Enfield

Seems impossible to beat Christians.

During various debates I will make it known, with a bible, that alot of views are obviously contradictory. Like Luke will say one thing and Mark will say another about a particular event, but it will not phase them. The "message" is still there. Like, If I use the ressurection, they will say "All of them agree that a ressurection occured, so whats the bother about a few mistakes?". Makes sense. Also, about the fact that no other sources except for the bible exists about the ressurected Jesus. Even when he went into Jerusalem supposedly, nobody ever seemed to write about it? They just say that the average Jew could not read and would not have been able to write it anyway, the ones that could would either not write it down because they would not have wanted to admit to killing the son of God or they were told not to record it.
I dont have proof that the bible is false...Like, they all do manage to tell the same story. Also, the temple that Jesus was supposed to knock down after three days was destroyed because the cloth or something ripped and therefore God was not present in the house or something..to show that their temple was no longer Godly and effectively destroyed. How can I prove this never happened?...
Thanks guys..Ive dug in deep but I need a bit of help...

p.s Im not after these Christians, but when we do get in friendly debates , I like to be prepared for any contingencies.

Viti

They will never admit to having doubts and they certainly won't tell YOU "Oh, yeah, I can't explain that". What does happen is you may get a "bug in the ear" of one person, who will think about it alone, or study to debate you and form their own questions and it builds up and they deconvert (like our lovely Lanakila, only recently a fundie...so we thought)

If you are debating online, you have to keep the lurkers in mind, you will never know if you have gotten someone to think, or if someone reading your words learned something, even if the actual debate seems fruitless.

Postcard73

I think LadyShea gave an excellent answer. The simple fact is that it is very difficult to prove something didn't happen to a person who has based their entire perception of the world on the notion that the event not only happened but was the most important episode in human history. You can, however, still plant the seed of doubt. I think the best way to prepare yourself to argue with xians is to read these forums (I am constantly amazed at how intelligent many of the people are around here), read the books in the recommended reading threads in the various fora, check out the Christianity section of the SecWeb Library, and ask questions when you don't understand something.

Because your OP isn't about a specific Bible issue, I'm going to move this thread to GRD.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

Queen of Swords

Actually, my mother has said this frequently when we've debated, which is understandable, since she's a very direct person who's not accustomed to the twists and turns of apologetics. Therefore, even though she's still a christian, she's reached the conclusion that the bible is not 100% accurate. Which is fine with me. As long as she recognizes the book for what it is - rather than a platform from which to proclaim superior morality or a weapon to hit gay people/women/atheists with - I'm happy.

Bit off-topic, I'm afraid.

TheRealityOfMan

Also, about the fact that no other sources except for the bible exists about the ressurected Jesus. Even when he went into Jerusalem supposedly, nobody ever seemed to write about it?

Contrast that with-

John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The Evil One

No it doesn't. It is true that they all claim a resurrection occurred. The question is, why should we beleive them? The Christian answer is usually that the Gospel authors were in a position to know whether it was true or not - ie the Gospels were written by or on the basis of testimony from eyewitnesses.

If the Gospels were written by / with eyewitnesses, there wouldn't be a few mistakes. The few mistakes show that they can't have been eyewitnesses. If they weren't eyewitnesses, then all they're doing is reporting a story they heard. Reports of stories heard by an unknown person from some other unknown person prove nothing.

Barcode

In my experience, from conversing with believers, some of them know rationally that it just doesn't add up - but a strong emotional attachment clouds clear thinking.

I imagine it must be a terrifying prospect to allow a chink to develop in the protective armour you've carefully built up over the years: for some people, altering such a view means causing chaos with relatives and losing friends. It's easy to see why many won't concede even a minor point.

Worldtraveller

....get a bigger stick!

Cheers,
Lane

jafosei

You know, the simple truth is that it's hard to convince anyone that the things they believe deeply are wrong. Once you've come to a belief and you've stated it publicly, there's a strong tendency to hold onto that belief, especially when it's challenged. The brain starts to rationalize and defend, because we don't like to admit we've made a mistake. This tends to be true no matter what your religion/philosophy/belief is, in my experience.

Personally, I don't try to change people's minds about anything. I'll happily discuss things, and I love to raise interesting questions that I hope will make people think, but I don't expect that people will change their minds in the short term. Given time and other factors, people may eventually change their own minds.

Shake

I like what Dogma says about belief:But yes, you can plant the seeds of doubt, and hope they grow.