Atheists often find themselves tempted into debates with believers. The idea is simple: present evidence, expose contradictions, and reason our way toward clarity. But experience shows that this rarely works. The problem is not the skill of the atheist or the quality of the argument. The problem is the nature of faith itself.
Faith and evidence operate in different universes. When one side builds on reason and proof, and the other side leans on belief without evidence, the game is not equal. It is like trying to play chess with a pigeon.
1. The Rules of Evidence
Evidence-based reasoning has rules. Claims require proof. Arguments can be tested, falsified, and revised. If new data arrives, conclusions can change. This is how science, philosophy, and law all function.
Bertrand Russell put it plainly: “What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.”
Evidence-based reasoning is about discovery, not defence.
2. The Rules of Faith
Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. It requires no proof. In fact, many believers celebrate the lack of proof as a virtue. Doubt is discouraged, questions are dangerous, and loyalty is praised over inquiry.
As Mark Twain quipped: “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
When belief is defined as a strength regardless of evidence, debate cannot touch it.
3. The Pigeon Problem
This is where the chess analogy comes in. Try to debate a believer on evidence and you soon realise you are not playing the same game. The believer can:
- Reject any evidence as part of a divine “test.”
- Redefine contradictions as “mysteries.”
- Move the goalposts whenever challenged.
- Claim certainty even where none exists.
The pieces are knocked over, the rules are ignored, and the believer declares victory. Not because the argument was won, but because the very idea of evidence was never accepted.
4. The Endless Retreat
When one claim is disproven, another emerges. Miracles shrink to metaphors. Prophecies shift to poetry. Historical claims become allegories. The believer’s position retreats but never collapses, because faith does not require evidence to stand.
As Sam Harris observed: “Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail.”
Evidence cannot corner faith, because faith is immune to reason by design.
5. Why the Debate Still Happens
If it is so futile, why do atheists still debate? Because debate is not for the opponent. It is for the audience. Arguments with believers rarely change their minds, but they can open the eyes of onlookers.
Christopher Hitchens described this role well: “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any time.” The point is not to convert the unconvertible, but to defend reason against the tide of faith.
6. The Only Way Forward
The truth is that evidence and faith will never meet. They are different currencies. Evidence asks “What is true?” Faith answers “What must I believe?” One is accountable, the other is immune.
This is why trying to defeat faith in a debate feels like trying to nail jelly to a wall. You can make sharp points, but the other side simply slides away.
The better approach is not to convince the pigeon on the chessboard, but to speak to those watching. Show them that one side is playing by rules of reason, and the other is simply flapping about on the board.
Conclusion
Debating a believer as an evidence-based thinker is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over the pieces, defecate on the board, and strut around as if they have won. It is not a fair contest, because evidence and faith are not competing on equal terms.
Evidence is accountable. Faith is untouchable. And until belief requires proof, reason will never claim victory across the board. The real win lies in showing the audience that reason at least knows how the game is meant to be played.