I found an old rebuttal in some writings of mine. It was about some points that really bothered me out of a Christian pamphlet, two years or so ago. Obviously, I would write it differently now, with a broader perspective and different views on religious belief, but given that I wrote this long before I ever found this site, I felt it would be an interesting snapshot. Parts in bold are direct quotes from the pamphlet.
"So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative..."
"Sin is sin, and any transgression is bad enough to separate us from a holy and righteous God for all eternity."
- To have to accept an "account" written by people who were never there about things they could never have seen, over a theory with flaws, but that largely fits the facts, strikes me as being innately wrong. A flaw in a theory does not mean the whole theory is incorrect.
- Furthermore, I find the arrogance of those who use the flaws in evolutionary theory to claim that the Genesis story is true to be offensive. Who are they to dictate what method God used to create the universe? What to modern-day humans seems to be by chance could just as easily have had the will of God behind it.
"Religious hypocrites are unspiritual shams."
- This sounds like something that an evil being would demand. Only those who are perfect may go to heaven? Only those who accept Jesus as their savior will receive deliverance? I pity anyone born before Jesus lived, or who lived their whole live never hearing of him, then!
- The arrogance of those who claim to be humble, and yet declare that everyone who does not believe as they will never go to Heaven, is akin to weeds allowed to grow wild in a flower garden. Sooner or later, they will choke off the flowers, and then who will see anything but the weeds?
- It is as if the only thing that Christians get from the life of Jesus is the method and supposed reason for his death, as if the rest of his life is a prologue, to be given lip service to and then only counted because of the miracles, "proof" of his divinity. What of the manner in which Jesus lived? I consider that to be far more important, overall, than the crucifixion and resurrection, because were it not for the former, the latter would never have mattered. Christians would do far better to focus on the life of Jesus, and trying to do good unto everyone, than to obsess over sin.
"But if we read (books) with our "backs to the light" of God's book, we will remain ignorant of the truth."
- This is true. But far more dangerous are those who truly believe something merely because it has been handed down that way for generations. This does not necessarily mean it is false, but no one is immune to the responsibility to think about what they believe and be willing to examine it. Even if it is only said by one person, it is still worth considering; after all, how many people believed the earth was round before Columbus's voyage? Some, but not many. This example is more than enough proof of the responsibility of examining preconceptions.
- And who wrote the books of the Bible? They may have been divinely inspired, but they were still written by humans. Who said that the Bible was truth? More humans. What makes the Bible more special than any other holy book ever written? This does not mean the Bible is false, but it does mean that it should not be blindly accepted as truth merely because it was handed down as such.
Thinking about it, it's obvious that I already had significant problems with Christian dogma, even though I unthinkingly accepted parts of that same dogma. The irony is a bit embarrassing at this point in time. Anyway, it's worth mentioning again that what I wrote here was back when I had nobody to talk to but people who mostly accepted even more of that Christian dogma than I did. It's so easy to get trapped by a belief that's so common that it's axiomatic, until you actually stop and really think about it.