Yawn, I fell asleep listening to an atheist blather

Last night I stumbled over to Debunking Christianity. I haven’t read his blog in weeks.

Well, hell hell, ol’ Loftus debated again … which I tried to listen to … but I fell asleep.

Here, you tell me.

The guy has cajones. He got back on the horse after D’Souza to ride again!

Bored out of my mind, I breezed through the comments on the DB blog while I was listening. There were some, “You lost” responses. Mind you, there were a couple from Christians, and of course they are going to say he lost. Not that any atheist would ever say another atheist would lose. There were some, “You improved” responses. There were some, “You mumbled” or “You got off track” criticisms. The guy who thinks John Loftus did great was Loftus himself. And it’s partly because he posted that, “Atheists always win debates.”

Loftus dares his readers to give him good reasons that he should stop debating. And he needs good reasons, none of these, “You make us look bad” kinds of responses. He needs criticism steeped in professional language like, “You’re a fuck up” or “The shit you say sucks big hairy ape balls” or “Pull your fucking head out of your ass. You’re being as delusional as we accuse others of being. Grow up and be rational about your lack of debate talent.”

I grew up in sports. I don’t watch sports. I like to play them. Sports are the main comparison I have to compare this to.

The tradition I came from was high quality, high calibre. When I was on the field, court, course … you gave it your all. Since I was a Christian, the parable of talents was something I took to refer to actual  “talents.” If I’m not mistaken, this was precisely the way the parable was taught to me. To a man with much talent, he must use it to its fullest. To him with little talent, he must use it to its fullest. Whatever you have, you bring it all to the table and you multiply it.

In soccer, I wasn’t the best guy on the team. But I was pushed myself hard. One day my coach pulled me aside and said, “Witt (they called me Witt), I want you to play to your ability. Listen to the guys who are better than you. Identify your level of play and push yourself to be really good at that.” And that’s what I did. I wasn’t out scoring goals, but I was a team player, and I would push myself to make my teammates look good.

The “parable of the talents” crossed into every spectrum of life. There were many bizarre things about the Christian culture, but one thing I liked was that the custodian was no better than the president. Each position is essential to success. Only, if you’re cleaning toilets, your pay grade is lower. But the Christians have one thing going for them … Jesus said, “The first shall be last.”

I play on a pool league now. It’s not much, but it’s something I’m pretty good at. At any league match, there are five games and eight players. So three people won’t play every match. One night, it was the fifth game, and I recommended a better player play the last game because we were down and likely going to lose the match. If we had a winning game, we might make a dent in how badly we’d lose. But a poorer player was insisting on playing, because he would be gone for a few weeks. I argued that it’s not about that.

Finally another player said to have the poorer player play. I looked at the poor player and said, “Are you ready to go?” He said, “Of course. I’m always ready.” But what I expected was for him to think rationally. The rational answer was to selfishly put down your pride and say, “Hey, the team needs a better player to play at this point.” I said that to him. He didn’t get it. It’s pool, not the World Series. So I waved my hand. “Go play.”

I make this comparison, knowing full well that it’s ridiculous. It’s only pool … at a bar … who the hell cares?

Well, I care … when it comes to people like John Loftus competing for attention to represent myself and other like-minded people. He’s not playing pool at a local bar. He’s now performing to the possibility of millions thanks to the Internet.

The Internet is great for some things, but man, this is not one of them.

It got me thinking. How can I be constructive about this?

If I were to talk to Loftus, I’d say, “Use your talent to the best of your ability. If it’s writing, write. If it’s putting in written word the arsenal of thought that another speaker could bring to a debate, do it. Loftus, go find someone who is an excellent speaker and mentor them. Stop trying to do a double somersault backflip roundhouse dive into the pool, when the best you’ve got is a lousy cannonball.”

Nothing is as it seems

Why do you like the shows on TV? Do you really think it’s the actors? Behind great talent on stages and on screens is an arsenal of writing, production, directing and editing talent. This is where the atheist lack of organization gets me riled up.

Do you know that even “Queer Eye for the Straight” guy was a written show? Those guys weren’t riffing from their perfect little minds. Those guys had a writing staff. They hired real comedians to feed them lines.

You know, I’d love to work myself into a public sphere larger than a blog, write a book, go out and debate. But that’s not my talent. Blogging is something I do for fun and for a sort of therapy. It’s not something I take too seriously. Hell, even Loftus pointed that out a couple times.

I expect rational thought from atheists, but apparently there is at least one who’s still latching on to irrationality … and it’s hurting the rest of us.

Play to your ability, Loftus. Be a team player. Find your talent and be successful at it. As my teammate, you’re making the rest of us look badly.

Stop it. Concentrate on furthering the cause. Yeah, I know in your mind you are. But in many others, you’re not.


5 thoughts on “Yawn, I fell asleep listening to an atheist blather

  1. But, but, but… atheists always win! No matter how gawdawful they are at public speaking, no matter how much they let the other guy run circles around them as they mumble incoherently, and no matter how many people point out why they failed miserably… atheists always win!

    I’m sure I’m just an irrational, immature, and otherwise irrelevant moron for saying anything negative about his dismal debate performances again, but I couldn’t sit through much of this latest debate. Once again I wanted to yell at my computer screen.

    If atheists win by still selling a few books but otherwise making atheists look like idiots, he may have a point. If acting like a child in the aftermath of debates is winning, he’s a winner in my book. He may be a great writer for all I know, but given his egotistical self-delusion about the debates I’m inclined to take his self-congratulatory comments on his writings with a bucket of salt. I’ll never know. There are other good books out there, and he doesn’t need any money from me to feed his raging ego problems.

    Hopefully any atheist groups considering inviting him for another embarrassment will get the word that this guy will just embarrass and then insult them when he fails miserably yet again.

    But he’ll always win (in his own mind).

    1. From what I understand, though, he’s being invited by religious groups. At the Champaign debate, an atheist group recommended him, but he was hired by the Catholics organization. I could be wrong though. He’s pissing me off, though. And I’m wondering how much I should watch my tongue or should I just let loose and kick him in the pants to marginalize him and his direct efforts for public praise.

      1. If religious groups want a token atheist with some name recognition to show up as an easy target their guys can talk circles around and “out sell” in the debate circuit, he seems like the ideal candidate. Certainly not a very prominent atheist, but the prominent ones are harder to book.

        I was hoping the D’Souza debate was a fluke, bad day, sinus medicine threw him off, etc. But most of the criticisms (new and old) could have been applied to either debate and his presentation was unbearable to watch as he stammered and mumbled and babbled somewhat incoherently while again letting almost everything the other guy says go unchallenged.

        He seems to have effectively isolated himself from putting any of the criticism to use, and his responses to the latest round of criticism, while not as bad as the last deluge of lashing out, made up for it in denial and dismissals. If his writing is as good as some say, the big worry for me is that he actually becomes more prominent and ends up being an even bigger public embarrassment for atheists as he charges undeterred to debate the religious world and “unleashes the beast” that keeps turning out to be a skittish chipmunk with a concussion.

  2. I’ve read Loftus’ book and in fact, spent some time in one of my books critiquing his. The problem is that John – rather than having anything constructive to say – simply casts off my comments and concerns with a “it lacks substance” response.

    That would not bother me if in fact my comments really did not have substance, but I have found that he does this to anyone who critiques his books or commenets negatively.

    He also accuses me of having an axe to grind when I don’t even own an axe. I’m not an atheist – I’m a Christian and I have listened to numerous debates. Even though they have given me nothing that would cause me to change my view, there have been some very fun AND respectful debates.

    I enjoy listening to Hutchins and cannot stand Dawkins.

    At any rate, I think there are far better proponents of the atheist position than Loftus. Again, I know he’ll simply accuse me of lacking substance and having an axe to grind, but the truth of the matter is (at least from my perspective) is that he is not the greatest writer OR orator. I wish I could say otherwise, but that would be lying.

    Thanks for letting me post.

    Fred DeRuvo

    1. Thanks, Fred, for your comment.

      I haven’t had a chance to really review your web site, but I’ll hope to get around to it.

      As far as your criticism of Loftus, it’s spot on. He’s disdainful of any criticism of him, accurate or not. I was very critical of his oratory style after going out of my way to attend the debate between him and Dinesh D’Souza, and he publicly ridiculed me. Which was fine. I’m not public to cower behind a tree. I meant everything I said.

      I have no idea how he has any fans. Were I a believer, at this point, I’d say, “Well, hey, god bless him.” I guess the proper atheist response is, “Good for him.”

      As for Hitchens and Dawkins, they are both good to listen to in their own way. Dawkins has the upper hand with science, and Hitchens’ strong suit is more general.

      My best to you and your writing career and thanks for stopping by,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s