John Loftus argues

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:57 am

You know, I was an Evangelical for years. Not once was it ever taught in any church I attended that God had created the universe for mankind. You know why? Because if you truly believe in "Scripture Alone," then you have to read the Bible for what it says, and it never says that. In fact, the Book of Job in particular makes it clear that God made things for purposes of His own that have nothing to do with us.

Now, I have heard Evangelicals say things casually, along the lines of "God made butterflies because He knew they would make us happy," but that has always been understood as a subjective statement. It actually means, "God made butterflies knowing they would make us happy," but I've never heard an Evangelical categorically say that the whole and only reason God made a thing was just to please us. Sure, He's glad beautiful things please us-- sure, Fathers like to please their children, and that may have entered into the equation when He conceived of the universe-- but that He made things just to please us? No. I think this is a misunderstanding of Evangelical doctrine.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by Metacrock » Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:40 pm

ZAROVE wrote:I looke dover the Debunking Christianity Blog, and left osme replies. THe quality of which slipped as I grwow tired now.

But, neverhteless, it seems the same old tired arugments pased off as brillaint, with the usual hostile tone, that doesnt' mask the fact that the Arguments, no matter how often the authors insist they are, are not base dupon reaosn and Logic.

They are often severly flawed and the basic assumotisn are oftne off.

I know they are all hype. They are all self published too.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by ZAROVE » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:10 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:You know, I was an Evangelical for years. Not once was it ever taught in any church I attended that God had created the universe for mankind. You know why? Because if you truly believe in "Scripture Alone," then you have to read the Bible for what it says, and it never says that. In fact, the Book of Job in particular makes it clear that God made things for purposes of His own that have nothing to do with us.

Now, I have heard Evangelicals say things casually, along the lines of "God made butterflies because He knew they would make us happy," but that has always been understood as a subjective statement. It actually means, "God made butterflies knowing they would make us happy," but I've never heard an Evangelical categorically say that the whole and only reason God made a thing was just to please us. Sure, He's glad beautiful things please us-- sure, Fathers like to please their children, and that may have entered into the equation when He conceived of the universe-- but that He made things just to please us? No. I think this is a misunderstanding of Evangelical doctrine.

BUT...But John Loftus was a Minister and Apologist, so he must understand Evangelical theology. HOW DARE YOU SAY OTHERWISE! He knos it backward and forard, because h as a Minister!

He was an evangelical pastor and Apologist so thus knows Christainity!

WHO AE YOU TO SAY OTHERWISE!

( yes, Sarcasm.)

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:27 pm

Incedentlaly, John Loftus has posted a second article about this topic, this itme in defence of the Argument mad eby Everitt about hte Size f the Universe.

It seems odd that he'd need to post a Defence, but he must have felt theneed to. But, after the last post about htis argument was met with nothign but Critisism about hwo weak it was, that he never addressed, he felt compelled to post a new article, which still doesn't address the Critisism raised by his initial post.

It does, however, raie the Spectres of old Myths. Such as the Gallilio affair beign abotu religion blidnign us ot reality, and how Religoous views of the owrld wher ebehidn it, or how the Hebrews beelived the Earth as flat and covered by a Dome. ( The last one is particulalry speculative, and supporte dby diverse and desperate Bible verses intepreted to fgive the desired result.)


His defence of the Everitt Universal size arugment also features critisism of others claimign emotional connotaiton tot he arugent.

He still, hwoever, has not addressed the cental Critissms ot his arugment.

1: Christians do not acutlaly teahcthat mankind is the putposeof all Creaiton.

Sure, soem may, but not all, or even most, do, and it is nto a Doctirne of the CHristian Faith.

2: EVen if it where true that Christianity teaches that all fo Creation was made for man, it doe snot logiclaly follow that Creaiton shoudl thus be small. WHy shoudl we expect a small Universe form God?

3: To support 1 nd 2, even inthe Middle Ages, Christian theologians and Philosophers speculated upon the matter of he Size of he Universe, with many thinkign it woudl be large, and others htinkign it infiite. THe claim that this as only thouthof after modern sicnece came along, and that only then did Religous leaders accept it when irrevocable evience was shown, is ludecrous.

At any rate, I ooste don Debunkign Christainity in reponce ot he defence. The baove is not my reply, but nevertheless...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by Metacrock » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:58 am

I guess these boards are over. it's going south now.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by ZAROVE » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:26 pm

How is it gogn south? FOr a board thats less than two months old, we have new members, and osme old members form the old board.

Seems ot be fine really.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:17 pm

I note we're up to 26 members-- up from 19 in just over a week, and that the newest member joined just in the last day or two. Welcome new members! :D

Don't be discouraged, Metacrock-- a slight lull in postings on any board is a very normal thing.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by Metacrock » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:12 pm

thanks Kristen. I like the way these look. but no one will stick. I don't mean to make you and Zor and typo feel like I don't appreciate you being here. I really do. But I feel like I threw away a perfectly good community with 800 some odd memebers for one no one will stay on.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: John Loftus argues

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:06 pm

To be fair, most of th 800 or so memebrs on the old board dint post much ither, many hadn't fr years.

Several have been out off by me, in an unusual anger and hatred.

Of ocurse they blame my personality, but the same phoenomenon has happend on Tthe Debuking Christianity blog, and I'ce not relaly sais much there.

I thinkthemain problem is that you are kown as a hotheaded apoloist and the rest of us are seen as freaks because the theists aee mroe use to evangelicals and debatin them, and the evangelicals disliek anythign thats nto evangelical.

But it'll gorw if givn time, we're nto alone int he UNiverse.

Post Reply