From Daniel Dennett. How to compose a successful critical commentary:
This is not my writing, but it is excellent. A serious Christian apologists should use this as a target of their arguments, rather than a strawman of their own invention. It began as a Facebook post by Tom Rafferty on September 21, 2014. My source is a reposting of this by Dave Foda.
In my several years as an atheist, I have dialogued with many theists, including Christian apologists. In the course of such interaction, without fail, we get to the point where the theist/apologist does not reply to my last statement. I would like to give you a good example of what I use that stops the conversation. Oh, if you are reading this and you are a theist/apologist and wish to respond, please be my guest, and congratulations. You will be the first!
(Regarding knowledge, science trumps all)
(Animals similar to humans)
(Poor outside support for New Testament)
(New Testament origin)
(Middle East myths)
(Poor evidence for an historical Jesus)
(Animal and human sacrifice)
(Examples of humans who were considered gods)
(Against historical Jesus; Other "dying and rising" savior gods)
(A good summary of what we do know about Jesus)
(No room for the supernatural in our Newtonian reality)
A good supplement is this comment by Rosemary Lyndall-Wemm.
Scientists are trained to use the best available methods for arriving at the most reliable estimation of what is valid and true, methods that are well established and well tested. They weight evidence according to an established scale of discovered reliability which places rigorous double blind studies at the top and barely accepts expert opinion, especially when based on single case studies. They entirely reject unsupported subjective accounts, personal testimonies and hearsay. Multiple level hearsay is classified as ludicrously unreliable. They accept the most probable answers and reject those which are possible but less likely, especially if they fail to account for as many observed variables.
Religious apologists want to turn this approach on its head and use the most unreliable methods and evidential sources known to humans. Why should any sane person consider this the better approach?
The usual answer, if I get one, is that the theological method is the only one that gives the answer that the theologian wants, or its corollary: the scientific method is not designed to investigate these matters and assumes the "wrong" answer.