Friday, February 10, 2017

The Deconversion Biography Genre

I posted a vid on my TektonTV channel today that illustrates one of my favorite themes, which is  that some things never change.

I've probably read a couple of couple of dozen "deconversion biographies" by people like John Loftus, Gary Lenaire, Valerie Tarico, and so on. I even wrote about the genre for the Christian Research Journal. It doesn't matter who writes them, they're always the same story in different words. As Nick says in the vid, "They're SOOOOO formulaic!"

Sure, some of that has to do with the natural chronology of a person's life. But when you have so many of these pretending to have claimed the high ground, it's just an annoyance, not a truism. E.g., Gary Lenaire calling his book a "eye opener" when it's filled with garbage like, "The Council of Nicaea voted  on the New Testament in 324 AD."

Despite his hot air, John Loftus, the dean of the genre, isn't any better. He's still using arguments that earned him a laugh track on TheologyWeb back in 2006 or so before I caught him with that "fake blog trick." (Don't know that story? Maybe I'll write a blog entry about it.)

Frankly, you could switch the covers on these in the bookstore and I doubt anyone would know the difference. Which is funny, because I'm sure they say that about "conversion" stories.


  1. I think an entry about the Loftus laugh track story from 2006 would be pretty funny.

    As for the CADRE, though, that little jerk IM Skeptical had this to say about this entry:

    You left out the MAIN INGREDIENT in the formula, and this is what apologists don't include in their own recipe. It's something called REASON.

    Before I go on, I want to give you some background on this guy. He is a troll that goes to any non-atheist or Christian blog and likes to stir up trouble. Ed Feser had trouble with him on his blog, and so did Victor Reppert.

    He has a buddy named PapaLinton that used to post on Dangerous Idea (Vic's blog) with him. Papa just rambles on incoherently (as I will show you here in a bit), and he got in trouble for plagiarizing by a blogger named Crude (who would beat these guys in arguments, only to see them return a month or so later with the same crap).

    Also, IMS is a purveyor of scientism. On DI once, he said something about how people are fools to believe in the resurrection because it is against science. That tells you everything you need to know.

    BTW, here's an entry that he did on his blog about what he calls Irrational Conversions:

    The Skeptic Zone: Irrational Conversions

    You will see a comment from PapaPlagiarizer. It's nothing more than the low quality crap that made him get laughed at on other sites. These people are close to being candidates for Tektoonics.

  2. Also, I saw what you said on the CADRE blog. Skeppy said "I would never buy what you're selling". That's because the only thing that he buys is scientism.