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.

[playhavock]

Sir, I mock your sorces as they are not scientific at all. I find no reasion to contune to talk to you since your understanding of science is so lack luster and you show no desire to look into its facts. I would win the debate before it started, and find no compelling reasion to debate you on any matter as you automaticaly lose simply because you are auguing from ignorance.

I'm done with you, and I dont say that to meny people.

[HaLi8993]

@ playhavock

Sir, I mock your sorces as they are not scientific at all. I find no reasion to contune to talk to you since your understanding of science is so lack luster and you show no desire to look into its facts. I would win the debate before it started, and find no compelling reasion to debate you on any matter as you automaticaly lose simply because you are auguing from ignorance. 

I'm done with you, and I dont say that to meny people.

Sir?? You mean Madam. It's your personal belief that my sources are not scientific. Where is your evidence that they are not? As I have stated previously I am more than happy to look into the facts, but I don't see any. As for winning the debate, is that why your done with me or is it  because you know that you have nothing lol...your pulling out just when it has started to get interesting.

Don't worry I completely understand. I have seen this all before.

[playhavock]

Well, I put male on my thing so people know what gender I am
but if you want a real debate, then there are a few rules you must comply to for a debate with me.

First, we will negoate the question at hand.
Second, we must agree what the format will be, typicaly this is a standard format that I've used in the past but I'm willing to change it if need be.

Third, if we are debating scientific findings then your resorces must be pier reviewed publications that suport your stance on the issue at hand, I will not alow submition of scinece from creationist web pages as they do not understand science nor does it seem they want to understand it, rather they pervert it with there bad science.

Finaly I will be using Informal Logic - if you do not understand logic then you will quickly find that you are making falacys and that I am dismissing your claims becuase you are making them, I am typicaly open to changing my rigous stance on this issue and have done so for Truescott - and might do so again depending on your reasions stated for not understanding logic and its applacation. You are free to look at my past debates to prepare yourself and you are free to ask me any questions on the debate and questions about my ideas and so on, Dbohm and I had a very ingaging non-liner debate because he set out to understand my stance and I did the same for him.

What would be the question for the debate - I would sugest it would be "Is there any scientific reasion to deny biolgical evoultion." You are free to submit any and all pier reviewed publications that say there is reasions to deny it. I suspect you will find there are none. Thus, I will win this debate before it begins. Sceince is on the side of biolgical evoultion, and there is no reasion to deny it, at all.

If you want a difernet question - then that debate I might win - or not win, depending on the debate we are having. On this debate - the one where you are questioning biolgical evoultion - I have won it before you begin, the facts are on my side, and the fact that you do not want to undertand it baffles me, but I'm done on this issue, I'm not a biolgogy teacher, your questions about biolgical evoultion are best answered via your own personal reserch - you can get books on the issue at a libary, find information online and so on - but when you go "reserch" this subject looking only at non-scientific sorces (in this case creationist webpages) you will of course not get a true result.

So, on that issue, I have won - there is no augument to be made for biolgical evoultion being true. If you disagre thats nice - but you have no scientic reasions and as such I dismiss your reasions.

On other topics, I have other standards - depending on the topic at hand.

Now if we can put all of this aside, I would like if we could to return the topic that I started, - simply some rules for talking to athests for belivers to follow. This is a simple idea, and none of the rules are hard to follow. If you would like to talk about this list of rules we can do this here, if you want to talk about other things with me, or anyone else- please start a new topic for it, pm me if you want to do the 1-1 debate and you are willing to follow the rules I have outlined for it, if you want to talk openly about debating me we can do so in some other topic that is not this one as I would like this one to get back on track.

[HaLi8993]

@ playhavock

Well, I put male on my thing so people know what gender I am  
but if you want a real debate, then there are a few rules you must comply to for a debate with me. 

First, we will negoate the question at hand. 
Second, we must agree what the format will be, typicaly this is a standard format that I've used in the past but I'm willing to change it if need be. 

Third, if we are debating scientific findings then your resorces must be pier reviewed publications that suport your stance on the issue at hand, I will not alow submition of scinece from creationist web pages as they do not understand science nor does it seem they want to understand it, rather they pervert it with there bad science.

1) negotiate the topic - agreed

2) format - agreed

3)  Sources - Disagreed

We should be able to use what ever sources we wish to prove a point. Provided it is factual. If your opinion is that what I present to you is
coming  from a creationist website, books etc then this would be biased because that is the whole point of debate, I believe in God and you don't so of course my evidence will be from what you would call a "creationist website"

Finaly I will be using Informal Logic - if you do not understand logic then you will quickly find that you are making falacys and that I am dismissing your claims becuase you are making them, I am typicaly open to changing my rigous stance on this issue and have done so for Truescott - and might do so again depending on your reasions stated for not understanding logic and its applacation. You are free to look at my past debates to prepare yourself and you are free to ask me any questions on the debate and questions about my ideas and so on, Dbohm and I had a very ingaging non-liner debate because he set out to understand my stance and I did the same for him. 

What would be the question for the debate - I would sugest it would be "Is there any scientific reasion to deny biolgical evoultion." You are free to submit any and all pier reviewed publications that say there is reasions to deny it. I suspect you will find there are none. Thus, I will win this debate before it begins. Sceince is on the side of biolgical evoultion, and there is no reasion to deny it, at all.

You can use what ever logic you wish, however you need to explain this in detail so that I may understand what you wish to imply, it would be ridiculous to have a debate if the opposition fails to understand, again the entire point is to convey your belief. 

Topic - Agreed, but I thought we were discussing the existence of God. I'm prepared to discuss this topic first though. 

If you want a difernet question - then that debate I might win - or not win, depending on the debate we are having. On this debate - the one where you are questioning biolgical evoultion - I have won it before you begin, the facts are on my side, and the fact that you do not want to undertand it baffles me, but I'm done on this issue, I'm not a biolgogy teacher, your questions about biolgical evoultion are best answered via your own personal reserch - you can get books on the issue at a libary, find information online and so on - but when you go "reserch" this subject looking only at non-scientific sorces (in this case creationist webpages) you will of course not get a true result. 

So, on that issue, I have won - there is no augument to be made for biolgical evoultion being true. If you disagre thats nice - but you have no scientic reasions and as such I dismiss your reasions. 

On other topics, I have other standards - depending on the topic at hand.

You mean like the horse example lol...you really won that one, you sound a bit overly confident there. I will discuss this topic provided you explain it so I may understand and you do not just post a link or website and ask me to read it.

Now if we can put all of this aside, I would like if we could to return the topic that I started, - simply some rules for talking to athests for belivers to follow. This is a simple idea, and none of the rules are hard to follow. If you would like to talk about this list of rules we can do this here, if you want to talk about other things with me, or anyone else- please start a new topic for it, pm me if you want to do the 1-1 debate and you are willing to follow the rules I have outlined for it, if you want to talk openly about debating me we can do so in some other topic that is not this one as I would like this one to get back on track.

I'm ready to do 1-1 debate. But it seems you forgot to add a few things to the rules:

1) No abusive, rude, ignorant, offensive, language including your a "liar" this is "bull" this is a "fallacy" this is a "circular argument" etc 

2) No disrespect in regards to Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them all). There will be an instant termination of conversation on my part if you say anything about any Prophet or Messenger that is uncalled for.

3) Must explain everything posted including all links, videos etc. in detail.

4) One post at a time.

5) Each debater can take as long as they want to answer. I'm sure we both have other  important things to do I know I do.

If you agree, start a 1-1 and I will meet you there

I think this post should have been the typical answers of Atheists not what not to ask Atheists lol

[bernee51]

I was referring to your claim of compassion and the fact that you are yet to condemn killings in the name of Islam.

Again I need a scenario so I know what your talking about, for all I know you could be referring to times of war, hence I cannot give you a yes/no answer. Do you know where I am coming from?

Do you think going to war in the name of any religion is morally correct?

Religions of conversion create division and conflict. Religions of conversion are religions of violence.

Bernee51, again this is Monoimos' personal belief. So you rather apply this then what God instructs you to follow?

Your god has not instructed me in anything.

What Monoimos expressed is his personal belief, based on his experience, I know from my own experience that of which he speaks. Until you do the experiment – to gain the experience, you will never understand.

I know also, from what you write, it is unlikely, unless you change a fundamental attitude, that you will ever do the experiment.

I don't understand why I would need to be concerned with all that I'm not?? Lets focus on what is real Bernee51.

OK you tell me what is real and unreal and how you tell the difference.

This just proves that a person has a purpose in life to believe in something, the only problem is you guys are not looking in the right places for answers rather just believing in things that appeal to you. It would be silly to believe that we do not have a purpose in life. All this that you see and have is for a reason.

The purpose of life is a life of purpose. This purpose is not derived from, indeed cannot be derived from some external ‘other’ – no matter what you want to call ‘other’

What is the source of this awareness, I would say God creating you with a brain and intellect to think and ponder over the meaning of life.

Does the awareness have a source? Or is the source awareness?

If god is creating this awareness how can it give something it is not?

Perhaps what you call ‘god’ is awareness itself?

I condemn the killing of Sunni by Shia. Such killings do not justify more killing.[/quote]

We cannot change what people take into their own hands of revenge. Do you think that they are at war with each other?[/quote]

We can choose to condemn it or not.

So far you have not condemned any killing done in the name of Islam.

I find this morally reprehensible.

[HaLi8993]

@ Bernee51

Do you think going to war in the name of any religion is morally correct? 

Religions of conversion create division and conflict. Religions of conversion are religions of violence.

 

We go to war in the name of God. If a country wages war on another country in the name of so called "peace" and in the name of their country, then why is their anything wrong with going to war against those that wage war on you in the name of God??, when this is none other than God's land. 

Islam brings peace to a society, it does not bring violence. Do you see it morally correct that America justifies going to war based on "fighting terrorism" and bringing "peace"????

Your god has not instructed me in anything. 

What Monoimos expressed is his personal belief, based on his experience, I know from my own experience that of which he speaks. Until you do the experiment – to gain the experience, you will never understand. 

I know also, from what you write, it is unlikely, unless you change a fundamental attitude, that you will ever do the experiment.

Yes He has, you just choose to reject it. All the Prophets and Messengers came with a message, which was to worship One God. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being the last of the Prophets, making him the seal of the Prophets. The Quran was revealed to him where he was instructed to teach it and convey it, it is for all of mankind as a final religion for all. 

God's knowledge of our experiences, that we will encounter throughout our lifetime is greater than Monoimos understanding. He is the All-Knowing. God knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows what will happen before it even happens, everything has already been written down of our fate. So who more worthy of following than God the All-Mighty?

What experiment are you referring too?

OK you tell me what is real and unreal and how you tell the difference.

What is real is what we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch, and what God instructs us of what is real. What is unreal is what God tells us of. 

The purpose of life is a life of purpose. This purpose is not derived from, indeed cannot be derived from some external ‘other’ – no matter what you want to call ‘other’

What makes you come to this conclusion?? what evidence can you provide for this???

Does the awareness have a source? Or is the source awareness? 

If god is creating this awareness how can it give something it is not? 

Perhaps what you call ‘god’ is awareness itself?

Bernee51 why do you choose to complicate things for yourself?? What do you mean by "give something it is not" 

We can choose to condemn it or not. 

So far you have not condemned any killing done in the name of Islam. 

I find this morally reprehensible.

You can indeed choose to condemn it or not, however this doesn't change the fact whether it is justifiable of not. So far you have not given me a comprehensive scenario to judge by God's rulings. How do you expect me to condemn a killing when I don't know what you are talking about? That is your opinion, I'm sure  it would be a totally different moral opinion and response if you were the victim just think about that for a moment. Maybe this comes back to your response about experience.

[playhavock]

1) negotiate the topic - agreed

2) format - agreed

3)  Sources - Disagreed

3 - Since this is science, you must provide scientific sorces. The fact that you do not and will not do this shows you have not science to offer me, thus you lose the augment before it begins.

We should be able to use what ever sources we wish to prove a point. Provided it is factual.

Agreed, and no creationist webpage or book or anything can offer evidance that biolgical evoultion is false because they have no scientific sorces of there own nor do they have any scientific theroy of there own. So they do not have anything to offer on this matter.

If your opinion is that what I present to you is
coming  from a creationist website, books etc then this would be biased because that is the whole point of debate, I believe in God and you don't so of course my evidence will be from what you would call a "creationist website"

God has however, nothing to do with biolgical evoultion - and visa versa. One can accept the reality of biolgical evoultion and still belive in a God.

Topic - Agreed, but I thought we were discussing the existence of God. I'm prepared to discuss this topic first though. 

God is an intreging consept to debate to be sure, but it is not as imporant to me as the facts of science are. You denying biolgical evoultion offends me as a human, it slowes your forward progress as a socity, it happers you personaly and your socity as a whole, it prevents me from joinging your relgion because it holds up a barror that says I must deny this fact to join - I will not deny the facts of science, thus I could never join your group if that is what you in the end desire me to do.

You mean like the horse example lol...you really won that one

I did. The horse was a simple example, the webpage was a far better and deeper one. The fact you dont seem to grasp eather shows your lack of understanding on this matter. I sugest you read up on biolgy to learn.

you sound a bit overly confident there.

Not at all, I stand on facts. There is overwhelming evidance for biolgical evoultion.

I will discuss this topic provided you explain it so I may understand and you do not just post a link or website and ask me to read it.

Explainig biolgical evoultion would take massive amounts of text and data - something that some webpages or books can provide, you would have to read though a lot of information to understand it, the basics might be easyer to break down but the evidance is massive thus requires multipull things - unlike the simple idea of "God did it" science has to deal with data and facts and sightings and tests - the texts on biolgical evoultion would if you tryed to read all of it - take more then a life time to do so - where as the texts on creation take maybe a month to read though, since they offer no actual data and simply say that science is wrong about biolgical evoultion and give no data, no sightings, no tests - its a quick read.

Again, I could boil down the basics of biolgical evoultion, but those do not prove it - the data does, that requires a massive amount of sightings that requires a ton of reading on your part if you actualy care to learn about the matter, if however you want to remain ignroant then you will not read up on it eather in the debate itself or apart from the debate - and this is my point - you make an augment of ignorance when you say that it is false and have not studyed it to understand it or even tryed to do so.

I'm ready to do 1-1 debate. But it seems you forgot to add a few things to the rules:

1) No abusive, rude, ignorant, offensive, language including your a "liar" this is "bull" this is a "fallacy" this is a "circular argument" etc 

Fallacy is not abusive languge, it is a statment made in informal logic.
Circular logic is a logical fallacy thus is not abusive languge.
The fact you think those things are abuse sugests you do not understand informal logic. I sugest you read up on that as well.

I reject this as an idea for a rule.

2) No disrespect in regards to Prophets and Messengers

The bleep with that. I can not and respect them untill they earn that. I'll insult them all I want and it is my freedom to do so. I would not perform this in a debate because it is not relevent to the topic at hand. I do it now becuase I am free to do so. The prohets and messangers are nothing more then made up ideas or if real outright liers or lunatitcs and deserving of no peace or love or attention, they are no better then current cult leaders.

I reject this as an idea for a rule.

3) Must explain everything posted including all links, videos etc. in detail.

So if the link itself provides data that suports the point you are making you must then explain the data thus making the link itself somewhat redundent. Thats like:
"Biolgical evoultiuon is explained in detail at wikipeda (line to wikipedia) and here is what wikipedia said on biolgical evoutlion (same data that was on the link)" my word what nonsence.

I reject this as an idea for a rule.

4) One post at a time.

One post can cover a ton of infomation so I am not worryed about this idea as a rule.

5) Each debater can take as long as they want to answer. I'm sure we both have other  important things to do I know I do.

I never set time limits. So this is fine.

If you agree, start a 1-1 and I will meet you there

Sounds like you and I do not agree. I am not willing to negoate the rule of using only scientific sorces for biolgical evoultion, anything else I'm willing to negoate - but not that one.

I think this post should have been the typical answers of Atheists not what not to ask Atheists lol

The post before you derailed it was a few ideas of things not to say - for example, you could make a post that said that one speaking to a Muslam should not say bad things about there prophets or messengers, my responce there would be to ask a few critical questions and I would stay on topic.

Perhaps now that all this mess is out of the way I can get back to the topic at hand.

[bernee51]

@ Bernee51

Do you think going to war in the name of any religion is morally correct?

Religions of conversion create division and conflict. Religions of conversion are religions of violence.

We go to war in the name of God. If a country wages war on another country in the name of so called "peace" and in the name of their country, then why is their anything wrong with going to war against those that wage war on you in the name of God??, when this is none other than God's land.

There is no such thing as a just war...all war is immoral

Islam brings peace to a society, it does not bring violence.

One instance of Islam bringing violence will destroy this argument.

Do you see it morally correct that America justifies going to war based on "fighting terrorism" and bringing "peace"????

Clearly not

Your god has not instructed me in anything.

What Monoimos expressed is his personal belief, based on his experience, I know from my own experience that of which he speaks. Until you do the experiment – to gain the experience, you will never understand.

I know also, from what you write, it is unlikely, unless you change a fundamental attitude, that you will ever do the experiment.

Yes He has, you just choose to reject it. All the Prophets and Messengers came with a message, which was to worship One God. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being the last of the Prophets, making him the seal of the Prophets. The Quran was revealed to him where he was instructed to teach it and convey it, it is for all of mankind as a final religion for all. [/quote]
This is the claim made by Islam...other religions make similar claims. All religions are an attempt to codify a personal spiritual experience. The mistake is to try to globalise they experience.

That is the mistake of Islam

God's knowledge of our experiences, that we will encounter throughout our lifetime is greater than Monoimos understanding. He is the All-Knowing. God knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows what will happen before it even happens, everything has already been written down of our fate. So who more worthy of following than God the All-Mighty?

Then it is Allah's fault that he does not exist for me

What experiment are you referring too?

Seeking the answer to the question "who am I?". Seeking the source of the I-thought. The result of the experiment could be described as:

In a pinhole camera, when the hole is small you see shapes and colours. When the hole is made big the images disappear and all one sees is light. Similarly when the mind is small and narrow it is full of shapes and words. When it broadens it sees pure light. When the box is destroyed altogether only light remains.

.

OK you tell me what is real and unreal and how you tell the difference.

What is real is what we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch, and what God instructs us of what is real. What is unreal is what God tells us of.

So reality is that which the senses, as filtered through the mind, tell us? In dreams the senses tell us many things, we build and inhabit a world, have experiences - are they real?

Do you remember Hali8993 when she was 10 years old? Her thoughts, her body, her hopes? Are they real?

That which real is that which exists in all three periods of time (past, present and future); exists independently; and cannot be negated.

So the universe as we perceive it, constantly changing, cannot be real.

If Allah exists, Allah is real - but his creation is not.

The purpose of life is a life of purpose. This purpose is not derived from, indeed cannot be derived from some external ‘other’ – no matter what you want to call ‘other’

What makes you come to this conclusion?? what evidence can you provide for this???

Who or what determines your purpose in life? Your beliefs? Your ambitions? Your hopes? Notice the 'your' here? Even if you hold that it is Allah that determines this it is still up to you to see that determination realised.

All these things - beliefs, hopes, ambitions are mental constructs - your mental constructs. And they are yours regardless of where you believe they are derived.

Does the awareness have a source? Or is the source awareness?

If god is creating this awareness how can it give something it is not?

Perhaps what you call ‘god’ is awareness itself?

Bernee51 why do you choose to complicate things for yourself?? What do you mean by "give something it is not"

By no means complicated....it simply means that in order to give something it must first be possessed. If awareness comes from god, god must have or be awareness.

We can choose to condemn it or not.

So far you have not condemned any killing done in the name of Islam.

I find this morally reprehensible.

You can indeed choose to condemn it or not, however this doesn't change the fact whether it is justifiable of not. So far you have not given me a comprehensive scenario to judge by God's rulings. How do you expect me to condemn a killing when I don't know what you are talking about? That is your opinion, I'm sure it would be a totally different moral opinion and response if you were the victim just think about that for a moment. Maybe this comes back to your response about experience.

Killing for revenge or retribution is moral bankruptcy. Both Sunni and Shia are morally bankrupt.

[Goat]

@ Bernee51

Do you think going to war in the name of any religion is morally correct? 

Religions of conversion create division and conflict. Religions of conversion are religions of violence.

 

We go to war in the name of God. If a country wages war on another country in the name of so called "peace" and in the name of their country, then why is their anything wrong with going to war against those that wage war on you in the name of God??, when this is none other than God's land. 

Islam brings peace to a society, it does not bring violence. Do you see it morally correct that America justifies going to war based on "fighting terrorism" and bringing "peace"????

So, Islam is bringing peace to Syria, and it bringing Peace to Afganistan and Iraq . I see. Islam is bringing peace of Pakastan. How interesting. We must not forget Somalia, ,, or the rebels in the Philapines, or Yeman. So much peace there because of Islam.

When Iran hangs rape victims that can not produce 4 witnesses, that is sure peaceful. Or , aren't the folks in Iran 'True Muslims?"?

[HaLi8993]

@ playhavock

3 - Since this is science, you must provide scientific sorces. The fact that you do not and will not do this shows you have not science to offer me, thus you lose the augment before it begins.

Did I say I would not provide scientific sources?? We should be able to provide what ever sources possible to prove a fact. If you call my sources that are facts creationist websites than that does not mean they are not facts. Than the burden is on you to prove it is not a fact. Is this not a fair approach?? 

Agreed, and no creationist webpage or book or anything can offer evidance that biolgical evoultion is false because they have no scientific sorces of there own nor do they have any scientific theroy of there own. So they do not have anything to offer on this matter.

Yes agreed that science proves facts, but don't forget you have to explain in detail everything you provide evidence for, if you cannot it's a fail. 

God has however, nothing to do with biolgical evoultion - and visa versa. One can accept the reality of biolgical evoultion and still belive in a God.

Regardless what your personal opinion is, I believe that yes you can believe in God and aspects of evolution however not the absurd unscientific aspects of evolution. There are things that evolution claims that go against the teachings of God hence these aspects of evolution are incorrect.  

God is an intreging consept to debate to be sure, but it is not as imporant to me as the facts of science are. You denying biolgical evoultion offends me as a human, it slowes your forward progress as a socity, it happers you personaly and your socity as a whole, it prevents me from joinging your relgion because it holds up a barror that says I must deny this fact to join - I will not deny the facts of science, thus I could never join your group if that is what you in the end desire me to do.

What if all that you believed to be scientific facts are fraudulent? You shouldn't be offended, as our duty as humans are to seek the truth. As hurtful as this may be to us to let go of what we have known our whole lives. No one is asking you to deny facts that's what we are here to establish. 

I did. The horse was a simple example, the webpage was a far better and deeper one. The fact you dont seem to grasp eather shows your lack of understanding on this matter. I sugest you read up on biolgy to learn.

It's not an example at all. It's just a fiction of someones imagination that went terribly wrong. Where is their scientific evidence (facts) to prove this to be true. You haven't provided any. All you have done is simply post a website showing and describing what certain individuals think to be true.

Not at all, I stand on facts. There is overwhelming evidance for biolgical

I want to see these facts.....

Explainig biolgical evoultion would take massive amounts of text and data - something that some webpages or books can provide, you would have to read though a lot of information to understand it, the basics might be easyer to break down but the evidance is massive thus requires multipull things - unlike the simple idea of "God did it" science has to deal with data and facts and sightings and tests - the texts on biolgical evoultion would if you tryed to read all of it - take more then a life time to do so - where as the texts on creation take maybe a month to read though, since they offer no actual data and simply say that science is wrong about biolgical evoultion and give no data, no sightings, no tests - its a quick read. 

Again, I could boil down the basics of biolgical evoultion, but those do not prove it - the data does, that requires a massive amount of sightings that requires a ton of reading on your part if you actualy care to learn about the matter, if however you want to remain ignroant then you will not read up on it eather in the debate itself or apart from the debate - and this is my point - you make an augment of ignorance when you say that it is false and have not studyed it to understand it or even tryed to do so.

If you can't explain it, you fail. If something cannot be explained then how do you expect a person to believe in it?? Furthermore you are mistaken in thinking that Islam is a quick read. If you were to gain all the knowledge in the world, you would still fall short of the knowledge of Islam. We have books and books just on one topic. Islam is a whole way of life, hence we also have books and books on rulings. We have books and books on the meaning of the Quran called the Tafsir. We have volumes of books on the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) explaining everything in detail. Al-Bukhari to name only one. There is nothing like it. This is the reason why there are so many misconceptions lingering around Islam because people fail to do their own research in seeking the truth.

Tons of reading should not be required, this just shows how the theory of evolution has clearly fooled it's audience, they have gone through such lengths making fictional diagrams and pages of writings to suggest something is true when it is not. When a person sees this they automatically believe that it is evidence and so much evidence cannot be wrong. It's a materialistic plot. Unless you can explain without saying to me this is the answer you have to read 100 pages to understand it, you have nothing. 

Fallacy is not abusive languge, it is a statment made in informal logic. 
Circular logic is a logical fallacy thus is not abusive languge. 
The fact you think those things are abuse sugests you do not understand informal logic. I sugest you read up on that as well. 

I reject this as an idea for a rule.

Did I say it was? So you want to use abusive, ignorant, rude and offensive language?? Right!

The bleep with that. I can not and respect them untill they earn that. I'll insult them all I want and it is my freedom to do so. I would not perform this in a debate because it is not relevent to the topic at hand. I do it now becuase I am free to do so. The prohets and messangers are nothing more then made up ideas or if real outright liers or lunatitcs and deserving of no peace or love or attention, they are no better then current cult leaders. 

I reject this as an idea for a rule.

You can forget the debate then, if you cannot show simple moral respect then this just shows your shortcomings and values and representation of an Atheist. You would also be violating the rules of the forum. You have failed before you have begun. Or are you just using this to escape from the truth?

Oh brother.....then you wander why Muslims do what they do. Atheists want peace, Right!

So if the link itself provides data that suports the point you are making you must then explain the data thus making the link itself somewhat redundent. Thats like: 
"Biolgical evoultiuon is explained in detail at wikipeda (line to wikipedia) and here is what wikipedia said on biolgical evoutlion (same data that was on the link)" my word what nonsence. 

I reject this as an idea for a rule.

No it's not the same thing, if a person doesn't understand a passage or details within a particular article. What do they do? They ask the meaning of a particular paragraph, diagram etc. to the right person. You claim that you know biological evolution hence you should be able to answer my questions about biological evolution explaining it so I may understand it. Not saying to me the link is the answer. For all I know that could be anything. If you fail to do this again you have nothing, because it just proves you do not understand yourself what you are posting. 

One post can cover a ton of infomation so I am not worryed about this idea as a rule.

 

Agreed. Don't forget to explain it.

I never set time limits. So this is fine.

Agreed. 

Sounds like you and I do not agree. I am not willing to negoate the rule of using only scientific sorces for biolgical evoultion, anything else I'm willing to negoate - but not that one.

We are not starting any debate if you can't even show the moral and ethical respect I deserve.

The post before you derailed it was a few ideas of things not to say - for example, you could make a post that said that one speaking to a Muslam should not say bad things about there prophets or messengers, my responce there would be to ask a few critical questions and I would stay on topic. 

Perhaps now that all this mess is out of the way I can get back to the topic at hand.

No one is stopping you!