I don’t mind atheists having fun. A lot of them have great senses of humor. But I’m going to have to hang around for a while before I figure out how to tell the difference between silliness that indicates the having of fun and arguments that are meant to be taken for persuasive and reasonable.
Here’s an example from the articulate Crispy over at Too Many Questions as he wrestles with why God (if he exists) hasn’t just swooped in and made hash of Satan once and for all.
Satan and God are supposed to be on opposite sides, aren’t they?
So why would those sent to hell get punished?
Those following God’s rules expect to be rewarded, surely satan would reward equally, those flouting his opponents rules! If you were at war with someone, would you do EXACTLY what your opponent wanted you to do? I doubt it, more likely one would flaunt and parade the flouting of the opponents wishes! So why does Satan accept the soul? I can only guess they must sustain him, give him power and strength.
Here’s my dilemma: There’s actually a good conversation to be had here about the nature of God, the nature of Satan, free will, etc. I’m genuinely interested in engaging in genuine reasonable dialogue with Neo-Atheists (though I don’t know if Crispy considers himself one of them), but since the tone of their speech and writing is so frequently contemptuous and filled with ridicule, I don’t know how to express curiosity or offer an explanation without tripping a triggered response that wouldn’t be helpful and might raise my blood-pressure.