By far one of the worst arguments atheists use is the divide and conquer tactic. Rather than providing any logical arguments in defence of atheism, or for why Christianity is not true, atheists point to other religions, in which they of course do not believe, and ask the Christian "how do you know you're right and not these guys?" If the Christian takes the bait, they will no longer be defending Christianity, but attacking religions that no one in the discussion even believes.
While it is an effective distraction tactic, known as the red herring fallacy, there is no real logic behind this kind of argument. It doesn't prove the atheist is correct, nor does it prove the Christian isn't. If anything, it proves the atheist lacks confidence in their ability to argue for their own position, so they must redirect the conversation away from that area.
Unfortunately, as illogical as it is, this weak argument has spread far and wide among those who consider themselves the most rational thinkers. As a result, I have come to expect it, and respond almost mechanically. Thus, even though I am a vocal proponent of the idea that one must read an opponent's arguments carefully in order to understand, and adequately respond to it, I do, on occasion, lower my standard when I come across it. Specifically, just as I won't fully read a large number like 2,749,203, I don't read every god the atheist mentions. Usually, I only note the first and last.
One time, this allowed a very sneaky atheist to play a dirty trick on me. I saw those familiar words, "how do you know Allah, or...", and of course, the result was for me to skip over the rest of the gods. I did not read Vishnu, or Zeus, only Allah, and Odin. But there was a fifth god in his statement. One which, had I been paying closer attention, I would immediately have focused on. As circled in the screenshot, his list featured my own God, Yhwh.
Because He was fourth on a list in which I naturally only noted the first and fifth, I missed this entirely, and responded as normal. The trap was sprung, and as you can see, the atheist was very thrilled about its success. He had, in his own mind, proven that I didn't know what I was talking about, of course earning him some kind of bragging rights.
Here's where the twist comes in. Aside from the fact I am on record calling God by His covenant name "Yahweh", and have been so since long before I met this guy, I actually managed to reverse the trap. I kept my cool, and explained why he managed to slip my own God past me, pointing out that had he mentioned Yahweh first or last, I would instantly have detected Him. But that's when I got a confession. Apparently, the atheist didn't want to list Him first or last, because that would make it "too easy".
But how much sense does such a test make? If I genuinely did not know what I was talking about, I would never have noticed Yahweh, wherever He appeared on the list. His reasoning would make sense if he was trying to test my level of attention to detail, but it was rather explicitly a test of my knowledge. Thus, there are two possibilities.
The first is that this genuinely was a very poorly designed test of my knowledge. I "failed", but not because I didn't possess the relevant knowledge. Rather, I simply do not read every god on these kinds of lists. Once this was exposed, the atheist began to lie about the thought process behind his test, attempting to save face because his sneakiness had been uncovered.
Alternatively, it's possible the atheist genuinely was attempting to play 4D Chess, as the saying goes. In this hypothetical, he genuinely did have a feeling I'd know my own God's covenant name, and genuinely did attempt to hide it from me on the off chance I wouldn't read every god on the list, all for sake of claiming bragging rights.
Both possibilities lead to the conclusion that the atheist is extremely and intentionally deceptive. And so I asked him, point blank, why he felt the need to resort to such dirty tactics? Why, if he was sincere in his beliefs, did he have to resort to such insincerity?
In spite of his initial confidence, having "proven" I don't know what I'm talking about, or what I believe, this seems to have hit the right nerve, as I never heard so much as a whisper from this man again. He neither denied the charge that he had been deceptive, nor did he explain why he felt that need.
Now, it isn't lost on me that so far, this article seems to be little more than a boast. So, first I want to shut that down. I'm not interested in gloating, and it wouldn't even be worth doing. Defeating one clueless, yet sneaky atheist online is wholly unimpressive. By contrast, the reason this particular atheist stands out to me is how clever he turned out to be. His own pride lead to his fall, but had he been less eager for a victory, things might have been less humiliating for him. So, rather than boasting, what I'm trying to do with this article is give two lessons I think we can learn from this example.
The first is for my fellow Christians. Through this experience, I've learned that even the arguments we've heard a thousand times can sometimes have their own sneaky twist when presented by the right person. Thus, we cannot afford to gloss over them as I did. Read, and if necessary re-read, what your opponents say. If they've laid a trap, catch them in it.
The second is for the atheist readers. Tell me, does the truth require deceit for its defence? Personally, I am very confident in the truth of Christianity. Thus, I feel no need to bolster it with lies. Misdirection, perhaps. I'm quite open about my strategies, such as the Silent Quote Strategy. But this requires no lies, only telling the truth in a way that will coax further truth even from the mouth of a skilled liar. In truth, lying for sake of my faith would be contrary to my faith.
By contrast, it is not contrary to yours. It should not surprise us that a worldview with no commands against deceit would produce large quantities of deceivers, but it should surprise us when we give lip service to the truth, yet feel the need to defend it with lies. When atheists use the divide and conquer tactic, they show a lack of confidence, but when they actively lie, they remove all doubt. Ask yourself, what keeps you trapped in atheism? Do you believe it's true, or are you motivated by other factors?
Of course, I'm not saying all atheists are this sneaky, or that all atheists are liars. Atheists are a diverse group, more diverse even than Theists. It would be impossible to write a single article that would adequately encompass all atheists. Thus, there's a chance - and I dare say even a high one - that any atheist who has bothered to read this far will probably not even be among the target audience. But the question still applies, simply because this problem goes all the way to the top, if indeed atheism can be considered to have a "top".
For sure, there are no priests in atheism. There are no prophets, or pastors, or bishops, or elders, or any official atheistic role. But there are apologists. Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, to name just three. But these people, sometimes even by their own admission, are not always honest in their attempts to spread their atheistic views. And the chances are high that even if you are the most honest atheist on the planet, your views have been influenced by them. Thus, the question still applies: Does the truth require deception? And if atheism does, is it not wise to seek a less deceptive alternative?
AI usage
AI was not used in the production of this article.