debate-points, semanticsFor example I consider the depiction of the a woman’s role in marriage as defined by the christian bible to be sexual slavery, but I cannot quote a passage that attests to this. I have read the entire bible and this was one point that stuck out strongly to me, yet I am not a good enough scholar to know the answer off hand.
If you’re letting the theist have the argument on his/her turf, then you’d better memorize the text. If you’re going to cede the high ground (that is, if you’re going to say that the Judeo-Christian bible has any sort of truth value or is any kind of authority over atheists), then you fight with whatever weapons you have left.
However, I agree with philip guy muir; why let the theist set the terms of the debate? Tell him/her that Asimov’s Foundation trilogy is just as valid a text to argue over, or L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics. Appeals to authority are a weak argument to begin with, and if you don’t agree on the authority, it’s no argument at all.
If you’re trying to use the text against the theist by saying “look at what garbage your holy text has! How can you believe this stuff?” then again, you really have to go memorize the text. Ultimately, though, I have found that such tactic rarely works. The theist will tie him/herself in knots trying to justify cherry-picking which verses to follow and which to discard, and why the verses which happen to support his/her opinion just happen to be legitimate ones. It’s not a fight you can win.
So simple, point out that as an Atheist you dont believe in any of it and that even if there was a quote it has little or no value. Looking for quotes is just a way of bogging you down in the details. Stick to the big picture, they claim there is a God, they have to prove it.
Make a card that you carry around in your wallet that has your favorite samples of Biblical evil. Better yet, publish such a card so the rest of us can carry one around too. :)
I think it is good, if you are inclined to get in these sort of debates, to have your ducks in a row. Simply saying “I don’t believe in the Bible so I don’t have it memorized” is fine, but if you actually are ready with examples, you are a lot more likely to convince others of your point of view.
References to a specific religious text are only relevant to debates about that particular religion. If your debate is on the broader topic of the existence of (any) God/gods, you could point out that you need not be bound by one particular text over another.
If, however, you are debating the consistency or reliability or merits of a specific religion’s texts, teachings, beliefs etc, then arguably the religious text itself could be of value.
Regarding your example, the role of women in the bible and sexual slavery, most Christians will point to 1st Corinthians:
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
It’s hard to read sexual slavery into the instruction that a wife has authority over her husband’s body and a husband has authority over a wife’s body, as this seems quite modern in requirements for mutual authority.
The old testament may provide the evidence you’re looking, but be prepared for the retort that the old testament is not representative of Christian beliefs as Christ himself was not yet born..
Here is a list of 364 verses which address women in a negative way: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Ask him why he doesn’t know his own bible as a good Christian should.
Stuff like that comes from Paul. The passage you’re looking for is probably in Corinthians.
I think the text you’re looking for is Ephesians 5:21-33, which begins “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord…” This passage is commonly thought to justify “sexual slavery,” although I maintain that such a view is a gross misunderstanding. I’m a Catholic theology grad student, by the way; I hope it is ok for me to participate in this group.
In answer to your broader question, I would agree with tetteh that using a religion’s scriptures is most useful when trying to point out flaws in the religion. You can have your little card of Biblical evil that rob suggests, and that might work with people who don’t know their faith very well. My experience, however, is that when I see atheists attacking the Bible, they don’t do a very good job. It’s easy to take samplings from any classic ancient text and make that text look ridiculous by interpreting it in a modern context. That tactic will work with the uneducated, but anyone who really understands the text easily sees what you’re doing.
Let me make an analogy with quantum mechanics. Someone could pull out certain examples of quantum theory that would make it appear ridiculous to someone ignorant of physics. However, such arguments would not phase a real physicist who knows that the given examples represent a misunderstanding of the theory.
To begin to correctly understand an ancient text, you must know the cultural context in which it was written. You must also understand different literary genres and try to determine when something should be taken literally or symbolically. For example, poetry is much more symbolic than history, but even with history, ancient approaches to history were different from modern approaches. I’ve taken philosophy courses where we studied texts from Plato and Aristotle, and they have to be approached with the same care. These techniques of analysis and interpretation are not exact and are constantly evolving. There are some things that we can say that the Bible clearly teaches, such as God made everything; Jesus is God and man; he died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day. The age of the universe or the exact chronology of the details of Jesus’ life we don’t know for certain.
So arguments that say the Bible is wrong because it says the world was created in 6 days, and science tells us it wasn’t don’t phase me because I don’t believe the world was created in 6 days. Genesis 1 is using symbolic language of days, a forbidden fruit, and a talking snake which represent order, rebellion, and temptation. Attacks against the inconsistency of details between the four Gospels do not phase me because I know that ancient writers had no problem reordering chronology or changing peripheral details in order to serve another purpose in their writing.
The preceding principles apply to any ancient text. We Christians traditionally see the Bible as not only a collection of ancient texts, but a collection with a unifying theme of Jesus Christ as God incarnate and savior of the world. Traditional interpretation, especially in the Catholic Church, relates everything to this theme. Therefore, Ephesians 5 which I referenced above, is about God’s love for the human race expressed in the analogy of the family. The term “be subject” must be interpreted in the context of a loving family, and is better taken to be something like “live in harmony with.” Any kind of sexual slavery is completely antithetical to this interpretation.
What you're asking isn't all that clear. Are you the one initiating the conversation, making the positive assertion that one of the reasons for your lack of belief is , where is some notion from your study of a religion's mythology?
If so, then yes you're going to need to have your facts at hand regarding their fairy tales.
...
I don't get why a person of 'faith' would be randomly asking you to defend your atheism or lack of belief in their stories by asking you about specific passages of their book, unless it's part of some 'ministry' to you (IE conversion). If so, then just as other posters have mentioned, you have no need to refute any passage, you can simply say.
"I don't believe any of that nonsense at all. And quoting a book to justify a book is just circular logic. Unless you can do better than that we don't have anything to talk about." Let them deal with their own nonsense.
...
If you do need to have factual knowledge of the material, per paragraph one above, I highly recommend any of the online skeptical resources. Here are a couple: Skeptics Annotated Bible and Jewish Skepticism. In such conversations, it's valuable to keep coming back to the incoherent and illogical interpretation of the bible (if you're debating that book). For example, in Leviticus there's an admonition against homosexuality. There's also an admonition against wearing garments made of two fabrics. Ask the other person why they ignore that part of the bible. Later, in the new testament (Timothy), slaves are instructed to be good workers for their owners. Why doesn't the bible advocate resisting that oppression?
There's a thousand plus years of apologetics for the craziness in the bible, and just as long for the sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, and others. They share a common factor in the appeal to the source material as justification of the source material.
The best answer is simply “I don’t have the reference memorized, but I’ll look it up and e-mail you the citations.” Calm, collected, and confident goes a long way toward pathos.
Insofar as you are making a claim or building an argument you must have appropriate research to back up your claim. Whether you’re discussing Christianity or Physics, this is how debate works. Not having materials to cite leaves you open to the counterattack that you’re argument is based on conjecture or anecdotal evidence.
When an argument is about a particular book’s claims or mandates, you need to know them thoroughly to have an opinion, let alone to form an argument, against them.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.