Ten Commandments for people speaking to Athests to follow.

[playhavock]

Not believing in God, Gods, god, gods, Goddesses, goddesses, Deity, Deities, deity, deities, afterlife, reincarnation, angels, demons, devil(s), and so on is something that many of the atheist, free thinker and skeptical-minded people hold to not believing in.

Many try to argue that the atheist (typically, the label ‘atheist’ is the label used, rather than targeting other labels) has a religion and/or faith. Sometimes people argue that the non-believer(s) "know" there is a God, hate God, and/or have an agenda to deconvert people.

The word "atheist" is simply defined as "without" god; or, if you like, without theism - so the theist is one who has a belief in at least one God and a certain type of God, and the atheist lacks this belief.

I wish to present this simple "Ten Commandments" I mean... Ten things that I've seen people say towards the atheist that are logically flawed. I will simply link to this post whenever someone commits one of them, in hopes that they will stop doing them so often.

-
One: "You have faith in no God"
Fallacy: Tu Quoque (you too!)

Very well. Let us assume, for a moment, that this is the case. How does this dismantle the argument the atheist is presenting?
Is having faith good or bad? If having faith is a good thing, one would think this is a compliment to the atheist. "Why thank you, I *do* have faith in no God, and you have faith in God… isn't it nice to have faith in things?" This gets us nowhere. So where is the argument? There is none.

-
Two: "You hate God"
Fallacy: Logical incoherency, Ad hominem.

This is logically incoherent because hating something requires that you believe in it. The atheist is saying they do not; thus, they cannot hate God.
Even if we assumed that they secretly believed in God and secretly hated God - how does this emotion affect their arguments? It does not. Therefore, this objection too is invalid.

-
Three: "You can't prove God does not exist"
Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.

The burden is on whoever makes a positive statement, such as "There is a rock in my hand." This is a statement that requires some level of proof to show it is the case. The more extraordinary the claim, the more proof we should require of it. Uttering to someone, "You can't prove there isn't a rock in my hand" and not allowing them to look at what you are holding - if indeed you are holding anything at all - shifts the burden to them; they cannot disprove it, and it is you who should prove it.

Other "you can't prove" statements could fill libraries with things we cannot prove do not exist: goblins, orcs, dragons, etc., but the burden is clearly on the one who makes the claim that (X) does in fact exist. Typically, this statement is made because the person additionally assumes that atheists are claiming either as a single person or as a whole that "there is no God," when this is not the thing they as a whole are claiming - they as a whole are claiming, "we lack belief in a God." Although there might be a singular person who says, "there is no God," this is not the point - for that person, whoever it is, has the burden to show reasons why we should think they are correct.

But if one still wishes to press forward this statement, what does it matter if the answer is "you are correct; I cannot prove there is not a God…"? This does not mean there is a God.

-
Four: "Atheism is a religion"
Fallacy: Tu Quoque.

This is again not an argument at all. even if atheism was a religion (and it is not), how does this dismantle the arguments being made? If there is only "one true religion," as some say, and atheism is a religion, who’s to say that it is not, in fact, the one true one? However, this is not an argument, and thus should not be utilized, as it is nothing more than a "you too!" statement and not an argument at all.

-
Five: "You have an agenda to deconvert!"
Fallacy: Ad hominem.

This is attack to the person, rather than to the argument, because even if true - say the person does in fact have an agenda to deconvert people - so what? If those of faith have the right to convert (or try to convert) people, then those of non-faith have the right to deconvert (or try to deconvert) people as well. Even if true, it does not dismantle whatever arguments the person has.

-
Six: "Atheists have no morals"
Fallacy: Poisoning the well/Strawman/Ad hominem.

Three fallacies at once! Seriously, this is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well - to say this is akin to saying that Muslims are terrorists or that Catholics are pedophiles or that Christians think slavery is all right. There might be some who are, but to say all are is poisoning the well. It is a strawman because you do not know it to be true, and finally it is an attack to the person, rather than the argument. Again, perhaps they have no morals, but this does not dismantle the arguments they have at all.

-
Seven: "You believe that nothing started the universe"
Fallacy: Strawman.

There is no held statement of any kind of atheism in regards to what, if anything did start the universe, or if "start" is even the correct word. Here, atheists typically turn to whatever science is saying for answers. If science does not yet know, then the atheist typically does not know. There is at least one scientist who is promoting the idea of the universe starting from nothing, but when he says nothing he does not mean the philosopher's nothing, and honestly I really would prefer if he came up with a new word for it, but it might be the case that nothing came "before" the universe if there is no "before" or it might be the case that nothing did cause the universe, and now that we have a universe there is no more "nothing" so we can't have a new universe made.

We simply do not know, but we cannot just place aside the possibility - even if it goes against what our brains think of things and how we think things should work. If the theist really wants the atheist to allow for God as a possibility, they should be equally fair (intellectually speaking) to allow for nothing to be a possibility as well.

Still, this is nothing more than a strawman, although it could be the case that there is an atheist that thinks nothing made the universe, again such a person has the burden, and the scientist who thinks this is producing peer-reviewed papers to forward his arguments. To restate saying "you believe (X)" is a strawman - let the person tell you what they believe first, and then argue against THAT.

-
Eight: "You can't explain how life began..." (or) "You can't explain the universe" (and other you can't explain statements).
Fallacy: Appeal to ignorance.

It matters not if we cannot explain anything at all. This does nothing to make your stance any better. It appeals to ignorance- “I can't explain it, so it must be (X)" where (X) is the made up idea that you think is the explanation. Now, you might object and say, "But God is not made up!" You are free to believe that is the case, and you might be right for all I know, but you have still made a logical fallacy by placing God where it might not belong. If I cannot explain my computer, I would not say it is here because of God - it could be, but it might not be. I cannot fill the void of knowledge that I have with an explanation - and this is what these sorts of statements try to do.

-
Nine: "If there is no God, then I'd do all sorts of bad things!"
Fallacy: Appeal to emotion.

I question the morals and ethics of the person who would do bad things the moment they stopped believing in God. I think this is a harmful idea for people deconverting - and if you've managed to convince someone that if there is no God then you (or anyone) can do anything, then you've potentially made it so someone who deconverts can do anything - and that’s no good for anyone. Still, this is nothing more than an appeal to emotion, a strange blackmail that seeks to stop the arguments of the opponent in their tracks. "I'll kill myself if there is no God" is similar in nature to this. I cannot control what you choose to do or not to do if you decide that you do not believe in God, but stating this forwards no positive argument for your side.

-
Ten: "The Bible says..."
Fallacy: Circular logic.

The Chronicles of Narnia say that Lucy found Narnia in the wardrobe, and Lucy was known to not lie, therefore Narnia exists.

This is so similar to everyone who quotes scriptures at people as if that, by itself, is enough. It is not. It assumes said scriptures are true in order to assume the rest is true. This is the core of circular logic and really should stop.

If all you have is some verse quote, then you do not yet have any argument. The only place where verses matter is when you are debating your Bible.
Also, do note that Bible might be any "Holy" writings or sacred documents of anyone; the Christians do not have the only written account of their idea of God. Other religions do as well.

So no. This will not work, it cannot work. It’s circular. Cut it out already. Prove your writings are true first, and then you are free to use them as reference.


---
Finally, I'd like to invite people to not make strawmen arguments; find out what someone thinks and why. Do not assume anything about that person, or that group. Ask questions, get to know them, read what they have written, read the debates they have posted, try to understand their side.

I once asked people to do the following thought experiment, and I think it is still a great way for you the believer to step into the shoes of the unbeliever for a moment.

--
A person from a religion you have never heard of tells you there religion is true and the only real one. They have a book that contains writings about this religion and their idea of God. They have a personal story about how wonderful their God and religion is.

Questions:
What would it take for you to believe that *they* have the true religion and God?
What sort of facts, evidence, stories, accounts, history, and so on would they have to present to you?

And finally, in the end, is your mind made up? Will you continue to believe you have the real God no matter what anyone says?

--
All other God(s) that are out there, you probably do not believe in any of them. I do not either; I just also add *your* God to the list. I am a skeptic, I require facts - if you have them, just give me them; don't dodge that issue with red herrings, fallacies, or the all-too-often "you will not believe even if I gave you them," or the equivocation that some perform: "I have facts, but they are not the facts you want," or something.

Proof is proof - as far as I know, to date, no theist has presented any empirical evidence of God - if you know of one, show me them and direct me to that evidence. As far as I know, no theist has any test we can perform repeatedly that could show God is true, if you know of some test let me know. I've only studied the Christian religion, as it was my religion, and I found evidence against much of the bible.

If you have positive evidence, I'd like to see it, whatever it might be - history, dates, places, people, and so on. If you do not, then you have nothing that will convince me. The same is true of the religions I've yet to study. I know next to nothing about them, but Hinduism has many people that claim that there Gurus can levitate, heal, and do other wonderful things. Although thousands of them claim this, I've never known a Guru to submit to scientific testing to prove they can, in fact, do this. Thus, I remain skeptical of them. We are all skeptical about SOMETHING - and that is important to realize.

Other people have different reasons for not believing in God that are not my reason - and those reasons deserve to be understood before you can try to make an argument against them. Or, make a positive argument for your religion and your idea of God.

It is my hope you will obey the ten commandments- I mean, you will keep this list in mind.

[HaLi8993]

@ Goat

No , it isn't. However, that still does not stop the response to the 'atheist' in one of the most stupid logical fallacies about. It is known as a 'PRATT'.. or Point Addressed About a Thousand Times'. This logically fallacy is known as 'Argument from Personal Belief' AKA "Argument from Personal Incredulity' or 'Argument from Ignorance'

Calling something a fallacy does not resolve a thing, I could call everything that you have just said a fallacy also. Does this really change a thing?? Certainly Not!. We have to look at the evidence, reality and logic not personal belief. Personal belief is what drives man to disbelieve in His Creator. However the person who believes the truth is more occupied with what His Creator says not what his personal whims and desires suggest.

[Goat]

@ Goat

No , it isn't. However, that still does not stop the response to the 'atheist' in one of the most stupid logical fallacies about. It is known as a 'PRATT'.. or Point Addressed About a Thousand Times'. This logically fallacy is known as 'Argument from Personal Belief' AKA "Argument from Personal Incredulity' or 'Argument from Ignorance'

Calling something a fallacy does not resolve a thing, I could call everything that you have just said a fallacy also. Does this really change a thing?? Certainly Not!. We have to look at the evidence, reality and logic not personal belief. Personal belief is what drives man to disbelieve in His Creator. However the person who believes the truth is more occupied with what His Creator says not what his personal whims and desires suggest.

You can call anything I say a fallacy you want, but, unless you can describe WHY it is a fallacy , it is in itself a fallacy. I addressed WHY it was a fallacy.

It is the kind of video that only pats the back and reassures the believer, but to a person who is actually educated, it is garbage.

[HaLi8993]

@ Goat

You can call anything I say a fallacy you want, but, unless you can describe WHY it is a fallacy , it is in itself a fallacy. I addressed WHY it was a fallacy. 

It is the kind of video that only pats the back and reassures the believer, but to a person who is actually educated, it is garbage.

I don't see where you have described "why" it is a fallacy. Do you care to explain?, I'm ready when you are to explain how the belief that life started with a cell that formed by chance is a fallacy. This is the same cell that is so complex that it cannot be synthesised in even the most sophisticated laboratories of our day. This is only one example atheists use in the fight not to believe in God but they fail to realize that this very cell is against them, as it cannot have come into existence by coincidence, this is as much a figment of the imagination and a product of fantasy as any fairytale.

As for your second paragraph couldn't agree with you more, of course it reassures a true believer because a true educated believer that uses reason and logic understands that the earth and everything that exists cannot have come into being without a Creator and simply through random processes and by chance. A person that is educated would reject such a notion and in the contrary view such an absurdity as a fallacy. 

[Goat]

@ Goat

You can call anything I say a fallacy you want, but, unless you can describe WHY it is a fallacy , it is in itself a fallacy. I addressed WHY it was a fallacy. 

It is the kind of video that only pats the back and reassures the believer, but to a person who is actually educated, it is garbage.

I don't see where you have described "why" it is a fallacy. Do you care to explain?, I'm ready when you are to explain how the belief that life started with a cell that formed by chance is a fallacy. This is the same cell that is so complex that it cannot be synthesised in even the most sophisticated laboratories of our day. This is only one example atheists use in the fight not to believe in God but they fail to realize that this very cell is against them, as it cannot have come into existence by coincidence, this is as much a figment of the imagination and a product of fantasy as any fairytale.

As for your second paragraph couldn't agree with you more, of course it reassures a true believer because a true educated believer that uses reason and logic understands that the earth and everything that exists cannot have come into being without a Creator and simply through random processes and by chance. A person that is educated would reject such a notion and in the contrary view such an absurdity as a fallacy. 

Very simple.. When he said "Well, just around you'. He is assuming that the world is evidence for God, yet.. it isn't. He is appealing to his personal belief. He can't imagine it being any other way.. so what?? That's his problem. .. but that does not make 'look at the world around us' evidence for God.

[playhavock]

11: Ye shall not deny biolgical evoultion, the age of the Earth or other scientific facts when speaking to an anthest or skeptic.

Looks like I missed one.

[HaLi8993]

@ Goat

Very simple.. When he said "Well, just around you'. He is assuming that the world is evidence for God, yet.. it isn't. He is appealing to his personal belief. He can't imagine it being any other way.. so what?? That's his problem. .. but that does not make 'look at the world around us' evidence for God.

Right.... so the most common belief of the atheist that we all came about by a coincidental cell is not a personal belief??? I could say the same thing can I not??? for example the Atheist that believes this cannot imagine a God hence this is only an assumption and his own personal belief which is not evidence at all.

Furthermore you are mistaken in saying that he was assuming that the world around us is not evidence, as in the Quran there are many examples that state that God is the Creator of all that exists and He, the All-Mighty urges people to contemplate the universe, proving God's existence. For example the Quran says:

QURAN: 41:53

"We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?"

This is calling to mans duty of observation of the universe,  proving His existence, however not everyone can make that observation. There are many signs of the universe that people may pass by and turn their faces away from. If we would like to know if a religion is true or false we should not depend on our emotions, feelings or traditions. Rather, we should depend on our reason and intellect. When God sent the prophets, He supported them with miracles and evidence which proved that they were truly prophets sent by God and hence that the religion they came with is true. 

When one reflects upon our own existence we will come to the realization that at some point in time, we began to exist. Since we were once non-existent and are now in existence, it follows that we must have had a beginning. Again the Quran raises some profound questions such as 

1) Were we created by nothing? 

2) Did we create ourselves? Or 

3) Did we create the universe?

QURAN: 52:35-36

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain.�

So again if you were to prove what I say is wrong then you would need to prove that the Quran is not a true religion from God. The same way that it is impossible for life to have started with a cell that formed by chance without a Creator, Where is your evidence that this is possible?? Nothing more than personal belief!

[Goat]

@ Goat

Very simple.. When he said "Well, just around you'. He is assuming that the world is evidence for God, yet.. it isn't. He is appealing to his personal belief. He can't imagine it being any other way.. so what?? That's his problem. .. but that does not make 'look at the world around us' evidence for God.

Right.... so the most common belief of the atheist that we all came about by a coincidental cell is not a personal belief??? I could say the same thing can I not??? for example the Atheist that believes this cannot imagine a God hence this is only an assumption and his own personal belief which is not evidence at all.

Furthermore you are mistaken in saying that he was assuming that the world around us is not evidence, as in the Quran there are many examples that state that God is the Creator of all that exists and He, the All-Mighty urges people to contemplate the universe, proving God's existence. For example the Quran says:

QURAN: 41:53

"We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?"

This is calling to mans duty of observation of the universe,  proving His existence, however not everyone can make that observation. There are many signs of the universe that people may pass by and turn their faces away from. If we would like to know if a religion is true or false we should not depend on our emotions, feelings or traditions. Rather, we should depend on our reason and intellect. When God sent the prophets, He supported them with miracles and evidence which proved that they were truly prophets sent by God and hence that the religion they came with is true. 

When one reflects upon our own existence we will come to the realization that at some point in time, we began to exist. Since we were once non-existent and are now in existence, it follows that we must have had a beginning. Again the Quran raises some profound questions such as 

1) Were we created by nothing? 

2) Did we create ourselves? Or 

3) Did we create the universe?

QURAN: 52:35-36

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain.�

So again if you were to prove what I say is wrong then you would need to prove that the Quran is not a true religion from God. The same way that it is impossible for life to have started with a cell that formed by chance without a Creator, Where is your evidence that this is possible?? Nothing more than personal belief!

When it comes to the origin of the universe, well, I don't know."I don't there, therefore God' is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from ignorance'.

Now, why are yhou assuming there is a 'WHO"?? Rather than word salad and a statement from a book you can not show is reality , give me objective and tangible evidence. Quoting scripture is not evidence, ti is the claim.

Do you understand that?

[SailingCyclops]

Right.... so the most common belief of the atheist that we all came about by a coincidental cell is not a personal belief???

I don't know of any educated atheist who would make that claim. Please provide evidence that this is "the most common belief" among atheists.

I, like most atheists, can honestly say I don't know exactly how the first cell came to be. It most likely came about by some as yet unknown chemical process on the early earth. It may have been carried to earth on a meteor. We don't know, simply because we don't have sufficient evidence to know; you don't know either, for the same reasons. When we discover the origins of the first cell, it will certainly be based on natural processes we understand, because everything else in the universe which we understand is based on those very same laws of nature. Why should the origin of the first cell be any different?

[HaLi8993]

@ Goat

When it comes to the origin of the universe, well, I don't know."I don't there, therefore God' is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from ignorance'. 

Now, why are yhou assuming there is a 'WHO"?? Rather than word salad and a statement from a book you can not show is reality , give me objective and tangible evidence. Quoting scripture is not evidence, ti is the claim. 

Do you understand that?

Nope not at all, denying that God exists and that He is the Creator of all that exists is an ignorant fallacy due to the numerous signs in the universe that any logical individual cannot deny. 

I'm not assuming there is God, I know there is a God, a comprehensive study of the Quran testifies to this. No matter how much knowledge and understanding mankind attains they will still inevitably make mistakes, forget things or fall short. If the Quran were not the word of God, there would be some contradictions and shortcomings in it so I challenge you to find any. Atheism has already failed in this respect. 

Do you understand??

What evidence do you want exactly??? 
 

[HaLi8993]

@ Sailing Cyclops

I don't know of any educated atheist who would make that claim. Please provide evidence that this is "the most common belief" among atheists. 

I, like most atheists, can honestly say I don't know exactly how the first cell came to be. It most likely came about by some as yet unknown chemical process on the early earth. It may have been carried to earth on a meteor. We don't know, simply because we don't have sufficient evidence to know; you don't know either, for the same reasons. When we discover the origins of the first cell, it will certainly be based on natural processes we understand, because everything else in the universe which we understand is based on those very same laws of nature. Why should the origin of the first cell be any different?

I have met plenty of Atheists that have made this claim, the evidence is right here on this debate forum, ask the members on here how many of them believe in the theory of Evolution then ask how many of these people are Atheist. 

Again this is personal belief, without any factual evidence. What makes you believe that you are certain that everything in the universe is based on natural processes??? There are many branches of science that indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes, and that all life forms were created flawlessly. 

There are people who say that long ago man was a monkey and he evolved. Is this true? Is there any evidence?. This view is not correct, and the evidence for that is that God has described in the Quran the stages of the creation of Adam. Hence everything was created by the Most Wise, and it has not just come to existence without a Creator.