How to have a discussion with an apologist

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.

So, rather ironically, a direct "I don't know" is not a concession of defeat: In reality it actually flips the script around! Now it will be the apologist who will be trying to defend his position and you dismantling it.

(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.

Washing hands as divine inspiration?

Some Christian apologists argue that there's impossible scientific knowledge in the Bible in the passages that instruct people to clean themselves with fresh water to avoid and clean disease.

This argument is extremely naive and infantile. There's absolutely nothing strange about a culture finding out from experience, and deduction, that dirty water is bad for one's health, while clean water is better. Why would anybody think this shows some kind of impossible knowledge from divine inspiration? It's not even any kind of marvelous feat of knowledge or deduction, but something quite trivial.

However, the argument falls really flat when we examine what Jesus had to say about the subject. In Mark 7 we have this story:

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus ² and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. ³ (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. ⁴ When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
⁵ So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

What a wonderful opportunity for Jesus, the son of God, to demonstrate supernatural divinely inspired knowledge about microbes and the reason why washing your hands before eating is good for you. Instead, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for following that custom.

Mind you, a custom that according to these Christian apologists, is divinely inspired and perfect.

Jesus concludes his criticism with this:

¹⁴ Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. ¹⁵ Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

Again, this is a missed opportunity to explain why dirty hands and dirty water cause disease. Instead, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for following such rituals.

Jack Chick's views are not as fringe as you might think

Most non-Christians love to laugh at Jack Chick's tracts, and how utterly detached from actual society he seems to be (especially given that he is an American and lives in the United States.) It can be hard to believe that anybody would think like him about our society.

For someone who has never belonged to a Christian denomination of that kind, the views he has of our society may feel completely crazy and fringe, but he is not the only one who believes these thing. There are many Christian denominations, especially many of the so-called charismatic ones, where many members do indeed believe most of those things. In other words, they really do believe that the vast majority of people, even in the US, are hard-core militant atheists who hate God and are really aggressive about it, who are basically possessed by demons (often literally), and even mentioning religion to them hits a berserk button. They honestly believe that Christians are widely discriminated against and persecuted, and that even mentioning God or the Bible could end up badly (but that doesn't stop them from doing so, of course, because they are true believers and would gladly become martyrs for their cause). They constantly tell between themselves stories about how Christians are persecuted, imprisoned and even killed in other countries, etc. They also believe, like Jack Chick, that most people have never even heard of Jesus or the Bible, and that preaching the gospel to them is like a magical incantation that either converts them on the spot, or enrages them into demonic furor.

These people live in some kind of strange societal bubble, where they more or less subconsciously shut off their own perception of the real world. They pretend that the world they see and live in is something that it isn't. They basically deny their own senses and experiences, and want to believe something that just isn't there. Mind you, most of these people are not living in some secluded cult isolated from the outside world. Most of these people are everyday citizens, working and living like everybody else, interacting with people like everybody else, seeing the society that surrounds them every day... and yet, they still believe those things, against all evidence and personal experience.

It's hard to believe this unless you have been one, but it's true.

Strange kind of YouTube Christian

I have had several lengthy conversations in the comment section of several Christian apologetic videos with Christians, pointing out the problems in biblical morality and infallibility, as well as the overt hypocrisy of many of those videos (eg. videos that critique Muslims for behavior that the very same Christians engage in, when the subject is the Bible and their god rather than the Muslim equivalents.)

In these conversations I have noticed a rather peculiar kind of "Christian" that often participates in the discussion. These seem rather prevalent at least on YouTube. While it's possible that at least some of them are poes, I believe that at least some, if not most of them are not.

These "Christians" seem to take a "I don't take s**t from anybody" thug attitude. Their method of operation seems to include:

• Assume things about the critic (usually that he's an atheist) and use obnoxiously belittling and derogatory names and expressions to address him and his arguments based on those assumptions. Resort to mockery as much as possible.
• Don't be afraid of using swearwords (like the f-word etc.), insults ("moron", "idiot", etc) and mockery.
• Constantly stress how the critic doesn't know anything about Christianity and the Bible, no matter how detailed his arguments and knowledge seem to be time and again about those very subjects.
• At the same time emphasize how you follow Jesus' teachings (completely ignoring what Jesus said about being kind to other people.)
• When the critic points out the hypocrisy of your behavior in light of the holy scriptures you are claiming to obey, besides using the normal insults and derogatory terms, argue that Christians are not supposed to be wimps and pussies, that Jesus took a thug attitude towards pharisees.
• Likewise point out that your critic doesn't believe in anything nor has any morals, and thus is in no position to preach about morality. (Ignore the point about hypocrisy.)
• Remember to be as smug as possible.

One would think that this would be a small minority, and that other Christians would intervene with a more sane tone which is more in line with their own Christian and biblical principles, but they seem to be surprisingly absent. (Perhaps they are driven away by all the swearing, insults and mockery they see at the beginning of the comment thread and decide to skip it.) Of course this probably only bolsters these thugs because nobody of their own camp challenges or critiques their behavior.

The "no true scotsman" fallacy

The usage of the so-called "no true scotsman" fallacy can be a bit hard to understand as an actual argument. (In other words, it can be hard to understand how it could be used in a serious argument.) After all, it just sounds like a comical quip, rather than anything said seriously.

The classical rendition of the fallacy is as follows:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."

Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

There is, however, a form of this fallacy that's surprisingly often used in Christian apologetics, most often by those who claim that Christians are different from other people thanks to the fact that the Holy Spirit is affecting them.

For example, a common claim is that Christians would never mass-murder people. Now if you bring up a counter-example ("this person was a devout Christian, and he mass-murdered people") the standard answer is the fallacy in its purest form: "He wasn't really a Christian."

This is basically a circular argument that's used to dodge any possible counter-arguments to the claim. The claim becomes basically impossible to prove wrong because any counter-example you may bring up will be countered with a simple "he/she wasn't really a Christian". It doesn't matter how deeply Christian the person might have been, it doesn't count if he was a mass-murderer.

The condition "does not commit mass-murder" (or any of the myriad other such claims) is basically implicitly added to the definition of "Christian", and thus anybody who does not fit that definition is thus "not really a Christian".

Ultimately this dodges the burden of proof for a claim such as "Christians never mass-murder people" (due to God acting upon them or such) because the definition of the term is basically circular.

Why is this a form of circular argumentation? Consider it like saying "no dog is white", and if a white dog is shown to you, just dismissing it by saying "that's not really a dog." And why isn't it a dog? Because it's white and, as established, "no dog is white", duh. The claim itself becomes the definition.

The one thing you won't see in creationist displays

Young-earth creationists just love dinosaurs, especially the big ones. Wherever you see a young-earth creationist display, you will invariably see two things: A mockup ark, and dinosaurs. Lots of big dinosaurs.

What you won't see, however, is realistic raptors. In other words, raptors with feathers. The reason for this is because the second-most popular objection that young-earth creationists have about evolutionary history is that birds evolved from dinosaurs (the most common being, of course, that humans and apes have a common ancestor.)

This is actually pretty funny and hypocritical. When paleontologists come to the conclusion that dinosaurs were reptiles, they believe it. When they conclude that theropods walked like ostriches, they believe it. When they conclude what their skin probably looked like, they believe it. But when they conclude that many theropods actually had fur-like proto-feathers, if not even outright feathers, they reject that one. And the sole reason is that accepting that particular claim would be too close to accepting that birds evolved from dinosaurs for comfort. Therefore they can accept everything except that.

"Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron.

"Spiritual" = "emotional"

Many people will use words like "spiritual" and "spirituality" like they were common everyday words, like it's completely clear to anybody what they mean. However, try to ask someone what they mean by "spiritual", and you might find out that, even to their own surprise, they cannot clearly define it. (In a significant amount of cases they will even retort something like "you know perfectly well what it means", rather than trying to answer.)

I just had an epiphany: When for example reading any text that uses eg. the word "spiritual" (that's not just discussing said word in a rational skeptic manner), simply substitute it with the word "emotional". Suddenly all that text starts making much more sense!

For example, "that was a very spiritual experience" = "that was a very emotional experience."

"My spirit was moved" = "my emotions were moved."

"She's a very spiritual woman" = "she's a very emotional woman."

"You couldn't even begin to understand the spiritual world" = "you couldn't even begin to understand the emotional world."

It just fits so perfectly!

(And that's really what "spiritual" means: Emotional. It's all about feelings and emotions, nothing more. All those sentences start making a lot more sense this way.)