The study of disputes between the representatives of theism and the so-called New Atheism leads to a conclusion that both groups address audiences which operate on different communicative levels, and that both of them commit methodological errors. In general, the debate about the existence of God takes place within three discourses: empirical sciences, religion and philosophy. In order to maintain cohesion within the discussion, conclusions should not be transferred across these discursive levels. Considering the methodology, only philosophical discourse seems appropriate in the context of the debate, as empirical sciences are not competent in this field, whereas the “world of faith” does not ground the adoption of the thesis on the existence of God on the strength of rational argument. In a debate about the existence of God led within philosophical discourse, all participants have their own reasons, but nobody has clear evidence proving the validity of their position, as the nature of the debated subject does not allow for the existence of such evidence. Thus, the prospect for the debate seems to lie in taking joint initiatives to promote better understanding of the world and man and in building a climate of mutual kindness and respect.