Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Religious Illiteracy in America

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released the results of a survey of religious knowledge in America. I don't know what is more amazing: Americans scored so low on Biblical knowledge and religion in general or that Dr. Claude Mariottini and John Loftus have both independently written about it. Dr. Mariottini is a Christian therefore he and I find it sad and I agree with him that it's the church's responsibility to make sure people know what they believe and why they should believe it. Loftus on the other hand believes its evidence against Christianity. Can't see the forest for the trees. Of the 32 questions in the articles cited there were ony examples of a few of them. None of them were hard and I'm not surprised that atheists and agnostics scored higher. I would have liked to have seen harder questions like "Did the Council of Nicea (325 AD) set the Bible canon?" Or "Did Jesus claim to be God?" Or howabout "Does the Trinity doctrine presuppose three gods?" Many of the atheists and agnostics I have spoken with would fail these."

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Religious Illiteracy in America

Pew Survey: Atheists Know the Most About Religion!

Ron Rhodes - variuos audio lectures | True Freethinker

Thanks to Mariano for posting some great lectures from Ron Rhodes.

Ron Rhodes - variuos audio lectures | True Freethinker

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Doctrinal causes of the Reformation

Here is a great article about the doctrinal causes of the Reformation. There were good reasons. Martin Luther and the other reformers didn't just wake up one day and decided they didn't want to be Roman Catholic anymore...they had good reason to do what they did.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Doctrinal causes of the Reformation

Debunking Christianity: A Visual Study Guide to COGNITIVE BIASES

John Loftus has placed the following on his blog:

This visual guide is excellent. Believers ought to study up on these biases and apply them to their faith just to help conduct an objective study of why they believe. If someone had the time to cut and paste these biases from page 9 onward, I would be grateful. Follow this link then at the bottom there are arrows to turn the page. You might want to click on "Full Screen" icon too. [Hat Tip to Luke at Common Sense Atheism].

Look very carefully at this list:

Cognitive Biases - A Visual Study Guide
I think anyone should realize that we do have biases. But just because you have a bias does not automatically make you wrong. What people like John Loftus should ask themselves what biases do they themselves have and honestly consider if their biases have blinded them to the truth. I would also say that just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they have not examined themselves. I realize that many atheists have done this exercise. The thing is how can you even hope to judge rightly without God?

Debunking Christianity: A Visual Study Guide to COGNITIVE BIASES

FacePalm Quote of the Day #4: Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) Again *Sigh*

On the face of it, John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith is a good idea. It's true that many people don't examine their worldviews and presuppositions critically and something that we must do. The problem with the way that John Loftus employs the test ignores his own presuppositions while decrying others'. Take this quote....please. [Begin Quote]

A trial is a good example of an outsider looking in. No thumbs should be on the scales of justice. If there is a conflict of interest a judge or a lawyer should recuse themselves. The jury represents people who are uninvolved peers. None of this describes believers who examine their own faith. The OTF demands the impartiality of agnostic, which is worse on one's own religion but better on the religious faiths one rejects.
In a jury trial not everyone agrees. But that's a jury trial about an event that strictly speaking is "on the boards," that is, it's about an ordinary event rather than a supposed extraordinary miraculous event. The whole reason Christians object to the OTF is because they know their faith will not pass the OTF.
Regardless, someone on a jury should at least be able to justify his decision afterward based on the skepticism of an outsider. One cannot punt to faith when judging the case before him like believers do an every juncture. That is ONLY being fair.
SteveK asks: Why does Loftus think it a problem when rational 'outsiders' conclude that, given the evidence, Atheism is false and Christianity is true?
Those are not our only options! The options are myriad and every bit in between! Besides, a person who rejects Hinduism in India is considered an an atheist, while someone in Saudi Arabia who rejects Islam is considered an atheist, etc. That makes YOU an atheist in the same way since the definition of an atheist is a non-believer. I am simply a non-believer by virtue of the fact that your religion doesn't pass the OTF. I am an atheist just as you are a non-believer in Hinduism or Islam in other countries.
So the choice becomes one between belief and non-belief. There are billions of people on the planet on my side who do not believe in your particular Christian sect. Seems like the jury of impartial peers has spoken.

[End Quote]
This quote gets a "Face Palm" because Loftus still mischaracterizes what "faith" means. He also I think mischaracterizes the historical definition of an "atheism". It' all or nothing. There is no such thing as a relative atheist. Historically, no one has tried to argue "I"m an atheist to all gods but mine". "Atheism" means belief that there is no god. Therefore if you believe in at least one god you cannot be an atheist. Otherwise it's like being a "little" pregnant. You are or you are not.
As for the Outsider's Test of faith...does Christianity pass it? According to Lofus' definition of "faith", Christianity does not pass. According to the Biblical definition of faith Christianity passes with flying colors. Loftus denies the evidence that the Bible presents viable evidence as well as evidence from history, science, and just our five senses. He out right believes that science is the only viable way for people to gain worthwhile knowledge. If that isn't a presupposition that begs proof, then neither is asserting that the Bible is infalliably true. We have plenty of evidence explaining why the Bible is reliable. Yet people who want to take science as the only infallible source of fact about reliable have no way of satisfyingly proving that position is reasonable. Definitely, arguing in a circle.

Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) Again *Sigh*