I almost never debate Christians about their faith or my lack thereof. Why? It’s because when I ask for objective proof of what they say, I receive the same old evidence: The Bible Tells Me So. Of course, some use other sources, but those sources they quote are mostly apologists, people paid to reconcile faith with fact (poorly) and for those that need to justify their faith. Other sources they use, to their benefit are scientific: archeology mainly, but then, non one is arguing that Babylon didn’t exist, or that Nazareth didn’t exist. what we’re discussing is the idea of a god, and in particular, Jesus.

What upsets me most though is the way a believer addresses me. Sometimes it’s with direct condescension. How can anyone have a debate with someone that’s coming to the discussion with such a superior attitude? For me, that makes it easy to make them stumble on their own argument, at that point they become frustrated, and then, well, it’s over. It’s hard not to take things personally though. I’ve had that struggle, especially when someone will argue that they know what I’m saying because they know where I’m coming from. No, they don’t. They believe they know my position, before we’ve had a single exchange. That used to anger me until I finally realized that it was not a debate trick, but a way of trying to be superior. Of course, to those Christians, it was meant to be empathetic, but in fact doesn’t come across that way at all.

I will often ask my inquirer if they have any other source for their argument other than their bible. Most of the time, in fact nearly all the time, the answer is no. At that point, I tell the person that any argument they make to a nonbeliever, or a person of another religious belief, would be void because they are assuming that their holy books universality, where none exists. That will catch some by surprise because they truly believe that their book should be accepted as evidence of their faith. Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists might want a say in that.

So usually, this the hardest part of any debate or discussion to get through: the ground rules of what is acceptable as proof. At least for me. I don’t want to discuss their bible because, although I have one, and yes, I have read it and still, on occasion, use it for reference, it’s not an infallible reference. Most bible scholars (non-apologists) will concur.

That’s essentially why I normally decline to debate (they’re not really debates, just discussions) my non-belief with a believer. I find Christianity fascinating. The ritual, some of it passed down from the earliest days, is an interesting look into history and the way worship is conducted, some very formal, dictates the mind of those believers as well.

I don’t try and dissuade others from debate, some I’ve witnessed were very good and thought provoking (on both sides!), but mostly, haven’t we done this all before? I’m pretty sure a believer will not drop to their knees and reconvert from their belief at the end of any debate and vice versa for their atheist opponent. Those only occur in Hollywood fantasies.