Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

[salvorhardin]

Former evangelical minister turned atheist, and author of the new book Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, spoke here in Fort Wayne a couple of nights ago. The event was organized by Freethought Fort Wayne (of which I'm a member). I've written up some of my thoughts at my site and thought I'd share them here.

John Loftus, the former evangelical minister turned atheist, author of the soon to be released book Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity and founder of the group blog Debunking Christianity gave a lively talk Wednesday night at the Allen County Public Library. The event, which saw about 40 people in attendance, was organized by Freethought Fort Wayne.

Among other topics, Loftus talked about his previous faith in Christianity, and how he came to lose that faith. However, the meat of Loftus’s presentation was his insightful, and inciteful, criticism of Christian theology. Although Loftus was highly educated in theological studies, including earning two Masters degress, he never completed his Doctorate, acknowledging that he just wasn’t smart enough. Loftus said, “You have to be really smart to come up with this stuff,” meaning the sometimes strained logic employed in Christian apologetics.

To illustrate his point, Loftus quoted noted theologian James D. Strauss, under whom he studied, as being famous for saying, “You can’t get to God unless you start with God”. Loftus said that was the primary problem with the logic employed in apologetics — they start with the supposition that God exists and then try to work out how a world with God would work, rather than examining the world as it is.

Full post: http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/05/16/john-loftus-entertains-informs-and-incites-in-fort-wayne

Note: Loftus' own blog can be found here: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com

[Festivito]

1. Imagine! In order to take my challenge: BUY MY BOOK.

The rest seems to extrapolate from a convoluted framework (in summary page) and then complain the subsequent decisioning to ignore the world does not best describe the world and finally jumps that if it does not best describe it must be in absolute sense, wrong.

But, in order to argue, one really needs to buy his book.

Yeah, right.

[John W. Loftus]

2. The DC Challenge

Festivito, I earn just over a quarter upwards to a dollar for every book I sell. Big deal! I'll refund what I earn from the sale of my book if you want to engage it. The reason for the challenge is because a worldview like Christianity must be dealt with as a whole. I cannot effectively argue against a whole worldview in a piecemeal fashion. That's why you must read my whole argument to understand why I reject it. If you are unwilling to consider the falsity of the Christian faith then don't buy it. But don't complain any more about having to buy the book. In the future you'll be able to check my book out from a local library and not pay me a dime. I'm okay with that. Then there will no longer be any excuse for not reading it.

Cheers.

[Festivito]

6. Sounds like a bet. A quarter it is!

(I realize you did not offer this as a bet, and I hope betting is not horribly anathema to your way of thinking and being. If so I apologize now.)

I usually bet a dollar. And, I get the: "Oh, I don't bet," routine; as you can imagine, I get that from some Christians. I remind them that when they stand at odds with another on some point, they do bet, they bet their integrity.

Sometimes that's not worth a dime.

At least it leaves them thinking something. This verbal pugilism is like education being violence upon the brain. It should have a purpose.

I suppose my initial purpose in this is not greatly important, which is that Atheism without its component of Agnosticism is a denial not just lack. This leaves my view of Atheism as an angry vent against organized religion.

I also have many problems with organized religion and I am appalled at its misuse that has ruined much of our country. But, any organized system can be misused. We should not dismiss one organized system only to have another come to take its place, be misused, and ruin us anew. Especially when we can bring that one back into consensus for our country's sake. The question I have is how? But, I digress.

Your framing dictates that you cannot argue a worldview componentially. Well, that initiates a super-sized confrontation. Yikes!

You already know the fallacy assumptions can bring, and you seem to want to start with a large assumption and argument all in one. Your framing dictates one framing assumption, and my OP describes another. I don't like either.

However, until I get a chance to read your book and respond to its presentation, my real work will have to be to correct the course of our country. I only wish I could better engage the help of such ardent thinkers rather than fight them as they want to throw out someone else's ugly baby with that ugly baby's bathwater where I feel that no amount of convincing is going to evoke consensus in time to work.

But, then again, you have no idea of how much I want that quarter.

Cheers to you.

[cosmik debris]

3. I find it amusing

That it is often taken for granted that if you give up Christianity, you are an atheist.

It is like saying that you have given up veal and now you are a vegetarian.

And when I see people lashing out against Christianity, (rather than lashing out against superstition) I have to wonder if they have really discovered the release of atheism or if they are just lashing out at an old enemy.

[John W. Loftus]

4. I find some responses amusing.

Cosmik, when someone gives up Christianity she is an atheist with regard to it. Comprendo?

You do realize that one must define her terms with regard to what a Christian and an atheist is, right? There are "Christian atheists," ya know. But even when defined consistently I know of no one who takes "for granted" what you said they do. I'm sure you'll disagree.

And who is "lashing out" here? Me? What do you mean by this phrase? I'm arguing against Christianity. Does that mean ipso facto that I'm lashing out? I do not consider the arguments in my book to be a lashing out of anything, but then, I'm sure you haven't read it.

Cheers.

[cosmik debris]

5. You may define yourself as you wish

But from reading the two links provided by the OP, you come across as a bitter ex-Christian with a grudge to settle.

To me, atheism is not about debunking or settling grudges. The atheists in my circle of friends don't bother (or need to) debunk any religion. You seem to have an overpowering need to do just that. Good luck with that.

[John W. Loftus]

7. Such an informed opinion you make so quickly

cosmik, thanks for coming to your uninformed conclusion after just reading two links. One of which I didn't write, and who knows what other one you've read, since there are several different contributors at DC.

You are a misinformed person. Stay that way. I have no grudges to settle. I'm not bitter, either. How can you so quickly psychoanalyze me? I don't think I could convince you of anything. Your mind is made up. I do get peeved at ignorance though...yours.

To use your words against you, you seem to have an overpowering need to claim you're better and smarter than others.

Good luck with that.

[cosmik debris]

8. I merely reported my impression of you.

And I based that impression on the information available.

I never claimed to be better or smarter than others. You, on the other hand, make no secret of your desire and apparent need to debunk Christianity. (implying that you are superior to the poor un-debunked Christians) That sounds to me like a serious case of vanity if not the bitterness I spoke of earlier.

So if you want to keep up the ad hom attacks, you may call me uninformed, misinformed and ignorant. Those conditions are easily remedied with more information. But the need to prove yourself superior to the un-debunked Christians is not a condition that can be overcome by adding knowledge. That is a condition you have to deal with personally. That's not ignorance, that's intolerance.

[John W. Loftus]

9. Why are you that important?

Tell me oh wise one, why do you think you're so important that people would want your impressions of me or my book, especially now that you admit your opinions are uninformed ones?

I'm making an argument. It's not a heated one. I have no axe to grind. I'm not bitter either. I don't even consider myself smarter than others. Do you make arguments against republicans here? If so, should I conclude you have an axe to grind or that you are bitter, or that you consider yourself smarter than republicans? What specifically is there about Christianity that when someone argues against it what you say about me applies but it doesn't apply to anyone else who makes any argument at all?

It doesn't make any sense. Surely you can see that, can't you?

And please do tell me about intolerance. I'm interested in that which you think it's okay to be tolerant about from that which you think it's okay not to be tolerant about. I support the separation of church and state and I will oppose any efforts by the new atheists to cross that line just as I will oppose believers who attempt to cross that line. And I have plenty of Christian friends. I argue respectfully with Christians and I do not berate them or belittle them. What then is this thing called intolerance you speak of such that I am all that?

I really think you put your foot in your mouth and refuse to take it out. You don't know me but you have formed an opinion about me and what I do based on ignorance. Just admit this and we'll be fine. But I don't expect you to do so.

I am intolerant of ignorant pompous people like you though, and it seems as if you are intolerant against people whom you think I typify, but am not.

How's that working for you?

[cosmik debris]

10. Oooo! you're getting bitter now.

No wonder you didn't fit in with the Christians.

:rofl:

[John W. Loftus]

11. Thanks for nothing.

Thanks for trying to answer my specific questions...not. I'll not assume that because you didn't answer them that you can't.

I had some time to kill today, that's all.

And what's this thing called fitting in, anyway? I am now first and foremost a freethinker.

That's okay with you, right? :sarcasm:

Cheers.

[cosmik debris]

12. Why the hell should I answer your questions.

You just like to insult me and you don't need answers from me to do that.

Give it your best shot, I'm enjoying it.

And it reveals a lot about you and your state of mind. :)

[John W. Loftus]

13. A psychologist who knows who I am after a few words? Amazing

My, My, My. Do tell, who am I and what motivates me, oh wise one!

Why don't you even attempt to answer my questions? It would seem that what you've said is premised on knowing the answers to them. If you can presume to tell me who I am and indicate that I'm an ignorant person because I argue against Christianity, then one would assume you can also engage me in a respectful discussion about those specific questions. But instead you continue to psychologize me.

Okay, then please tell me how your professional analysis of me makes one wit of difference when it comes to my arguments.

Next time you'll hopefully be more informed before you insult someone like me...or will you?

Besides, who's to say I'm not just having some fun? You're clueless. It's in the the nature of clueless people to speak as if they have a clue.

[cosmik debris]

14. LOL!

This whole thing started when I made an observation that you took as a personal affront.

And now you ask:"...tell me how your professional analysis of me makes one wit of difference..."

If you had asked yourself that question after my first post, you could have saved yourself some serious anxiety, anger, and kept your blood pressure lower.

If my observations and opinions don't make any difference, why the hell are you so angry about them?

Why do you react with such rancor if my opinions and observations are not meaningful?

I simply expressed my first impression of you based on the information available. And you went off like a rocket. Sounds to me like you think my opinion IS important.

At least you have confirmed some of my observation with your relentless insults and bitterness. And the longer you keep it up, the more convinced I am that my first impression was correct.

Please continue. :)

[John W. Loftus]

15. You're way too funny

Your initial observation was ignorant while appearing to sound intelligent, so I responded. People like you goad me, and unlucky for you, I have some time to respond.

And my point, since you just missed it (a characteristic of yours), is why it makes one wit of difference who I am or what motivates me when it comes to my arguments. Why does this matter to you? Why would it matter to you even if I truly were bitter or if I have a grudge or an axe to grind (which I deny)? It doesn't make any sense that that should bother you, even if true, which it isn't, unless you have some personal issues yourself. Answer my previous questions and I can know why you attack me as being bitter and having a grudge merely because I make an argument against Christianity. Such a conclusion is ignorant without sufficient evidence.

And I'll let the two or three other people who are reading this exchange to decide for themselves whether or not it is I who am angry.

I'm just having fun. You really are clueless. :)

[cosmik debris]

16. Thank you,

My opinion must be of some importance to you. You have certainly expressed your concern repeatedly.

Please continue, but get some new ad homs. The ones you have been using are getting stale.

[Book Lover]

17. What is a Christian atheist?

That term makes no sense to me. Actually, I should be more accurate: I can figure several meanings from that term. Which one do you mean?

[John W. Loftus]

18. Christian Atheism

Do a Google search for the death of God theology, secular Christianity, Gabriel Vahanian, Paul van Buren, William Hamilton, Thomas J. J. Altizer and especially Don Cupitt and his book "Taking Leave of God." For the most part they work within the language of Christianity but deny the ontological status of the Supreme Being implicated by the language. Many of these people attend Universalist Churches because of the social need to belong and be socially active in the world with like minded people. One of the atheists on my blog attends one of these churches.

It indeed sounds strange.

Thanks for the question. It was refreshing to actually have someone want to know something about the ideas I mention.