Debunking Christianity: "Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"

John Loftus posted this following stream of consciousness observation:

So say various Christians about right-wing fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik, suspected of the bombings in Norway that killed more than 90 people. Naw, of course not. Your Christianity is the true one. You have evidence for your faith. He does not. And surely everyone knows there is no precedent for this in the Bible or in the history of the church. So Christians one and all, come here and tell us which Christianity is the true one. We're all ears. But you can't come to a consensus because you have no better evidence than he does for his type of Christianity. Faith is the problem, which can and does lead to fanaticism. Admit it you schmucks, or stay in denial. ;-)

The thing is "Faith" as John Loftus defines it is not how the Bible defines it and Loftus is complaining (rightly so) about how Christianity is lived out. What we have is precedents in the Bible and church history that match up with what Anders Behring Brejvik did. However it doesn't match up with the Bible. The Bible defines what true religion is.

²⁶ Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. ²⁷ Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:26-27

It's not about your denomination or traditions. Anders Behring Breivik seems to have not been religiously motivated but politically motivated and I can't find anything showing him to be a Christian or how that has anything to do with what he did,

Debunking Christianity: "Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"

Breaking: Name Of Utoya Shooter Released… Anders Behring Breivik… Photos

High Five of the Day: Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality

Here is a quote from an article recently published by Luke Nix. I think he summarizes quite well the problem with the concept of multiple universes...besides the part of there being no conclusive proof nor consenus.

The less and less probable something is to happen, the fact that it did happen points more and more towards its happening being the product of a mind, not chance. Since we do not have evidence that necessarily demands the existence of these multiverses, the only consistent and rational explanation is still a Designer. If that conclusion is actually false, then that is a continued reason why we should still not trust our own minds to ever discover the truth of naturalism, and the multiverse provides exponentially less hope that we ever will. Ironically, if naturalism is true, God is still the best explanation for all the facts we have.

Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality

Related articles

• Multiverses (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Multiverses [EvolutionBlog] (scienceblogs.com)
• Does the Multiverse Really Exist? (preview) (scientificamerican.com)
• Making the Case for Parallel Universes (bigthink.com)
• The Case for Parallel Universe (scientificamerican.com)

My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion

John  Lofuts posted the following article attempting to define atheism as not being a belief.  I think his line of reasoning has some problems. 

There are a myriad number of dead religions that we don't bother with because they are dead. We simply say we don't believe them, and yet somehow that is supposed to be a belief? How can the statement, "I don't believe you," be considered a belief? In what sense?



Just because you don't believe a proposition doesn't mean the propositions is not true. A dead religion is not unworthy of belief just because no one practices it anymore. The reason why people don't follow dead religions is because they no long believe in it.

If I say I levitated and you do not believe me because I cannot produce the evidence, then what you are saying is that the evidence does not support my claim. You don't have a belief. You have evidence. And the evidence is against that belief. That's the reasoning process. Reason tells you to reject my claim. You have knowledge. You would be saying that it's probable I did not levitate.

The problem with that is just because I don't think the evidence supports such a claim does not mean that the claim is false. You don't have complete knowledge.  Here is why this a silly example: what is the consequence of coming to the wrong conclusion about Loftus' claim to levitate?  Nothing. What about the claims of Christianity? The state of your soul is at stake. One should be sure - very sure - which ever decision you come to.

That's why atheists are non-believers in the same sense as Christians who do not believe in Zeus. So is not believing in Zeus or Odin or Thor or Baal or Marduk a religion? If so then everyone is religious by default since these religions are basically dead ones. At that point the word "religion" has lost its meaning. Meaningless words cannot refer to anything.

I think what Loftus is missing is that an atheist does not have a nonbelief. An atheist has come to conclusion and lives his/her life in light of that decision. That is a belief about the nature of reality. It is either true or false. What one cannot do is pretend that one is not making a decision as to what to believe behind the decision to reject other people's beliefs. Be honest. 

A religion by definition must be about supernatural beings and/or forces. Atheism therefore is not a belief nor a religion. I really don't know how much plainer I can get.

"Religion" is not just about supernatural beings and/or forces. It is a set of beliefs about how reality works.  Atheism is a belief that there is no God. The atheist is wrong about that conclusion but it is a conclusion nonetheless. Let's look at something really important: How does a person become a Christian? A person does not become a Christian by being born into a Christian household. The Bible says that everyone is a sinner and unable to come God on our own. See John 6. Hell is default. If God does nothing to regenerate us, hell is where we will end up. Since no one is born  a Christian it is silly to think that Christianity rises and falls based on the number of adherents it has. Even if every Christian became apostates, Christianity will still be true.

Debunking Christianity: Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion