Many a skeptic / atheist has one time or another run into a street preacher or other type of Christian (and sometimes other type of) apologist, asked a bunch of questions, tried to either outsmart the apologist or even respond genuinely, only to have the apologist use all kinds of tactics to make the skeptic look foolish and ignorant about their own world view and their own arguments.
This happens most often because the skeptic does not have the necessary experience in conversing with Christian apologists, who often do have a lot of experience in all kinds of argumentative tactics (both honest and dishonest), and the skeptic often gets surprised and cornered by difficult questions to which they unwittingly give answers that the apologist then essentially makes a fool of.
A skeptic should know what Christian apologists usually expect to encounter, and what their tactics are. A skeptic should know to not fall into the argumentative traps laid by the apologist (and even if he tries to do that, the skeptic should know how to properly respond to them.)
Here are some useful tips for how to approach a discussion with a Christian apologist or street preacher (most effective in real-life, may also apply to an extent in online conversations, although this tends to be less effective because online conversations tend to be group conversations and your arguments will probably just be buried under everybody else's):
1: Do not be afraid of answering with "I don't know".
For some reason the vast majority of people, both skeptics and apologists, have this misguided intuitive notion that they should never answer with "I don't know", as they feel it to be a concession and a defeat, and having lost the argument. In fact, many Christian apologists in particular have this notion that if they get a skeptic/atheist to say "I don't know", they have disarmed them and have got the upper hand, and can then dismantle their existing world view and start building up a Christian one.
This is all fallacious thinking. The actual fact is that if you immediately respond with "I don't know" to something you honestly do not know the answer to (because you can't possibly know it), that actually disarms the Christian apologist, not you.
The most typical and best situation where that answer applies is in the very initial parts of the discussion, when the apologists asks a question like "where did the universe come from?" At this point the vast majority of skeptics commit the mistake of trying to give scientific hypotheses, talk about the Big Bang or whatever. However, the correct and best answer to give is: "I don't know."
That's not only the correct and honest answer (because you really don't know, nobody does), but it will usually catch the apologist by surprise because he most probably did not expect such an answer so soon, and was not ready for it.
The most usual response from the apologist at this point will most probably be "I do know" and to try to proceed to talk about God. At this point it will be you who can corner the apologist, with actual genuine correct logic, by pointing out that he does not know, he believes. Nobody knows the answer. You can point this out to the apologist, and simply refute his claim that he does know, because he truly does not; he only believes. This is the actual fact of the matter, which is your strongest weapon in this discussion.
Do not succumb into going into the swamp of trying to go to scientific explanations and hypotheses. You can skip all of that, even if the apologist tries to go there. The apologist will not get the upper hand in the debate if you keep it simple, honest and factual.
(If the apologist starts with "where did all this come from?"
pointing to your surroundings, you can simply redirect the question to
be more pertinent, with something like "do you mean where did the
universe come from?" Do not go into the origins of the Earth and life. Go straight to the core of the matter.)
An experienced apologist may still try to reverse this situation and try to lay further argumentative traps for you, but if you watch enough Christians vs. skeptics videos and other material, you'll get the experience and argumentative arsenal to respond properly.
2: Answer "why don't you believe in God?" correctly
One extremely common tactic that apologists use is to ask for the reasons why somebody doesn't believe, and then dismantle those reasons. This is an endless and perilous path of conversation that's full or traps and obstacles, and doesn't really lead anywhere.
There's an extremely simple counter to that question that avoids all that in a very easy way: Simply answer the question with another question: "Why should I?"
That might sound like flippant and sarcastic, but it's actually genuine and very effective. It once again stops the argumentative barrage that the apologist was readying himself before it even begins.
This is not really some kind of dirty dishonest diversionary tactic. It's actually a very intellectually honest question: You are the skeptic, you are the doubter. You are completely free to doubt and not believe, and you do not have the burden of proof. You do not need to justify your doubt. The person making the positive claim ("God exists") is the one with the burden of proof. You do not need to give any arguments for your doubt. You don't have to have any arguments for your doubt. It's not your duty to argue why you don't have a particular belief. It's the duty of the person trying to convince you of that belief to present you with the arguments. With this question you are asking for these arguments.
Keep in mind to keep it simple and honest! Do not succumb to the temptation of asking things like "what's your evidence of God?" This is not something you should ask. You should keep it much simpler and simply ask "why should I believe?" Do not give the apologist any more argumentative ammunition than needed.
Almost inevitably the apologist will try to answer with the first point above, or the ones below, so be ready for them.
3: Respond to arguments-from-the-Bible correctly
Almost inevitably (although not always, as some apologist tactics are based on not using the Bible to convince skeptics) the apologist will try to point passages in the Bible that are (at least allegedly) accurate, for example describing corroborated historical events, places and people, and the like.
Do not succumb to trying to argue about these examples. That's a mistake (which is way too common). The problem with trying to discuss the veracity or importance of those particular passages is that you are inadvertently making an incorrect concession: Without even realizing it, you are making the admission that "yes, if these passages are correct and factual, then it gives strong evidence of the existence of God." Which is, rather obviously, incorrect.
Do not discuss the passages in question. Instead, point out that fallacy. Point out that even if those particular passages were 100% accurate, that doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is accurate. Just because a book as some facts in it doesn't mean that every single thing written in it is factual. It doesn't matter how mundane or seemingly supernatural the factual parts of it are, that doesn't say anything about the rest of the book. Note to the apologist that you could write a thick book stock full of verifiable known hard facts, and then somewhere in the middle insert a completely false claim. Just because the rest of the book is factual doesn't make that one claim any more true.
4: Respond to arguments-from-miracles correctly
Very similarly, some apologists, and often Christians in general, will argue for the existence of God from alleged miracles, presenting examples of them.
Once again, do not succumb into trying to discuss the veracity of these miracles. You would once again be making an incorrect concession: You would be admitting that "yes, if these miracles are actually genuine, that would be evidence of the existence of God" (and thus the only question here is whether those claimed miracles actually happened or not), which is incorrect.
Realize that it doesn't actually matter if the alleged miracles happened or not (quite obviously they did not, but that doesn't really matter). Just because something seemingly supernatural has happened, that still tells us absolutely nothing about the existence of some alleged god. That's because even if the events are indeed miraculous, we have no idea what caused them, what their source is. Even if they genuinely could not be explained by the natural laws of the universe, even ones that we are yet to discover, we still wouldn't know what caused them, and thus jumping to "it was God" is completely fallacious thinking.
Point that out instead of going into the endless and fruitless swamp of trying to argue whether those miracles actually happened or not. Even if the apologist tries to drag into discussing the miracles themselves, you can simply refuse by pointing out that the whole argument is fallacious.
(If the apologist seems to be particularly friendly and understanding, and seems extremely willing to have an actual back-and-forth conversation where both people understand and acknowledge each other's points, you could start discussing possible natural explanations for those miracles, from a hypothetical point of view. But only do this after having made it clear that it doesn't really matter whether there is a natural explanation or not.)
5: Get to know and understand typical apologist arguments
Watching lots of skeptic videos and online material is a great way of getting knowledge on all kinds of arguments presented by apologists. Many apologists think that they have come up with all kinds of really clever and irrefutable "logical" arguments that "atheists have no answer to".
Well, you should have an answer to them ready. Correct answers, of course. Answers that point out the argumentative fallacy.
Note that you will not convince any apologist with your answers. They will not accept your answers. However, you can still answer to them for your own sake, or the sake of anybody else who is listening. There are tons and tons of such arguments, but some of the most typical are:
- Argument from morality: The apologist will argue that absolute morality exists and will ask where it comes from (and maybe even claim that "atheists have no basis for morality").
The answer is complicated, but you can try to keep it as simple as possible: We humans are a social species that has survived in families, groups and large societies via cooperation and working together. Over vast amounts of time (depending on the apologist you might want to avoid using "millions of years" so as to not trigger yet another swamp of fruitless and useless discussion about the age of the universe) we, as a society, have developed rules of civility and morality that work for a functioning and prosperous society. We have millenia of experience on what kind of societal rules work and what doesn't. We, as a society, have come up with laws and systems of law enforcement, to punish those who commit crimes against society that would harm people.
- The fine-tuning argument: The apologist will argue that the universe is too fine-tuned for life to be just mere random chance.
Here even experienced skeptics succumb to a bad mistake: They start pointing out how the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile to life, and how rare it is for any place to be able to sustain life. This is a mistake because the argument was not that the entire universe is friendly to life, but that it's fine-tuned so that life on Earth is possible. The rest of the universe doesn't matter.
You can keep it simple: We do not know what exactly determines the laws of the universe to be like they are, and how they may or may not be modified, or what caused them to be like this here (assuming they could be any other way), and even if they were indeed "fine-tuned" we have absolutely no idea what caused them to become such "fine-tuned". Jumping to "God did it" is just fallacious argumentation. We do not know what did it. We cannot jump to "God" as a blanket explanation.
- The God-of-the-gaps argument: Perhaps one of the most hilariously bad and fallacious arguments ever presented by apologists, who honestly think it's one of the most clever arguments ever, is a very direct and straightforward God-of-the-gaps argument: We only know a minuscule fraction of everything there is to know about the universe, everything that exists, and existence itself. Couldn't God be in that huge part that we do not know?
Yeah, and likewise there could be unicorns, leprechauns, and Chtulhu. Or, less flippantly: There could also be the absolute certainty of knowledge that there is no god of any sort.
Arguing anything from what we do not know is so utterly fallacious that it's ridiculous.
