In the wake of his debate with Dinesh D’Souza on whether or not the Christian God exists, John Loftus says that even if he didn’t win, he learned a lot. I asked him if, given his loss (as a few people see it – including Loftus I think) in this debate, he was still hoping to debate William Lane Craig, something he has wanted for a while. After all, I figured, although D’Souza is good at what he does, Craig is more qualified and experienced. John’s answer was bold enough: “I’m not afraid. I’ll debate any Christian any time. Are you game?”

For those who follow this blog, you may have just done a double take. At this blog I publicly offered to debate John Loftus, back in April 2009.  Being somewhat amused by this apparent challenge, I reminded John that he had already received such an offer from me but had not taken it up. Here’s what came next: “Glenn, what are you talking about? I have no recollection of this.”

I thought I’d do him the favour of jogging his memory. I have also pointed this out in the comments thread. Here is what transpired here in April 2009:
Read the rest of the entry »

On the 9th of February 2010 at the University of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana campus) Dinesh D’Souza debated John Joftus on the question “Does the Christian God Exist”?

There exists a broad consensus among those who I have read assessing the debate, whether Christian or sceptic (including John Loftus himself). I won’t tell you what that consensus is. By the time you’ve watched the debate, I won’t need to. Here’s part one of the debate. There are thirteen parts:

As you listen to this debate, bear a couple of things in mind. Firstly, D’Souza is a good presenter of arguments and I would take no credit from him. However, it’s not terribly controversial to say that he isn’t the most academically esteemed defender of Christianity out there. Someone like William Craig would take that title, and perhaps the title of the best public defender of Christianity as well. Bear in mind, in light of how you see this debate unfold, that John Loftus wants a public debate with William Lane Craig. For the sake of the Christian cause, I’d really like that to happen. But I doubt that it will. That would be like Ken Ham demanding that Richard Dawkins publicly debate him on Darwinism. It would be great for Darwinism, but it will never ever happen.

As many readers will know, shortly after the earthquake in Haiti that did so much damage and claimed so many lives, Pat Robertson (a somewhat notorious televangelist involved in what has been dubbed “Word of Faith” theology) said something (I suppose I should say that he said yet another thing) that Christians in general didn’t think much of. His claim is that in history, the Haitians of the time made a pact with the devil to obtain freedom from servitude to the French, and that because of this, they have suffered numerous travesties since then, including this earthquake. Here he is in action:

Unsurprisingly, the response to this from the Christian community has been fairly negative. Christian theology just doesn’t teach this. The idea that whenever something bad happens to a person or to a group it is the result of a wicked thing previously done by that person or group is not one that you can find in the work of any major Christian theologian in history, as far as I am aware (I am setting aside for now the obvious fact that in this case the people who suffered and died were not even the same people who allegedly swore this pact – a pact for which there’s really no evidence anyway). For that matter, it is not taught in the Bible either. In fact there are passages in the Bible that directly deny this view.
Read the rest of the entry »

There’s a difference between being educated and being indoctrinated. According to our old friend John Loftus, the latter is what those brainwashing institutions also known as “Bible Colleges” do. Speaking of his own experience, he says, “When I went to Bible College I was not educated. I was indoctrinated. While other believers will protest that their Christian college was different, I wonder if that’s true.”

Even if you’ve been to Bible College and you’re pretty sure you got an education and not an indoctrination, be warned: Loftus doubts you. However, there is one place where John is prepared to say that indoctrinating isn’t going on – John Brown University. Over there, students are getting an education. What’s the difference there? What is Dan Lambert at John Brown U doing that counts as an education and stops the class from falling into an indoctrination setting. It’s elementary really:

Read the rest of the entry »

Over the last few years I’ve noticed a pattern. I’ve seen plenty of skeptics present arguments against Christianity or certain aspects of Christianity like its moral code, its metaphysical beliefs and so forth. What I’ve noticed is that when a spokesperson presents an argument (say, against the “horrible” God of the Old Testament) and the fans or fellows gather around and agree loudly, it is seen as not merely mistaken, but actually inappropriate or somehow bad form – ruining the party I guess – to step forward and point out that whatever its logical merits (or lack thereof), the argument actually gets the facts wrong.

I can recall discussions on abortion, for example, where skeptics have regarded me as “pedantic” for explaining the meaning of biblical language in Exodus 21 or Genesis 2:7 (even where the meaning of this language was central to their own argument). I’ve encountered skeptics who try to argue that the Old Testament teaches polytheism, and they’ve gotten literally angry with me when I explain the way the plural elohim is used in Scripture (because that word forms a key part of their argument). Sometimes the facts are just annoying, and to bring them up is just nitpicking and anti-social.

The most recent case is that of John Loftus. Loftus has complained in the past about the fact that the Old Testament endorses slavery. He describes the brutality of slavery in the southern states (when people were kidnapped in Africa and sold to slave traders traveling to the New World ) including the vicious beating and mistreatment of slaves, and connects this to the Old Testament, saying “Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?”

One response that has been available to this challenge for a very long time is that offered by John Locke and by a whole range of Christian thinkers as well. For a good summary of these argument check out a recent blog by Matt over at M and M. The thrust of the reply is to point out certain facts about “slavery” as described in the Torah. The word `eved refers to anyone who works (or worships, actually), and is related to the verb for “work,” so that a farmer who “works the soil” slaves away at the soil. The actual description of Old Testament slavery is revealing. As Matt notes, 1) Kidnapping is a capital offence in the Torah (Ex 21:16), and slave trading appears to be condemned in a couple of New Testament texts as well, 2) an `eved is stated to be a person with the same value as other people, 3) harming or killing an `eved was prohibited and subject to punishment, 4) being an `eved was a temporary arrangement and did not last indefinitely, and 4) it was against the law to return a fleeing `eved to a master.

Given what the Bible actually prohibits and condemns in these requirements, the Old Testament actually condemns what we call “slavery” as it was practiced in the southern states. Check out Matt’s post and the comments for a fuller explanation. In short, if the facts presented by Locke and others are indeed facts, then the Old testament does not endorse “slavery” but clearly condemns it. But what I noticed in particular is that Loftus has now replied with a post of his own – not a post about how Matt has the facts wrong. No, nothing of the sort, but instead a complaint that what Matt is doing is “nit picking”! In his post, “Nit pickers have started to attack,” he replies:

What I find interesting, Matt, is that you have not addressed my main question in my book: “Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?…why didn’t God tell his people, “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves,” and say it as often as he needed to?

Apparently it’s just in poor taste and really just skirts around the edges to point out that contrary to the claims that some skeptics love to make, the Old Testament does not endorse what we call slavery. But I daresay that annoyance has clouded John’s vision, for what has been shown is that in fact God did condemn kidnapping and/or mistreating people, the very things that Loftus is concerned about and which he is calling “slavery.” it may be irritating to have the rug ripped out from under your argument, but getting annoyed and demanding that people deal with the “main” argument by pretending that the rug is still there (for the sake of your argument and nothing else) is a bit of an ask, don’t you think? Why not just graciously thank the other person for their helpful explanation and remove the argument from your repertoire? Does skepticism really need this argument to work that much? Are the facts really that annoying that when they are brought up you dismiss them as side issues or distractions?

But as if this isn’t enough, look at the emphasis given to the false claim about a “side issue”:

Was your God as clear on this issue as he was about murder? Oh, that’s not a good analogy because, well, you know, genocide, the witch hunts, heresy trials and the crusades. Hmmmm. Okay, let’s try this one: Was your God as clear about this as he was that we should love our neighbors? Oh, that’s not a good analogy because, well, you know, the question was “who is my neighbor?” right? But once you get my point you’ll have no good answers to this problem and you know it, so instead you side-step it as you did here. That’s what it takes to believe, Matt, side stepping problems because you cannot reasonably explain them.

Notice two things: Firstly, virtually everything in the above quote is in fact a case of “side stepping.” It makes literally no attempt to engage the facts that the Christian reply raises, instead it leaps away to other “bogeymen” type argument full of rhetorical flourish. But secondly, Loftus repeats the claim that the facts that Christians bring up here (namely, the fact that biblical servitude was very different from the case of southern slavery that Loftus describes, and that God actually condemns those practices explicitly and on more than one occasion) are side steps, and that to even mention them at all is just an attempt to get away from the challenge altogether because the Christian has “no answers.”

That’s right. To actually reply by saying that the skeptic has the facts wrong is just not the thing to do, because it distracts from the fun of, well, skepticism! What a bunch of party poopers those Christians are.

Glenn Peoples

Virtually all commentators, whether Christian or atheist (not all, but nearly all – and at the risk of sounding somewhat elitist, everyone who is in a position to know) who have heard/seen the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens have concluded that it wasn’t even close. Hitchens lost and lost clearly, and Craig’s arguments carried the day.

John Loftus agrees with this assessment. John runs the Debunking Christianity blog. He’s an atheist who once professed Christian faith, and he was a student of Bill Craig at one point. We’re not bosom buddies or anything, but I’ve had some dealings with him in the past, and while I think some of the arguments he might have sympathy for are pretty bad, and while I think some of the arguments he doesn’t care for are actually pretty good, and while I think he’s about as wrong as a person can be on the God question and on the significance of Christ, I actually kinda like the guy.

Loftus would like to debate Bill Craig at some point. I can’t see it happening any time soon, and that has to do with Bill’s general policy on debating former students (says Loftus), and to do with Loftus’s departure from the Christian faith, something that Craig finds tragic. But who knows, maybe something will work out at some point. Time will tell. In the meantime, in the thread that I linked to above, I’ve made the offer that if John would like some shooting practice, I’d be happy to engage him in debate. Whether or not that will come to pass in any organised way remains to be seen, but here’s hoping. I’ve suggested the moral argument for theism as a possible topic, but I’m open to more general subjects like whether or not God exists.