Just ordered mine. Hope you're ready for some straight talk.
I hear the rapture's coming "soon" too.
I'm a fan of this site and certainly have not been bothered by the wait. I follow another blog wilwheaton.net and he is an author as well. He self-publishes his own books and appears to make a good living from his books and blog. I mention that because maybe his approach would work for you, John. Good luck with the book, and I look forward to my copy arriving.
Hell is starting to freeze over.
You know you've hit the big time when people are posting reviews about your book on Amazon....even before it's available!Seriously, don't the Christians doing this realize how un-Christian it is? I guess they figure all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and all is well.
Ordered mine through Barnes & Noble (although it says there's a 2-3 day lag).So... when's the book tour and signings?!!??! :)
Atheist Okie,I just went over and read the reviews you were talking about. Only one was a legitimate review by another noted author who was given an early copy of the book. What is absolutely amazing is that the idiots posting negatively could not (refused) to understand that it is absolutely unethical to post a review without reading the book. Then when John and others call them to task for it, they cry foul and say that John is angry and spiteful to Christians and those who disagree with him. Rubbish. But at least they have a comment rating system so I was able to give my 2 cents worth.
John, have you given any thought to changing the format of your blog to that of a regular discussion board?The number of posts have been increasing (somebody's been talking a lot here lately...), and it's getting hard to remember what was said where.Other than maybe its appearance, I can't see any advantages of the current format, although obviously many other blogs use it also.It seems a discussion board format would let you exactly the same as you do now, but would also allow the better discussions to keep bubbling up to the top, if there are new contributions.It's also not easy to skim through the older discussion titles, since every topic takes up 1/3 of a page, instead of just a line.You could still have a top section with topics started only by members, but it would be cool to see another develop, where all the other stuff could go.Just wait and see how much traffic there'll be, when that book comes out!
ismellarat, the nice thing about DC is that people do searches for words and phrases and they find something we wrote months ago. It's always there for people who are interested in a topic. Many, if not most of our hits do not come in the front door on the main page. They come in through these searches. I've linked to some discussion boards if that's what people want. Otherwise, comment and have an email sent to you whenever someone adds something, and you won't miss a beat.Cheers.
Oh good! I had it ordered and they kept saying they couldn't get it. Will reorder now.
How would you respond to a Christian who says:"You were never a Christian.If you were a true Christian, you would've never fallen away from the faith. 'Perserverance of all Saints'.1 John 'They went out from us because they were never of us.'"
First, Amazon told me it wouldn't ship until the 25th, and wouldn't arrive until between 9/2-9 (!), and now I get an email saying it shipped today (8/21).Elyon, I've never understood that line. My response would be that if that's true, they can't ever know if they're saved themselves. I found a sad daily journal online somewhere, where a guy had posted many pages of his thoughts for a couple of years as a Christian, his desperate prayers for answers as his faith was slipping away, and then as an atheist. If *he* wasn't serious about what he believed, then it seems you just can't tell - even about yourself.My favorite question, when given a particularly strict set of standards God supposedly has, is how many people do they think there exist who think that way, and where do I find them.0.01% (would still mean about 600,000 people, who I'd think would have a visible presence, somewhere) or less? The whole world must be going to Hell - but it's funny that the same people often talk about at least a billion souls disappearing in a rapture (with many more to follow later, who mistakenly hadn't been "watching and waiting" as they should).
ElyonTheAtheist, I simply tell them that's just one of the delusions they have.
My copy is scheduled to arrive today!
Elyon, I would simply tell the Christian that no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
If that's the case Mike, then you'll receive a copy before me since I don't yet have a hard copy.
AKRON, OH, US 08/21/2008 7:11 A.M. OUT FOR DELIVERY. :-)I should have it before lunch. I'll check it out tonight.
ElyonTheAtheist said...*How would you respond to a Christian who says:"You were never a Christian.If you were a true Christian, you would've never fallen away from the faith. 'Perserverance of all Saints'.1 John 'They went out from us because they were never of us.'"*That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking – or do I sincerely want to be right?: Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."Flew's original example may be softened into the following : Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.Source of the fallacyThe truth of a proposition depends on its adequacy to its object ("Is the drawing a true likeness of Antony Flew?"). The truth of an object depends on its adequacy to its concept ("Is the figure drawn on the paper a true triangle?"). Problems arise when the definition of the concept has no generally accepted form, for example when it is vague or contested."A true Scotsman" (a concept) is not on the same level as "a true triangle" (a concept) never mind "the true Antony Flew" (a concrete existing object). The formal similarity, "true X", and the corresponding feeling that the concepts should be on the same level, in some sense must be on the same level (even perhaps all exist as objects), motivates the fallacy. It is a short step from that feeling to treating one's own definition of a "true Scotsman" (who else's?) as having the same objectivity as that of a geometrical figure or an existing individual, and then attempting to make the world agree.The Johannine verse asserts an arbitrary standard as part of the definition of a "Christian". Some "Christians" claim, contra-1 John, that once a person is "saved", they are always saved regardless of whatever else they may do or believe. But that too is arbitrary and could be applied as a no true Scotsman fallacy.
But then again, most of the ideas that makes up "Christianity" are arbitrary musings of first and second century delusional, fanatic, religious sectarians who knew less about existence than do modern kindergarteners.
I just got my copy of your book. This is nice. It looks alot better than the old one. The typing in it looks a whole lot better. I can't wait to read this thing.
Well, I'm a bit jealous, Cole!
Dear Ismellarat,Sign up for a free gmail account from google.com. They send you an email daily when responses are made in the comment section of blogs on blogger.com
I see some Christians over at amazon are trying their best to knock my book down in hopes it won't lead any of their flock away. Their will be others, some of which will never read the book.Par for the course.
I browsed the comments earlier today and I really think it is obvious which ones are from people who have read the book and which have an axe to grind. I think most people will be more inclined to wonder what has them so riled up and buy the book to see than will not buy it because of their comments. I understand mine is on its way. I did find an old Louis Erdich book at a used book store earlier this week that I must finish first, however.
Congratulations on your book, John! I look forward to reading it.
John,If you will accept some advice, I've learned that it seems kind of amateurish if you take the time to defend yourself on Amazon. I set up my own page and defended point-by-point on my own terms. I publish everyone who writes and don't let a single comment go unanswered. If you are concerned by looking bad on Amazon, step aside and let others come to your defense. They will. They did for me, and if your book is as good as you imply, they (and I) certainly will for you. Ask those who encourage you to go to Amazon, and have a link ready for them.You also refer to "Christians" trying to knock down your hopes. The only new review is from a guy trying to recommend my book over yours. Do you believe that my work is so bad that it's being recommended by the other side? I think your comments might be unfair.I'm sure your book is going to be good, but considering that I published online in 2004, I did have the luxury of beating God Delusion and End of Faith to the punch - thereby avoiding the criticism of repetition. People are going to expect more after the New Atheism peak.P.S. I tacked a Gershwin cd onto my order in order to get the super saver shipping. So it looks like it will be a while before I can do the review.
Jason, I'm sure your book is great! Like you with me, I haven't had the pleasure to read it. But I have one stalker. He's one of the major reasons why we moderate comments here. He claims he'll stalk me till I die. He has been telling me for months that he will post several nasty reviews of my book on amazon as soon as he could. Now, I don't know about you, but I can have seven email addresses with my server. But I only use one. This guy has that many and more, and he's commenting negatively on Amazon, and I don't know who is who. One tactic of his is to sound reasonable, like this last post that says, "don't bother." Since I rejected a comment here yesterday that he was going to post one of his reviews, and then there it was, I suspect he wrote it.Come on, consider the blurbs about my book with what he wrote. He comes across as a skeptic and says "Don't bother" reading my book. How many other skeptics will do this given the blurbs I've received about my book? This has nothing to do with your fine book, either. I hope people do read yours. This Christian simply fears my book, hates me, and/or wants to divert any attention he can from my book for whatever reason.Cheers.
Jason, another tactic of this lone Christian might be to divide us. I won't let this happen. We are team members, my friend, so any time someone is encouraged to read your book over mine I will be very happy that they did. I just find it strange that a skeptic will say "don't bother" reading my book when the opposing side says things like the following, even after Dawkins and Harris:Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: “Of the spate of books coming from the so-called “New Atheists” that have appeared in the past few years—Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al—John W. Loftus’s critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today’s premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist.”My book is presently linked on the front page of the Secular Web.
Jason, I edited my response over on Amazon to read as follows:It is impossible for you to have received my book before today, the day of this review. I haven't even received my copy from Prometheus Books yet! This means you read it today after receiving it, if you read it at all. 428 pages? Really? Interesting. Are your a speed reader or something? Or a Christian trying to sound resonable to divert attention for whatever reason away from my book? I hope people do indeed read Jason Long's book. He's a team member with me at DC. But tell us what the first sentence is on the 325th page of my book. Do it now, not later; you not someone else. And tell us this; do you think it's okay to lie for the sake of Jesus? Yes or no? I think you are that stalker who has promised for months to post several bad reviews of my book under different names using different email accounts, especially since that stalker messaged me today saying he was going to post one. [edited] And I suspect that same stalker commented below using one of his other names.I personally find it strange that a skeptical reviewer will say "don't bother" reading my book when the opposing side is recommending it, like Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: "Of the spate of books coming from the so-called "New Atheists" that have appeared in the past few years-Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al-John W. Loftus's critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today's premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist."While skeptics may not like it as much as other books, I don't think a single one of them would ever say "don't bother" reading it.-----For me Jason, it's about pointing out the hypocricies of a Christian who feels he needs to lie to defend his faith. And I do let others defend me, if I can be defended at all. But unless I tell my potential defenders what's going on they cannot do that, can they?
John,I wrote the review on Amazon under the name Joshua Zachary. I picked the name because these are my sons names. I am not the stalker you speak of. I have added to my coomments over at Amazon. Sorry you did not like my review I did not mean for it to come across so harsh. I would be happy to change the title of my review but I am not sure how to do it.
Rover, you pop out of nowhere on Blogger and also on Amazon, with no history to who you are at all. I responded on Amazon. I do not believe a word you say, except that Jason Long's book is a good one. Thanks for that!
I wasn't at all aware of your situation with this individual. Given that, I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps this person is your stalker - I don't know. But I'm certainly not going to criticize him for his recommendation!!!I'm also confident that your book is much better than mine. You're certainly far more qualified to write one.
Could Rover have read about all the anticipation people had for the new book, and then mistakenly ordered and read the previous edition?
...and then he commented on the correct page again.Just get the book and tell John what's on that page, Rover. (Or quote from the previous edition, if that's what happened.) You had it right in front of you yesterday. It can't be far... :)
I left work early to do this!The pages begin as follows:p.175"Flavianum. it reads..."p.297"The way matthew..."p. 353"Let's say that you lived..."Again, I didn't mean to cause such controversy. I will keep my opinions to my self. As a Christian I am used to doing this. :)
Rover,You wrote, "Again, I didn't mean to cause such controversy. I will keep my opinions to my self. As a Christian I am used to doing this. :)"I just read your critique at Amazon, and while you definitely have a right to your opinion, your opinion does not give you a right to be dishonest. To me, it seems that your review is completely disingenuous. You hypocritically try to sound like a skeptic yourself in your review at amazon. You wrote,"There are a few "new" biblical passages that prove the Bible is nonsense, but little else is new here." Are you lying here, or do you believe John does offer some new passages that prove the Bible is nonsense?I think you are lying. Had you been trying to honestly represent your viewpoint, given that you even admit to being a Christian in your post here at DC, then you would have stated something like, "Loftus fails in his attempts to..." No, rather, you try to sound like you are offering a viewpoint not tainted by Christian bias, thereby strengthening your recommendation of "Don't Bother."If you are not lying is your review at Amazon, then you are a Christian who believes that there are several verses in the Bible that prove it is nonsense. There are only two options here to believe about your statement, "There are a few "new" biblical passages that prove the Bible is nonsense":1. You are a liar and you do not believe there are several passages that prove the Bible is nonsense. or 2. You are you a Christian who believes that the Bible has fallacies (LIES) in it that prove it to be nonsense.Either way, "Liar, liar, pants on fire." You better hope that its only hell the Bible is lying about because I know where liars go when they die according to the Bible. Don't worry, we'll save you a seat!Toby
John,I just got my copy in the mail today! Excellent Foreword by Ed Babinski that will grab and on your attention and a great logical break downs into sections with their supporting chapters. Super endnotes correlated to a “Bibliography of Selected Works“ which will give credence to your arguments.As for a rover goes, to review your book in this short amount of time, he must have invested in the “As Seen on TV” Speed Reading Course. But on second thought, most Christians can apologetically defend the Bible without having read it either! Glory be to Jesus!Takes John for all the hard work. My coffee tastes better reading your book already!
Looks like the "stalker" set the stage and Rover unwittingly walked into it, as someone might walk into a shootout.You may opine all you like, Rover. Tenable opinions shouldn't be anything to keep to yourself. I'm still hoping for there to be a good God. Maybe just until I get my book.
Congratulations, John! I wish your book much success and look forward to getting a copy for myself.
I got it wrong again, damn.
I see now that you have comment moderation. To be fair, how can you be "stalked"? No comment will appear unless you OK it.Are you saying the kid is coming by your house or calling you or something? If its the kid in KC, he has to borrow his dad's car to take a date out, if he could get one that is. Tehehehe, as he likes to say.(Sorry, I couldn't help that last remark, I will behave.)
Post a Comment