Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[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.