John W. Loftus

One critic of skeptical work in the area of Biblical Criticism is JP Holding. So I conducted a poll on my blog to see what people who visited there in a two week period who cared to vote what they thought of him (and most didn't vote by far). My point can be found in the percentages in the poll itself, not the actual number of votes themselves. For if I left the poll up for another two weeks or months the percentages of votes among people who are interested in the God-hypothesis on the web would probably be the same, except that Holding would run out of ignorant friends who voted as they did (he cultivates them). Look at the poll and the percentages with me:

What Do You Think of JP Holding?

1) One of the best apologists around (I’m an ignorant Christian) 47 (10%)

2) An average dime-a-dozen wannabe apologist 59 (13%)

3) An obnoxious hack who is an embarrassment to Christianity 137 (30%)

4) I don’t know of him 207 (46%)

Sure I slanted the poll by how I phrased the questions, but I did give people the option to vote positively if they wanted to. Of the people who know of him 43% of them don't think he's important enough to engage (from 2 & 3), while 30% of this grouping think he's an embarrassment to the faith he seeks to defend. Another 46% of them don't even know he exists (from 4). Add them together and that makes 89% of the people interested in the God-hypothesis who don't need or care to hear about him (from 2-4). That's why I usually ignore him, because if we subtract the 25-30 votes from ignorant Christian friends who cannot think for themselves who voted for him (from 1, and come on, that is the only reasonable explanation for many of these votes since only ignorant Christian friends who do not know of Swinburne, Plantinga, Craig, Copan, Moreland, and others, would vote that way), then he can be safely ignored. He is no threat to skepticism. My goal is to marginalize him, and I will.

Link to the poll: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...s-that-he.html

dog-on

My only issue with Holding, apart from disagreeing with most of what he writes, is that when cornered in a discussion, he immediately resorts to simply attacking his opponents personally.

Kind of a moron, imo.

John W. Loftus

Actually, of the people who know of him 100 x 43/(43+10) percent don't think he is important enough to engage - i.e. 81%.

dog-on

I wouldn't disagree, but at the same time, it can be entertaining.

John W. Loftus

Yes, but not if he's attacking you like he personally attacks me almost every week.

Cheers.

dog-on

Perhaps you scare the Jesus out of the idiot.

spin

John, it's a matter of your attitude, really. There is nothing he can say that will have meaningful effect on you. The tack that I took was to repay in kind lightly barbed without attempting to be heavy (holding back, holding nothing, holding up his end (with sexual allusion), holding forth, as starters): you may prefer the "I'm trying to steer you onto the topic but you keep wandering" approach. What people you don't know say to you is not significant. Stoicism on the internet is not often appreciated, so you take control of the situation as best you can and as it suits you.


spin

spin

Yeah, Perhaps John can exercise Jesus out of him...


spin

John W. Loftus

Thanks.

John W. Loftus

Well, one thing is for sure. He regularly reads what I write.