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.

[Cephus]

I just wanted to say, that's phenomenal, thank you for posting it!

[playhavock]

Thank you.

[Divine Insight]

I'd like to comment on these from the perspective of a non-Abrahamic spiritualist who often does end up in debates with atheists on occasion.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that Atheists are not a single organized group. Most atheists are individuals and hold wildly different views. I've found that many so-called atheists are truly agnostics when it comes down to the true nature of reality, but they may indeed be hardcore atheists when it comes to the Abrahamic religions. I mean, gee whiz, I consider myself to be a 'spiritualist' yet I too am a hardcore atheist when it comes to Gods like Zeus and Yahweh.

In any case, I'd like to comment on the following just for fun. After all that's why I'm on this forum.



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


I confess that my spirituality is entirely faith-based. I totally accept everything this implies.

When it comes to atheists I see a very colorful rainbow with regard to this. As I stated earlier many atheists are actually agnostic and are open-minded to the possibility of some mystical or magical essence to reality. Although many of them find the term "God" to be highly distasteful. No doubt due to the Abrahamic usage of the term.

However, at the same time I also often find atheists who are not only atheist with respect to Gods like Zeus or Yahweh, but they are also hardcore believers that there can be no possible spiritual or mystical essence to reality.

I would would indeed label those particular atheists as actually having "faith" in their idea of pure secularism. And, IMHO, that is indeed a purely faith-based belief.

Is this good or bad? Well, the belief itself is neither good nor bad, but when it is held out over others as an absolute it can become just as obnoxious as hardcore fundamental religious evangelism.

To preach to me that "There can be no God", is really no different from preaching to me that "There is a God".

However, I would like to qualify this that if what is actually being stated is "There can be no God like Zeus, or Yahweh", then I'll agree. Both of those mythologies have sufficiently shot their own gods in the head to guarantee their non-existence.


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


I would never tell an atheist that they hate God. That would indeed be silly. I also don't blame atheists at all if they hate the Abrahamic religions. As far as I'm concerned that's not much different from saying, "I hate cancer".

I personally believe that there is overwhelmingly sufficient historical evidence that the Abrahamic religions have indeed been a cancer on humanity in many ways. So I can understand those who view the Abraham religions as a form of spiritual cancer. (i.e. a cancer than destroys the human spirit)


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


Of course they can't. No biggie there. I can't prove God does exist either.

So let's not quibble about this and instead accept that we are all agnostics in the end.


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


I think for some atheists it is. But again, that's an individual thing, not representative of atheism in general.


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


I think for some atheists it is an agenda. Especially when it comes to exposing the absurdities of the Abrahamic religions. I'm not even an atheist and I do that.

I would love to see all Abrahamic worshipers "decoverted" to either atheism or a more productive view of spirituality. I'm in agreement that the Abrahamic religions are a cancer on humanity.


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


Again, that would be a matter of individuality. Atheism itself is not immoral. Also, we have many examples of extremely highly moral atheists. So we have proof that all atheists are not immoral.

And this of course also prove that the Biblical mythology contains falsehoods because the authors of those myths have indeed proclaimed that atheists are immoral and there are none the doeth good. We know that's false.

So the Bible itself is "Poisoning the well/Strawman/Ad hominem", and that's where this poison comes from. This is part of the reason why I personally view it as a cancer on humanity. It's clearly poisoning the well causing division between "believers" and "nonbelievers" of these myths.


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


It's been my experience that most atheists I converse with have no clue who the universe got started. Some of them seem to think that Richard Dawkins might have started it.


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.


Well, I think those kinds of arguments come into play when conversing with a 'hardcore atheist' who is taking the stance that no God can possibly exist. When they take a stance that extreme it only makes sense to ask them to explain "everything". After all, if they can't explain "everything" then why right do they have to proclaim that no God can exist?

They need to then state, (just as any religious person should do) "I have faith that no God exists".

It would be nice if everyone would just say this to each other:



"I have faith that no God exists"


or


"I have faith that some particular spiritual philosophy or religion might be true"


or


"I have faith that I have no clue what's going on".


They we could all live happily ever after, each clinging to our own brand of faith.


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


IMHO, any religious person who needs religion, or a belief in a God, before they can be a good person is already confessing that they are bad person who is merely fighting off their natural desires to do bad things in order to appease some imagined God.

It's really no wonder that such people believe that those without religion would do bad things because this is precisely their own truth.


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


As demonstrated earlier the Bible contains historically confirmed falsehoods (i.e. the claim that no atheists can do good). Therefore it is not only a circular reference, but it's also proven to be a false reference and therefore undependable and untrustworthy.

[playhavock]

Thanks for your insights, the fallacys are still that although they do not apply to all people , of course, they might apply to some - it just depends on who you are talking to - the problem is that the objection is not a true objection, even if someone has faith in no God, that does not dismantal the augment they are making agenst any God or for no God. So the objection is invalad. I'm not sure where the whole name game issue is of athest/agnostic - as one is without God(s) and one is about knowing if we can know there is/isnt God(s), as a skeptic I fall into both catagorys at once, but I also question if eather is correct in order to be consisistant, so far my assumption that natural is all there might be seems to be confermed, but I welcome something to show me I am wrong.

But still, the fallacys are fallcys. I could not myself say "I have no faith in no God" because I have no faith in anything, or try not to. I simply do not belive there is a thing that we could call God due to the lack of evidance that I have for such a thing, it might be, but I can't know that it is, thus I cant belvie it, but thats me.

So the person who debates me and you by saying that we have "no faith" is performing a logical fallacy - you might state you have no faith, so it applys to you, but I do not so this does not apply to me, however it matters not for the fallacy is in sugesting that IF WE DID it would somehow matter, and my point is, even if you do, it matters not for the augment you are making.

Since you belive in a forum of God that I have come to understand better over time, as what I can understand of it - it is equal to nature, sort of, and I am not sure where that "sort of" is but I do not reject it mearly because you label it as "God" even if I am perosnaly mystifyed to why such a labbel matters, and perhaps as you said, it does not matter what we call it. But we have moved passed the fallacys to understanding, even if we were to debate, we would do so on the same level ground not starting with fallacys misdirected at each other.

It is my hope/goal to encorage less logical fallacys as they do not forward debate and do not foward postive understanding of each others personal belifes or lack of belifes.

So only when we move past these sort of hurdals can we better understand each other, and then better debate (X) point to get to an even better understnading of that point or to change our ideas about it.

[dyanaprajna2011]

Excellent post.

[HaLi8993]

[Ooberman]

That was the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No wonder terrorists are blowing themselves up.

[HaLi8993]

@ Ooberman

That was the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No wonder terrorists are blowing themselves up.

Oh brother.......Ignorance is no excuse

[Goat]

@ Ooberman

That was the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No wonder terrorists are blowing themselves up.

Oh brother.......Ignorance is no excuse

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'