Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[Randy Carson]

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.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's actually pretty easy to poke holes both in the bible and indeed apologetics arguments.

Mainly because both are, you know, full of holes. Like throwing a hotdog down a corridor you might say. I mean, when you say people go looking for errors/inconsistencies and incoherence in people's arguments, I have to question what exactly you're looking for instead? Fluffy bunnies? I bet it's fluffy bunnies.

Good to know that you felt angry enough about the repeated deconstructing of your arguments to post a lengthy, passive agressive thread about how angry you aren't. If people are convinced by your arguments, more power to them I say. Each unto their own. But don't hold it against us if we look at a shoddy, ill conceived and throughly debunked argument and say "no thanks."

[Nope]

I was a Christian and now I am not so I did examine Christianity.

You are on an atheist forum with people who enjoy debating about religion. I am not certain what you expected or wanted? It sounds like you hoped to convert people but most of us have considered the evidence and realized it was faulty. Perhaps you believe that your apologetics are full proof and that only someone very stubborn could reject your reasoning?

I mean this in kindness. If this forum is upsetting you perhaps you should take a few days break.

[KevinM1]

Premise 1 is false. No one denies the possibility of a miracle happening. It's just that, like god, you first need to define what a miracle actually is, then provide evidence for it that cannot be evidence pointing to something else.

This is the problem with Christians. They think assertions (the stories in the bible) are proof of divinity. They're not. They're merely assertions, assertions that don't hold up under scrutiny.

[Whateverist]

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.

Have you ever actually tried that? I've always thought theists work way too hard to maintain a false front of confidence in having all the answers. I personally would embrace and defend a theist in such a stance. They immediately go up in my esteem.

Of course if it were just a sham affectation in the service of apologetic rhetoric, never mind.

[Faith No More]

Yes, that's right. It's the big, mean atheist's fault that your story can't stand up to scrutiny.

Accepting that a man coming back from the dead is even a possibility is not being open-minded. It's shutting down all rationality in favor of wishful thinking. If you want people to be open to your beliefs, stop believing in the absurd.

That angst you're feeling towards atheists is a projection of the inadequacies of your argument.

[Dystopia]

Well let's start with an interesting question:

Assuming miracles can happen, why do you accept Christian miracles but refuse the possibility of other religions/gods performing them?

[Cato]

More willful ignorance. The biggest problem for the resurrection bullshit is the Book of Mark. The original Mark makes absolutely no mention of post crucifixion appearances nor the supposed witnessed resurrection. Why would the original telling of the tale omit such events if true? 

The reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection was a later fabrication added to the myth.

[Exian]

Would it ease your mind if I go on record and say that my mind is closed on man coming back to life 3 days after being killed?

[Esquilax]

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.

Aside from the fact that we have not immediately believed your arguments, what basis do you have for making these accusations about the way we think?

From where I'm standing, you don't have any basis beyond that; you've made a series of arguments, and when they fail you flail around like a spoiled child, accusing us all of disagreeing merely because of bias. But if you were pressed to actually disclose how you know that we have these biases, the only thing you can actually provide is "you don't believe me!" To be clear, you don't know any of us, you have no concept of what we think, or how we operate, beyond the confines of our lack of immediate conversion here in this forum. The only thing you have to base this pitiful, self serving extended tantrum you're having is the fact that we don't find your arguments convincing, and you're in dangerous territory there:

If other reasons for disagreeing with you beyond presupposition exist, then your claim here is not only entirely baseless, it's also completely self serving, and itself a presupposition: you're deciding, based on nothing, that we disbelieve you because of a presupposition rather than those other reasons. If you cannot think of other reasons for disagreeing beyond presupposition, then you yourself are presupposing that your arguments are inherently, automatically convincing, and there is no way for anyone to rationally dismiss them. Either way, you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing us of, because you need more justification than none at all to do otherwise.

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.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive from where I'm standing; they're just a pair of failures for the church. To begin with, authority must be demonstrated, not merely asserted, and since the church hasn't done that then they are just declaring things by fiat; without any demonstration of the existence of god, detailing what that god wants is little more than fiat assertion. As for the second point, if the church really had the authority and mystical foresight that they claim- but never demonstrate- that they do, then they wouldn't need to defer and think at all, they'd have a perfectly rational, authoritative response all ready to go. In this way, the church is both declaring things by fiat and acting in an inconsistently indecisive way.

Sorry that the catalog of failures within your church is so densely packed that it's confusing, but I suspect you made little effort to actually parse each individual contention before you decided they were wrong anyway.