I’ve had a few words for those like James McGrath, Thom Stark, and others who have continued to associate with John Loftus in a way that lends him credibility and encourages others to read his works.
We’ve shown in many ways that his arguments are pathetic, which by itself should be enough. They’re also nothing new, which means these endorsers have not even the slightest excuse for the association – it’s not like Loftus is revealing something special that warrants attention.
For the record, on the occasion of the latest great offense, it’s time to sum up in one place just what it is that makes Loftus such a despicable character -- the acts that have defined his priorities and lack of trustworthiness.
* He has posted a fake blog about me, which he denied was his own at first, and then when caught, justified his lie as acceptable.
*He has lied about reviewing his own book on Amazon.
For these last two issues, see the thread at TWeb here, where both are thoroughly documented. This was where I revealed my discovery of the fake blog, and the lie about Amazon was revealed in the midst. His repeated rationalizing of these moral blunders is a wonder to behold.
* Proudly bragged about how he gave an amusement park worker "the finger" for doing his/her job enforcing safety regulations.
*Proudly bragged about how he gets drunk at freethought conventions. In his own words:
In the picture I was pretty much sauced at the recent Texas Freethought Convention, which was absolutely wonderful! I sobered up for the interview a week or more later with the Oklahoma Atheists podcast. *hiccup*
*Endorsed resources that are patent fountains of misinformation, such as the works of Acharya S and the movie Agora, under the lame premise that they will make you “think”. See here.
*Mocked people with disabilities. See thread on TWeb here.
* Misused Norman Geisler’s “endorsement” of his book. See here.
*Posted a "naked Jesus" picture for International Blasphemy Day. (Can’t link to that, of course.)
*And now, purposely crafted a post to draw in Christians tempted by sexual sin, in his words:
Since porn is such a multi-billion dollar industry most of the searches for the words in the title above are done by Christian men. You feel a bit guilty for this but you do it anyway. You may even publicly condemn pornography, homosexuality, lust, and even masturbation, but here you are doing what you're doing. You rationalize your behavior away by thinking to yourself God will forgive. In my opinion Christianity is sexually repressive. God supposedly created you with this strong desire and then forbids you to express it. He wants you to be celibate except in a monogamous heterosexual marriage, even though most people are not in that kind of relationship at the moment.
That last actually (again) reveals more about Loftus than it does anyone else. His rationale that “if no one else can keep it in their pants why should I” is the sort of childish reverie we’d expect from him, at any rate. It also reveals (again) his main purpose in being the activist he is: He figures the more people he can draw away from faith, the more justification he’ll have for his own apostasy. Rational argument doesn’t have a thing to do with it – for Loftus, it’s all a case of whatever the majority does is what validates him.
James McGrath, Thom Stark, and even those like Dale Allison who continue to associate with Loftus in a way that gives him positive press deserve every millstone their neck can fit.
One final irony: I have a raft of atheist critics who are on the spot with criticism any time I do so much as use the word "poop" in a sentence. As one reader put it, I could write that word on a scrap of paper, throw it in a pit, and they'd all scratch themselves up like Burmese tigers trying to get hold of it.
Strange, isn't it, how quiet they are when it comes to John Loftus?