How To Debate A Christian

2 Timothy 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

Atheist Post:

Logically Bankrupt.

This post might be funny if it weren’t for the fact that many skeptics employ these tactics as if they are unquestionably valid. At first glance, it appears they have cornered the Christian with a series of undeniable attacks. However, a deeper examination reveals a flawed line of reasoning that is self-contradictory, hypocritical, and seriously deficient in facts and evidence.

It’s also important for the believer to understand that the goal of these steps is to trip up a Christian and make a caricature of their faith.

Their Argument (Steel Man)

The critic argues that Christians can be undermined by exposing straightforward contradictions—like denying objective morality while asserting moral superiority, or calling the Bible fiction while using it as a behavioral guide. The secularists argue that Christian morality and scripture are philosophically indefensible, and that rational skepticism exposes unavoidable hypocrisy and incoherence within the Christian worldview.

The Argument Crumbles

The unbeliever makes a flawed assumption by believing human reason can be neutral without an objective basis of morality and truth. They assume the atheist can judge Christianity without needing to validate the worldview they use to determine what is “wrong.”

They commit several fallacies: they violate the law of non-contradiction, make self-refuting statements, and rely on hypocritical reasoning (the tu quoque fallacy).

The argument is radically invalid and unsound because its foundational premises actively cancel each other out, reducing the critic’s position to total absurdity.

Our Response

The unbeliever’s argument destroys itself; by claiming objective moral superiority or demanding behavioral obedience, the critic must steal from the Christian worldview to argue against it.

The Atheist’s argument is rooted in emotion and hatred rather than facts or evidence. They hold a bias against the God of the Bible (Ps. 14:1). When they claim that the Bible, its propositions, and Christianity are “objectively” wrong, they assume there’s an objective standard elsewhere. The issue is that their naturalistic worldview—centered on chance, randomness, and chemical reactions—lacks any ultimate objective truth. Their reasoning is based on biological chemical reactions, not on transcendent laws of logic or fixed principles.

In brief, they rely on misinterpreting the Bible to challenge it. Each moral claim presumes a constant, objective standard of morality. Among all worldviews, only Christianity claims such an objective moral standard exists.

The Bible refutes this thinking in a number of passages:

• Romans 1:21-22 – “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God… but became vain in their imaginations… Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

• Colossians 2:8 – “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

• Proverbs 26:5 – “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”

Without necessarily refuting each statement, it’s important to understand that the Christian must first demonstrate that the Atheist’s worldview is irrational and that their claims are merely subjective opinions within their own worldview.

Analysis

For the sake of the argument: When they try to argue that objective morality doesn’t exist, they need to make objective claims and use clear standards of morality to say someone is wrong or that their beliefs should not be tolerated. They have to depend on objective evidence to prove that Jesus Christ never existed, or to determine what He would think, or to assert that the Bible is fictional.

Each of those ten claims reduces to a basic level of reasoning, similar to a child’s. It’s not worth the Believer’s time and effort to counter them.

I refer you back to “Hitchen’s razor”:

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Some Questions

In an attempt to be reasonable, you can challenge their prejudicial thinking:

• “By what ultimate standard do you declare my actions objectively wrong if all morality is entirely relative?”

• “If Jesus never existed historically, how can you claim to know exactly what He would think about modern issues?”

• “If nobody has the right to judge anyone, on what logical basis are you delivering your verdict against Christians?”

• “Are you more interested in impressing yourself or finding out what’s objectively true?”