We atheists are usually the funny, brilliant, and thoughtful folks in the religion debate. However, every now and again there is a Christian who is like that, and lately I’ve seen several. Take the following people as examples to learn from.
First: “Horus Ruins Christmas”
It’s clever, funny and overall well done. I only have a few minor disagreements: first, although parallels between Jesus and older pagan gods are often overstated and/or bogus, there are interesting ones that I find compelling, especially with Romulus.*
Second: Three Ways to Persuade An Atheist
Provides good tips for discussions with atheists. Here are my favorites:
“Don’t take every opportunity to inject your beliefs in detail. It becomes quickly annoying and counterproductive. Also choose the place to do so carefully. It is inappropriate and unprofessional to pressure someone into a religious discussion at work, for example.”
“Be prepared to have a genuine conversation with them. Show interest in what they are saying. If your only interest is in converting someone, you are not likely to get a warm audience. If you are going to convince him or her of anything one-on-one, you have to first take a genuine interest in that person’s point of view. If you find yourself pushing to talk more than patiently listening, this is probably not the case. Keep in mind that it should be an equal exchange of ideas not a lecture on Christianity directed at them.”
“Familiarize yourself with Atheist arguments. If you’re going to present an argument for your beliefs, skim over what atheists have said about such arguments in the past. This may show interest and respect for the other person’s thoughts and time.”
3. Universe by Design by Danny Faulkner
Shockingly, Danny Faulkner rejects the Kalam cosmological argument for a very good, thoughtful reasons:
“The argument for God’s existence using the big bang relies upon of the principle of causality…Of course many would identify the uncaused cause as God… As some Christian apologists point out, the big-bang theory posits that the universe had a beginning, so that an infinite chain of cause-and-effect relationships is no longer tenable. [Atheists and agnostics] would insist that the big bang was the uncaused cause.
“If A causes B, then B must occur after A does, for no effect can precede its cause. It is also doubtful that an effect and its cause can occur simultaneously. The approach of the Christian apologist is to argue that if B is the big bang, then the only cause, A, available is God, because nothing physical can precede the big bang. But this reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the big-bang model, or causality, or both. Smith4 makes this point in his discussion of the equations that give rise to the big bang. These equations relate physical qualities (space and time) of the universe. It is very clear that these equations suggest (or demand?) that time did not exist before the big bang. To ask a question such as ‘what was here before the big bang?’ makes no sense, as discussed in an earlier section in this chapter. Time began with the big bang, and the big bang was the first event in time. Therefore the big bang had no antecedent. If time did not exist before the big bang, then any extrapolation of a temporal principle, such as the causality principle, past the beginning of time is unwarranted. Thus an appeal to causality to argue for God’s existence is completely illogical. This does not mean that God does not exist, of course. It merely means that appeal to causality will not demonstrate His existence if the big bang were true.”
“Apologists generally attempt to sidestep this difficulty a couple of different ways. One way is to suggest that there is some extra-dimensional causality principle that works beyond our universe of which our causality principle bound by time is only a part. This is an appeal to a hypothetical principle that cannot be demonstrated, and hardly constitutes a good proof. Another approach is to argue for simultaneous cause and effect. If time began with the big bang, then an eternal God certainly would exist at the same time that the universe came into existence and thus could be shown to be the cause of the universe. The analogy is made to a soft cushion lying under a heavy weight, such as a bowling ball. The weight depresses the cushion, but can one say whether the weight causes the depression or whether the weight and the depression occur simultaneously? Physics clearly tells us that indeed the weight causes the depression in the pillow. That would seem to settle the matter as to what is the cause (the weight) and what is the effect (the depression). However some would respond that that is true in a finite situation, but would it be warranted in a situation where the weight and pillow were eternally existent? That question cannot be answered with confidence with either physics or logic. However to raise such an issue is grossly inconsistent with what is being argued. The entire point of the big bang-based apologetic is that the universe had a beginning. How then can one then invoke an eternal situation to support the line of reasoning for God’s existence using a non-eternal universe?”
Footnote about Romulus in discussion of the Horus video:
I refer to Richard C. Miller, “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity,” Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 129, no. 4 (2010). See also the ancient texts he cites.
