Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[RoadRunner79]

---

I see your point. However, I'd point out that in an internet forum, we're often being asked to rehash something we've personally gone over many, many times, yet the argument is "fresh" to the new person tossing the argument our way. It's not worth getting into the nitty-gritty of the argument unless we seriously believe that the person is interested in real discussion, and not simply throwing a machinegun belt of bullet-points our way, most of which turn out to be total bunkum (e.g. "it's true because it says so", or "well we have a more-or-less single narrative by 20 years after the Jesus events, so we can thus rely on how much the gospels that followed agree with Q/Mark, and call that evidence for the accuracy of the events being described", or "I feel it so it must be the way I feel", or worst of all, "there's no evidence for evolution so the Bible must be right"), only to ignore what we say when we explain why those are bunkum.

That's not to say there are not good arguments to be made in favor of theological positions; it's only to say that typically, in an internet discussion, the theists who come to an atheist board are more interested in preaching their preconceptions at us than they are in listening to our replies... after a lot of this, occurring again and again, it shouldn't surprise you that we don't bother with serious replies and simply explain to theists that we can't tell a difference between most of their claims and that of someone telling us that aliens talk to them, or that Santa Claus is real, etc. It's not mere mockery, but an attempt to explain why we don't want to get into the level of detail that's being asked of us.

I appreciate your candor, and your willingness to acknowledge that it's not unique to atheist boards. I, too, make corrections; for instance, I used to be a Jesus Mythicist (or minimalist), and I have since revised my position on that matter, having found the preponderance of the evidence to be that there likely was a Rabbi Yeshua who preached a Messianic message and was summarily crucified by Pilate (or by his men... I pretty strongly doubt the whole Sanhedrin/public trial thing, since that's not how the Romans usually handled rebellious criminals, and it strikes me as far more likely that someone might have simply mentioned it to one of Pilate's lower-level administrative officers, who said "Who? Yeah nail him up."), and given the extraordinary claims of the story (darkness, earthquake, zombies) that the other historians in Jerusalem at the time somehow failed to notice, it strikes me as an ad hoc explanation put together by the followers of the rabbi after he was killed, to explain why they hadn't just been idiots following a false Messiah. In the next 20 years, they cobbled together a fairly coherent story that began to be accepted by enough new adherents that it was finally written down in a coherent form.

And yet, I hear arguments straight out of the Gospels, claiming we can know what happened based on what the claims made are... it simply does not follow, logically, and requires that we overlook too many other factors. But I've never gotten a Christian to admit this. The deflection I see is that they want to talk about only the stuff that looks probable (e.g. the crucifixion) while ignoring all the stuff that's clearly not plausible yet is part of the same claim. After a while, I kinda give up trying to do so. I'm less inclined to simply insult people who make the same arguments I've seen, over and over, repeating apologist literature I've long since read, but it's tempting.

---

I do think that some of these things are explained within the Gospel story, and also would have immediately been questioned by the local audience, if they where not at least plausible (ie... Pilates odd actions surrounding the Trial).  I don't think that darkness or earthquakes are all that odd, and we even see an explanation later by a non-biblical source.  The Saints being raised, however does provide some difficulty for me, and I would say, that I leave it in tension.  It is odd, that it is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture or ever mentioned as evidence.  Historically, it's my understanding that there is early and universal scriptural support in the manuscripts (it is unlikely that it was added later)  We also have references by the Early Church to this passage.  I do think that the passage can support that Saints may have only appeared to certain people and where not seen again. 

There isn't a lot of commentary (old or new), and that which there is... is mixed on how to deal with this passage. I haven't seen anything which points me in a clear direction; of how to deal with it.  I'm also not building doctrine on it, so it hasn't been a large concern and as said, I just hold it in tension.  I did start out, not holding to the doctrine of the inspiration or inerrancy of scripture.  I questioned a lot of things.  Through my studies, and faith and prayer, I have abandoned this, and do believe the scriptures to be inspired by God.  However, even if this could be shown to be false; I would find that it only calls into question the inerrancy of scripture, and I would still find the resurrection, and the disciples actions afterwards to be very well supported through multiple accounts, and unaffected.