court of law if you tried that? You have made statements, which you purport to be true about God and Christianity. It is your obligation to PROVE beyond doubt that your new belief system is true. BECAUSE of you have put forth your position, you have obligated yourself to protect and defend it. It is not defended by making generalized statements as you have done above and continue to do. The prosecuting attorney would be viewed as a moron if all she said in rebuttal to the defense was “No your honor. That is not true. I rest my case.” WHY is it not true? Explain it.

    As I have said repeatedly, while you CLAIM to have been an authentic Christian, it is clear from the testimony in your own book that you could NOT have been and I believe I proved that from quoting your book AND comparing it with Scripture. Yet, you continue to claim that you were a Christian, in spite of the fact that your definition of being a Christian is NOT something that is supportable from the Bible. If we are talking about something that is based on the Bible, then it is obvious that the Bible must be considered in that discussion.

    There is NOTHING in Scripture that supports the idea that praying the “sinner’s prayer,” or “asking Jesus into my heart,” makes someone a Christian. Moreover, all the things you say you did (and I do not doubt that you did them) can be done by anyone – whether Christian or no.

    The largest argument against your professed Christianity is the parable of the wheat and tares. Since you now believe that you have actually LEFT Christianity, while at the same time believe that no personal God DOES exist, or has EVER existed, this alone proves that you could not have actually been a Christian, if the Bible’s definition of it is taken into consideration.

    I also believe Stone has you against a wall with his arguments about “neutral agnostisicm” vs. “skeptical agnosticism.” The very concept of a skeptic means that they DISBELIEVE until proven otherwise (you said so yourself in so many words). A neutral agnostic simply means they have no opinion either way and are completely open to either direction. Obviously, this position is one which by far, has more merit than any other position.

    Your anti-neutral (as Stone calls it) position pits you against anything that is connected in any way, shape, or form to a system that believes in a personal God of any kind.

    This is also not unusual, given your background. Most people who come OUT of some faith (Christianity, or other) are often skeptical at the least, to antagonistic, to even hostile at most. For these individuals, it is nearly impossible for them to approach this subject with any sense of neutrality. That is clear in your first book.

    It is easy to see this in militant atheists. Johnny P. – the guy who jumped into the conversation and kept responding to me is a case in point. He is completely hostile to the idea that Christians exist and they believe in a personal God. To him, this is so pointless that it is beyond belief. His attitude shows it. Nothing can be said to Johnny P that will cause him to see any error in his belief system.

    In the end John, no one expects you to answer all points. What we expect is a rational, coherent, thoughtful response to major rebuttals to your position, since you are the one who came out with both guns blazing against Christianity (not in a hostile way, but with strength of conviction). Why for goodness sakes, would you think that Christians would simply let it stand without rebuttal?

  • 4. John W. Loftus  |  April 27, 2010 at 4:21 AM

    Here’s the problem when I respond, like I did with Stone. It takes time. Since he seems to have one object of focus and I am criticized nearly every day by someone he can repeatedly respond to what I write. I will never have the last word. I thought that would be true of you too, so I didn’t even respond. Now you have confirmed it with me on Amazon and here. I won’t ever have the last word because I don’t have the time to do so. In fact, given the number of Christians writing and blogging now skeptics are outnumbered so Christians will always have the last word. Dawkins, for instance, writes “The God Delusion” and he cannot respond to them all, so Christians can wipe their hands and say “we’ve answered him.” Have they? Well, they wrote more than he did, didn’t they? Same with me. Stone did not refute me in the slightest. His book is as I say. He doesn’t understand the difficulties his position leads him to. He’s dead wrong on all counts.

    I may write more about his book, and maybe yours too, so stay tuned.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,198 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Blog Stats

  • 276,416 hits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,198 other followers

%d bloggers like this: