Someone on Facebook posted a link to an article entitled "16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them" @ https://crossexamined.org/16-bad-atheist-arguments-and-how-to-respond-to-them In typically infuriating Facebook fashion, when I switched to another tab and then returned, the post had disappeared. But I kept the article, which poses a series of questions to atheists, and I thought it would be fun to provide my own answers. I'm posting this to all groups that may be interested because I've forgotten where the original post was - er - originally posted.
If you are reading this on Facebook, Facebook's features are so primitive that it makes it difficult to post in an easily readable layout. All 16 arguments, questions and my answers to them are available at the link, https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2025/07/answers-to-16-bad-atheist-arguments-and.html
"Below we list 16 of these bad arguments and list at least one problem with the argument for each. Much more could be said for each of these arguments, so we present this post with the risk of coming across shallow. The point of the post, however, is not to give you a thorough response to each argument – It’s to give you ideas for an initial response to them."
"For each of the arguments, we give an example question you can ask to better understand where the person who gave the argument is coming from. The goal is to listen and understand, rather than to dominate and tear down.
"Now that we have those precursors set, here are the 16 bad Atheist arguments and how to respond to them."
By the way, the word "atheist" is not a proper noun. It is only correctly capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, and as here, in a title that capitalizes all significant words.
Argument #1: Who created God?
"This question is asked under the assumption that God needs a creator. This assumption misrepresents the Christian understanding of God, where God is the necessary cause of all creation."
Question: Why do you think a Christian would say that no one created God?
My answer: Christians need to avoid the reductio ad absurdum of an infinite regress where a god is created by a god-god, and it is created by a god-god-god and so on ad infinitum (or ad nauseam). They try to avoid this by defining God as something that does not need a creator, not realizing that you cannot just conjure something into existence by coining a definition to suit yourself, out of thin air, as it were. I go into this whole sorry business here, @ https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/gods-all-way-up_5.html
Argument #2: Jesus never existed
"This objection flies against the conclusions of almost all scholars invested into Biblical and Roman history, along with evidence from both the New Testament books and extrabiblical sources."
Question: How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed?
Answer: I didn't. I have very little interest in whether he did or not.
Argument #3: Atheists believe in just one less god than Christians
"Some Atheists try to use this argument to show that there is not much of a difference between them and Christians. After all, Christians are “Atheists” for thousands of gods from other religions since they lack belief in those gods!"
"The problem is, there is a huge difference between a Theist (such as a Christian) and an Atheist. Theists believe in a supreme, personal creator of the Universe. Atheists don’t. This difference has huge implications for how each carries out their lives."
Question: Do you think there are any major differences between Christians and Atheists?
Answer: Atheists don't believe in any gods. Your "argument #3" misses the point that atheists make when they point out that they merely believe in one less god than Christians. The point is that not believing in gods is not that extraordinary. Everyone disbelieves in gods.
Argument #4: Believing in God is like believing in Santa or leprechauns.
"This statement calls God “made up,” equal on the level of something like Santa Claus. But the Christian claims to have evidence for God, and hardly anyone claims to have evidence for a real Santa. The alleged evidence for God cannot be simply dismissed with this silly statement."
Question: Do you think there is any evidence for the existence of God?
Answer: Many Christians (I suspect Christians whose faith is rather weak) claim to have evidence for the existence of God, but I find their claims unconvincing, which is why I am an atheist.
Argument #5: The gospels are full of myths
"This objection completely ignores the definition of a myth in ancient literature. A myth looks back at the past to understand how something in the present came to be. The gospels were written as a historical narrative, discussing things that were happening at the time."
Question: What do you mean when you use the word “myth”?
Answer: Oxford Languages has, "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."
Argument #6: Faith is belief without evidence
"This definition of faith is a clear strawman of the Christian position. Most Christians view faith as involving some sort of personal trust. The trust aspect of faith is simply ignored by the “no evidence” definition."
Question: How do you think Christians would typically define “faith”?
Answer: You just stated it. "Most Christians view faith as involving some sort of personal trust." This is belief regardless of evidence.
Argument #7: There’s no evidence for God
"Christians claim to have philosophical arguments for God’s existence. It seems like those arguments could provide at least a tiny bit of evidence for God, even if an Atheist doesn’t consider the evidence close to satisfactory. Atheists who use this phrase are overstating their case."
Question: What type of evidence would you need to see in order to be convinced that there is at least some evidence for God?
Answer: God knows. Try asking him. But seriously, atheism is more common when there is social, psychological and material security. "Evidence" will do little. People may turn to God when their security is severely threatened.
Argument #8: God is a maniac slavedriver
"The idea here is that God is some sort of dictator who tells us what to do and believe and threatens to send us to hell if we don’t listen. But this characterization of God contrasts from the understanding that God offers a choice for us to escape the “slavery” of sin and to experience life as it was meant to be lived."
Question: Do you think God gives us a choice in how to live our lives?
Answer: I don't think you understand what being an atheist means. It simply means not being a theist - not believing in any gods. So from the point of view of atheism, having an opinion on what God does and doesn't do does not make any sense. But I would point out that a fictional character offering a choice between salvation and damnation is not really much of a choice - more an bully's offer you can't refuse. A "choice" forced under duress is not a real choice. See https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/a-prefix.html
Argument #9: Science disproves God
"This is one of the most broad arguments in the list. There are many fields in science, and some concepts about God are completely unrelated to those fields. What exactly is being said here? There needs to be more detail given before any substantial discussion can take place."
Question: What is one way in which science disproves God?
Answer: It depends on what you mean by "God". If you mean the god of the creationists, that is disproved by a vast body of scientific knowledge. Otherwise, the idea of "God" is unfalsifiable, and of little concern or interest to science. For an example of disproof of the creationist god, see this piece on endoenous retroviruses, https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses-frequently.html
Argument #10: Stories of Jesus changed like the game of telephone
"The story goes… You know the game of telephone? You start with a sentence and then it gets changed after being passed down from person to person? Well, that’s what happened when stories of Jesus were passed from person to person."
"This objection does not take into account the communal aspect of oral tradition – people could check their stories against one another. The objection also causes the reliability of all ancient history to be called into question."
Question: How might the way stories were spread in ancient history be different than the game of telephone?
Answer: The stories get passed down in parallel. Oral history is always questionable. It doesn't matter what the subject is.
Argument #11: If you grew up somewhere else you would believe something else
"This is one of the most common objections to Christianity – if you grew up in a middle eastern country, you would be a Muslim, not a Christian! While this concept does have some truth in it, it packs a load of unsupported assumptions. It also has little effect on the question of if God actually exists or not."
Question: How do you know I believe what I do because where I grew up?
Answer: Its highly likely because statistics.
Argument #12: Atheists can be good without believing in God
"This statement is true in the sense that people who do not believe in God can make choices that are moral choices. But the statement ignores the grounding of the good – the question of what caused the existence of objective moral duties."
Question: I agree that Atheists can do good things without believing in God. But what caused “good” and “bad” to exist in the first place?
Answer: They are caused by the nonexistence of a good, all-powerful God. BTW, the claim that an "objective" morality exists is a transparent attempt at asserting authority. All proponents of "objective" morality claim this, even when they differ among themselves as to what it is.
Argument #13: Religion is toxic
"The idea here is that religious thought always motivates actions that are bad. One problem with this idea is that “religion” is a broad term. It puts people who follow all kinds of religions under one umbrella, even if the differences between those religions are stark. It also downplays any potentially “good” actions taken under religious motivations."
Question: Are you referring to one specific religion, or are you saying all religions are toxic?
Answer: They are toxic when they are used to justify inhumane acts. This can happen when people are convinced that they are in possession of absolute truth with no test in reality. The ends, for them, justify the means. This applies equally to ideologies such as Nazism and the anti-theistic Marxism.
Argument #14: Jesus is just a copy of pagan gods
"This argument seems powerful on the surface as Atheists stack up to similar traits between Jesus and pagan gods – “born of a virgin,” “resurrected,” “born on December 25”, etc. But when you dig deeper into the primary sources for the pagan gods, you will find that the traits don’t align with the actual stories of those gods."
Question: Which god is Jesus a copy of, and how do you know that?
Answer: No idea. Not interested.
Argument #15: The Flying Spaghetti Monster
"New Atheists intended to make a point by bringing up this fictional creature – that you could assign the attributes of God to any random thing. But many Atheists who mention the creature now seem to do so in order to mock religious ideas rather than make a substantial point about them. Overall an Atheist who brings the creature up today ends up looking more ridiculous than thoughtful."
Question: What relevance does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to what you are saying about God?
Answer: That satire and parody hit home is all to the good. The idea is to make theists think. It works in some cases.
Argument #16: Christians never agree
"The argument goes like this: Since Christians always seem to disagree about everything, it’s clear that God isn’t involved in the whole process. This argument is incredibly broad and immeasurable – it is uncertain how much agreement there would need to be before the objector no longer sees a problem. It also ignores that “mere Christianity” – the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – is almost entirely agreed on amongst Christians."
Question: How much agreement would you need to see between Christians in order to no longer consider this objection a problem?
Answer: You might expect agreement on what is claimed to be "objective morality", for example. But no. Take the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. Many say that it really means, "Thou shalt do no murder", but when it comes down to what is justifiable and what is not justifiable killing, there is a whole spectrum of opinions.
.png)
