There is only one type of opposition the atheists can send against the proselytizer.
The Arrogant, Spiteful, Angry, Depressed Blasphemer
God is not subject to challenge by anyone or anything, let alone a morally bankrupt, satan-worshipping Atheist.
All good Christians can stop reading now.
(Are they gone? Good. Finally the kids are in bed and us adults can talk for awhile)
There are numerous methods used to challenge theistic belief. The following are some of my favorite counter-proselytizers.
The Logician
Simple, and direct, the Logician is all substance and no style. He can counter every position in the proselytizer’s arsenal, but wins few points for creativity or charisma. The Rational Response Squad decimated Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort a few months back with a Logician counter to Ray’s argument for God’s existence. Every technical point went to Brian Sapient and his associate, Kelly, but every talking point and sound bite went to Cameron and Comfort. The Logician is a VERY strong position, but is only effective to an intellectual audience.
The Heathen Preacher
One of my favorite methods of dealing with a proselytizer, the Heathen Preacher is a completely “fair” approach in challenging religious thought. Instead of directly countering the proselytizer’s argument, you support his argument, and expand it, including the unfavorable and unflattering aspects he conveniently “forgot”.
The Heathen Preacher works because ALL denominations of the Christian Faith - even the most radically “fundamentalist” - are Salad Bar denominations. Certain passages are enunciated and expounded, while others are minimalized or reinterpreted to fit larger, contemporary translations.
Landover Baptist Church makes effective use of the Heathen Preacher approach.
Unfortunately, the Heathen Preacher’s biggest strength is also it’s largest weakness. There is no substance to the arguments presented. You are basically sitting on a branch, 200 feet in the air. sawing away at the only support for your argument. Logically speaking, the Heathen Preacher is a failing strategy. It’s relatively easy for a logical counter to demonstrate the straw-man arguments in the Heathen Preacher’s position.
The “Mysterious Ways” and “It’s Just Parable” camps offer challenges to the Heathen Preacher, at least in the eyes of the believers.
The Good and Evil Historians
The Good Historian takes an objective role and points out the striking similarities between earlier myths and Biblical myths, implying that Christianity is little more than a copycat of those original stories.
The Evil Historian points out the atrocities committed by the church, the problems with the timeline of events, alterations to the Bible, conspiracies to eliminate alternative gospels, and condemnation of historic intellectuals.
Challenging the Historians is a difficult proposition, leading to a weak technical case. Unfortunately for the Historians, History is generally deemed dull, boring, and flawed, and an intellectual audience is necessary to comprehend a lot of the evidence. Few believers are aware of any alternative history of Biblical time, and fewer still care to know.
The Literalist
The Literalist is often a combination of the Logician, the Heathen Preacher, and the Historians. He points out the obvious contradictions within the Bible as prima facie evidence of its imperfect nature. Like the Heathen Preacher, the Literalist’s arguments are strawmen. Both are operating “behind enemy lines” so to speak. Because the proselytizer is the one initiating the argument, he has the ultimate authority to further define the meaning of his theory. Because of this, the Literalist is absolutely decimated by the It’s Just Parable proselytizer.
The Scientist
Incorporating much from the Logician, the Scientist uses a proactive approach. He doesn’t wait for someone to argue that God Did It, he demonstrates how it really happened and leaves the proselytizer to play “Devil’s Advocate”. This position requires more than a little justifiable arrogance and a cool head - the Scientist must be incredibly knowledgeable because one of the easiest counters is the 3-Year-Old who asks “Why does it do that?” or “How did that happen?”. The goal of the Scientist is not to disprove God, but to demonstrate that even if God does exist, his actions are confined to such a tiny portion of existence as to be effectively null.
Richard Dawkins makes effective use of this method.
The Ad-Hominizer
The Ad-Hominizer slings dirt. That’s all he does. Like the fabled pig, you should never argue with Ad Hominizer: both of you will get dirty, but he likes it. This guy’s criticisms are often true (from some point of view) but technically ineffective. His argument is that the other guy can’t be trusted for whatever reason.
Countering an Ad-Hominizer is a tricky proposition - depending on his skill and intellect, he can disguise his arguments as legitimate, or discredit you completely. In the Courtroom of Public Opinion, a good Ad Hominizer can dominate. The average IQ of any group is inversely proportionate to the number of members of that group: the larger the group, the dumber it gets.
The downfall of Ad Hominizer is reality. Even the best abuser looks like an idiot when the target of his criticisms is proven right.