A popular claim among modern atheists is that everyone is at least somewhat atheistic. As Steven Roberts said, "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
This is in line with the modern redefinition of atheism, i.e. atheism is just a "lack of belief" in gods. The implication is that Christians (or indeed any other Theist Steven Roberts happens to be debating) just don't see evidence for any other god, so we don't believe in them. So also does Steven Roberts just not see any evidence for our God.
But here's the problem: It is impossible for Steven Roberts to reject my God for the same reason I reject all other gods, because the reason I reject all other gods is because I accept my God. See, logic has three laws: The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle.
The law of non-contradiction is the one we're interested in in this situation. The law of non-contradiction states that two opposing statements cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it cannot be true that Steven Roberts dismisses my God because he accepts my God.
Yet, by saying "when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours", that is exactly what he is saying. I already understand why I dismiss all other gods: It's because I do not dismiss my God. Therefore, Roberts is saying he dismisses my God because he does not dismiss my God. But obviously, this cannot be what Roberts is saying. Thus, his original statement is illogical.
Of course, the real reason Roberts dismisses God is the same reason Adam dismissed God. It is because he is a sinner. All human beings, with the sole exception of Jesus, sin. As Laurence J. Peter once said, "an atheist can't find God for the same reason a burglar can't find a police officer." How many criminals do you know who turn themselves in? Although it rarely happens, most criminals run from the law. When that fails, they have two typical reactions: Attempt to lie about the crime, or attempt to justify it.
Sin keeps man from God in many ways. Whether in the form of atheism or some false religion, man runs from God as a criminal from the law. This goes about as well as you would expect. Fight the law, the law typically wins. Fight the Lord, the Lord always wins. That's the bad news. The good news, however, is that there is a policy of clemency for those who "turn themselves in", so to speak. The Bible tells us that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive them. In Jesus, our sentence has been served, and so all who confess Jesus as Lord and believe in our hearts God raised Him from the dead will be saved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempted response from an atheist
When this article was originally published as a post on the God Squad Apologetics Facebook page, an atheist attempted to respond with the following:
""Those gods are false because this one must be true and it says those are false".
You see how this is a fallacious non argument, right? A Muslim or Hindu could just as easily dismiss your god by the same reasoning."
It would indeed be fallacious if I was to say such a thing to another Theist. However, in this very specific case, we are not discussing why I am a Christian, or even if those beliefs are true, but why I dismiss other beliefs. In a debate with another Theist, such as the aforementioned Muslim, I would discuss the evidence for my views and against his. However, in this instance, we can skip this step and jump right to the conclusion, simply because it is axiomatic that, as I believe in the Christian faith, I must automatically reject alternative claims. It doesn't matter if I am right to do so.