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.

[southern cross]

@ 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.

Here is just some information. AN atheist considers any god non existent. That is it, end of story. AN atheist may believe that the moon is made from green cheese, good luck to him/her. Whatever else an atheist believes is irrelevant. Here's an easy to understand, a christian believes in the god('s) of the bible, but doesn't believe in the god of the quaran. Get it?.................................I'm certain that you don't.

[SailingCyclops]

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. 

You are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis. Evolution does not deal with how the first cell came to be. Evolution explains how that first cell evolved into the tree of life. I was addressing your statement:

"the most common belief of the atheist that we all came about by a coincidental cell

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???

The short answer to this question is that after several centuries of observation and experimentation, we have not observed anything except the laws of nature operating in the universe. We observe the same laws operating in the furthest reaches of space as we see here on earth. The evidence is overwhelming, as is the evidence of the FACT of evolution.

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.

Please tell us which branches of science indicate that life could not begin from natural processes. You misunderstand what science is. Science only seeks answers to questions.

There are people who say that long ago man was a monkey and he evolved. Is this true? Is there any evidence?.

Not true! We are descendants of apes not of monkeys. There is overwhelming evidence of common descent from the scientific fields of paleontology, biology, genetics, comparative anatomy ..... Evolution is as factual as the fact that the earth is round. Of course, some people still believe the earth is flat, and that magic brought all we see around us into existence; but most rational people do not believe in magic.

 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

You have no evidence that what is written in your holy book is true. Think about it. The bible and the quran were written by ignorant men who had no knowledge of how things worked and ascribed everything they didn't understand to magic. I know Evolution is correct because there is too much evidence supporting it, just read the link I referenced above. Where is your evidence that the quran is true?

[playhavock]

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

It is I guess your idea of biolgical evoultion that you seem to error in, I accept biolgical evoultion because it has overwhelming eveidance for it. If you are insteed refering to how life began - that is in abrogenis, a seperate sceince that has not figured out what theroy is the best one to use as yet and there is not a ton of data as yet to go on, so I do not know how it started. They are seperate issues, the fact that you do not seem to know this sugests your understanding of science is poor and thus your augment is one of igorance.

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.

I can immagne all sorts of Gods. I do not have proof of any of them, thus my conclsuon is that they are nothing more then constructs of my brain and other peoples brains.

Furthermore you are mistaken in saying that he was assuming that the world around us is not evidence, as in the Quran

The Qurain is a book of mytholigy unless and untill you can show it has any relevence of any kind or that we have any reasion to think it is true.

1) Were we created by nothing? 

If you are refering to humans as a whole, no. If you are refering to the universe, we do not know.

2) Did we create ourselves?

No, our parents did.

3) Did we create the universe?

Not as far as I know.

As far as evoultion, and more to the point biolgical evoultion - the fact you deny it is a reasion to suspect your ablity to accept reality as it is, I'd like to invite you to study biological evoultion and see how meny facts there are for it and join me on this side of reality, just because you belvie in a God does not meen you must deny this scientific fact. If you contune to deny this fact of science I will contune to not be able to ever join your relgion or faith or belive things you think are true because your whole perseption of reality is flawed.

[Goat]

@ 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.

Boy oh boy, does this misrepresent the Theory of Evolution.

At no point was any human or human ancestor be a monkey. The best that can be said is that 'Monkey's and humans share a common ancestor.' Humans and monkey's are primates, yet, but humans are apes.. and don't have tails.

And, again you also don't understand. Scripture (and I include the Quran in that) is the claim. Do you know the difference between a claim and evidence? It does not appear so.

[playhavock]

What evidence do you want exactly??? 
 

What evidance would you want to prove there is a difernet God other then the one you think is the real God - the answer to that is probley very close to my answer for this question.

[bernee51]

What evidence do you want exactly??? 
 

What evidance would you want to prove there is a difernet God other then the one you think is the real God - the answer to that is probley very close to my answer for this question.

Even how they relate to the god they have causes pain and suffering.

Here is yet another example of Sunni tolerance, compassion and their idea of living peacefully.

[HaLi8993]

@ southern cross

Here is just some information. AN atheist considers any god non existent. That is it, end of story. AN atheist may believe that the moon is made from green cheese, good luck to him/her. Whatever else an atheist believes is irrelevant. Here's an easy to understand, a christian believes in the god('s) of the bible, but doesn't believe in the god of the quaran. Get it?.................................I'm certain that you don't.

Yes, and what is your point? that is what we are debating that this idieology that God is non existent is false, furthermore the God of the Gospel and Quran is the same God. There is only One God.

[HaLi8993]

@ Sailing Cyclops

You are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis. Evolution does not deal with how the first cell came to be. Evolution explains how that first cell evolved into the tree of life. I was addressing your statement:

The theory of evolution maintains on the basis of no scientific foundation whatsoever, that at a time when there was still no life on Earth, inanimate substances came together to give rise to the first living organism. As for the theory of abiogenesis this has been discarded in favor of the theory of biogenesis, however some evolutionist circles still defend this, that life was formed long ago from some chance combination of lifeless matter. But they have been unable to prove their claims scientifically, and their attempts to do so have failed. So where is the evidence?

The short answer to this question is that after several centuries of observation and experimentation, we have not observed anything except the laws of nature operating in the universe. We observe the same laws operating in the furthest reaches of space as we see here on earth. The evidence is overwhelming, as is the evidence of the FACT of evolution.

Well again I could say that the Quran is the ultimate evidence that there is a Creator along with  other universal evidences that point to a Creator. The theory of Evolution has elements of truth no doubt but many things are way beyond fact.

The question is, who the Creator of these 
laws? The laws of the universe are clear proofs that the universe, just like all the creatures within it, is a product of divine design. Furthermore these laws are nothing but human explanations and description of the divine order that God has created. God is the ultimate Creator of the unchanging laws of order in the universe He puts them in the service of humans so that man will reflect upon and understand the Sovereignty of God and give thanks for His blessings.

Please tell us which branches of science indicate that life could not begin from natural processes. You misunderstand what science is. Science only seeks answers to questions.

paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, molecular biology, comparative anatomy and biophysics.

Not true! We are descendants of apes not of monkeys. There is overwhelming evidence of common descent from the scientific fields of paleontology, biology, genetics, comparative anatomy ..... Evolution is as factual as the fact that the earth is round. Of course, some people still believe the earth is flat, and that magic brought all we see around us into existence; but most rational people do not believe in magic.

I disagree there is no evidence that we are descendants from neither apes or monkeys nor is this factual at all.

You have no evidence that what is written in your holy book is true. Think about it. The bible and the quran were written by ignorant men who had no knowledge of how things worked and ascribed everything they didn't understand to magic. I know Evolution is correct because there is too much evidence supporting it, just read the link I referenced above. Where is your evidence that the quran is true?

You have very little knowledge of the Quran, firstly the Quran was a revelation as it was a revelation to Jesus (peace be upon him) that came with the Gospel, no one will deny that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever existed. Secondly we have unaltered narrations that could be traced to events that took place that prove the miracles witnessed by companions that testify to Prophethood. Thirdly we have the unaltered Quran that has no contradictions, shortcomings or defects in it that is the same Quran 1400 years ago that include matters that could and would not have been known 1400 years ago. There are many more things that prove Islam to be true. Again I would have to disagree with the theory of Evolution on countless points as it cannot explain many things.

[HaLi8993]

@ playhavock

It is I guess your idea of biolgical evoultion that you seem to error in, I accept biolgical evoultion because it has overwhelming eveidance for it. If you are insteed refering to how life began - that is in abrogenis, a seperate sceince that has not figured out what theroy is the best one to use as yet and there is not a ton of data as yet to go on, so I do not know how it started. They are seperate issues, the fact that you do not seem to know this sugests your understanding of science is poor and thus your augment is one of igorance.

What makes you think I do not understand this? I'm not here to discuss the theory of evolution, I'm here to point out that the belief that Atheists uphold which is, that there is no God is one of ignorance. If an Atheist wants to use the theory of evolution as an example which many have relied upon as a scape goat and the scientific so called evidence it proves we can discuss this also.

I can immagne all sorts of Gods. I do not have proof of any of them, thus my conclsuon is that they are nothing more then constructs of my brain and other peoples brains.

Well of course if your imagining who God is, this would be the outcome and conclusion that it is just a fiction of your imagination. Yes, no doubt there are different false interpretations of God, but there can only be One God and we do not base our understanding of God on our imagination rather we look at the evidence we have and what the Prophets and Messengers came with.

The Qurain is a book of mytholigy unless and untill you can show it has any relevence of any kind or that we have any reasion to think it is true.

Again this is your personal belief and opinion based on absolutely no evidence. What would you like to know?

If you are refering to humans as a whole, no. If you are refering to the universe, we do not know.

I am referring to humans.

No, our parents did.

Who created your parents?

Not as far as I know.

As far as evoultion, and more to the point biolgical evoultion - the fact you deny it is a reasion to suspect your ablity to accept reality as it is, I'd like to invite you to study biological evoultion and see how meny facts there are for it and join me on this side of reality, just because you belvie in a God does not meen you must deny this scientific fact. If you contune to deny this fact of science I will contune to not be able to ever join your relgion or faith or belive things you think are true because your whole perseption of reality is flawed.

Give me one biological fact that evolution represents.

[HaLi8993]

@ Goat

Boy oh boy, does this misrepresent the Theory of Evolution.

At no point was any human or human ancestor be a monkey. The best that can be said is that 'Monkey's and humans share a common ancestor.' Humans and monkey's are primates, yet, but humans are apes.. and don't have tails.

And, again you also don't understand. Scripture (and I include the Quran in that) is the claim. Do you know the difference between a claim and evidence? It does not appear so.

Ha ha ha don't make me laugh Goat, we have seen how you guys tried to prove your stance on this matter in the other thread. Countless findings,  prove that living things have always remained the same and never changed and turned into any other life form, and it is quite pointless to persist with illogical evolutionist claims.

Is that your answer?