What's the best way to argue against Christianity and the Bible without being grouped into the whole "le reddit atheist neckbeard" subculture?
Is it even possible anymore? is it just an extremely narrow line to walk?
I feel like the closest thing to debating it without diving into Reddit-tier shit is Nietzsche's argument against the Bible/Christians
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
goodreads.com
twitter.com
The only genuine arguments are against the literal taking of the text, otherwise it's all semantics. There's absolutely no downside to at least accepting Jesus. The real patrician thing to do is to accept moral points from multiple religions and ascend typical dogma for enlightenment.
Faith is a complicated concept. The earth is flat, do not deny such an obvious fact as a flood. Bastard. This book belongs to a few. This book belongs to a few. This book belongs to a few. We are hyperboreans - we know quite well how far apart we live from others. God made us believers. These are the arguments we turn simple metals into precious metals. In the heart of the believer there is not a gaping gap, but something more streamlined. Schopenhauer is in purgatory. Everyone is saint until his birth.
>being this influenced by memes
You're a hopeless retard
There is no way. You seem to think a discussion with people that takes what was written centuries ago to face value is actually possible. How would you discuss with some kamikaze Muslim?
Everyone's a saint until they become aware of their mind. All are born saints. It's what you choose to do with grace of your own will which sets you free from it or closer still.
The real question is why would you do that.
All your arguments they disproved centuries ago, dude. They almost even managed to destroy Europe. Haha. But this is false faith. Our faith is strong and colorful.
This. As soon as a religious person pulls out the fedora argument you know they've got nothing else to say.
>Is it even possible
It isn't. You can't argue against objective truth without turning into an idiot.
Red the books of William Rowe and Graham Oppy they give good arguments against theism. Ignore shit like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, they are worthless in a discussion.
Actually being familiar with the biblical texts and history while also expressing genuine interest in it from a scholarly standpoint pretty much guarantees you respect from others by removing the adversarial dimension to your discussions, making it strictly academic.
Pretty much don't pull the /pol/ or reddit mistake of leading with a hot opinion and being combative instead of cultivating a productive discussion
No. Christianity is so manifestly fantastic that "arguing against it" these days is mosquito vs cannon and a sign of wearing your atheism like a badge.
If someone is a Christian, why do you care about talking them out of it?
>syncretism
Heretic.
The best advice I can give to atheists is to learn what Christians actually believe and why. It sounds simple but this is where the "new atheists" completely and utterly fail. It's best to ignore protestants because they're generally a bunch of muddle headed thinkers that contradict themselves more often than not.
How so if I do not deny Jesus as a path to salvation? If I admit and encourage his being? Why can I not accept him and others?
You don't need to fully understand the Bible. You just seed to analyze the deleterious role of the Church as an institution. After that it's pretty straightforward to reject Christianity altogether.
Nietzsche's arguments don't really work if you believe in God or the afterlife as he already presupposes they're false, but most of his arguments might not even work outside believing, because he says a lot but doesn't substantiate most of his claims. He says theologians don't know the true teaching of Jesus, yet somehow he knows. Another thing he said, since we should become monks then Christianity is bad because being a monk is hard. So, most of his arguments could be summed "Christianity focuses on afterlife, since afterlife ain't real then it's bad as we should focus on what's real, that is life." Not a bad argument if there's no afterlife, but then that'd be common sense, and since it's believed to be true then it's a bad argument because faith doesn't require empirical evidence.
Instead of arguing against something why not promote whatever it is you think is a better alternative? People will drop their religion if you give them something that does it better. Be Netflix to Christianity's Blockbuster.
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_fideism.html
