Truth Be Told (!)

Contact Us

John W. Loftus: Irrational or Idiotic?

As of lately I came to the descision that it was time to have my own little rant in a collection of many. What I mean by this is that I have here written an article ranting about a particular individual in mind that has been written about on many sites elsewhere.
Today we will be talking about the world's one and only John W. Loftus. You may already recognize this name as the author of the blog titled "Debunking Christianity" or maybe you have even visited to see John in action by promoting and soliciting his book "Why I rejected Christianity" in the majority of his posts. John in all honestly is one of the most interesting characters you will find on a Google index, and not necessarily because of the supposed 'greatness' of his blog. After some online dialouge between John and myself (and others of course) I couldn't help but go through the energy and effort to waste my life making another article that would investigate whether John was irrational and self-deluded, stupid, or maybe even all of the above.
John Loftus is one of the most foremost atheists out there. His most notable personality traits are his ability to essentially delude and convince himself of downright falsehoods, or, if you choose to believe, his outright shameful dishonesty. He would be your farthest bet from an individual who actually practices in telling the truth. John will make statements that other atheists might want to be cautiously aware of associating themselves with, if indeed such individuals are intelligent enough to see the problems galore. Such issues like those involving the origins of morals are just one out of many jaw-dropping examples: "...I no longer think it's wrong to hate or lust, I suppose. Those things are fantasy, and I can discipline myself enough to keep such fantasies in my head. They can lead to wrong actions, I know, so I still have to guard against them, and I do."  What John probably doesn't consider is the maximum human capability for keeping one's self under control over their thoughts. As tempting as it is to act upon our thoughts, we usually have somewhere in our natural human instincts, a tick which drives us over the edge, but not that Loftus ever considers those hypothetical circumstances. Not suprisingly, other atheists have also criticized John for his lack of logical thinking and intelligence.
There might also be reasonable inference that Loftus the Locust has emotional issues and wrestles deeply with his internal manhood. He reveals that his history was plagued with sexual affairs, as Loftus apparenlty writes in his book: "...I worked day after day with the executive director, whose’ name was Linda. She practically idolized me. She did everything I said to do, and would call me daily to help her deal with various situations that came up from the running of the Shelter, along with her personal problems. What man doesn’t want to be worshipped? I guess I did. I was having problems with my own relationship with my wife at the time, and Linda made herself available. I succumbed and had an affair with her." (Why I rejected Christianity, pg. 22)
On John's TWeb profile, we see that John displays his profile signatures to be as poetically pathetic as possible. His most recent and current one to date reads:
Personally attacking me is like pouring gasoline on the flames on my passion. I get stronger. I've told you that from the beginning. You didn't believe me. Maybe someday you will.
It's certaintly a message that would persuade anyone to sympathize for the poor man, certaintly not to give in and conclude that John speaks from suppressive experience, or that John is innocent on the charges, and the good ol' theists at TWeb have nothing better to do than to pick on poor John because they were once bullied as kids. No, this is another method John uses to get people to believe his arguments and become convinced by them, which eventually leads up to more solicitation for the new revision of his book. Obviously, he isn't very good for being a self-advertiser and his methods of grabbing attention are the oldest to be found in the book of trickery.
If there is anything to be honestly said on part of John's moral character, it is that John has an apparent knack for lying and not admitting it firsthand. In a popular forum thread posted by JP Holding of, Holding did a Whois lookup search to track the author of a "mirror site" John was advertising on the DC blog. John states:
I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I'm probably not going to waste my time on him, except to point out what others are saying about him.
Unfortuanetly, the sources to many of these quotes are now links gone defunct, which suggests that Holding's expose of Loftus shows that Loftus desperately covers up evidence which exposes his wrongdoings. Admitting the truth is the last thing on John Loftus' mind, even when it has been proven.
Holding brings up the biggest piece of dirt in this little expose, a Whois code on the ownership of the "other" blog "advertised":
<title type="text">J.P. Holding</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href=""/>
<link rel="" type="application/atom+xml" href=""/>
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href=""/>
<name>John W. Loftus</name>
With this sort of undeniable in-your-face evidence (or rather, "proof") John Loftus has nothing better to do than to efface the sources of which the evidence was derived from. And before any admittance can be extracted by good ol' Honest John, he responds:
Technically, I didn't lie.
Comment: What's that supposed to mean? A lie is a lie John, technicalities are only necessary when clarifying technical details. You did none of this.

Prove to me I did.
Comment: We did, and the evidence provided reveals an inevitable conclusion.

Besides, it doesn't matter that you know I started the Blog. I don't care. People will still visit there regardless, and I will continue sending people there.
Comment: Didn't John just remark that he wanted proof that he lied about the blog???

You are the dishonest one.
Comment: Excellent kindergarten rebuttal, but no substance whatsoever that would lead to the convinction that Holding is "dishonest". Certaintly not in the way John Loftus continually has been.
In a follow-up post in the same exact thread, John keeps peddling his helpless defense tactics:
Funny, when I go there I don't find the link. Is it broken?

Comment: Funny, didn't John just admit that it was his blog a few posts back?

The drama still perpetuates in John's pity excuses and reasoning for simply not admitting to being deceptive towards his audience:
Technically speaking it isn't a lie since I did in fact recently notice (as in "see" "read" or "observe") that Blog. Just because I did not say everything I knew about that Blog does not make what I said a lie.
Comment: Yet of course after everything having been proven that the blog was your sockpuppet and continually denying it isn't lying either, of course.
 Where does anyone have an ethical duty to say everything that he or she knows? If you can make that case, then anyone who does not say everything he knows about any given topic is lying.

Comment: Ignorance is the second option of choice, but don't confuse the two.
You and others are so slipshod about such basic distinctions as these, it's no wonder you argue the way you do.

Read through Sissla Bok's book on Lying. It'll open your eyes to some basic distinctions.
Comment: We would have reasons to be convinced of these 'distinctions' if indeed there was no good reason for suggesting that John used a sockpuppet. Of course we can go on repeating ourselves, John is too spineless to listen.
Holding however, is a dishonest person, as the blog points out so many times, including Matthew Green's newest blog entry, here:
Comment: When confronted with the undeniable, John Loftus resorts to changing the subject by re-directing dishonesty on another person having proved him dishonest.
Just when you thought that John would have stopped with the irrelevant redudancy and obfuscating on this topic, comes more suprises:
Look, I'm an atheist. With you and yours I never had any credibility to begin with. So it's not surprising you say that I don't now. In fact, you would've been honest if you had said that before this thread, because from your perspective you wouldn't believe me no matter what I said.
Comments: Why is it that fundamental atheists always think that they're arguments suck something horrible because they are atheist? It surely has nothing to do with the fact that they can't handle simple logic that a five-year old child could, it has to do with them being atheist. We know that John is wrong in this claim because even fellow religious skeptics have cofronted him.
John Loftus is probably one of the worst salesmen in the sales department. John literally employs the worst reasoning possible in making his book a convincing work of scholarly writing. In addition, John's salesmanship reveals a great deal of information on his financial circumstances:

Norman Geisler Reviews Doubting John's Book


Have you read my book? Sheesh. Why would Geisler, and James Sennett recommend it to others then, along with Daniel Dennett and Dan Barker. Why does Prometheus Book want to publish it?
Comment: John somehow thinks getting recommended by other atheist writers and authors is like winning a golden medal in recognition for his book. "Why does Proetheus Books want to publish it?" Maybe it's because Prometheus Books is an atheist publishing company?

October 2007 Screwballs thread, pg. 4

You won't be laughing when one of your believing followers reads my book and rejects his or her faith. But it will happen more than once. Your lame arguments will not be able to keep them in the fold no matter what you do. Why? Because the truth is not on your side. In order to win an argument you must start by being right. That's why you won't win this.
Comment: Actually I'm not convinced solely by JP's arguments against Loftus' book as I am unconvinced of Loftus' book by Loftus himself.
I personally cannot wait to see you squiggle and squirm when my book comes out, 'cause people will ask you to answer me. That'll be so much fun to watch, because you won't be able to do it. To answer my argument you will have to answer it all, for if you cannot do so on all points, any one of which destroys your case, you have not done your job.
Comment: Why does John insist on appealing to his book in an argument but cannot actually bring the argument forth himself? Isn't he the author of this great book?
I consider my book to be one long single argument. You have to read the whole of it to feel the force of it. Only people interested in my whole argument will read it even if I posted it (come on now, 400+ pages), and if they are interested in reading it, they will also buy it.

Comment: Is John so stale in his arguments that he needs "400+ pages" to make a convincing argument????
I'm not interested that much in the money from the book sales, but I won't hand out my book to people who are only interested in defaming my character, either.
Comment: But he does insist on advertising his book to people "who are only interested in defaming my character" in addition to calling them "idiots" and other "ad-hominens." And is John really disinterested in making profits from his book?
I can't tell you how many times Christians have asked me for a free copy. I'd be broke had I done that.
Comment: Perhaps what John means is that he would be "broke" because of the expenses of getting a book published and doesn't mean this in the strict sense. Then again, what other sort of reasoning would a person have for spamming advertisements for their book?
Anyway, as I said, people here at TWEB have motivated me. It's too late now to change anything, but I just want you to know. I warned you. You will laugh to each other, but you will also cry when a person or two you know loses his or her faith because of it. These people can just thank you. It will happen in the future.
Comment: Even if John's book was to make a good deal in sales, does this say anything about the content of his argument in all honesty? Does it gurantee a critical well-spoken perspective? Does it gurantee that everything in that book will be 100% true and irrefutable?

Picture courtesy of JP Holding

On the Amazonian book reviews of "The Impossible Faith", we find John making desperate assessments of its author. This commentary was interestingly illogical:
Holding is the master of ad hominems. He won't admit he's a one of the most obnoxious jerks around.
Comment: Maybe that's because a true "obnoxious jerk" doesn't realize that they are an obnoxious jerk?
He also thinks that if someone else has been one in the past he can answer his arguments by merely pointing this out. THAT'S JUST STUPID! Who a person is has no bearing on the logical arguments he offers.
Comment: Who is John talking about in this instance? Why, ladies and gentlemen, it is none other than himself! What makes this irrational commentary is that John fails to see the irony behind his reasoning. Not only is John accusing Holding of using "ad-hominen attacks" to dismiss his arguments, he also considers it "stupid" by "merely pointing out" a person based on their obnoxiousness! John wants to make distinctions for himself in order to save himself and defends his position to the death in an argument, but consistently attacks others by his own double-standard thinking.
I'm buying his book today to review, although since he's such a waste of my time for so many reasons, I don't know why I even bother.

Comment: We don't know why either, John. Maybe it's because you need sustenance for your desires to have the "flames" of your "passion" grow.


Going back to John's dishonesty about his sockpuppet blog, I had the honors of getting my first "idiot" insult award confronting the "ad-hominen" free Locust, and discovered more of the same schizophrenic whackiness in logic:


John Loftus: But I don't care whether you believe me either. And I stand by what I said, having read it here for the first time in a couple years. And there was no deception since everyone who read it knew I had written it.

Posted TWeb response: You used your blog as a sockpuppet, so how is that not deception?

Locust's response: Really now, with reading skills like that how do you expect to understand the Bible? The same skills are involved. I said I decieved people, idiot.

Comment: John can delude himself however he wants too. The facts remain the facts. "Doubting John" is "Dishonest John", and as we have learned from him, we know that one of his favorite pastimes is beating around the bush, using circular reasoning, and attempting to gain more recognition for his crappy horrible logically shallow book.

So now we have arrived at the end of our little assessment of fellow atheist and blog writer John W. Loftus. We set out in the introduction of this article to ask one specific question: Is John Loftus irrational or just stupid? From the evidence shown and the quotes from the man himself, there can be only one true answer: BOTH!
Other John Loftus Links

Copyright 2007 - 2009 Truth Be Told, All Rights Reserved.