But this only makes sense if everyone agrees on the same interpretation of the Christian god as well as the scriptures, and this is far from the case. Some Christians support gay marriage, others are opposed. Some are pro-choice, some not. Some believe that Jesus himself was a sinner, while other Christians find that idea blasphemous.

Which absolutes are you referring to? And why should other Christians agree with them? How is one to decide? It seems inevitable that you must appeal to human reason in deciding such a dispute, and if you acknowledge that necessity, then that opens the door to countenancing two further questions: Haven’t believers been using human reason all along to justify their a priori beliefs? And further, why can’t human reason without god decide matters of morality?

As a person of great faith now, however, my moral judgments come from a much higher authority. I treat others with the dignity and preciousness that my creator has treated me. I seek the lightness in the being of others to uplift them as one of God’s own. I now understand what Jesus meant when he said to love my neighbor as myself because my neighbor is me as I am God’s own.

However, I slightly disagree with the notion that we should be working through commonality to build consensus with anyone who is not of the Christian faith. Maybe it is the semantics of your statement that I disagree with and not the philosophy. One does need to find common ground with a stranger in order to eventually be called a friend.

Your final idea; however, I vehemently disagree with. “Second, most people have an intrinsic desire to be good.”

That is patently false and diametrically opposed to God’s Word that says that all fall short of the glory of God, that says that we were all born in sin, that says that if we are not of God, we of our father the devil.

So, no, no one has a intrinisic desire to do good, until they have been saved by Amazing Grace.

check this link for an example of this:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/06/bernard-beckett-converting-from-atheism.html

Then you have the atheists who had a bad experience with their father and are reacting from deep emotional hurt. These people need plain old love and understanding, if you can get past the anger and hurt.

Then you have atheists who are genuine truth-seekers, and have come to their atheism by observing the behavior and beliefs of religious institutions and the folks who propagate them. They are open to well-reasoned arguments and genuine love, and you aren’t going to fool them with fancy religious BS of any kind. You must prove to them that you are real and genuinely interested in the truth just as they are. Anything less and you’re lost before you start.

Then you have to determine if the person is truly seeking truth or are they arguing from the fundamentally human position of “I want to do what I want to do and I don’t want anyone, especially God, telling me I can’t”. This argument is the core of immorality and sin itself. It is the “I will” of Isaiah 14 which has been taken to every extreme throughout history, and it is the one attitude that must be repented of for someone to be born again and receive the life of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line here is that religious dogma doesn’t mean anything to any of these people, nor does it really mean anything to anyone else, other than those who are invested in it. Being a Christian is not about dogma. It is about living out the life of God himself in our daily lives, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Since we are so fallible, God has given us an unchanging written record of His Word to us that we can refer to for guidance in living that life. We need to follow what it says (not necessarily the official interpretations of what it says).

What virtually destroys this is the modern model of the evangelical church. One guy stands behind a pulpit and tells us all how to live our lives. How many people in the congregation does he really know? How many CAN he know? Does he feel the pain of every family that is out of work and struggling to feed their children? Does he feel the joy of each new married couple? Is he able to participate in the intellectual struggles people are having in trying to figure out what Christianity means to them? He simply isn’t big enough to do all that. He has to preach to a very limited caricature of who sits in his congregation and simply ignore everyone who doesn’t fit that caricature. So a few people get helped and a lot of people get ignored, which allows all kinds of immorality with no challenge. Who’s going to challenge it? Where in this structure can it ever be exposed?

However, if you have a small group of believers who all know and love each other, any immorality is quickly exposed, and needs can also be addressed. With no designated pastor, Jesus Christ leads the group and the Holy Spirit is free to move any way he wants. When we assign a duly trained religious person to lead a group, we immediately remove the group from the Holy Spirit’s control and put it under human control. This is the fundamental problem with the modern church. The whole model is wrong and unbiblical.

One wrong does not justify another wrong. No matter what a person’s opinions on whether someone else’s marriage does or does not qualify, nothing justifies ignoring the very unambiguous Biblical instruction about homosexuality not being part of Christian communities.

An interesting note from the sibs is that many of the evangelical atheists adopted the views of an adult in authority, like a teacher or uncle, when in junior high.

A study needs to be done. The atheists I know are obviously not a random sample. I tell them that they are “casting their pearls before swine” because I’m committed to faith. Then I’m freed to engage the many who want to actually engage with others. But if course that leaves them to find someone who can be obligated and who will not look into whether the atheists’ claims are true. I’m still struggling with what is the best path.