Arguing against Faith

Practical advice for debating with theists

However, that is not always practical, and you will often be drawn into a debate either by being asked a direct question, or overhearing a conversation in which something idiotic is said. You may, like myself, put yourself in the firing line by having a web page, or engaging in debate on a USENET newsgroup (like alt.atheism).

I wrote this page to provide help to those who end up arguing with believers of one religion or another.

• Firstly, be calm and polite.
  Admittedly, this is much easier when corresponding electronically than it is in a face-to-face argument, but it is best to try. Theists often consider atheists to be some sort of lower form of life with no morals, poor education, antisocial tendencies and probably bad breath as well. Losing your temper and shouting "%*!#@ off, you're a moron and so is your god!" is just going to reinforce their views, no matter how satisfying it is to you (oh, and it can be... :). Being abusive is going to do more harm than good, and only serve to convince them that they are right and you are wrong.
• Is it worth the effort?
  Many theists take great comfort from their beliefs. They might not actually want to question their beliefs or hear a dissenting view. Of course, if they bring the issue up in the first place then there is no need to hold back.
  Try to recognise when you have a chance of getting anywhere in the argument. I was having a nice dinner once with three Catholics. One of them said something regarding Catholic doctrine that I disagreed with entirely, but I recognised that trying to convince them of my point of view was futile (whether or not it was correct), and would have probably spoilt the rest of the meal. Sometimes it is better to hold your tongue if you are clearly not going to make any progress.
  I also suspect that many people are actually unable to abandon their beliefs. Like juggling, riding a bicycle or tying your laces, you cannot easily unlearn things that you spent a great deal of time learning. When a certain thing has been practiced often enough, it becomes hardwired into your neural pathways. For some people, it could be that thinking religiously and believing in a God has been fixed in their brain in the way that their native language has. Even if they could accept your arguments, they simply cannot unlearn the things that are so deeply embedded in their minds.
• Be reasonable and rational.
  Theists' beliefs are based on superstitious nonsense with little or no basis in reality. Naturally, they object if you point this out to them, so you must do your best to express your point of view in clear and simple terms. If they do not understand, be prepared to explain in more detail. Avoid saying "It just is, okay!" (see later). This is more likely to come from the theist. You don't have to use a cop-out if you are losing the argument (which is rare :), but the theist almost certainly will. Watch out for :-
  • "God works in a mysterious way"
  • "We are not meant to question His actions"
  • "We are not meant to have that knowledge"
  • "Don't try to twist my words!"
  • Biblical quotes. Can't they use their own imagination? (see also Circular arguments below)
• Don't waste your time...
  ... and create unnecessary aggravation by arguing against closed minds. An approach I have found very helpful is to use Popperian epistemology [as in Karl Popper, the logical positivist] as a set of ground rules for argument. In brief, the idea is that in order for an idea to be taken seriously as a statement of fact (rather than belief), the conditions of its falsifiability must be laid out. In other words, you must say "Tell me what I have to do to win this argument". If the other person says "You can never convince me that I am wrong because I have faith", there is absolutely no point arguing with them, and you should let them know this. (This entry by Hume-anist, originally posted on the message forum)
• Know when to quit
  Some people seem to enjoy dragging a debate out as much as is humanly possible, usually by being a "last-post looney". That is, no matter what you say, they will always add a response of some sort. They must have the last word, no matter what. Learn to spot these people, and just realise that sometimes you will have to allow them the last word (because they certainly will not allow you it).
• Be honest
  If you do not have an answer, say so. Explain why you do not. Atheists do not claim to know all the answers to everything, but the basic principles on which we acquire our knowledge are sound. Just because we do not know what Quasars are does not mean that we will never know. Our knowledge is limited, but it is increasing every day. If you cannot explain something, say so and say why (maybe microbiology isn't your field of expertise, for example), but also say why you believe there is a rational explanation and where information about it can probably be found.
• Back up your arguments.
  The main difference between the atheistic and theistic point of view is that the atheist can produce evidence to back up the argument. If you're discussing cosmology, see what you can find at the NASA web site. For Evolution/Creation, try the Talk.Origins Archive, or some of the online Natural History Museums. Search the Web using a good search engine for information by people with more knowledge of the subject. If you can, persuade your opponent to look there also. Information coming from NASA or a respected university may carry more weight with them.
• Don't lose your temper.
  It can often be very frustrating when they don't seem to listen to what you say, and keep on trotting out the same lame arguments all the time. There are some theists who would not believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory even if God Himself told them it was true! If the debate is obviously going nowhere, and the person has a completely closed mind, end the debate there and then. Politely inform them that you don't think it's going anywhere and you will have to agree to differ. Make sure that it doesn't sound like you are admitting defeat, though. Again, provide them with a list of references (URLs, books etc.) that they can study at their leisure.
• Listen to what they have to say.
  It is very easy to dismiss their arguments out of hand, but avoid doing so. For one thing, you might learn something new. Just because a person is religious does not mean that all their arguments are false and all their knowledge is inferior. Listen to them and then you can carefully pick apart their arguments afterwards.
• Know your enemy.
  Read the Bible if you haven't already done so. If you can keep a straight face through Genesis, you should be able to deal with the rest of it. Christians like quoting the bible at you. Unfortunately, whatever they quote at you can usually be contradicted by another quote from the same book. Acquaint yourself with the main contradictions, atrocities and absurdities in the Bible (and there are plenty to choose from).
• Back them into corners.
  If they seem particularly hung-up on one thing, steer the conversation towards it. Keep asking them to explain it further. Question those explanations. Eventually, they will run out of answers, and know it. It is enormous fun watching them squirm on the hook of their own logic. Give them enough rope to hang themselves (to use another metaphor). If you can, try to get them to contradict themselves (which is usually quite easy) and then see if they are prepared to admit that they have done so (which is less easy - see House Of Cards below). Their arguments are not solid enough to stand up to proper questioning, and when you push them to the edge of their beliefs, and they realise that, they are stuck. This is usually when they will end the debate first. <evil cackle>
• Don't forget, they may have read a page like this and know how you are likely to argue.
  Yes, I can see you, you naughty, naughty believer!

What to watch out for

Watch for various combinations of argument by:

• Blatant Assertion
  "It just IS, okay". In other words, they don't know, but would quite like you to accept their argument without any of that pesky thought or reason.
• Circular Argument
  "I know the Bible is correct, because it is the Word of God, and I know it is the Word of God, because it says so in the Bible". Using the Bible to prove the correctness of the Bible doesn't wash.
• Incredulity
  "Well, it must be that way, because I can't imagine how it could be different!". Can't think of an alternative, or cannot understand the alternatives, so there are no alternatives. It's like saying "Well, I can't possibly imagine how there could be any ice-cream flavour other than chocolate, so there can only be chocolate ice-cream"
• Magically acquired knowledge
  "I just know it is true". e.g. They know God exists, but can't say why. It usually turns out to be some sort of warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Like when you've had a good hot curry.
• Limitation of knowledge
  "Oh, so you atheists know everything, do you?". No we don't, but what we do know is backed up by sound, physical evidence that has been reached by rational, scientific means.
• Other religions
  "Have you tried every religion? Well, how do you know none of them are right, then?". The basic premise of all religions (ie. a supernatural deity) is flawed. Also, if they haven't tried all other religions, how do they know they're worshipping the right God, when so many other people worship other Gods?
• Redefining God to suit their beliefs.
  Theists will often define the way God does things, to fit in with their argument (you'll also notice that their god invariably shares their own personal prejudices). A good example is in the argument about free will :- "God can know what all your actions will be, but he chooses not to". How the hell do they know that? People will often tell you what god can and cannot do, but won't be able to say how they know that. It just happens to fit in with their argument, which would collapse if God worked any other way. Who are they to tell us how God does things, especially if other members of their own religion say he does things differently? When they can eventually agree amongst themselves about God, then they can start bugging atheists about Her. (Don't hold your breath...)
• Redefining words to suit their beliefs
  This mostly happens when discussing scriptures. You might say "The Bible clearly says X here.", and get the reply "Ah, but in the original Hebrew it means Y, which can also be interpreted as Z.". I found one interesting website where the author is talking about how God made Adam from "dust". Apparently, "dust" can mean
  

  • Dirt, such as you might find at the side of the road.
  • People (handy if you want to say Adam had parents, or even evolved).
  • The elements, i.e. any sort of matter at all (presumably Adam was not made from antimatter, although I suppose the Antichrist could be).

  
  If they do this, they will probably also use the definition that most suits them at that time. Don't let them get away with being inconsistent. Many theists will only accept their own personal meaning for certain words (like omniscience, and so on) in a debate, and may simply refuse to discuss the issue with you unless you do it on their terms (which suit their argument).
  You will occasionally come across people who choose to ignore the laws of logic and are quite happy to say that something can be both true and false at the same time. Or, they may use different meanings for the same word but not give you any clue as to which they happen to be using at any one time (and of course, if you fail to understand what they're talking about, it's your fault for being so literal-minded and expecting them to conform to something as mundane as a dictionary definition).
• Righteousness
  "I am right, as I have God on my side. You are just a tool of Satan."
• Lack of a counterexample
  "Can you prove it's not true?" - This is futile. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist, but it does not mean that they do anyway. (A Christian once told me that rocks must exist because there are many non-rock things that exist - I'm still confused over that one...)
• Ignorance (quite common)
  "I don't need to know about science to know..." - Hey, what does evidence have to do with it?
• Utter cluelessness and scientific illiteracy
  I'll leave you to discover these ones for yourself. =)
• Misrepresentation and misquoting.
  Creationists seem happy to say that Evolution is the same as a hurricane building a 747 in a scrapyard, and Darwin himself didn't believe a word of it. Sneaky and underhanded, but a very common tactic.
• Upbringing
  "My mother told me, and she wouldn't tell me anything that's not true."
• Hand-waving
  Running out of ideas, so they just flap about like fish on dry land.
• Verbal abuse and threats of damnation/hellfire
  Several examples of this (as well as most of the above) can be seen on my Feedback page. If you have done your utmost to be polite and reasonable, this can actually be taken as a compliment, as it indicates that the person is unable to refute any of your arguments through logic and reason
• Conspiracy theory / Paranoia
  "All the worlds scientists are atheists, and are part of a global conspiracy to hide the truth and discredit the Bible." Perfectly true, of course, but don't let them know it- just keep working on the mind-control satellites. Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaah!
• Divine Intervention
  "God told me." - this is uncommon. But not uncommon enough.
• God of the Gaps
  If science currently cannot explain a particular phenomenon (a common example is the Big Bang), the theist will claim that this is clear evidence that God Did It. This assumes that science will never explain it, and also conveniently ignores all the things that science has explained that previously used to be attributed to gods. Saying that we don't fully understand the Big Bang, so God Did It, is akin to ancient people saying that Thunder Gods cause lightning, or Fire Gods cause volcanoes - they've just invented a more modern Big Bang God. One problem we have is that science does not set out to conclusively prove things, only explain them to a certain degree. Science is based on the weight of evidence in support of a theory. This means that there is always wiggle-room for a theist to say God Did It, no matter how strong the evidence is for the scientific explanation. For example, science considers gravity to be a property of matter, but it is impossible to prove that God is not making things appear as if they are falling to the ground. See The God Of The Gaps for more.
• Assuming the truth of the Bible
  The Bible is considered to be 100% infallible, so if it disagrees with reality, then reality is wrong. This is quite common among creationists and other fundamentalists. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it! If they would have to admit to an error in the Bible (no matter how trivial it may seem) in order to accept your argument, you're probably out of luck. The Bible cannot, must not, will not, be anything other than absolute literal truth. This also crops up when discussing contradictions or errors in the Bible : the Christian knows there are no errors in the Bible, so what you have found clearly cannot be an error. As it has now been shown not to be an error, this proves that there are no errors in the Bible. Nice and circular, no? (See How to think like a fundy for more).
• You cannot understand because you do not believe. And vice versa.
  Atheists do not believe in God because they do not understand God, and therefore they are not qualified to comment on anything to do with God or the Bible. So, only people who believe in God are allowed to debate the existence of God. Lucky, eh?
• Prayer
  "I will be praying for you" is often a sign that they think you are a lost cause and they can do nothing more for you. In other words, they are unable to refute your arguments and want to end the debate by having the last word from the moral high ground.

  Resorting to Mystery

  "It's a mystery", "Man is not meant to known such things", "Just have faith and believe it anyway".

  A slightly more subtle version of this is encountered when discussing the morality of God, especially when God appears to do things that decent human beings would consider abhorrent (pick any page in the Old Testament at random for examples).
  "Human rules (including Biblical rules) apply only to humans - not to God"
  In answer to this, you might say

  • How do you know that? How do you know what applies to God? (i.e. they are defining God to suit their arguments - see above)
  • Our morals are supposed to come from God. We know right and wrong because they are attributes of God. Are we also supposed to believe that God can merrily commit any act of violence he likes, but still keeps "beaming" his sense of morality to us. Would anyone really want to worship such an inconsistent, hypocritical being?
  • It suggests that humans have a greater sense of morality than God does. I thought he was supposed to be perfect in all ways.
  • Maybe they're right. God, by definition, is an atheist and many religious people regard atheists as amoral fiends who see no problem with committing any crime as they have no-one to answer to. God can do whatever He likes, because He has no "higher power" to hold Him responsible. Maybe someone should introduce him to Secular Humanism?

House Of Cards

This is also known as Doublethink (from George Orwell's 1984) - the ability to believe or accept two mutually exclusive ideas at once. You will often find theists who are perfectly able to compartmentalise their beliefs in this way. For example, you may come across an astronomer who can examine galaxies that are billions of years old, but also believes absolutely that the universe is only a few thousand years old. They just switch from one belief to the other as the situation requires. This remarkable skill lets people believe in the whole shaky House Of Cards, a single Card at a time. It's no use pointing out that what they just said means that something else must be wrong - they just context-switch to the other belief, and that one becomes True and the previous one is carefully put away until the next time it's needed.

Forcing someone to realise that they are doublethinking is a great way to create cognitive dissonance, and it helps to pin down their slippery beliefs under the microscope of critical scrutiny. There's an interesting attempt to do this in Robert G. Ingersoll's essay, The Devil. In the olden (and, sadly, not-so-olden) days, people seriously believed in devils and demons as completely real entities - they possessed people, made them ill, insane and criminal. Nowadays, many people say that devils are metaphors for the evil done by people. Quite a lot of the Christian religion relies on the idea that devils are actually real (if not, how could Christ cast the devils out of people?). When I first read the essay, I thought "He's banging on about these devils a lot, isn't he? Why does he keep making the same point?". Ingersoll produced one example to illustrate the Bible talking about real devils, then another, then another, then another. Then a few more. But this is the way to do it. Presented one at a time, the theist can dismiss each an example of allegory or poetic license. But providing a list of thirty or so examples all at once makes their job (pardon the pun) a hell of a lot harder.

If you talk with someone who seems to want to talk about things one Card at a time, give them all the Hearts or Diamonds at once and see how well they do.

• Debating creationists - Infidels Library.
• How to think like a Fundy - Wasteland article
• Gentle Godlessness
• How To Handle Bibliolaters
• How to argue like a creationist
• Test Those Christians
• There are no True Christians
• Everyone's a Skeptic - About Other Religions - James A. Haught
• How to fight the religious right

© Adrian Barnett 1997,1998,1999. Last updated 3rd March 1999.