Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Their minds are already made up. If they go looking for errors and "contradictions" they will assuredly always "find" them.

No, not really. If our minds were already made up, we’d still be christians. For the most part atheists have an open mind, and for the most part christians don’t. They are the ones with their minds already made up. Atheists, in general are open to new evidence and discoveries. Christians, generally, don’t like these discoveries, because it contradicts with some of their fairy tales in their book. Sorry, if extraordinary claims are made, and, we, the people using logic, don’t believe them. We will not believe every little story in your book, just because it’s written in a book, and a claim about said book, is that it’s the word of god. We have good reason that it isn’t, it’s you, and others christians, who don’t listen to those reasons.

This scatter shot approach gives the atheists a big advantage.

No, common sense gives us the advantage.

If, god actually inspired a book, it wouldn’t be full of holes, and maybe, the morality in it, would be a little..how should I say this…uhh…less evil.

[robvalue]

[edited to be more generous]

#1 Willfully dishonestly wrong
#2 So doesn't follow
#3 True but irrelevant, trustworthiness is not the issue as has been explained at very great length
#4 The problem mythicists have is that there are too many potential Jesuses, not that there aren't any (stick a hat on any preacher around that time); or that it's a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened, but I'll give you this one as I'm feeling generous

So that's 1/4. You seem to have learnt next to nothing and are wailing like a petulant child because your older brothers don't believe in Santa anymore but you still want to. You have incredibly low standards of evidence (ie none) when it comes to your religion, and the same demands as us for every other religion. We are just consistent on that last bit and reject your extraordinary unsupported claims too.

But almost everyone here has said they wouldn't worship god/jesus even if they existed, so what's the problem? It's a non-issue.

Enjoy punching your willfully dishonestly constructed atheist strawman.

[Cyberman]

The OP in summary:

[robvalue]

So if God and Jesus are obviously real and actually interact with us, why do they need an army of humans to go around pointing out this obvious fact? Why do these humans always have fallacious arguments? Why do they fail with an omnipotent God in their side? Is the atheists' power of denial greater than god?

If there is a god, he clearly doesn't want us to be convinced. It's a test of critical thinking given the available evidence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Speaking for myself, I happily admit to some of the personality attacks in the OP. 

-Yes, I am hostile to religion (though not the Catholic church in particular).

-No, I don't view Christian miracle stories with an open mind, just as I don't view tales about Thor's magic goats with an open mind.

-Yes, my mind is made up.  I've spent four+ decades making it up, and I'm satisfied with my decision.

-Yes, I agree that my view of the papacy is that most popes (not all) have been venal, self-serving pricks I wouldn't have in my home.

Pat yourself on the back, Randy.  You finally got some things right.

Boru

[abaris]

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).  
   

That leaves aside of course that you feel the same about all god claims but the one you believe in. It also leaves aside that you probably feel the same about supernatural stuff and miracles if they were connected to Allah, Vishnu or one of the ancient gods. It also leaves aside that you would demand prove from someone calling himself a wizard and performing amazing stuff because otherwise you would think of a parlor trick.

Secondly, what archeological evidence is there for Jesus? Archeological as in found something belonging to or pointing to a real person named Jesus. I hope you don't present the Pilate stone, since it's not disputed that Pilate was Roman governor in Judea.

[ignoramus]

The OP in summary:

Yeah but does he have a big phallicy?

[Brakeman]

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). 
   

You have a strange idea of what an "open mind" means.
Everything you type here has to be read and mentally digested  through a mind formed from our personal real life experiences. Extraordinary things go against our entire lives of observations of "natural things" and our history of seeing the rare items that we saw as "miraculous" being explained as a natural scientific phenomenon or through intentional fraud by a "magician." Given our personal history, we can and do give due process to the implications and requisite evidence of these proclaimed miracles and when we see the obvious signs of fraud, such as lack of physical evidentiary evidence, we then make up our current mind with the available current evidence, just like everyone else.
The effect you are bemoaning about is that we don't have a desperate need to support any god stories that require ample conspirators to stave off the popular idea that believers in wild imaginary myths are mental cases. The only reason that society doesn't lock up every catholic for belief in the Eucharist has nothing to do with the available evidence for the story, it is simply the popularity of the belief that protects them from the padded rooms.
We evolved the worry and the paranoia of "what's that noise???" in order to survive a predator filled world. And from that paranoia instinct all manner of farcical "Who Do's," ghosts, gods, and devils have been invented, but for the past 10,000 years it has always been the wind to the skeptics that didn't follow the wild tales of dishonest men.
I will not assume that a man selling Sasquatch repellent is telling me the truth about the number of Sasquatches in my area when I've never seen any evidence of it in my life. If I'm on a forum, I'd probably let him babble on about how non-believers don't give him and his wild conspiracy to hide the evidence a chance, but I would be looking at the actual evidence given, not the amount of whining about "open minds."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the jesus claim is extraordinary. The bible paints a picture of a world in which Jesus was extraordinarily well known and was a major player of the time, yet HC'rs have trouble with evidence of even a bit part jesus.

[Tonus]

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?

It's a pretty extraordinary claim to make. A series of extraordinary claims, actually:

- That the one true god, Yahweh, came to Earth in human form.
- That he taught by both speeches which left people amazed, and miracles which left them awestruck.
- That in spite of this, most rejected him and collaborated in an effort to have him killed.
- That their success in this was short-lived, as god was reborn in spirit three days later and returned to heaven.
- That his followers continued to perform miracles as he promised, for at least a short time afterwards.

The closest we can get from the available material is that a man named Jesus is believed to have existed, to possibly have caused some commotion with his preaching, and was put to death via crucifixion. That leaves a heck of a lot of stuff out. There are many "holy" books --with many claims about what god did or did not do, or who he inspired, or who he sent, and who saw or experienced these things-- written by many men for whom the above amount of evidence is insufficient for a Christian. Most Christians dismiss other faiths (and many times, other denominations) without any research into them. Those that make the effort to learn, often do so with the same attitude you are ascribing to atheists-- determined to find sufficient fault to dismiss the claims to divinity and thus keep their own beliefs intact.

I did not come to my beliefs by trying to prove the Bible false. I came to them by trying to prove it true. Continued discussion and reading has confirmed that my current beliefs about the Bible are more reasonable than those I held when I claimed it to be true. Yes, I am subject to biases now, as everyone is. But I overcame the exact opposite biases without even wanting to.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

If only at least a small percentage of English-speaking atheists knew what it was like to accept these propositions as truth and had come to reject them based on evidence and reason, that might give some credence to the idea that atheists could give religious claims a fair hearing, but having all been indoctrinated in atheism from the first dewdrops of youth, it is impossible to find an atheist anywhere who can be said to have given religion, let alone Christianity, a fair try.

On a more serious note, I have found apologetics to be one of the very best ways to make an atheist out of someone. Realizing that a religion's most devoted defenders can't come up with one good argument can be a revelation. Of course, apologetics aren't intended to persuade atheists that the religion in question's beliefs are reasonable, they are intended to reassure their followers that their faith is reasonable; and a few of them applying critical thinking skills to what's offered probably falls in the catagory of 'acceptable losses'.