Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[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?