Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Godless Life Part 4

In this argument, Loftus wants us to be wary of those who claim to have ultimate values. (Yes. That value of loving your neighbor as yourself is deadly.)  He speaks of the Crusades for instance. What books has Loftus really read on the Crusades? Unfortunately, none are given. Why is it so awful that the Christians wanted to free Jerusalem? Does Loftus need to remember that this was in response to the Muslims going on their raid first?

Is it necessarily bad just because Christians fought it? Now I won’t defend all of the Crusades, but I don’t see how you can just make a blanket statement that all of them were wrong. Actually, I do see how you can do that. You can make such a statement if you don’t read the historians on them and instead assume that what you are told about them from anti-Christians is correct.

And slavery? First off, slavery was not just done by the Jews. It was done by everyone. It was seen as a way of life. Aristotle even told us that some people were meant to be slaves. However, this slavery was far different from anything seen in the Civil War time period. In fact, it was the coming of Christianity that eventually ended slavery.

Loftus also talks about scientific progress being impeded by Christians. I just wish he’d have given an example. The other crimes include forbidding same-sex marriage, impeding the progress of feminism, and intolerance and bigotry towards atheists and agnostics.

Let’s see. We think the first one is a sin and harmful to both parties and society as a whole. You need to show we’re wrong first. The second, we have nothing against women moving up in the world, but we have a problem if it’s a feminism that sees women as superior to men. As for the last, I’d like more agnostics and atheists to speak up. Go on and show how bankrupt your arguments are.

In all of this though, Loftus needs to wake up to the reality of what happens when there are no absolute values. Gulag Archipelago anyone? Would he prefer we jettison absolute values? If that’s the case, then he’s also just thrown out his argument from evil which is so precious to him. Never mind that we could just ask him the absolute value he’s appealing to to say these things are absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

I wish we could say there’s more, but sadly, there isn’t. It’s the kind of pedantic whining that seems to repeat itself constantly. We’ll look at argument five tomorrow.

10 Responses to “Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Godless Life Part 4”

  1. Chaotic Void Says:

    “Impeding Scientific Progress”?

    I’d like to see an example of this as well…

    “Forbidding Same-Sex Marriage”?

    It brings nothing Good or even Original to the Community/State, so I see no reason why it should be legalized.

    “Impeding the Progress of Feminism”?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but these days women are equal to men; if they were any more equal, people’d have the same genitals.

    “Intolerance and Bigotry towards Atheists and Agnostics”?

    From my experience, it’s more often the other way around. I’ve been ridiculed simply for being a Christian. On the other hand, “Be Informed or Be Amusing” is my policy towards everyone in general, not just Atheists and Agnostics.

    [Overall, just the Ye Olde Standard Atheist Canards(tm)]

  2. John W. Loftus Says:

    BTW you don’t know how to review a book, do ya? You must at least end with an overall assessment of the books strengths and weaknesses, who would benefit from it the most, what you learned from reading it, as well as stating its weaknesses. From all I can gather you think there is nothing but weaknessess init, and that’s not a fairminded review. If you were my student and you turned this in I would require you to take an Engish composition class to learn how it should be done, something you should’ve learned in High School. But no, you’ve learned how to write reviews from an ex-librarian who should himself know better, which means the only reason he doesn’t do it is because he’s being purposely disengenuous.

  3. Chaotic Void Says:

    John…
    It’s not a matter of how Nick formats his review. What matters is whether or not his critique holds water. If you say that it doesn’t hold water, then you have to expose the holes in his critique. So far, you’ve failed to do that; instead you’ve prattled on about his format, called him ignorant, linked to his review in your blog and let your hounds insult him to stroke your ego.

    And why the hell do you always have to bring up JP when even his mere existence is completely irrelevant to this discussion? Is “James Patrick Holding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder” a real mental condition or something?
    This, combined with that Podcast you were in, is starting to convince me that JPHOCD is, in fact, a bona-fide mental condition.

  4. Raphael Says:

    John, I take it you don’t know the difference between a critical review as opposed to the typical “wot i red last week” type of review that disgraces local rags everywhere?

  5. John W. Loftus Says:

    Naw, this distinction is arbitrarily used as an excuse to only point out the flaws or weaknesses of a book, and as such it’s not really critical at all. What you’ve got is a rant. A rant is not being critical enough, and it sure as hell isn’t anything that a fairminded person would care to read.

  6. Chaotic Void Says:

    John, a Critical Examination is SUPPOSED to point out the flaws and weaknesses. Just look up the word “Criticism.”

    One would think an author would be happy to be able to get his book critiqued so thoughroughly for Free… But if all you want to do is whine, then that’s your problem.

  7. J. P. Holding Says:

    Okey doke:

    Strengths of your book: The glue used on the spine is very good.

    Weaknesses of your book: Please see all of Nick’s essays.

    Who would benefit from it the most: The landfill industry.

    What I learned from reading it: John Loftus is a used car salesman with severe emotional problems and a taste for strippers.

    >>>From all I can gather you think there is nothing but weaknessess init, and that’s not a fairminded review.

    It is if that’s all there is inside….duh ah…

    >>>>If you were my student and you turned this in I would require you to take an Engish composition class to learn how it should be done, something you should’ve learned in High School.

    CRJ’s editor said on the Hanegraaff show that I was one of their most clear writers. I’d say Nick is doing a great job. In fact I’ve encouraged him to submit to CRJ. I also have a degree in English with a literature emphasis and a library science degree which included training in the evaluation of sources.

    So that makes me quite qualified to say: Loftus, your book sucks.

  8. John W. Loftus Says:

    Yeah, it sucks so much that Nick wasted a great deal of time on it when there are much better books out there. That makes rational sense.

    BTW name me several skeptical books that are good for comparison. As far as I know you know none, and if that’s the case then I’m in good company.

  9. J. P. Holding Says:

    >>>Yeah, it sucks so much that Nick wasted a great deal of time on it when there are much better books out there.

    No there aren’t actually. They ALL suck. Though some suck worse than others.

    But anyway, Nick and I mainly get kicks out of watching you squirm at this point.

    >>>BTW name me several skeptical books that are good for comparison.

    As far as what? Level of stupidity? OK. Your book sucks less than this one I just picked up by Burton Wolfe that says stuff like the Annals of Tacitus are 15th century forgeries. It sucks about the same as Martin’s Case Against Christianity, though. Same goofball exegesis and ignorance of basic Christian doctrine. Some others on the same level of suckiness of yours would be:

    All in the Mind, Ludovic Kennedy
    Art of Reading the Bible, A. J. Mattill
    Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith
    anything by Randel Helms

    I could name a few more but I have better things to do and it’s not like your book will suck less because I name others like it.

  10. Raphael Says:

    What this demonstrates is that John is unable to take the slightest criticism of his work.

    Had Nick only posted a typical “local rag” type review, John would have complained that it didn’t deal with the issues he raised. So now we have Nick doing a critical review of the work, and John complains that Nick goes into too much detail.

Leave a Reply