What Christians Say When They Are Losing the Debate

To defend Christianity and the Bible, a multitude of logical fallacies is employed

In my conversations with Christians as a non-believer, I’ve observed a recurring pattern of responses that they tend to give when they are unable to logically counter my arguments or present adequate evidence for their belief. These responses have become so predictable that I’ve taken the liberty of compiling a list and providing a brief analysis of why these statements fall short and sometimes undermine their very own position.

You already made up your mind

When some Christians fail to provide strong arguments, instead of admitting they don’t have a compelling case to make, they often blame atheists for being stubborn. This approach involves attacking their interlocutor’s character instead of addressing the merits of their viewpoint, which is called an ad hominem fallacy.

It’s a fallacy because stubbornness doesn’t automatically make one’s point of view invalid. A stubborn person can actually be right in certain areas they are stubborn about. So, when Christians accuse atheists of being stubborn, it doesn’t prove that their disbelief is unwarranted.

Even if Jesus shows Himself to you, you would still not believe in Him

This is a slight variation from the previous remark. The intention is to suggest that atheists would not accept any evidence for Christianity. Personally, I would be open to believing if Jesus reveals Himself to me in a clear and undeniable manner, just as what doubting Thomas had experienced.

If I have not seen a person rising from the dead, why should Christians expect me to act as if I have seen one?

To defend their accusation, Christians often refer to the first-century Pharisees, saying that despite witnessing the wonders and miracles performed by Jesus, they still chose not to believe. Sure, it is possible that some people might be hell-bent on unbelief, but before Christians accuse others of unbelief, it only makes sense for them to first demonstrate that the evidence actually exists.

The Pharisees in the Gospel narratives did have the privilege of observing Jesus’ miracles firsthand, whereas modern individuals do not have such direct experiences. Therefore, it is unfair to draw direct comparisons between the two groups.

It is meaningless for anyone to say, “You would not believe even if X,” when in reality they don’t even have X to begin with. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, and it is their responsibility to provide tangible evidence before expecting others to believe.

It is also presumptuous for Christians to judge what non-believers would or would not do given a circumstance that has not happened yet. It’s almost as if they are saying, “Since you wouldn’t believe even if I provided X as evidence, I don’t need to show you X.” This subtle tactic can give Christians a false sense of confidence in their belief, even if they fail to present actual evidence.

Seek God humbly and you shall find Him

The problem is, like many ex-Christians, I genuinely sought God for a long time. My commitment to the Christian faith was so strong that I devoted my life to serving Him. I pursued and earned a Master’s degree in theology. Most Christians did not bother to learn Greek or Hebrew so they could read God’s Word in its original language, but I went the extra mile to learn both. My intention was to gain a deeper understanding of God’s will for my life and to live in a manner that would bring Him glory.

Yet during my faith journey, I encountered numerous unanswered questions about God and Christianity. Over time, those unresolved inquiries began to accumulate, ultimately leading to a point where my faith ceased to be coherent or meaningful to me. It’s true that I had my fair share of spiritual experiences throughout the two decades of being a follower of Jesus. However, I have come to realize that personal experiences can be unreliable due to their subjective nature and people’s inclination toward bias. As a result, I have learned to approach such experiences with a healthy dose of skepticism.

One of the strategies employed by Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) during their door-to-door evangelism is to encourage people to pray to God for proof. Specifically, they may challenge non-believers to seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance to confirm the Book of Mormon as divine inspiration. Surprisingly, this approach often yields impressive results, as many individuals convert to Mormonism based on their perceived “confirmation” from the Holy Spirit.

Should Latter-Day Saints trust their personal experiences with the Holy Spirit? Most Christians would hesitate to agree. Yet the same Christians ground their belief in their spiritual encounter with God. I call that double standards.

Furthermore, if the existence of God is a reality, it raises the question of why we don’t have access to solid objective evidence to substantiate His existence. Instead, we are left to rely on our subjective experiences. This approach starkly contrasts with how factual knowledge is established in other fields of study. In those disciplines, objective evidence is sought and relied upon, rather than personal and subjective encounters alone.

God does not have to do what you demand

This statement is the opposite of the last one. The contradiction between the two highlights an inconsistency in the thinking of Christians who employ both approaches. It becomes unclear whether one should ask God to reveal Himself or not. On one hand, not doing so may be seen as one’s own fault for not experiencing God. On the other hand, even if one does ask, it is still regarded as their fault if they do not have an encounter with God. This lack of clarity in the reasoning raises questions about the coherence of these perspectives within Christianity.

Furthermore, the act of asking God to show Himself is a reasonable pursuit when we take into account that He expects us to believe in Him, with the potential severe punishment of unbelief awaiting us after death. If God didn’t hold such an expectation, it would be true that we lack justification to request His divine manifestation. However, this perspective contradicts the Christian belief.

In other words, it is puzzling that an all-powerful and perfectly good God would demand that humans believe in Him while knowing the precise evidence necessary to convince each individual, yet intentionally chose to withhold that very evidence from certain people.

Moreover, in a situation where individuals could not find compelling evidence to believe that God exists, this God would then become angry and inflict severe punishment upon them for their lack of belief. Overall, this entire scenario simply lacks logical coherence.

You just had bad experiences in the church

I have lost count of how many times Christians have twisted my words by suggesting that my departure from the faith is solely due to negative experiences in my church life. This assumption couldn’t be further from the truth. I rarely write about the traumas I experienced in the church because they are not directly related to my decision to leave the faith.

But many Christians are reluctant to consider the idea that individuals might leave the faith due to the inherent issues they discover within the faith itself. They prefer to reinterpret my critique of Christianity as mere criticisms of certain individuals within the faith. By doing so, they feel justified to avoid facing the questions I raise and are able to maintain a sense of unshakeable faith, convinced that their belief system remains flawless and untainted.

There are indeed many ex-Christians who have deconstructed their faith because of the traumas they endured in the church. They made valid decisions, albeit through different paths than my own. In fact, I would argue that more people should consider leaving the church when they fall victim to or witness instances of abuse in the church. It’s possible that some individuals continue attending church solely because they feel there are no viable alternatives and thus silently endure the suffering. This is undeniably a distressing situation.

You will learn that God is real after you die

I call this statement a desperate move to try to score points. It serves no practical purpose other than intimidation. In response, I simply pose a straightforward question:

If I can only learn that God is real after I die, how am I supposed to believe in Him now?

Christians should ask themselves this question too.

The Bible has all the answers

I agree. The challenge arises when the answers I derive from studying the Bible closely and diligently, especially in their original language, differ from the prevailing interpretations held by many Christians. Upon my close examination, I discovered that biblical texts exhibit human characteristics, much like any other ancient literature. This realization prompts a valid question: If I have no reason to accept the truthfulness of other ancient mythologies, why should I afford the Bible any special treatment or unquestioning belief?

You need to believe first before you can make sense of it

This statement may be applicable to individuals who have always been atheists, but this does not apply to me. As someone who was a devoted Christian for two decades, it was during those years that I encountered significant challenges and discovered profound issues within the faith.

Ironically, many Christians who employ this statement often struggle to articulate how Christianity truly makes sense. If they were able to do so convincingly, they would not have to rely on this tactic of dismissing doubts and inquiries.

You know God exists in your heart; you just deny it (Romans 1:20)

I don’t agree with the idea presented in Romans 1:20. As an unbeliever, why should I? Quoting from the Bible without supporting evidence or logical reasoning does not automatically constitute a refutation of my position. The fact that some Christians think this is a smart saying to throw at atheists only shows how little thought they have given to articulating the trustworthiness of the Bible.

I want to emphasize that my lack of belief is not rooted in denial but rather stems from a sincere conclusion I reached after years of extensive examination of available information and evidence. The fact that I used to be a Christian demonstrates my sincerity in seeking God. However, throughout my journey, I encountered numerous unresolved issues and problems within the Christian faith that I could not simply overlook or dismiss.

I must admit that there is a part of me that wishes Christianity to be true, as it would alleviate the feeling of having spent a significant portion of my life pursuing something in vain. However, I cannot deceive myself. Once my mind becomes unconvinced, I cannot simply force it to believe again. What I truly need is evidence, tangible and compelling, to reignite my conviction.

If you no longer believe in God, why argue about Christianity?

I wrote a separate article to address this question, so I would direct readers there for a more detailed response:

You just want to sin so you find excuses to not submit to God

Again, I have dedicated a separate article specifically addressing this accusation.

Takeaway

Rather than viewing this article solely as a sour criticism of Christian rhetoric, I aim to present it as a wake-up call for Christians to reassess their faith and the way they interact with non-believers. It is important to recognize that using those excuses and accusations towards non-believers does not serve the cause of Christian faith. If Christianity is indeed true and the Bible is reliable, it is imperative for Christians to explore more effective ways of communicating their belief.

If you are not a Medium member yet, please consider signing up using my referral link. I will get a small commission at no extra cost to you.