How to Argue Like an Atheist

A simple how-to guide…

argue like an atheist

It would be helpful to preface the conversation by asking, “what kind of proof do you need?,” then from there, try to delimit what one considers evidence to qualify those proofs. Otherwise the conversation will end up exactly in the same way as portrayed in the chart above.


Categories: Atheism

Tags: , ,

22 replies

  1. An important note – when the ‘evidence’ is self-referential, such as the Bible stating it’s infallibility as proof of its infallibility, people who defend such self-referential fallacies should haughtily maintain it’s correct, despite the obvious flaw.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “What kind of proof do you need?”

    That leads nowhere; Atheists tend to be strict Materialists, and anything that can’t be observed is inadmissible. So much for logic and reason!


  3. Your chart is an over simplification. You mention in your responses “logic and reason” but in all the years I have debated, logic and reason turns out to be “wordplay” such as the cosmological argument. I can’t tell you how disappointing it is when someone wants to offer me proof, evidence, logic and reason and can only repeat what many people have argued before.

    Have you anything new?

    Liked by 2 people

    • How about some examples of such “wordplay,” so we can make sure nobody here bores you.


    • I pointed out your chart and the cosmological argument. Let’s see anything along the lines of Pascal’s wager, morality, intelligent design. Anything that has been debated on the internet ad nauseam 🙂

      While I got you. I debate theism a great deal and some of the more hard core Christian’s say Christianity is the only true religion. I explain to them that their religion is rooted in Judaism as some of your holy books are as well but they continue to claim that Islam and Judaism cannot be true because Christianity is true. Do you believe that Islam is true and others such as Christianity and Judaism is false?

      Thanks for you time

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1. Not my chart.

      2a. How about reasoning from necessity?
      2b. What about the KCA don’t you find satisfactory/to be nothing more than merely wordplay?

      3. I believe that Islām is true and that Judaism and Christianity are truth mixed with falsehood. The argument that one is (either wholly or in part) rooted in the other isn’t persuasive, as I take into account a common source (God) for what Islāmic sources corroborate in others.

      You’re welcome,


    • The Cosmological argument does not prove existence of a god, it is an argument. You know the drill, The premise is that everything that comes into existence has a cause. The universe came to exists (as we know it). and as such there is a cause to it’s existence.

      The universe as we know it has a cause but what did we have before the universe that we know of. We have several beliefs and theories, the most popular ones being The Big Bang and the other is Creation. In reality, we have no way of proving any of these beliefs/theories. Was there something here before the universe as we know it? I suppose if you keep going back, it can be argued it was caused by something supernatural or some unexplained phenomena, again we do not know.

      A few flaws in the argument are: How do you know it was your god? and who created the creator? It is argued that everything has a cause, who caused your cause… that’s why the argument has been expanded over time to add an uncaused cause. If you add an uncaused caused, you can’t argue everything has a cause, it’s not logical.

      …and yes, I know the argument about time, space and matter. No one has every proven a god by the Cosmological argument. That’s why I call it a word play. Everyone is trying to spin it different ways and the end result of the debate is always the same.

      I appreciate your thought on my question on the “true” god. It’s interesting to me how so many people have different views on the God of Abraham and all believe that their views are the true beliefs and the others.. not so much 🙂


    • So you’re agnostic then, and metaphysics and philosophy aren’t viable means to acceptable levels of certainty?


    • “So you’re agnostic then, and metaphysics and philosophy aren’t viable means to acceptable levels of certainty?” as the saying goes, you’ve opened a can of worms.

      I hate labels but would put myself in the Atheist camp. That being said, I am not anti-theist, in fact, I enjoy learning about world religions. I think there are some great philosophies and insight that can be learned through the various religions and worldviews but it’s the mysticism that I find unbelievable.

      “were I to be the founder of a new sect. I would call them Apiarians, and, after the example of the bee, advise them to extract the honey of every sect. my fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power. I salute you with respect and good-will.” -From Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, 15 May 1819

      I just tend to sit on the sidelines and watch people attacking each other because they have different beliefs. (or lack of). Even people of the same religion have Liberal/Conservative views. It intrigues me.


  4. I second Abu Talhah.

    “I pointed out your chart and the cosmological argument. Let’s see anything along the lines of Pascal’s wager, morality, intelligent design.”

    How so?

    My experience is that atheists are often very accomplished in the art of intellectual sleight-of-hand and wordplay, such as Michael Shermer on morality and Richard Dawkins with his positively inane ‘consciousness raising’ argument.


    • You may have noticed that when I say I debated these topics, I didn’t point out the word play was by “Theists”, I think both theists and atheists are guilty of just repeating the same arguments.

      You may have to point out the specific issue you have with Michael Shermer. From what I have read, he makes good points on morality but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says. Richard Dawkins on the other hand, his comments on Consciousness Raising does have its faults, I won’t argue with that.


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: