How to debate a Christian

[The Omnissiunt One]

@the OP: there are lots of refutations of common theistic arguments, like the Cosmological and Teleological, online. Iron Chariots is a good website. The main arguments and counter-arguments are summarised well by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you want a serious philosophical refutation, the best book that I have encountered is J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. This is fairly expensive, even online (about fifteen pounds sterling, I'm not sure how much that is in dollars), but it deals with pretty much every common argument for God's existence.

[LastPoet]

It has been pointed out, Its not a good idea to go out "Atheist Preaching". I follow a nice rule of thumb: I won't have a conversation about religion, unless someone brings religion into the said conversation or religion is already the topic.

[RAD]

If you want to be able to debate Christians I would first read and listen to as many debates as you can, to learn the debate tactics and understand the basic arguments. Learn the logically fallacies and if you don't want to read the Bible, .

Well yes, those committed by skeptics especially, so you can stop doing them yourself.

e.g. merely arguing "there isn't enough evidence" is just one massive argument from silence, and doesn't prove anything

you could read books on the Bible that aren't so dry and will point out the contradictions and problems in it for you. Jesus Interrupted is one such book that is an easy read and points out major issues with the gospels.

Or you could read the agnostic Durant, and figure out why he called the contradictions "minutae" and show why they aren't. Good luck taking him on, but he will make everybody actually think, skeptics and Chrsitians alike.

Reading the Bible is only necessary if you wish to argue Christianity within it's own mythology.

Well no, you still have to explain how fishermen wrote similies like Shakespeare, and prove they lied instead of just slandering them and calling them myth-mongers. The slanderer has the burden of proof, not the one slandered. To prove it you need to use internal evidence. I don't take seriously any atheist who hasn't read it themselves. What happens is they make statements and assumptions about Jesus which are simply false because they haven't read it.

---

"Well I just know it isn't true."

"What isn't true?"

"I dunno. I never read it, but I know it anyway."

---

I am an atheist who has read the Bible and written several books on the topic. Now if you want a 20 second soundbite to win any debate, okay here goes. Start with the OT story of creation. Either the snake talked or it didn't. Either the earth is 6,000 years old or it isn't. Pretty simple. If they claim the snake talked and a young earth, you should be able to laugh them out of the room. If they claim it is just a parable, then use the fundie debate. If there was no real fall of man, if it was just a parable, then why does man need to be redeemed? There is no need for Jesus. It is a lose-lose situation for any Christian.

Major logical fallacy! "False in one part therefore false in all."

Come on. This is laughable logic Ledo I would stop writing books immediately until you stop using and selling such nonsense. Go read Durant's rationale and try to refute that if you want to appear knowlegeable.

[LastPoet]

RAD:

e.g. merely arguing "there isn't enough evidence" is just one massive argument from silence, and doesn't prove anything

Correction: There is 0, zero evidence of any god, gods or anything supernatural for that matter.

Or you could read the agnostic Durant, and figure out why he called the contradictions "minutae" and show why they aren't. Good luck taking him on, but he will make everybody actually think, skeptics and Chrsitians alike.

Perhaps you should read the massive amount of liguistics studies that explain exacly who wrote the bible, wich political issues drove them, and realize it was all written by men, and by men's imagination.

You have the right to not take seriously an atheist that hasn't read the bible, it's your perrogative, but know that it isn't a book, no matter how well that is worded, that will prove anything. The Odissey is a much older book than the bible, so that means that there are sirens praying on poor sailors, and all the assortment of gods and monsters? No, because we have been around the seas for some time, we haven't seen no such things, there is no evidence.

[Minimalist]

"there isn't enough evidence" is just one massive argument from silence,

You need to learn what an argument from silence means. Your 'god' (and all gods) are terribly quiet.

Their followers, however, are always running their mouths about shit they do not understand.

[The Omnissiunt One]

e.g. merely arguing "there isn't enough evidence" is just one massive argument from silence, and doesn't prove anything

Actually, it's a perfectly reasonable argument. Until you provide evidence, all we need do is state that there is none.

Well no, you still have to explain how fishermen wrote similies like Shakespeare, and prove they lied instead of just slandering them and calling them myth-mongers. The slanderer has the burden of proof, not the one slandered. To prove it you need to use internal evidence. I don't take seriously any atheist who hasn't read it themselves. What happens is they make statements and assumptions about Jesus which are simply false because they haven't read it.

How can you slander Mohammad, Buddha and Joseph Smith? How can you not believe in Hinduism if you haven't read the Vedas? As for the writers of the Bible writing similes like Shakespeare, that's disputable. Nonetheless, as the authorship of the Bible is very unclear, it's more likely that these bits weren't written by fishermen.

Major logical fallacy! "False in one part therefore false in all."

If it's meant to be the word of God, false parts seriously undermine the whole.

In the words of Obi-wan Kenobi: you want to go home and rethink your life.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for Santa Claus, either. Apparently Rad believes in him as well.

[LEDO]

"I dunno. I never read it, but I know it anyway."

---

I am an atheist who has read the Bible and written several books on the topic. Now if you want a 20 second soundbite to win any debate, okay here goes. Start with the OT story of creation. Either the snake talked or it didn't. Either the earth is 6,000 years old or it isn't. Pretty simple. If they claim the snake talked and a young earth, you should be able to laugh them out of the room. If they claim it is just a parable, then use the fundie debate. If there was no real fall of man, if it was just a parable, then why does man need to be redeemed? There is no need for Jesus. It is a lose-lose situation for any Christian.

Major logical fallacy! "False in one part therefore false in all."

Come on. This is laughable logic Ledo I would stop writing books immediately until you stop using and selling such nonsense. Go read Durant's rationale and try to refute that if you want to appear knowlegeable.

Apparently you have never read the Christian arguments. Either the entire Bible is true, or it is not. They claim if any part of it is false, then it is not a book of God. If we assume the beginning is false, that there was no fall of man, then all of Christinaity is false because it is based entirely on the idea there was a fall and man needs to be saved. They also claim the entire Bible is geared towards man salvation and the coming of the messiah. Hence the whole Bible is false based on their logic, not Durant. Unless you have read my books, don't be critical of them.

[solja247]

Hello, I am an atheist, and I love to challenge the faith of some people around me with the hope that maybe with a successful debate I can help some of them see how useless and harmful the religious institutions are.

The only kind of people, with those sought ideas, you are going to convince are stupid people.
Religion has done a lot of good.

[RAD]

Apparently you have never read the Christian arguments. Either the entire Bible is true, or it is not. They claim if any part of it is false, then it is not a book of God.

I'm a Christian, and I would be committing the same logical fallacy you are if I depended solely on Genesis for any and all knowledge of the fall. You can't make a logical argument using a logically false premise. You have used a "genetic fallacy." But then if you want people to become atheists based on irrational reasoning like yours, go ahead. If half of Mark is true, you won't be going to heaven. Agreed?

If we assume the beginning is false, that there was no fall of man, then all of Christinaity is false because it is based entirely on the idea there was a fall and man needs to be saved. They also claim the entire Bible is geared towards man salvation and the coming of the messiah. Hence the whole Bible is false based on their logic, not Durant.

Even if Genesis is not true, there still could have been a fall. Here is a link to a "genetic fallacy." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...llacy.html

The Bible speaks of a fall elsewhere anyway

Unless you have read my books, don't be critical of them.

Since I am 99.9% sure they use your logic here, I'm safe in doing so.