#john loftus

Perhaps if Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Loftus were to actually investigate the matter they would discover that "the Greek word for "faith" in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof." One example of this can be found in the NT in Acts 17:31:

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

The Biblical concept of faith is that it is reasonable and rational. Biblical faith is and should be grounded in reality. It is open to discussion, objective inquiry, and critique. 

John Loftus is a Pompous Ass

Never used that phrase before, although I first heard it used at least forty years ago. I always felt it was just too strong, even though I’ve come across many for whom the moniker fit so well. I may never use it again (PA’s can be a litigious bunch). But something I read weeks ago has stayed with me, and in a moment of insomnia, I understood why, and who:

John Loftus is a Pompous Ass.

Why John…

Yep. That’s what I think. They're always winners. Let me explain why I think this.

In the first place, most Christians do not read our books so the only chance most of them have to consider our arguments is during a debate. But once they do hear us debate they are more likely to read our books. At the book signing after my debate with Dinesh, more than fifteen people bought my book for instance. And since they had fifty copies available still others will buy them who didn't make it over to do so. What, do you think they'll just throw them away or something?

Second, it legitimizes us in this Christian dominated part of the world. You do not see debates over racism or the Holocaust because those views are rejected out of hand. To see so many recent debates between Christians and atheists is encouraging, for Christians are forced in this era to come to terms with us and that’s a good thing.

Third, most Christians have never met someone whom they know is an atheist in person. Just watching us debate is an experience in and of itself. While believers listen they are forced into considering why we do not believe, and surely this alone will cause them to reflect on why they do. As they listen they can see quite plainly we have reasons for our non-belief, even if they disagree.

Fourth, because they might become intrigued by our position they may read a book or two or more that further argues our case. Even if we lose a debate this is the case. For if we lose the debate they may ask themselves why any thinking person could accept what we do. And if that happens it may take them on a journey to understand our thought process better. And when they do they'll encounter our reasons in the available literature.

Fifth, I have never watched a debate where the atheist did not offer up for consideration something that a believer had not considered before, even if it's acknowledged he or she lost the debate. We sow seeds of doubt that may cause further reflection. You never know what we may have said that could later cause massive doubt as the believer studies the issue out in the months and years to come.

Sixth, the very fact that the question of God's existence is debatable means it's not obvious that he exists. No one debates the fact of gravity. No one debates the fact that George Washington was the first President of the US. And this too can be quite unsettling with the believers who are completely assured that their God exists.

The answer to this question lies in the fact that for some unexplained reason they both share an illicit grounding for knowledge. Thomas Nagel is one of the reasons I have very little respect for scientifically uninformed philosophers even if they are atheists. His forthcoming book is titled, Mind and Cosmos:  Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.

About this book we read on Amazon:

The modern materialist approach to life has utterly failed to explain such central features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, or value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.