How to Disprove Any Christian in 10 Easy Steps

How to Disprove Any Christian in 10 Easy Steps August 17, 2017

If you have trouble refuting the arguments of a Christian that seems to have a good handle on the Bible – here’s a fool proof method to utterly destroy them!

 

1.) Completely ignore the Scriptures until you want to randomly quote a verse or two that support your particular political and/or social ideology.

2.) Appeal to the RED LETTERS of Jesus; they hold magical power and when taken on their own, in one or two consecutive verses at most, allow you to ignore the rest of the bible – especially the parts that completely refute your own point.

3.) Definitely ignore the part where Jesus talks about sinners and what that term means (including any qualities or actions that might make one a sinner). Also, it is suggested you avoid parts speaking directly to final judgment, the divinity of Christ, etc.

If all else fails, tell them that the story of Jesus is a knock off of the stories of Horus, Dionysus, Attis, Mithra, and Krishna. If they somehow manage to pull up the extremely well-documented refutations against this – tell them the historical Jesus didn’t exist.

4.) If any Christian gives you push back about how you view a particular social issue, call them unloving, hypocritical, judgmental, and bigoted.

Pro-tip: quote “Do not judge” from Luke 6:37, but ignore the part where He speaks of “right judgment.” Who is anyone to judge? If they say, “God is able to judge,” tell them you don’t believe in the “Magic Sky Fairy” anyhow, so that’s irrelevant.

5.) Ignore any and all methodology devoted to studying the books of the Bible in their proper literary genres. Narrative? Treat any occurrence of something unfolding in narrative as if it was a command from God. Poetic? No problem – just ignore any metaphorical and allegorical language! Prophetic or Apocalyptic? Claim they were on hallucinogenics!

6.) If they appeal in some fashion so as to say: “I am just as much in need of grace as any man,” repeat step 3. Grace isn’t grace without punishment for sin and a Savior isn’t a Savior without a contingent set of core doctrines swept under the rug.

7.) Use ad hominems, red-herrings, bulverism, loaded questions, straw-men, ambiguity, incredulity, the fallacy fallacy, loaded questions, etc.

Perfect examples of this would include:

  • Shell fish and other casuistic Laws from the Old Testament.
  • Discrediting their character because they did something fishy at one point.
  • Define moral principles using the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.
  • Saying someone can’t speak to an issue because they lack credentials, life-experience, or a particular genetic makeup.

8.) Appeal to the history of those who have done atrocious things in the name of religion even though they were never actually Christian (e.g. Hitler). Also, give some examples of actual Christian leaders who were caught doing something they spoke against. Use these to generalize and dismiss any serious claims to genuine faith.

9.) Never actually address any legitimate counter-points they make. Not only will doing so give them reason to believe they have a valid argument, but if you avoid the original premise, it allows you to keep raising arguments that never deal with the substance of their argument!

10.) If everything up to this point fails, say that the bible is the product of man. Make grand-sweeping claims that the collection of writings found in Scripture are not historical documents, the Bible was corrupted over time – like a giant game of telephone, or use any of the aforementioned logical fallacies against the text itself. You’d be surprised what you can do with little-to-no understanding of textual criticism and a faulty understanding of how to use a lexicon.


If they ignore every possible solution I’ve outlined here, grab a couple of like-minded friends who can jump in, rinse, and repeat.

Bonus Points: If you are able to work in the God is a “cosmic child-abuser” or “…filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” line at some point, you’ll really channel Hitchens et al. in the remainder of the debate.

"There are a number of issues I would like to point out here:1) Worth vs ..."

Is the Cross a Revelation of ..."
"If he loved them and prayed for them instead of condemning them, he wouldn't be ..."

Farewell, Joshua Harris
"I’m certain that you know. Honesty is a must for real conversations."

The True Legacy of Rachel Held ..."
"Where did the author say, one time, that he loved Rachel Held?"

The True Legacy of Rachel Held ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Is it satire when I’ve experienced all ten of these? Lol.

    • Beau S

      Great satire has reality at its core. 😀

  • Vociferous1

    Wow, those are weak arguments. You can do better than that.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Hi Vociferous, this is purely satire

      • Vociferous1

        Okay, that makes sense.

      • rtgmath

        Okay then. I figured as much. But my comment (above) took you a bit seriously. I will edit it to reflect your note here.

  • Steve Buckley

    Interesting.
    I know where the atheists are who actually use these, and think they’ve succeeded.
    It’s quite intriguing to watch them dance. You’d think that someone was actually using a pistol to get them to do the Mexican shoe dance.

  • Clayton Gafne Jaymes

    I wasn’t expecting that from the article. I’m glad I read it. It amused me. 🙂

    Unfortunately I’ve had pretty much every single one of the points in the article used against me as well.

    It’s all good though. It is just decent to have some even engage you about things. Maybe one day they will remember something they read from the comments andthat’ll be the beginning of the truth growing for them.

  • Damien Priestly

    Problem is…your steps are unnecessary. Unless someone asserts a particular scripture is definitively false — there is no requirement to take steps disprove a religion or it’s holy books. The burden lies with the believer in the religion or scripture to provide the respective proof. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and other religions have scriptures…We await proof of the veracity of their holy books.

    • Ectricark

      Appealing to the burden of proof is a lot like pleading the Fifth Amendment in a court case; technically admissible, but it looks a whole lot like guilt.

      • BT

        Sounds accurate to me. Proof is a mirage.

  • Alonzo

    Grayson Gilbert’s approach to Christian arguments is not to disprove them but to create logical fallacies for each argument Christians raise. Let’s take each one one at a time.
    1. The fallacy of removing from context
    2. The fallacy of the straw man
    3. The fallacy of ignoring the argument
    4. The fallacy of ad homenim
    5. The fallacy if not applying critical thinking to literary works. Such critical thinking is basic to graduating from high school. One would not be able to pass basic English without such critical thinking
    6. The fallacy of straw man and shifting the issue
    7. The fallacy of replying to a fictitious argument and using logical fallacies
    8. The fallacy of the rabbit trail and hasty generalization
    9. The fallacy of hasty generalization

    Wow, what a great way to “disprove any Christian.” The only problem with these ten approaches that that they do not disprove any Christian. How does one disprove a Christian? That makes no sense. I can understand why he wants to point to these ten approaches. They are all irrational and reject the approach atheists take pride in – reason. It is little wonder atheists cannot defend their position. They do not know how.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Hi Salt, this is purely satire – I am a conservative, Reformed-leaning Christian

      • Alonzo

        Well, you fooled me.

        • Lark62

          Yep. It sounded an awful lot like a hateful rant against a strawman. But oh, it was just satire. Righhhhtttt

        • Satanic_Panic

          Don’t worry too much about it – filling your head with jeebus nonsense is likely to turn your brain into mush.

          • Alonzo

            Your personal attacks ruin your discourses and reveals your education level – very low.

          • Satanic_Panic

            Seriously? You’re the idiot who didn’t realize that the original post was a satire.

            I am going to have to conclude that your education level is nonexistent.

          • Alonzo

            Seriously, you can’t write without ridicule. I’m going to have to conclude that you are just crazy.

          • Satanic_Panic

            Well, perhaps you should write things that aren’t so easy to ridicule. Or just stop trying to outsmart your betters.

      • BT

        I got that it’s satire. It seemed excessively harsh to me though and so not really able to help the conversation at all. It’s just another mocking wedge between two already alienated camps.

        It comes off a bit “better than thou” honestly. I’d hope we as a Christian culture could have a more positive voice.

        Just my 2 cents and also from a reformed (as opposed to neo-reformed) perspective.

  • Doug Barron

    What is one called that engages a willful fool in debate?

    • Tiny J

      Ben Kenobi?

  • SilverFawn

    Wow, because Christians don’t use their equivalent of those techniques at all…? It’s frustrating to be on the receiving end of stupid illogical discussion points regardless of your religion, race, gender etc. Christians and Atheists are all human, and individuals from both groups are capable of communicating their ideas badly or feeling frustrated at people who oppose them. This article may be satire, but I feel like it’s keyed to offend some people. Writing articles that provoke people or encourage an “us and them” attitude could be considered bad or sinful no matter whether you think that because you’re atheist and living by your own morals, or Christian/other religion and living by God’s morals.

  • Satanic_Panic

    The irony of this essay is that this is exactly how christian apologists and various other fairy-storyists argue with people who doubt their assertions, claims and just-so stories.

  • Tiny J

    My favorite these days (because of how easy it is to disprove) is “The Bible says women have to marry their rapists!” Seriously. A quick Google search will straighten that out.

  • Jackson100

    The spiritual Jesus obviously exists, in prayers, Churches, in the Bible, and in some people’s hearts. There is plenty of evidence for a spiritual Jesus, or call him a mythical Jesus. I believe in him and love him, spiritual Jesus, warts and all. The physical, historic Jesus does not exist. He is not physically here now. There is no credible evidence he ever existed physically and historically. In fact the evidence points against it. I am not interested in refuting Jesus and the Bible. Rather, I seek the truth. The truth seems to be that the real Jesus is mythical, imperfect, spiritual, and someone whom we can be with in loving positive healing relationship. But he is not really for everybody, not a Universal Perfect hero. He certainly did not create the physical universe, though he may be Lord of a spiritual heaven.

    • Gilsongraybert

      I’m not sure you know the Christ of the Scriptures, but rather, it seems you know the Christ of your own concoction quite well.