Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[The Grand Nudger]

You're wasting your time trying to prove the wrong thing.  If "jesus" -did- die on the cross and was resurrected...........I don't care, I'm still not interested.  It's not an issue of my mind being open to a possibility.....you'd have an easier time of getting me to join your cult if you tried to prove that he -didn't-.

I think that your religion is evil....-I don't care- that it's resurrection myths are factually inaccurate. Do you understand, now, why you've failed to impress me, and why it has nothing to do with my being open minded about a miracle?

[ignoramus]

My mind is comfortable with him coming back as a pink unicorn.
It blends in nicer.

[Simon Moon]

For an atheist (ostensibly with an "open mind") to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because he commences the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:

What sort of evidence would you require in order to believe the that the resurrection or some other miracles of a god/man from another religion actually occurred? 

1. No miracles can occur in the nature of things.
   
2. #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.
   
3. The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.
   
4. Some atheists even claim (or suspect) that Jesus didn't exist at all (making such a topic even more absurd and ludicrous (given that premise) than it already is in atheist eyes).  
   

Why does the Christian god have to exist in order for miracles to occur?

Muslims, Hindus, Mormons and many other religions have miracle claims. 

 under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God

Are you just terminally dense?

I know for a fact that many atheists here, including me, have corrected you on this many times.

The vast majority of atheists do NOT claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. The fundamental atheist position (not a presupposition) is that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof. 

Atheism is almost always a provisional position, not a dogmatic, "there is no god" position. 

The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.

The NT gets some things right, historically, and some things wrong.

The thing is, the historically accurate parts offer zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims in the NT.

Why do atheists honestly believe that their examination of the resurrection is an objective endeavor on their part, as if they will come to any other conclusion than the foregone one that they have already decided long since, upon the adoption of their atheism?

I don't have a forgone conclusion. I just see no reason, given the current evidence, to believe it occurred.  

Why do you believe that your examination of the resurrection is an objective endeavor? 

And if Christians actually engage atheist arguments with counter-arguments, then their integrity is called into question because they’re simply making it all up anyway. But if they don’t respond to the atheist arguments, then it means the atheist is on to something, and Christians are refusing to acknowledge it. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Then start a formal debate in the debate section of the forum, and discuss only one topic, with one interlocutor.
 

Some atheists (especially former Christians) specialize in relentlessly trying to poke holes in the Bible and dredging up any conceivable so-called "contradiction" that they can find. It's the hyper-rationalistic, "can't see the forest for the trees" game. Such a person approaches the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Their minds are already made up. If they go looking for errors and "contradictions" they will assuredly always "find" them.

Sorry, but if I read a book that contains contradictions, I point them out.

No amount of 'special reading' should be required of texts authored by the all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe. 

And if a Christian spends what is almost certain to be a significant amount time required to research and refute one of these "contradictions" in order to show how it is not, in fact, a contradiction, the atheists simply ignore that as of no consequence and go their merry way seeking out more of the same. It never ends. It's like a boat with a hundred holes in the bottom. The Christian painstakingly patches up the last one while the atheist on the other side of the boat merrily drills another one to patch.

How did Judas die?
How many women were at the tomb?

This scatter shot approach gives the atheists a big advantage. They just keep flinging charges from all categories of apologetics until they hit an area where the Christian under fire isn’t very strong. Then they declare victory by default, since the apologist is forced to say “I don’t know.” Saying “I don’t know” is the mark of an excellent scientist, but a terrible apologist, apparently. But if a theist should fail to ever admit they don’t know something, this is a sure sign they’re full of it. So, theism loses again, either way.

In all likelihood, judging from these experiences, any Christian responses will likely have no effect on the hard-core atheist. But they can help other Christians to see the bankruptcy of atheist anti-biblical arguments and those on the fence to avoid falling into the same errors of logic and fallacious worldviews built upon such errors.

Why is it our fault that aplogetics is ineffective to convince people with a modicum of critical thinking skills?

[Jenny A]

For an atheist (ostensibly with an "open mind") to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because he commences the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:

Okay, let's look at these "presuppositions,"

[1]No miracles can occur in the nature of things.

If a miracle were natural, it would not be a miracle.  By definition a miracle must be outside the natural order of things.  The merely statistically unlikely is not a miracle, particularly if it will happen in the natural course of things to someone somewhere.  The miracles proposed in the NT and OT fit that definition, they are outside the natural order of thing.  Or do you have some other definition of miracle.

[2]#1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.

You've got it the wrong way round.  Miracles might actually prove the existence of god, but you do have to prove the miracle.  I don't presuppose god doesn't exist anymore than I presuppose ghosts don't exist.  I've seen not evidence of either, but should they be proven fine.  Reserving judgment until a proposition is proven is the reverse of presupposition.  However, not all hypothetical are equally worth considering. Extravagant claims are always suspect.  God is an extravagant claim.

[3]The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.

It's not just lack of corroborating evidence, it that the NT contradicts other written and archeological sources.  And no historic sources are presumed correct when they discuss the miraculous.  The ancient Romans and Greeks believed in and wrote about miracles performed by their gods and seers.  Historians don't assume those stories are credible either.  It isn't a double standard, just a common sense one.

[4]Some atheists even claim (or suspect) that Jesus didn't exist at all (making such a topic even more absurd and ludicrous (given that premise) than it already is in atheist eyes).  

Yep there are some atheists who don't think there was a Jesus.  But that idea is not why I'm an atheist and I doubt there are many people who are atheist for that reason.

Somehow, despite these presuppositions, the atheist still manages to say with a straight face that he is being open minded about whether the resurrection happened and that he is examining the issues honestly and without bias. Sure he is.

I'm not the least open minded about miraculous claims of any kind.  I'm open to evidence should it be presented.  But I don't go around considering every extraordinary claim just because the speaker strongly believes it.

Why do atheists honestly believe that their examination of the resurrection is an objective endeavor on their part, as if they will come to any other conclusion than the foregone one that they have already decided long since, upon the adoption of their atheism?

We really can't help that there isn't any evidence of the resurrection.

In addition to these objections to Christianity, it is a given in atheist circle that the Catholic Church must always be criticized, and this is true even if atheists are offering contradictory criticisms simultaneously. For example, some atheists are quick to criticize the popes (and the Church as a whole) for supposedly declaring things by fiat and with raw power, apart from rational deliberation and intellectual reflection. Yet, if the popes wait centuries to let the Church reflect and ponder important issues (as in the case of the Assumption [1950] or  papal infallibility [1870]), then the popes get blasted for being indecisive and lacking authority.

Atheism isn't really a position on the Pope.  I really don't care if the Pope is indecisive.  What the church does politically is my primary concern.  It holds a number of political positions I am strongly against.  

It's the amusing, ironic spectacle of people illogically accusing Christians of being illogical. If Christians do one thing, it’s because they are wrong and stupid and illogical; if they do the exact opposite, it’s because they are still wrong and stupid and illogical. And on and on it goes. The only thing that critics of Catholicism "know" about it with certainty is that the Catholic Church is always wrong.

Are these opposite opinions held by the same atheist? Because we don't all think alike.

And if Christians actually engage atheist arguments with counter-arguments, then their integrity is called into question because they’re simply making it all up anyway. But if they don’t respond to the atheist arguments, then it means the atheist is on to something, and Christians are refusing to acknowledge it. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Um, not that I noticed, unless you mean getting called on citing counter-factual claims after you've been corrected over and over, such as you misconceptions about "survival of the fittest."

Some atheists (especially former Christians) specialize in relentlessly trying to poke holes in the Bible and dredging up any conceivable so-called "contradiction" that they can find. It's the hyper-rationalistic, "can't see the forest for the trees" game. Such a person approaches the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Their minds are already made up. If they go looking for errors and "contradictions" they will assuredly always "find" them.

When a book is declared inerrant, or divinely inspired looking for errors is rather natural.

And if a Christian spends what is almost certain to be a significant amount time required to research and refute one of these "contradictions" in order to show how it is not, in fact, a contradiction, the atheists simply ignore that as of no consequence and go their merry way seeking out more of the same. It never ends. It's like a boat with a hundred holes in the bottom. The Christian painstakingly patches up the last one while the atheist on the other side of the boat merrily drills another one to patch.

The Christian answer tends to be rather improbable.  At least that's my experience.

In all likelihood, judging from these experiences, any Christian responses will likely have no effect on the hard-core atheist.

When you produce real evidence of god we'll talk.  I'm sorry that's a frustrating answer, but it would be my answer if you were claiming Zeus, Allah, Odin, or a perpetual motion machine.

But they can help other Christians to see the bankruptcy of atheist anti-biblical arguments and those on the fence to avoid falling into the same errors of logic and fallacious worldviews built upon such errors.

If you are trying to help other Christians continue to believe, you are probably in the wrong place, don't you think?

And that is the whole goal of apologetics: to help people (by God's grace) to avoid theological and philosophical errors and to be more confident in their Christian and Catholic beliefs by understanding the solid intellectual rationales for them.


Apologists remove obstacles and roadblocks. What each person will do with that information is a function of their minds and free wills and God's grace, and that is out of the apologist's hands.

Apologists attempt to explain the inexplicable mostly.  It's difficult because you have so very little ammunition.


I understand you are frustrated and feeling besieged.  I imagine you thought you had a number of things to say none of us had heard before.    A quick search of this forum would have informed you otherwise.  We've dealt with the issues you've raised over and over. 

And as an atheist in the U.S., I know what it feels like to be in the minority on the issue of god.  But I can't agree with you out of pity.  Beleaguered or not, I still think you are wrong.

[The Valkyrie]

For an atheist (ostensibly with an "open mind") to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because he commences the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:

1. No miracles can occur in the nature of things.
   
2. #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.
   
3. The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.
   
4. Some atheists even claim (or suspect) that Jesus didn't exist at all (making such a topic even more absurd and ludicrous (given that premise) than it already is in atheist eyes).  
   

Somehow, despite these presuppositions, the atheist still manages to say with a straight face that he is being open minded about whether the resurrection happened and that he is examining the issues honestly and without bias. Sure he is.

Why do atheists honestly believe that their examination of the resurrection is an objective endeavor on their part, as if they will come to any other conclusion than the foregone one that they have already decided long since, upon the adoption of their atheism?

In addition to these objections to Christianity, it is a given in atheist circle that the Catholic Church must always be criticized, and this is true even if atheists are offering contradictory criticisms simultaneously. For example, some atheists are quick to criticize the popes (and the Church as a whole) for supposedly declaring things by fiat and with raw power, apart from rational deliberation and intellectual reflection. Yet, if the popes wait centuries to let the Church reflect and ponder important issues (as in the case of the Assumption [1950] or  papal infallibility [1870]), then the popes get blasted for being indecisive and lacking authority.

It's the amusing, ironic spectacle of people illogically accusing Christians of being illogical. If Christians do one thing, it’s because they are wrong and stupid and illogical; if they do the exact opposite, it’s because they are still wrong and stupid and illogical. And on and on it goes. The only thing that critics of Catholicism "know" about it with certainty is that the Catholic Church is always wrong.

And if Christians actually engage atheist arguments with counter-arguments, then their integrity is called into question because they’re simply making it all up anyway. But if they don’t respond to the atheist arguments, then it means the atheist is on to something, and Christians are refusing to acknowledge it. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Some atheists (especially former Christians) specialize in relentlessly trying to poke holes in the Bible and dredging up any conceivable so-called "contradiction" that they can find. It's the hyper-rationalistic, "can't see the forest for the trees" game. Such a person approaches the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Their minds are already made up. If they go looking for errors and "contradictions" they will assuredly always "find" them.

And if a Christian spends what is almost certain to be a significant amount time required to research and refute one of these "contradictions" in order to show how it is not, in fact, a contradiction, the atheists simply ignore that as of no consequence and go their merry way seeking out more of the same. It never ends. It's like a boat with a hundred holes in the bottom. The Christian painstakingly patches up the last one while the atheist on the other side of the boat merrily drills another one to patch.

This scatter shot approach gives the atheists a big advantage. They just keep flinging charges from all categories of apologetics until they hit an area where the Christian under fire isn’t very strong. Then they declare victory by default, since the apologist is forced to say “I don’t know.” Saying “I don’t know” is the mark of an excellent scientist, but a terrible apologist, apparently. But if a theist should fail to ever admit they don’t know something, this is a sure sign they’re full of it. So, theism loses again, either way.

In all likelihood, judging from these experiences, any Christian responses will likely have no effect on the hard-core atheist. But they can help other Christians to see the bankruptcy of atheist anti-biblical arguments and those on the fence to avoid falling into the same errors of logic and fallacious worldviews built upon such errors.

And that is the whole goal of apologetics: to help people (by God's grace) to avoid theological and philosophical errors and to be more confident in their Christian and Catholic beliefs by understanding the solid intellectual rationales for them.

Apologists remove obstacles and roadblocks. What each person will do with that information is a function of their minds and free wills and God's grace, and that is out of the apologist's hands.

Because:

1:  There is absolutely no credible evidence that miracles occur or, for that matter, that the deity itself exists.
2:  See 1, above, except that very few atheists claim that gods don't exist.
3.  It's not Just that the documents don't hold with historical knowledge and facts, it's also that they contradict each other and, in some cases, even themselves.  Archaeological evidence does, however, contradict much of what is written in the bible.  The fact that certain historical people and places existed does not give credence to the supernatural claims.
4.  Personally I don't doubt that Jesus, or someone like him may have existed, but I believe the stories have been greatly exaggerated for the benefit of promoting Christianity.

[Minimalist]

Mainly because both are, you know, full of holes.

You're so polite, Panda.  What they are is full of shit.

[Whateverist]

He must mean the holes that the shit comes out of.

[Brakeman]

The idea, that a infinite god is somehow rendered able to forgive by sacrificing a little pinch of himself that he made into a man that had a hard weekend with the romans, is stupid to the core.

[Ravenshire]

 under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God

Are you just terminally dense?

I know for a fact that many atheists here, including me, have corrected you on this many times.

The vast majority of atheists do NOT claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. The fundamental atheist position (not a presupposition) is that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof. 

Atheism is almost always a provisional position, not a dogmatic, "there is no god" position.

Randy doesn't give a shit about facts. He clings to his straw man of atheist presuppositional dogma the way a very young child will cling to a security blanket or a favorite stuffed animal. For some reason he seems to thing that straw man and the "you guys have never examined my favorite myth" straw man prove something fundamental about atheism. The truth is that it says far more about him than it does any of us.

[Longhorn]

Considering all arguments for the existence of god are based on the presupposition that he exists, this is little more than a failed tu quoque