Atheists occasionally get asked to define exactly which gods they don’t believe in or to define the characteristics of the God they claim doesn’t exist. These questions take various forms, but the following is a typical example:
When someone who doesn’t believe in God says it isn’t real, what are they actually saying isn’t real? What do you see God as in your mind before you say it isn’t real? In your own words, if your version of unreal God were real, what is it?
Now, this may seem like a perfectly innocuous question from a genuinely curious believer, but in my experience questions of this sort are typically asked as “gotcha” questions meant to trip atheists up. If an atheist can’t precisely define exactly what it is they claim to not believe in, the thinking goes, they obviously have no justification for their lack of belief. Conversely, if atheists can precisely define exactly what it is they claim to not believe in, the thinking goes, theists can just point out some subtle distinction between what the atheists defined and the god that they themselves believe in and then claim that atheists just don’t know what they are talking about in the first place (e.g., “you claim to not believe in that concept of God, but that’s not the real concept of God. Sure, that concept of God is obviously just the product of ignorant superstition and can be easily dismissed by anybody with half a brain, but atheists are obviously too dumb to appreciate what God is really like.”)
It’s kind of like asking a politician if he has stopped beating his wife yet and requiring a yes/no answer. Dishonest as hell? Sure. But still effective when playing to the crowd.
So instead of playing this little game, let me just attempt to demonstrate just how flawed this sort of question is to begin with. Let’s start with the obvious analogy here:
Do theists believe in Santa Claus?
If the answer is “no,” would theists please explain exactly what they have in mind when they claim not to believe in Santa Claus? Is it, perhaps, the image portrayed in Coca-Cola ads that was based on the famous poem by Clement Moore? But what if I said that the real Santa Claus was actually “Father Christmas”:
Father Christmas dates back as far as 16th century in England during the reign of Henry VIII, when he was pictured as a large man in green or scarlet robes lined with fur. He typified the spirit of good cheer at Christmas, bringing peace, joy, good food and wine and revelry.
— Father Christmas - Wikipedia
Or what if I said the real Santa Claus was actually Sinterklaas who, despite being the primary source of the popular Christmas icon of Santa Claus, looks and acts very different from the Clement Moore version? Do the details really matter as to exact which version of “Santa Claus” I am talking about for theists to claim not to believe he exists? Or is it enough to define Santa Claus broadly as a mythical and magical person who comes around near Christmas time and brings gifts to children?
And we can repeat this same exercise for any of a number of things you probably claim to not believe in:
Vampires — Do theists need to define the exact type of vampire they don’t believe in? Is it the Count Dracula sort? The ones from the Twilight books? The Chinese-style blue hopping vampires?
Werewolves — Do theists need to define the exact type of werewolves they don’t believe in? Are they the ones that only turn into wolves during the full moon? Are they the ones that can turn into wolves whenever they want? Are they they ones that look like bipedal “wolf men” or the ones that turn completely into wolves?
Thor — Do theists need to define exactly which version of the Norse God of Thunder they don’t believe in? Is it the one described in the Norse Edda? Is it the Thor depicted in Marvel comic books? Is it the Thor played by Chris Hemsworth in the movies?
And the list goes on and on.
It’s wholly disingenuous to ask atheists to define exactly what they don’t believe in when that same standard is not required for any other sort of disbelief.