Ten Commandments for people speaking to Athests to follow.

[playhavock]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HaLi8993]

@ playhavock

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.

There is only One God.

[HaLi8993]

@ Bernee51

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.

Bernee51 what ever to you mean?? Who is "they"??, you seem to think that being straight forward is wrong. What you have shown with your comment is how willing you are living in peace.

[playhavock]

@ playhavock

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.

There is only One God.

That is an extreamly strange way to answer the question.
It is in essance, a stance of faith, not of fact. You suport it with nothing other then the statment itself.

Now, you might belvie there is only one and that you happen to have the correct one, and that is typical of people who belive, but not always.

So, wihtout any reasion to think that you have gotten it right - somehow, I am skeptical that you have the correct one if there is an actual correct God or any God at all. Your answer is not an answer at all. Sadly.

Your answer is no where near mine, as such, given that you did not, in fact - provide an answer.

You seem sure that you have the right God, that this is the one God, and that you know all this, somehow.

I really would like you to think about what it would take for someone to convince you that you are wrong - what evidance, what facts, what things would they have to do? If you say "nothing" to that question - then I hope you would admit that in the end, you sincerly think you are right, and since your answer is "nothing" then there is no reasion to contune to talk to try to persade you, your mind is made up.

If that is the case, I find it a sad state to be in, my mind can be changed - I can be shown to be wrong, I can admit when I am wrong.

Can you?

[HaLi8993]

@ playhavock

That is an extreamly strange way to answer the question. 
It is in essance, a stance of faith, not of fact. You suport it with nothing other then the statment itself. 

Now, you might belvie there is only one and that you happen to have the correct one, and that is typical of people who belive, but not always. 

So, wihtout any reasion to think that you have gotten it right - somehow, I am skeptical that you have the correct one if there is an actual correct God or any God at all. Your answer is not an answer at all. Sadly. 

Your answer is no where near mine, as such, given that you did not, in fact - provide an answer. 

You seem sure that you have the right God, that this is the one God, and that you know all this, somehow. 

I really would like you to think about what it would take for someone to convince you that you are wrong - what evidance, what facts, what things would they have to do? If you say "nothing" to that question - then I hope you would admit that in the end, you sincerly think you are right, and since your answer is "nothing" then there is no reasion to contune to talk to try to persade you, your mind is made up. 

If that is the case, I find it a sad state to be in, my mind can be changed - I can be shown to be wrong, I can admit when I am wrong. 

Can you?

No actually it was a correction to your stance on faith because you were under the impression that the Muslims believe in a totally different God that is different to that of Christians. This is a misconception. You have supported this with nothing more than a statement.

Since the beginning of time there has ever only been One God. Prophets and Messengers only ever came to advice mankind to worship One God this includes Jesus (peace be upon him),  now my question to you is are you denying that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever existed?? If your answer is yes, then you would be rejecting evidence. And I cannot prove to you that there is One God. If your answer is no then we can move on.

The purpose  behind the sending of the Messengers was to guide mankind to the worship of God, so that proof may be established against them. The Prophets of God were not charged with the task of instilling faith in people’s hearts, but send as a warner and a guide for mankind. It is God that guides whom he wills. This is so people like that of today do not turn around and make silly statements like there is no God.

It is only appropriate to concentrate on the books that were sent by God namely the Gospel, Injeel (Torah) and Quran as these are from God. I am not concerned about man made religions that have absolutely no evidence they are from
God. Especially considering the the fact that they are founded by people and not a revelation from God. 

I assume you are following my posts and are reading them it seems you have not, as you are saying that I have not provided an answer and have chosen the response that was one line above all the other responses on this thread to justify your position. I also suggest you read my other thread called "why were we created" which will give you an answer to the proof of the existence of God. Once we can establish that you agree there is a God we can move on to what is the right belief. If what you say is true and sincere that you could be shown to be wrong.

As for persuasion, my mind is made up and cannot be changed, but I am ready to admit that I am wrong if this can be achieved with evidence and I also can admit I am wrong. 

So what you need to do is figure out if you believe in God or not first and if not why not, simply saying that there is no evidence is not substantial, we cannot deny that Prophets and Messengers have come with miracles that are documented and witnessed by people in manuscripts. Besides in the Islamic faith that is where the test lies.

[bernee51]

@ Bernee51

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.

Bernee51 what ever to you mean?? Who is "they"??, you seem to think that being straight forward is wrong. What you have shown with your comment is how willing you are living in peace.

'They' are you and you Shia brothers...same god of peace and compassion, but you wouldn't know it.

I know the source of peace...it is not to be learnt from the example set by those I referenced.

[HaLi8993]

@ Bernee51

'They' are you and you Shia brothers...same god of peace and compassion, but you wouldn't know it.

I know the source of peace...it is not to be learnt from the example set by those I referenced.

Come on Bernee51, you should know by now that Shia and Sunni are completely different. Now don't you think that's a bit harsh? do you know what is in my heart of peace and compassion???

What is your source of peace?? Calling people "they" and accusing people of things that are not true? Then claiming that you want peace. What example are you talking about??

[bernee51]

@ Bernee51

'They' are you and you Shia brothers...same god of peace and compassion, but you wouldn't know it.

I know the source of peace...it is not to be learnt from the example set by those I referenced.

Come on Bernee51, you should know by now that Shia and Sunni are completely different.

Really?

Here was I thinking they both respected and followed shahada, salat, zakat, sawn and the requirement for hajj

Now don't you think that's a bit harsh? do you know what is in my heart of peace and compassion???

You have never once condemned the killing in the name of Islam.

What is your source of peace??

Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: "My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you don't want to, and sleeping though you don't want to, and getting angry when you don't want to, and falling in love though you don't want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself."

Calling people "they" and accusing people of things that are not true? Then claiming that you want peace. What example are you talking about??

The latest massacre of Shia by Sunni in Karachi.

[SailingCyclops]

..... 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. 

Really? Please name these "many branches of science" which say Evolution can not have happened, and that all life forms were created flawlessly. Or retract your absurd statement.

[HaLi8993]

@ Bernee51

Really?

Here was I thinking they both respected and followed shahada, salat, zakat, sawn and the requirement for hajj

Nope, if this were true we would both be following Islam.

You have never once condemned the killing in the name of Islam.

Now what has this anything to do with the topic?? Lol. Give me a scenario and let us discuss it. 

Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: "My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you don't want to, and sleeping though you don't want to, and getting angry when you don't want to, and falling in love though you don't want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself."

Serious question: what does this mean??, who's quote is this??

As for your link, we have already discussed the killings of Sunnis by Shia, you have to look at both sides of the story you are overlooking the killings of Sunnis by Shia, let's not forget about the Sunni Clerics that were killed in Karachi not long ago.

[HaLi8993]

@ Sailing cyclops

Really? Please name these "many branches of science" which say Evolution can not have happened, and that all life forms were created flawlessly. Or retract your absurd statement.

Already have please refer to pg 4 and get back to me.