Do You Make this Mistake when Talking to Atheists?
Court is in Session
Tell me if this sounds familiar.
Youโre in a debate with someone online about something. Anything. Take your pick.
You and your opponent give each other powerful arguments.
You see the pros and cons of each side, have tons to think about, but neither of you has taken the ultimate victory. In fact, thereโs still room for enough doubt you could choose either side with a measurable degree of confidence.
Suddenly, your opponent flushes red and blasts out, โYou canโt prove Iโm wrong! That means Iโm right!โ
Does that help or ruin his case?
When we let emotion get the best of us, itโs easy to shoot off thoughtless quips. Done enough times, others begin to think weโre careless, mindless fools. And thatโs exactly what happened in the 90s and early 2000s when Christians said to atheists, โYou canโt prove God doesnโt exist.โ Most would use it without providing a positive case for God.
While true (atheists canโt prove without a doubt God doesnโt exist), that statement isnโt a defense for the existence of God. Relying on it alone makes us Christians look insane because itโs an argument from silence.
Silence tells us nothing. In the absence of evidence, speculation fills the void, and any speculation that beelines to a conclusion without support is mere noise.
Christians quickly abandoned the tactic. However, it didnโt stop atheists from slipping the claim โYou canโt prove God doesnโt existโ into their moth-ridden pockets to abuse as a smear. Many of them still believe itโs one of our only options to argue for the existence of God.
Hereโs why theyโre wrong and why you must tear down their petty straw man whenever you see it.
This is a preview of our weekly paid article for Allegiant Faith VIPs. Become a paid subscriber and get access to the full article and more:
Courageous Chrisโs โ30-Day Evangelist: How to Share, Defend, and Live Your Christian Faith in a Secular Worldโ and all future published works.
2 posts every week, on Wednesday and Saturday (give or take)
A bi-weekly live apologetics book study
Access to our full archive of articles
An exclusive subscriber chat
Your support means the world to us and helps us continue to grow online.
Click below and upgrade!
Gavel for Your Thoughts
By outright portraying the Christian as someone clinging to unprovable assertions, the atheist skeptic positions himself as the rational one from the start. Allegedly standing on evidence while his opponent operates on blind faith.
His move is effective in casual conversation, hollow under scrutiny.
Naturalism (the atheist position that the material universe is all that exists) is no neutral default. Itโs a worldview making specific claims about the fundamental character of reality, and it deserves the same rigorous critique you would apply to any other position.
Presenting materialism/naturalism as self-evident while demanding exhaustive proof from the Christian is an equivalent argument from silence. And it doesnโt make much sense.
The logic goes like this:
Youโre dumb and have no evidence for your position
SO
You have to prove it, and I donโt have to do anything
That kind of โreasoningโ (if it can be called so) doesnโt even work in a courtroom.
Imagine youโre accused of a crime, spend the night in a musty jail, are then dragged before the judge by brawny bailiffs, take your seat beside your attorney and see they have mounds of impeccable evidence to prove your innocence, but the prosecutor across the aisle is disheveled, filthy, and holding a scant manila folder with one measly piece of paper. He then says to the judge, โTheyโre the dumb one accused of the crime. We donโt have to argue anything.โ
Does the judge accept their case? Of course not!
