My First Dive Into Debating Christians

We’ve all had it happen before. You’re out in public and a religious person approaches you with some kind of handout. “Have you heard the good news?” they might ask. Some are blunt. “Are you a Christian?” For a long time I used to try my hardest to ignore or deflect these annoying people, but lately I’ve taken a more gentle approach, especially if I have time to kill.

Some of these religious people may have motives beyond the salvation of my soul, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they really are concerned for me since I am not saved. When viewed in that light, they seem less harmful and more like your average concerned member of the public. “These people haven’t found Jesus? I must save them!”

This gives one the opportunity to engage believers in conversation. They’re trying to save you, but you should be trying to make them use their critical thinking skills and rational minds. Sure, they might actually have the One Truth (whatever that may be), but I remain skeptical until I see repeatable, verifiable evidence before I put all my faith eggs into one religion basket.

This past Thursday I was sitting alone at Fountain Square in Cincinnati and a woman approached me. I’ll call her Claire. Claire greeted me and asked if I was interested in a business card for her religious group that contained various questions on the back about faith, morality and so on. I was very tempted to say no and have her move on, but instead I took it and told her that, as an atheist, I’m always interested in seeing what the religious are up to. That got her interest. I invited her to sit with me and we ended up speaking together for about an hour (I was on my lunch break).

She told me about how she’d found Jesus and I told her about my falling out from Catholicism. She explained that the reason she was a Christian was basically the tale of Jesus and the sacrifice he made for all of humanity. This was a very important point, so I tucked it away. She focused heavily on the idea that without believing in the one true son of God, you’re damned to hell. Another mental note was made. Also, the reason she was in the region in the first place (she was from Florida) was that her group was visiting the Creation Museum, which suggested a lean toward biblical literalism. Yet another item I remembered. There were numerous other things I noted as well, but for your sake I won’t be exhaustive.

After allowing her to give me her speech, I asked if it was okay if I addressed her many points individually. She obliged. I began by discussing the story of Jesus. Specifically the tales of his crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension. I discussed how, for being the key aspect of Christianity, the events of Jesus’ sacrifice are not consistent throughout the books comprising the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), putting aside the evidence (or lack of evidence) for his existence. For the event that created a whole religion, there sure are a lot of contradictions in what actually happened. This does not bode well for a claim. Any court worth its salt would agree that varying accounts of the same event are problematic.

I also touched on the subject of nonbelief-driven damnation. Obviously I am destined for her version of hell for blatantly rejecting her story, but what of societies, tribes or other groups who do not even know about Jesus, or past groups who did not? Are they simply damned because they were ignorant by virtue of geography? She waffled here. “Well, I don’t know for sure but I’d think they’d be fine. It’s not their fault they don’t know.” But she did just contend that one’s belief in Jesus is the ticket to salvation. Hm.

The final big point we discussed was her literal interpretation of the Bible. Since there are so many things one could point to that don’t add up in a worldview such as this, I had to be choosy. So I asked her if she considered herself to be an intelligent, independent being. She agreed. I then asked her how one such as a herself – a smart, independent woman – can justify putting so much stock in a holy text that essentially designates her as a second-class citizen as compared to men. At first she was defensive. She’d clearly heard this argument before and didn’t want me to go on, but I pressed forward anyway. I called out 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent”). Seeing as she was attempting to teach me the One Truth, she was already acting against the Bible. Or how about Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord”)? Why isn’t the man submitting himself to his wife? Why not each to each other? This was a touchy subject indeed.

For good measure I pointed out that, since she was born in the USA to a family of Christians, she is probably Christian because of this reason alone. I asked her what religion she thought she’d be following if she’d been born in Saudi Arabia. She claimed not to be sure, but that seems a little disingenuous. Since she harped on the Jesus section of the Bible for the most part (at some points outright brushing off issues I had with the Old Testament), I asked her if she saw any logical issues with his story at all. Why would God, who knows all and can do anything, send a human representative to convert people (who he could reveal himself to at any moment) and then have this representative tortured, murdered and reanimated to wash away sins (which he could forgive at any moment)? It’s the whole he-sent-himself-to-talk-about-himself-to-be-sacrificed-to-himself idea. Why not just use his supreme power and… make it so?

Throughout all this you’ll notice that I asked her a lot of questions. While I did make some statements (i.e. this seems contradictory, that verse says [x]), I mostly just asked questions. If you haven’t read Peter Boghossian’s book A Manual for Creating Atheists, you should get on that if these kinds of discussions are your thing. It outlines implementing a question-oriented approach to conversations, the whole of which he refers to as street epistemology. At its core, it’s old-school Socratic reasoning. I didn’t tell Claire that she was wrong. I asked a lot of questions about things I’d noticed or about her background itself. For example…

Claire: [Statement about Jesus story.]

Me: With how much you value the acts of Jesus, have you ever wondered about the discrepancies in the Synoptic Gospels?

Claire: Discrepancies? I don’t think there are any.

Me: Have you compared the events in these books?

Claire: Not side by side.

Me: Do you think that would be a good idea to get a better grasp of the three versions of this story?

It’s a far more gentle approach to take in conversations since you’re not claiming anything for the most part. You’re simply asking questions that they should know the answers to as members of a particular faith.

All in all, I highly doubt either of us converted (deconverted?) the other. However, it was clear I had the done my homework when considering her answers to my questions. This is a good thing, as odd as that is to say. Perhaps she will now go home and consult the Bible itself, read it and discover new things about how she feels toward this faith. As they say, the Bible is the best armor against religion.

We shook hands and parted ways. I even gave her my email address so she could stay in touch. Maybe one day in the future I’ll be getting an email from Claire asking more questions. Or better yet, telling me all about her apostasy. One can dream.