Comments on: Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus

By: Dr Allan Shephard

Dr Allan Shephard — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:08:20 +0000

Best description ever:
“To me, John Loftus sounds like the kind of sophomoric douche bag you meet at a coffee shop, who knows just enough about religion and philosophy and science to sound really smart, but really just talks in circles.”

lmao

By: Dr Kevin Cooper

Dr Kevin Cooper — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:16:38 +0000

A very interesting book and a review. It’s great to have an ex priests point of view and it to resonate with a normal person’s outlook on life.

By: Jenners

Jenners — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:15:45 +0000

Oh dear. My (belated) apologies on you having to go through this book due to my husband’s fault. Really, I will punish him severely … possibly by forcing him to read this book.

The story of why he left the church just seems to illustrate that he had some problems of his own that had nothing to do with the church.

And I rather enjoyed the back and forth commentary in your comments … quite a little thing going on between those two, hmmmm?

By: kris daniel

kris daniel — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:39:28 +0000

I subscribe to your blog so have sent you an email on your latest post, which left me wanting to read the original post/review of Loftus’ book. The first question that came to mind was, “Wow Bibliofreak must be a huge blog of New York Times proportions; otherwise, how did this author come to even respond to this review?” (Answer: he googles himself everyday). Now granted, I consider Bibliofreak well written, comprehensive and entertaining….when I guffaw out loud… I subscribe, but is this the first time an author has done this concerning one of your reviews? It is evident the word “obsessive” that Blanchard used was, indeed, correct. The proof is in Luftus’ caustic remarks and the fact that he surfs the web to condemn those who don’t gush and coo over his long “term paper”, every one knows term papers put people to sleep. Ever have to help a friend and was forced to read one?? Of course it’s interesting to the writer, but rarely to anyone else!
I hope I get some vitriolic response too or I’ll feel left out!

By: Sally Handley

Sally Handley — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:13:44 +0000

This sounds like the stupidest book ever written. I appreciate your honest and hilarious review because you always so right on…….!! Thanks for letting me know NEVER to pick this one up.

By: Jenn M.

Jenn M. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:03:11 +0000

Robert~ I commend your abilty to cut and paste. You must be proud of yourself.

By: J.T. Oldfield

J.T. Oldfield — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:09:16 +0000

Whoa, down boys. The main points of my review are this: The book is terribly written and it seems that Mr. Loftus has it in for Christianity. I read another review on the intarwebs that said that it should be called “Why Christianity Sucks” and I couldn’t agree more.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:43:44 +0000

~snicker~ This is quite funny to read. When you become an author, or any sort of artist for that matter, you have to be able to take the feedback without overreacting. That means good and bad. So someone didnt like your book…get over it.

Really good Jenn! You said………nothing.

By: Jenn M.

Jenn M. — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:28:51 +0000

By: Joshua Blanchard

Joshua Blanchard — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:00:43 +0000

I’m not obsessed here. I’m merely responding to a criticism about my credentials. I can do that without being thought of as obsessed, can’t I?

The obsession is evidenced by (1) proclaiming your bad credentials in every forum you publish in, (2) using your bad credentials to suggest Christians should especially buy your book, (3) finding apparently all instances of criticism of your bad credentials online to respond to. My answer is no, you can’t do this without being thought of as obsessed. Thank you for your interesting question.

Joshua is not an objective person in my opinion, which can easily be seen in this statement of his that “he [John] doesn’t have any arguments.” Really?

Really. The point isn’t that your book doesn’t contain any arguments. It excerpts plenty of other people’s arguments.

As for the insults in my direction, I’ll just grant all of them for the sake of argument, since I don’t care. My point here was merely to affirm the experience of this particular blogger.