How to Argue Against Christianity

Debating a subject as delicate as religion requires forethought, clear-headedness, and

immense tact. To argue against Christianity, use the following guidelines.

Steps
1.

1
Pick your battles. Striking up a debate with someone who welcomes discussion,
chooses to proselytize, or is belligerent towards non-Christians is very different from
picking a fight with someone whose values you dont happen to agree with. Christians
who are going about their business dont want to be attacked for their beliefs any more
than you do.
Ad

2.

2
Identify what youd like to argue against specifically. Do you have a problem with
an ethical standpoint presented in the Bible (such as opposition to homosexuality)? If so,
you might point out other edicts in the Bible that modern Christians dont adhere to and
ask what makes them fit to pick and choose. Do you think your own faith is more valid
than Christianity? If so, have points of comparison and contrast ready and be familiar
with the texts of both religions. Do you dislike the idea of institutionalized religion in
general? If so, focus on the atrocities committed by various religious institutions (not
just Christianity) throughout history.

3.

3
Do your homework. Though its possible to come at the other debater entirely from
your own perspective, it will be much easier to poke holes their argument if youre willing
to venture onto their turf. Research a few relevant historical points, Biblical quotes (and
their context), and differences in Biblical translation/interpretation to both strengthen
your own argument and anticipate various responses. Any time you think you have a
good point, look it up online to see what has already been said about it and modify/scrap
the idea as necessary.

4.

4
Address faith and institution separately. Whether or not you agree with this,
backing away from the idea that all faith is inherently flawed might be necessary to gain
traction in your argument. (After all, people have been arguing over the unknowable for
as long as theyve been capable of arguing.) To make your target more realistic (and
keep the attack from getting personal), consider focusing the debate on the church itself.
Point out wars waged in the name of Christianity (such as the Crusades and the Bosnian
War), the fact that the Old Testament was used to justify slavery in America, the fact
that the church has a long history of covering up sex abuse against children, and so on.
Ask the other debater how (s)he can feel justified in supporting an institution with
questionable morals, especially if that support is financial.

5.

5
Address the difference between religion and morality. Some Christians argue that
their faith is useful for instilling morals. If this is the case with your debater, let them
know about your own philosophy and civic volunteering to demonstrate that its possible
to be a good person without being a Christian. Point out some of the many instances of
abuse within the church and ask why Christian values didnt prevent these acts. If your
debater responds that members of the church are free to choose whether or not to be
moral, point out that non-believers are free to do the same, making Christian values no
more or less useful than any others.

6.

6
Seek out flawed logic. If your debater is a literalist, have a few Biblical selfcontradictions ready and ask which one the Bible would have you believe. While youre at
it, point out variations in the translations and editing over time or better yet, ask if the
debater has read the text in its original language. (This is also useful if the debater
invests his/her argument very heavily in the wording of a particularly passage.) If your
debater seeks validation by pointing out instances where the Bible and scientific truth
overlap, point out that faith is by definition independent of fact and that their need to
find evidence goes against the spirit of belief. If your debater believes that accepting
Jesus erases sins and is the only way to reach salvation, ask what (s)he thinks happened
to Jewish victims and Christian perpetrators of the Holocaust in the afterlife. (Be very
careful about how you do this: remember, this is an exercise in pointing out

inconsistencies in logic, not trying to associate an innocent debater with a heinous war
criminal.)

7.

7
Anticipate counter-arguments. If, for example, you propose that science is more
trustworthy than religion, expect to hear the argument that science is constantly being
reinterpreted in many ways, more so than Christianity. What people accept as fact
today would have been laughed at 100 years ago (which can be said about a huge
number of points in history), making it reasonable to assume that much of what we take
for granted right now will become defunct in the future. Additionally, be prepared to
debate whether or not the amount of harm caused by scientific advances (ex. global

warming, mass warfare, nuclear weaponry, and so on) is analogous to the number of
crimes perpetrated by the Christian church.

8.

8
Dont expect to create a convert. Let go of the need to emerge from the debate
victorious: you are about as likely to win over a firm believer as (s)he is to bring you into
the fold. Instead, aim to have a diplomatic, well-reasoned exchange that does you
justice and gives you both something to think about.