Bad News For Evangelicals

[Dr H]

My point is that the topic of this thread uses the poorest representation of Christianity to represent the church in general, which is inaccurate and serves no purpose (other than smugness and amusement for the people engaged in this thread). I could (some do) use the same approach for atheism to make you all look like idiots to my theist friends, but that would not be true since some atheists have reasons for their beliefs and I'd much rather show that to other theists than deceive them into thinking you are all halfwits

I've encountered this critique before, and  -- to an extent -- I agree with it.

If one is serious about criticizing a particular institution or idea, one should be willing to take on it's strongest evidence and supporting arguments, rather than its weakest.  For that reason I seldom bother arguing with Young Earth Creationists, or Biblical literalists, anymore -- it's not unlike using a shotgun to kill tuna fish in a bathtub.  Little point, and no sport at all.

Sometimes, of course, context dictates that one much approach a subject on something less than its loftiest levels.  I've debated with a lot of Christians over the years.  Some have been priests, who actually go to college to learn the finer points of the subject of their trade.  Some have been serious scholars of religion -- I spent the better part of a decade in on-line debate -- both public and private -- with a Christian apologist who recently completed his PhD in theology at Oxford.

But most of the Christians I encounter are from the rank and file of the pews and revival tents.  And the way I mostly encounter them which leads to debate, is when they are trying -- volubly and forcefully -- to impose their beliefs on me, or on my general community, whether through legislation; censorship; or direct physical action.  Such activity demands response, and doesn't always lend itself to the niceties of reasoned debate on abstruse philosophical concepts.  When, for example, someone insists on inserting a mythological story into a biology curriculum, and promotes legislation to do so, they need to be stopped, and told why they are being stopped, in no uncertain terms.

In the US, where I live, it is a few relatively small extremist sects of Christianity that typically make most of the noise -- and they make a LOT of noise.  While they do not represent the whole of Christianity, they do represent a faction of it which needs to be dealt with, often on a daily basis, because they make sure that they are always right in the face of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular narrow viewpoint.  These people are not drawing their view of Christianity from deep readings and meditations on Plantinga or N. T. Wright -- most have never heard of them.  And for the most part they can't be approached on that level.  It would be like trying to argue a street punk out of mugging you by offering to debate the ethical theories of Hume and Mills.

Even so, when I debate apologists -- some of who believed they were presenting me with the best  arguments for God, religion, and Christianity -- I can't say that I found anything very new or thought provoking in what they presented.  True, the God they believe in seems to be more of a "God of the gaps" than the God of the Bible, but the primary way in which they seem to differ from the "street Christians" (for want of a better term), is in being able to provide more references for their arguments than just "the Bible".   While that may be impressive in an academic setting, and move one ever towards publication, arguments essentially unsupported by evidence tend to supply only a wobbly foundation for a thesis, no matter how many or how flowery those arguments may be.

Still... if you feel you have a better representation of Christianity, the Church, of God to present, by all means do so.   
I'd be happy to look at it.