Mike Renzulli;

 I enjoy many of your articles, but in this stinker you display your spectacularly ignorant and arrogant perspective on Jesus Christ and his following. You have completely missed Christ's point in ministry and focussed on the evils and distortions perpetrated by religious charlatans and atheists such as yourself.  Just because Christ's good nature has been twisted for politics and profits by some sinners does not end Jesus being the Way, the Truth, and the Life! Jesus is a far better libertarian than you. Happy Easter, anyway, in Christ's love!

For the record I was a practicing Christian for over 30 years. Jesus once said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven." Also, at one point he through out money changers at a temple too and made other statements pooh-poohing wealth and prosperity. Doesn't sound very libertarian if you ask me.

It is writers like Mike Renzulli that make reading the front page of FP.com interestingly palatable. These days, front page headlines taste like dry biscuits … dull and tasteless! Like Housing Boom And Bust, stories on foreclosures, Bernanke as a loser, etc. are leftovers … kind of microwave reheats served to the readers.

To Ernie and Gammill …How about running half of the front page more frequently with reporter-writers the likes of Renzulli who can hit significant events, like the true meaning of Easter or the Oracle of Reason that connects an evocative challenge to the lives of people with different lifestyles and beliefs?

Renzulli writes the way I do …a provocative writer who like me doesn’t care if disliked by fixed-minded anti-establishment Libertarians. But he is luckier than I am because he has access to the front page although that’s quite rare, and I don’t. My access appears as a "computer glitz", and it is not editorially fixed yet – my take is that it will never be fixed at all for as long as I remain an anti-Libertarian Libertarian of reason.

But I can point out what’s wrong with Renzulli’s interpretation of the true meaning of Easter. He is against beliefs … especially this Christian belief of the meaning of Christ’s dying on the Cross. And yet on Easter, Renzulli is buying chocolate bunnies, candy eggs, etc. believing that it is an act of gratitude to friends he loves, also on his belief of "celebrating the selfish-driven life I lead." So why does he describe the Christian way of celebrating Easter "egotistical" and his way of celebrating the same, "an embrace" of life, "of reason, happiness and freedom" when both are based on "beliefs"? Isn’t that not mental bias or just purely ego on his part?

The problem of atheists is that they attack "belief" in God based also on their "belief" that there is no God. As non-believers of God, they attack believers of God, and yet they are the same …both "believers" of something nonetheless.

Atheists do not attack belief as a concept, but false beliefs individually (a "false belief" being one that does not conform to reality).  I'm an atheist, and I hold many beliefs.  I believe there is soup currently cooking on my stove, because there is an abundant amount of evidence to support it.  And the belief is verifiable (i.e. I can go eat the soup).

The concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent entity (i.e. god) is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot exist.

As to twisting the words of Jesus, no twisting is needed.  Jesus was pro-poverty, as he recommended that individuals shed themselves of their worldly possessions.  In the Bible, he's quoted as saying that he has not come to change any of the Old Testament laws, thus that God's claims that non-believers and homosexuals should be put to death, and the like, stand.  This is not twisting anything -- The words are there plainly to see for anyone that's read the Bible.

Certainly he's also quoted saying many good things, but this is purely by accident, because he has no logical framework for making his claims.

If I claim to be a good electrician wherein half the statements I make about electricity are valid and the other half are insane, it would be irrational for you to hold me up as a good electrician and ignore all of the insane things I've uttered about electricity.  Likewise, to hold Jesus up as any moral person or divine bringer of truths is equally irrational.

In other words, his batting average stinks when it comes to providing valuable and useful information.

A confused atheist says …"Atheists do not attack belief as a concept …" Concept and belief are one and the same, as mother and Mom are by different names only. Only a two-legged donkey would say atheists do not attack their biological mother as their biological Mom but something else. To say that they were born to something else other than their natural mother is illogical unless they are in Sci-Fi or from another planet. It is as illogical as claiming that they were never born to a mother, unless they mean something else, otherwise, that weird claim is irrational or insane.

This is where atheists are wrong because belief need not be logical or rational. A remote tribe in Papua New Guinea still believed that their first ancestors came from bamboos [irrational] – but no one among the learned in the civilized world ever called this whole community of believers insane. Is there any logic for a man who marries a cow in a far village of India? And yet it is celebrated as a divine union of man and beast for a good harvest.

Worships of a Divine Being are all the same everywhere. Christians – 2.1 billion of them or one third of the population of the world -- worship Jesus Christ as the son of God, a divine bringer of truth to their way of life, whereas atheists have no worship of God at all – only of themselves. An atheist is himself/herself the center of the whole universe.

Thus it is absolutely absurd for bewildered atheists to call belief in Christ "irrational". It is not only offensive but also an off-line travesty of the whole Christendom or an injurious mockery of the Christian religion.

Certainly, it would be retarded for anyone to believe that more than two billion people, in the eyes of a confused atheist, are all crazy. On the contrary, a few narrow-minded agnostics or befuddled anti-Christ non-believers are lost in holding on to their belief that there is no God.

"Concept and belief are one and the same,"

This is simply not true.  A concept is an idea.  True concepts are those that derive from reality (2+2=4), false concepts are those that do not (2+2=5).  "Belief" is a state of mind where one accepts a concept as either true or false.  A belief is true if it conforms with reality.

It is my belief that 2+2=4, and the reason I hold this belief is because it is verifiable in reality.  I attack the belief that 2+2=5 because it is not true, but I do not attack belief as a whole.  This is the distinguishment.

"This is where atheists are wrong because belief need not be logical or rational. A remote tribe in Papua New Guinea still believed that their first ancestors came from bamboos [irrational]"

It is true that a belief need not be logical or rational to be a belief (i.e. an idea held in someone's mind as true), but it absolutely required that a belief be both logical and rational for it to be true.

"but no one among the learned in the civilized world ever called this whole community of believers insane."

Perhaps not insane, but certainly incorrect.

"Is there any logic for a man who marries a cow in a far village of India? And yet it is celebrated as a divine union of man and beast for a good harvest."

No, there is no logic in it at all, and in fact marrying a cow in India has no impact on the quality of a harvest, thus the belief that it does is irrational and not true.

"Worships of a Divine Being are all the same everywhere. Christians – 2.1 billion of them or one third of the population of the world -- worship Jesus Christ as the son of God, a divine bringer of truth to their way of life, whereas atheists have no worship of God at all – only of themselves. An atheist is himself/herself the center of the whole universe."

We do not worship ourselves.  Most of us don't worship anything, but if we do, we worship the truth (again, the truth being those ideas that conform to reality).

"Thus it is absolutely absurd for bewildered atheists to call belief in Christ "irrational". It is not only offensive but also an off-line travesty of the whole Christendom or an injurious mockery of the Christian religion."

It's not absurd at all, in fact it makes total sense.  Christians worship a non-existent entity (and it can be proven that such an entity does not exist), they speak to him and believe that he answers (there's a psychological disorder named for this, when you think people who don't exist are speaking to you).  It is far more irrational to hold the beliefs that Christians hold than it is to believe that one's ancestors come from bamboo.  Whether or not that statement is offensive is irrelevent, it's true.  And it doesn't matter if 2.1 billion people believe it.  Hundreds of years ago, the entire population believed the earth was flat, yet it was round nonetheless.

"Certainly, it would be retarded for anyone to believe that more than two billion people, in the eyes of a confused atheist, are all crazy."

Again, the fact that more than two billion people believe something has absolutely zero impact on whether or not that something is true.  And yes, if they genuinely believe that it's true, then they are crazy.  If two billion people believed that 2+2=5 in spite of being shown that it is indeed 4, then it would be correct (not retarded) to call them crazy as well.

"On the contrary, a few narrow-minded agnostics or befuddled anti-Christ non-believers are lost in holding on to their belief that there is no God."

We hold the belief that there is no god because there is no god.

I totally agree with JV below ... The atheist's argument below is a perfect landing in the wrong airport!

Let’s clean up this mess: "Concept and belief are one and the same. This is simply not true.　 A concept is an idea".　 Yes, this is true … these are the same. Configuration of the mental state is idea, concept or belief. Einstein believed that by designing or creating a formula of numbers, and mathematical equations, etc., there can be a theory of relativity as a concept or idea to prove that the theory is either real or not. It was his original belief, a theory, an idea, a concept – all the same potato called by just a name of the same thing.

"True concepts are those that derive from reality (2+2=4), false concepts are those that do not (2+2=5).　 Who cares whether a concept is true or false? Both serve their own purposes. To a realist, a true concept is a fact -- reality. To an idealist, it is something else. The least of it is that perhaps it is only but a virtual reality. To a propagandist, a false concept, idea, belief portrayed as true, serves a purpose. Intentional disinformation or misinformation cannot be true … if it is true, it will defeat the covert intention of the propaganda. You must study mass communication to be able to understand this. Just don’t forget that concept, belief, idea, are the same -- all a state of mind that serves different purposes.

"A belief is true if it conforms with reality." Whose reality? This is the main problem of illogical atheists … a real big problem non-believers hardly understand or realize.

They believed with such false arrogance that only what they think is real! And anything else is false or unreal. Thus they fall into the pit of this miserable thinking that belief in the Supreme Being is not real! They cannot admit that it is as real as when they go to the bathroom and accept and obey the call of Nature. Thus the vulgar say that the fogged out mind of Woodstack-like hippies of non-believers, discharge urine in their pants for not believing that they need to find where the toilet is.
 

"It is my belief that 2+2=4, and the reason I hold this belief is because it is verifiable in reality.　Again, back to square one … "verifiable" in whose reality?

"I attack the belief that 2+2=5 because it is not true …" Wrong. It could be true. In econometrics – and that is advance math -- numbers may have "values". If one of the "2s" has a value of three, the answer "5" is correct.

And here is an atheist’s rare admission: "It is true that a belief need not be logical or rational to be a belief (i.e. an idea held in someone's mind as true ... [an adminission]), but it ["is", sic] absolutely required that a belief be both logical and rational for it to be true."["is", sic]

It is a contradiction between the first and second parts of the statement … a total mess up. To believers, to them their belief that marrying a cow is divine, need not be logical or true [first part admission], but that same belief should be logical and rational [and marrying a cow is not] for it to be true [second part, a denial of the first part admission and contradictory].

As I said, illogical atheists can hardly make up their mind. As you can see, this admission and denial of what belief should be, lobbed in one statement at the same time, is a perfect landing in the wrong airport!

That's why the less sophisticated among us are sold out to the argument of agnostic or non-believers [perfect landing] only to realize that the gullible are landed in the wrong airport!

"Let’s clean up this mess"

Clean up?  Wow!  The Ph.D thesis on psychological projection that can be written based on your comment is astounding.

"belief, a theory, an idea, a concept – all the same potato called by just a name of the same thing."

Not at all.  As I said, a concept is an idea that exists in someone's mind.  A belief is a state of mind as to the truth or falsehood of an idea.  2+2=4 is an idea, 2+2=5 is an idea.  The former is true, the latter is false.  One can believe that either are true or false, but one's belief does not change that the former is true and the latter is false.

"Who cares whether a concept is true or false?"

You do, or you wouldn't have engaged.

""A belief is true if it conforms with reality." Whose reality?"

And now we get to the core of your fallacies, as there is only one reality, which exists independent of any person.  Asking "whose reality" in response to a statement about reality is like asking "whose gravity" in response to a statement about the nature of gravity.

"They believed with such false arrogance that only what they think is real!"

Yes, but not because we think it.  I believe that what I think is real because I align my thought processes with reality, not because I "arrogantly" think that reality aligns with my thought processes.  I believe that light travels at (approximately) 186,000 miles per second through a vacuum.  And indeed it does.  But it doesn't travel at that speed because I think it.  I think it because it travels at that speed.

"And anything else is false or unreal."

Well sure, that certainly makes sense.  If 2+2=4 is a true statement, then 2+2=(anything other than 4) is false.

"Thus they fall into the pit of this miserable thinking that belief in the Supreme Being is not real!"

Actually, I'm not miserable about it at all.  I'm quite content in the knowledge that there is no god.  It's interesting that you think I'm miserable.  Is this another instance of projection on your part?

"They cannot admit that it is as real as when they go to the bathroom and accept and obey the call of Nature."

You're right, I cannot admit something is real when it is not.  Well, I could, but why would I want to?

""It is my belief that 2+2=4, and the reason I hold this belief is because it is verifiable in reality.　Again, back to square one … "verifiable" in whose reality?"

In the only one that exists.

""I attack the belief that 2+2=5 because it is not true …" Wrong. It could be true. In econometrics – and that is advance math -- numbers may have "values". If one of the "2s" has a value of three, the answer "5" is correct."

Now you're just making stuff up.  The value of 2 is 2, it cannot be anything other than 2.  Your comment is satire, isn't it?

"And here is an atheist’s rare admission: "It is true that a belief need not be logical or rational to be a belief (i.e. an idea held in someone's mind as true ... [an adminission]), but it ["is", sic] absolutely required that a belief be both logical and rational for it to be true."["is", sic]

It is a contradiction between the first and second parts of the statement … a total mess up. To believers, to them their belief that marrying a cow is divine, need not be logical or true [first part admission], but that same belief should be logical and rational [and marrying a cow is not] for it to be true [second part, a denial of the first part admission and contradictory]."

The first asserts that someone can hold the belief that marrying a cow is divine.  The second part asserts that whether or not the belief that marrying a cow is divine must be logical and rational to be true.  There is no contradiction here, as the first part places no truth value on the belief.