One would think that someone who had studied Christianity and has the equivalent of a P.H.D would have better arguments than this! Round 2.

Round 2 is a little long but bear with me, Loftus made a lot of errors in this chapter.
Hypocrisy

On pg 35. Loftus states "I'm going to begin with what many Christians assume about their faith. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism." After reading this one must ask him self, how many is many? Loftus states that many Christians assume we have a rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief, but how many Christians do this? how many is many? 2? 5? 5,000? is there a poll? where is Loftus getting his information from?
He says it again on pg 37. "Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good." but how many is many? what is even more interesting is on pg. 190-191. On page 190 there is an objection written stating "Jesus said that some people wouldn't believe even if God raised a man from the dead." to which Loftus replies

"The word some here needs to be unpacked when it is said, "some people today would not believe." How many does the word some mean? Who knows?"

but wait? didn't Loftus just use the same logic on page 37? so how can he criticize the objection for using the word 'some' when he uses the word 'most' in the same logic. Loftus criticizes the objection on pg. 191 for doing the same thing he does on pg. 35 and 37, this of course is hypocrisy.

Bait and switch, deceptively playing with facts:

On pg 37. Loftus states the following:

Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good. They claim to have objective ethical standards for being good, based in a morally good creator God, along with the best motivation for being good, which is an eternal reward in the presence of a loving God. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral, much less a motivation for acting on those morals, especially when they conflict with her own personal self-interest. They claim that atheists do not have a good reason to condemn murder, brutality, and torture, nor do they have an ultimate reason to refrain from murdering, raping, and torturing other people themselves.
Dr. William Lane Craig quotes with approval Fyodor Dostoyevsky's characater Ivan Karamazov, who said, "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." Craig summed up the moral case against atheism using these words:

then Loftus quotes Craig. Now after the quote is the deceptive part, he states, further down on pg. 37 and onto page 38.

Before we move on to the philosophical arguments for this claim, let's pause and ask first why there is no evidence for what Craig claims. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this word, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently? No one says to herself, "This is the reasonable or logical thing to do but I refuse to do it," unless she is mentally challenged. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians are mentally challenged...that the overwhelming majority of us don't live consistent lives with what we believe?

Notice some things. If you look at how Loftus started his argument you will see a pattern.

1. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism."
2. They claim that atheists
3. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral,
4. Craig summed up the moral case against atheism

as you can see, Loftus starts out by talking about strictly atheism. Now notice a pattern after he quotes Craig.

1. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic.
2. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently?
3. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians


A close look at the paragraph reveals Loftus deception. He starts out talking about atheism, then ends his argument talking about non-Christians! but as facts and empirical evidence tells us, non-Christains are not exclusively atheists. Muslims are non Christians, as are Buddhists, Hindus etc. etc. Loftus uses a bait and switch. he starts off talking about atheism, then substitutes atheism for non-Christian, but why did he do that? perhaps when he said non-Christian he meant atheist. This of course is also incorrect, the reason Loftus needed to switch from atheism to non-Christians is because if he hadn't even to the uneducated his entire argument would've fallen apart, only with deception can he even attempt such a ridiculous argument.

If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum.

As you can see, if it were just strictly atheists Loftus's billions number would be laughed at.(more evidence here)

Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious: 1.1 billion

That number includes deism as well, and desists are not atheists. Even if you would lump deists in with atheists the number barely reaches over 1 billion, it is certainly not enough to support Loftus ridiculous assertions of 'billions' of people acting according to Craigs logic causing great mayhem in this world.

General arguments

Loftus tries to use the Euthyphro dilemma to refute the divine command theory to which he states:

God could've commanded us to do something horribly evil by simply declaring it good. If God is the creator of morality like he's purportedly the creator of the universe, then he could've declared any act good, and there would be no reason above God to distinguish Him from the devil. He then brings up God calling to slaughter the Caananites as an example of this. This of course is the premiere tactic of the atheist, bring up a seemingly horrible act found in the OT and hopefully the Christian won't be educated enough to refute it, I'll keep it short and if anyone wants to further press the issue I would be more than happy to do so. God ordering the destruction of the Canaanites was a good and moral act because of the following reasons.

1. The annihilations are judgments.
2 These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
3 These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
4 Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
5 Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
6 Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
7 These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.

Like I said, if anyone wants to challenge me on the issue I will be more than happy to go further in depth about it, but this is about pointing out Loftus's infantile arguments and exposing them as such. On pg. 39 Loftus states:

"The divine command theory is in such disrepute in today's philosophical circles that only modified divine command theories are being discussed. Christian apologist J.P. Moreland actually claims, "I'm not a divine command theorist...[T]his view implies that morality is merely grounded in God's will as opposed to his nature. That's not my view. I think God's will is ultimately expressed in keeping with his nature. Morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of God, not independently of God."

Loftus criticizes this view with the following:

"But this difference Adams speaks about makes no difference. It does no good to step back behind the commands of God to his purported nature, for we still want to know whether or not God's nature is good. God's nature cannot be known to be good without a standard of goodness showing that it is. Unless there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, we still don't know whether God is good. Again, God is, well, just God.

This of course is incorrect, it does a lot of good to step back to Gods nature. We can know Gods nature is good by looking at his actions and applying His own views of what is right and wrong. If Gods nature is good, and God gave us morals through the bible, then He should act consistently with His own views of what is right and wrong, then we can know whether or not Gods nature is good. Loftus is correct stating that there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, and that moral standard is of course the morals found within Gods word.

He quotes Louis P. Pojman:

"the modified divine command theory becomes equivalent to: God commands the good because it is good, and the good is not good simply because God commands it." Therefore "we can discover our ethical duties through reason, independent of Gods command. For what is good for his creatures is so objectively. We do not need God to tell us that it is bed to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that."

This of course is just Loftus relying on his academic appeals to authority. I quote him saying:

How would you know whether my arguments are infantile? In order to say that you would have to have some kind of credentials to say so, especially when professors are using my book in their college classes. Do you really think these professors would bring into their classes something infantile and ridiculous? I think not.

I cannot criticize his arguments (or anyone elses for that matter) unless I have credentials. This is nothing but fallacious reasoning and also a silly assumption since I have never even said what type of credentials I have or do not have. That is the reason why my credentials(or lack of them) will always remain hidden, it forces people to actually deal with the arguments, not on the credentials of whose making them.

In any case Pojman is wrong, God commands what is good because it is His nature to command what is good, not because it is good already. Keep in mind I am not arguing that we cannot find out what is good based upon reason, what I am arguing is that using reason to find out what is good and is not good is not as effective as listening to God in the first place. Pojman makes a very common error, he says "We do not need God to tell us that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that." Sure, reason can most definitely tell you it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering but unnecessary suffering is an easy one, what about sexual promiscuity? God says sexual promiscuity is wrong, the atheist says it isn't(if there is an atheist that says sexual promiscuity is wrong I will gladly concede this). According to Pojman and Loftus we don't need God to tell us if it is right or wrong, reason alone should suffice. Well the evidence shows that homosexuals are the most sexually active and also enjoy the shortest life span. This is just one example that shows reason alone does not suffice.

On pg. 43 Loftus states

"let's first consider the motivation that a Christian has for acting good and not bad. Christains claim that if we disbelieve and disobey God, we'll "fry in hell," as Nielsen describes it. Yet obeying for this reason "Is pure prudence masquerading as morality....[T]hat is hardly a good moral reason for doing anything."

This is of course a complete and utter misunderstanding of Christianity, Christians are not to obey God because of fear of hell fire, we're to obey God because He simply knows what is best. He created the universe it's laws, He is more smart and wise than any human being, that is why we should obey God, fear of hell fire of course is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.

on pg. 42 J.P. Moreland asks the question "what is the point of an atheist doing good and moral deeds? why should I do these things if they are not satisfying me or if they are not in my interests?" Loftus responds with the following:

"It doesn't follow from the lack of an "Ultimate motivation" to be a good person that the atheist doesn't have a sufficient motivational grounding for a being a good person. There are plenty of motives here on earth to be a good person, and it starts with an overall life plan.

This does nothing but beg the question. What is the point of a life plan for the atheist? why have one? why have a life plan other than self satisfaction and selfish pleasure? He quotes Pojmam, "To have the benefits of the moral life-friendship, mutual love, inner peace, moral pride or satisfaction, and the freedom from moral guilt-one has to have a certain kind of reliable character. All in all the benefits are eminently worth having. Indeed life without them may not be worth living." This sounds nice, but it doesn't answer the question, it simply asks a new one! what is the point? what is the point of inner peace, mutual love, moral pride or satisfaction? that question was never answered. Lofus just declares life without them may not be worth living, that of course is Pojmans personal opinion, it does not answer what the point is.

on pg 41 Lotus states:

"Even if Christians did have objective moral standards, they cannot be objectively certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases. Just look at Christianity's past and you'll see what I mean. Believers will still disagree with each other on a multifaceted number of ethical issues, whether they start with the bible as God's revelation or the morality gleaned from a natural law theory. Then he quotes Sam Harris, "We decide what is good in the Good Book"

This is also wrong, you cannot look at people to determine that, for all Loftus knows the objective moral standard exists but the Christians simply are not following it. Are you seriously going to say that because judges and lawyers argue over laws that they aren't certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases? so why on earth are you going to say that because Christians argue over certain things that can't be objectively certain that they know the moral standards.

Finally he quotes Kai Nelson:

"The religious moralist...doesn't have any better or any worse objectivity. Because, suppose he says, 'We should love God...Why obey His commandments? He basically would have to say, 'Because God is perfect good, and God with his perfect goodness reveals to us the great value of self respect for people. He shows that people are of infinite precious worth.' But even if you accept this, you could go on to ask 'Why should you care? What difference does it make anyway whether people are of infinite precious worth?' Faced with such questioning, you will finally be pushed into a corner, where you say 'It is important to me that people be regarded as being of infinite worth because I just happen to care about people."

This of course is Loftus trying to pressure the theist into relying on his considered convictions. The question why should I care? can easily be answered, 'Because I am loyal to God and trust that He knows what is best for me, after all trusting in a being that is practically infinitely smarter than the smartest human being is more logical that trusting in something else.'
The real point of course is Loftus question found on pg 37. Why don't atheists(now that his deception has been exposed I am using the proper term) act consistently with Craigs logic? The answer can be found in a quote from W. Somerset Maugham’s, which states

“do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.” The fundamental irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions, and it is here that his general lack of intellectual conviction is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have rational reasons for attempting to live by their various moral systems, the atheist does not. Both ethics and morals based on religion are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist, he is therefore required to reject them on rational materialist grounds. He can, of course, make a perfectly rational decision to abide by ethics and morals to which he does not personally subscribe because it would be dangerous to do otherwise in a society where he is outnumbered. This is W. Somerset Maugham’s semi-rational atheism, which states “do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.”
So the atheist seeks to live by the dominant morality whenever it is convenient for him, and there are even those who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them. But even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.
One need only ask an atheist what his morality is, and inquire as to how he developed it and why it should happen to so closely coincide with the dominant societal morality to discover that there is nothing rational about most atheists’ beliefs.

-Vox day the irrational atheist.
There are more errors, suffice to say there were too many to list. These are the main errors, I might post the other ones at a later date, but in any case stay tuned for rd 3.