How to debate a Christian

[The Omnissiunt One]

(17th August 2010 18:09)dreamer2008 Wrote:  I heard another reply today from somebody related to the reading of the bible that puzzled me. I started reading the bible from the skeptic annotated bible site, which is the king james version, but this person when I said that I am reading the bible asked me what version, and upon hearing the name of this version denied its accuracy and the accuracy of most bible versions. He said that only the true, original, jewish version is the true one, the rest are translated incorrectly, thats why its seems silly and full of contradictions. How can I reply to that?

Unless he's prepared to admit that translations can be wildly inaccurate, he must concede that all the versions are essentially the same, and only differ slightly. If he doesn't admit that, then how can he have any confidence that any translation is at all accurate?

[Minimalist]

The only actual evidence we possess for an original language of both the OT and NT is Greek.

[dreamer2008]

(17th August 2010 20:43)Minimalist Wrote:  The only actual evidence we possess for an original language of both the OT and NT is Greek.

Ah yes, I noticed that kinda late, though my question still remains, this time relating to the Greek version, being the oldest manuscripts

@The Omnissiunt One

Yes, I answered that, and the reply was something like "the originals are those that matter"

[Minimalist]

I thought this was your original question:

Quote:He said that only the true, original, jewish version is the true one, the rest are translated incorrectly, thats why its seems silly and full of contradictions. How can I reply to that?

The reply to THAT is to ask what "original jewish" version? There is none, as far as we know.

As to the issue of mistranslations that is absolutely right. The most obvious being almah-betulah fiasco which saddled xtians with this ridiculous notion of a virgin birth. Xtians hate to hear that, though. Then again, they hate hearing lots of things.

[solja247]

Quote:I'm very sorry Solja,, but that is such a profoundly ignorant thing to say that I'm having a hard time believing you're serious.

Perhaps not.

Quote:Just in case, a few broad examples just from Christianity:

The Crusades and constant massacre of innocents during each Crusade,beginning with a pogrom killing the local Jews

Firstly the crusades were used by the pope to do his dirty work. If one was to go on a crusade, 'it was get into heaven card'. I Dont really think you can blame Christianity, you can blame a corrupt pope. Killing local Jews was everywhere in Europe, they were an easy scape goat. We still have a scape goat, they are called terroists.

Quote:Over 1000 years of vicious European anti Semitism which made the Nazi holocaust possible and arguably inevitable.

Since, I myself am a Jewish Christian. I would of been persecuted as well. (The spanish inquistion was against Judaizers)

Quote:The massacre of the Cathars,which led to centuries of horror under the Inquistion.

Religion was used a tool. Pagan Europe and Christian Europe wasnt much different. Instead of druids, they had preists. Instead of gods to pray too, they had saints.

Quote:The murder of heretics by Catholics AND protestants.

I am classified as a hereitc so I would of been killed as well.

Quote:The suppression of science by the Church,from Galileo and Gordiano Bruno,to the current lunacy of new earth creationists and resistance to cell stem research. Religion ALWAYS rejects science which conflicts with dogma.

The only reason why so many evangelicals believe YEC is because Dawkins and creation scientists say there is a battle, between evolution and creation. That you cant be a Christian and believe in evolution. If Atheists stopped using that card, more people would accept evolution.
Stem cell is a very controversial issue. The church WAS still killing Christians, wasnt it?

Quote:The protection and promotion of slavery in our society as 'the will of God' (justified by the Bible) until the C19th

You do know that Deism was a big thing in the 18th and 19th century? A lot of people were Deists (The founders of the USA were). If my understanding of Deists are correct they dont believe in special revelation from God, thus the Bible is just another holy book. I can gurantee to you that if atheists were back then, they would also of had slaves.

Quote:The gross evil of the Catholic Church and its institutional protection of pedophile priests.

The attitude of the Catholic church to birth control, which results in great suffering in millions of people and countless needless deaths due to AIDS..

Most Christians will agree with you. Remember the majority of Christians have to fall in line what one old man says, blame the pope not Christianity.

Quote:-I won't even start on tax rorts or the obscenity of televangelists.

Dont, becuase I agree with you. Any evangalist who goes to a third world only really cares about numbers. They use ignorance to bring the people into their church doors. Its pisses me off, that so many theologians and pastors would prefer quantity over quaility and use ignorance as their main tool for spreading the word (in the west of course). Love for one another should be the only tool of 'evangalism' a Christian uses.

Quote:As I said, it's hard for me to believe your're serious.I think you're a troll.

I am not a troll at all! You place any religion or no religion in medieval Europe and the same thing would of most likely happened.

However, in the East, Chrstianity flourished side by side with Buddhism and was much peaceful than Christianity in Europe. It was Christianity in the East which was the power house of Christianity.

[LEDO]

[Minimalist]

I don't.

[NoGodaloud ?]

(13th August 2010 13:03)dreamer2008 Wrote:  

---

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. I had some success stories but most of the time religious people avoid conversation about this topic and just change the subject. This is one problem, I understand that for some people changing their beliefs is useless and harmful, if the stories from religion help them in their life and they can function like this without troubling others, okay, I leave them alone and try to understand them.

Some simply don't want or can't understand new ideas related to religion, there is mostly nothing that can be done about those.

But some people don't benefit from belief in a god, and makes them in general more inefficient and more dangerous in their daily lives, and they have enough intelligence to grasp new ideas and maybe transform themselves for the better but are jamming themselves, making religion a sensitive subject and want to avoid it. I want to know some methods on how I can penetrate this shell they made and maybe succeed in actively debating their point of view. Once a debate on this subject starts there is a chance of success.

And another problem is the text they use to close the conversation. Most of them are ignorable, but there is one that I don't feel that I can answer efficiently yet, and that is :"You didn't read the Bible so you can't talk about this subject". And the truth is I started to read this book a couple of years ago especially for this but I couldn't even finish Genesis, because its so silly, cruel, and simple that I didn't have the patience and stomach to continue, all that killing, incest, and that cruel, not so intelligent god were too much for me. So how can I answer to this statement so that I can continue on this subject?

---

Instead of starting with the bible, you might start and ask questions based on scientific facts.

Questions for example about the origin of the universe, its finetuning, abiogenesis, evolution etc. and how the answers of these questions are better supported through atheism, than through theism.

[Paul the Human]

Atheism does not and cannot support any argument of any kind. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). I think what you mean to say is that he should show how these questions are supported by scientific evidence that indicates no god is necessary.

[NoGodaloud ?]

(19th August 2010 00:07)Paul the Human Wrote:  Atheism does not and cannot support any argument of any kind. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). I think what you mean to say is that he should show how these questions are supported by scientific evidence that indicates no god is necessary.

Strong atheism asserts, no God exists.