If I've messed some or you think you could word oneor more better, post it in a reply and I may add it.
- Know what atheism is: Atheism is s spectrum of beliefs not a single belief. On one end you have agnostic or weak atheism on the other you have strong atheism; agnostic or week atheism is the lack of a belief in god or gods but not the belief that a god or gods couldn't or don't exist, strong atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. Most atheists are somewhere in the middle, for instance me; when it comes to the gods of the bible, the god of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the gods of pagan religions, Hinduism, Shintoism and all other gods that people believe or have believed in, I believe they do not exist as the universe does not is not fit what it would look like if they or one of them existed, however a deistic god(s) (a god that creates the universe and does not reveal it self through miracle and revelation, a god(s) that hides it self or a god(s) that create the universe and is indifferent to us cause we are an unintended and uninteresting (to it/them) byproduct) I am agnostic about, theres no way to prove that such a god(s) does or does not exists.
- People don't just convert: No single argument will convert anybody, there are very few situations where a person will convert; a life changing event, a traumatic event or through a long time of thought.
- When an atheist says "I don't believe in God" he/she doesn't believe in God: Not every one believes in God, we are not in denial of our beliefs, we do not believe.e
- Don't quote the bible (or what ever your holy book is): Unless the conversation turns into a debate about the bible (it has happened before, it will happen again and it is happening right now somewhere in the world) don't quote the bible. I understand that to you its some grand holy book of truth but to us its mythology, quoting a bible in a debate with an atheist is like a pagan in a debate with you quoting something Zeus said.
- Don't say "you have to have faith": Faith is not a logical argument, saying "you have to have faith" is the same a saying "just believe, it doesn't matter if it doesn't make any sense, have any evidence for it or even evidence against it, just believe" It may work for those who already believe and see faith as some kind of virtue but for those who don't believe and don't see faith as a virtue it doesn't work.
- Just cause your happy in your religion doesn't mean every one else would be: Every one is different, for many your religion my not make them happy, it may even make them depressed.
- There is no such thing as a "true Christan": The only Christen who do not call them selfs "true Christen" are the only who do not use that phrase. All Christens (accept those who do not use that phrase) of all denomination call them selfs "true Christens" and they can not agree what a "true Christen" is. Christen A says Christen B is not a "true Christen", Christen B says he is a "true Christen" and Christen A is not and Christen C says he is a "true Christen" and Christen A and B are not. All People who identify them selfs as Christens are Christens, it doesn't madder if you agree with there version of Christianity or not.
- Stalin and Mow do not represent atheism: Yes they where atheists but that has no baring on morality of other atheists and all them being atheists shows is that people of any belief system can be evil
- Hitler was not an atheist:
And even if he was, see Stalin and Mow^ - Recognise that you are flawed just like every one else: People of all religions "witness miracles" and people "see ghosts" "see UFOs" "experience alien abduction" and so on. Humans are fallible creatures, our memory is fallible, our experiences are fallible, out perception s fallible. It is easy to trick some one into believing something when they wont to believe, it is easy to trick your self into believing something when you wont to believe and people have . You can not dismiss the miracles of other religions with out dismissing your own, you can not dismiss alien abduction, people seeing ghosts and UFOs with out recognising that people are fallible.
- Don't use Pascal's Wager: is "Why not believe? If its wrong you loose nothing but if you don't believe and God is real then you go to hell" Pascal's Wager make several false assumptions. You choose what you believe, you loose nothing by believing in God and theres only two options. Belief isn't a choice, you do loose things by believing, many people have lost many things, (harmless pleasures, there Sundays, what choices they can make and even there lives) and there is allot more than two options, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and many more.
- Do not say atheist are amoral or have no basis for morality: Morality is separate from religion, it does not come from a god or gods. It comes from social need, with out it we could not function as social creatures.
- The fallowing apply to all arguments and debates
- Do not quote mine: Quote mining is taking a quite from some one and using out of context. Fort example Darwin's eye quote; creationists often quote mine Darwin by using this quote
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
But they leave out the rest of the quote
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound
Qute mining does not prove anything and only makes you look bad
- Anicdotes are not evedence: Anicdotes don't prove anything, you can talk about the "mericals" youve seen all you won't but that donesn't prove anything.
- Don't generalize: Each atheist is different we are not all the same we do not hold the same beliefs, ideas and values. The same goes for every other group.
- False statistics: Do not make up statistics, if your going to use statistics have an objective source for them.
- Fallacy's: these are fallacious arguments that should not be used
- Straw men: A straw man argument is a fallacious argument where you set up an argument that is a misrepresentation of some one else's argument (straw man) then debunk the misrepresentation. Example: Argument: With out religion I'm free of all the pointless rules that religion has. Straw man: So with out religion you have no morality, you have nothing to stop you from raping and killing. The argument was "with out religion I'm free of all the pointless rules (like not being allowed to pleasure yourself, not being allowed to be gay, not being allowed to say certain things, having to go through pointless rituals and so on)" it said nothing about morality or rules that are not pointless.
- False dichotomy: A false dichotomy is when you present an argument as if it only has 2 options when in reality there are more. Example: "Jesus was ether a lier, insane or the Messiah" this is a false dichotomy cause there more than those 3 possibility's, he could be completely mythological, the stories could be an amalgamation of mythology's, stories and historical people, there could have been a historical Jesus but his teachings could have been altered and exaggerated over time.
- Slippery slope: A slippery slope is argument that states that cause "A" leads to "B" and "B" leads to "C" and "C" is wrong thus "A" is wrong. Example: "If we allow same sex marriages marry then its only a matter of time before we allow people to marry animals and children"
Whether "A" leads to "B" and whether "B" is wrong or not has no barring on whether "A" it true or not and often "A" does not lead to "B" cause if "B" is wrong then its wrong (same sex marriages are not wrong and marrying animals or children is wrong) - Red herring: A red herring is a response to another argument that does not address the arguments. Example: Argument: There is no evidence for the existence of God. Red herring: You say theres no evidence for God but you can not disprove the existence of God.
The argument is not about the lack evidence for the existence of God not about disproving the existence of God, the red herring avoids the argument about the lack of evidence for the existence of God and instead state that you can not disprove the existence of God which is a different argument. - Ad hominem: An ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man") is not an argument but an attack on some one and an avoidance of the persons arguments. Example: "How can you talk about right and wrong? Your an atheist, you have no morals"
Ad hominems don't deal with the validity of the argument and thus say nothing about the validity of the argument. - Argument from
- Authority: An argument from authority is an argument states that "X" authority says "Y" thus "Y" must be true. Example "The Pope says using contraceptives is a sin so it must be a sin"
Just cause some one in in a position of authority does not mean that there are right, arguments must be based on logic and evidence. - Popularity: An argument from popularity is an argument that states that cause something is popular it must be true. Example: "Every one uses Windows so Windows must be the best OS"
Just cause something is popular doesn't mean its true, right or good. - Ignorance: An argument from ignorance is an argument that states that cause we do not know the answer to something it mean that "X" must be the answer "No one know where the universe came from so God must have done it"
Just cayuse we don't know the answer does not mean that "X" is the answer, it means we don't know the answer. - Incredulity: An argument from personal incredulity is an argument that that cause the person doesn't know or can't imagine how "A" could be true, it must be false. Example: "I can't imagine the complexity of life could come about by chance, there had to have been a designer for such complexity to exist"
Whether "A" is true or not is independent of persons ability to imagine how it could be true. - Emotion: An argument from emotion is an argument that appeals to people emotion and bypasses actual logical or evidence and does not deal with the validity of the argument. For Example "If you don't believe you will go to hell where you will suffer for ever. Do you wont to go to hell" The argument appeals to a fear of hell, it doesn't deal with the validity of the argument.
- Nature: An appeal to nature is an argument that states cause something is natural or unnatural it is right, wrong, true, false, good or bad. Example: "Homosexuality is unnatural so its wrong"
Whether something is natural or unnatural has no barring on whether it is right, wrong, true, false, good or bad. - Consequence: An argument from consequences is an argument that states that if "X" is true there would be good or bad consequence thus "X" is false or true" Example: "If evolution is true than that means humans are just animals, we are not animals so its not true"
The consequence of something being true or false has no baring on whether it it is true or false and these consequences are not false.
- Authority: An argument from authority is an argument states that "X" authority says "Y" thus "Y" must be true. Example "The Pope says using contraceptives is a sin so it must be a sin"
- Do not quote mine: Quote mining is taking a quite from some one and using out of context. Fort example Darwin's eye quote; creationists often quote mine Darwin by using this quote
Update 8/9/08: Added "When an atheist says 'I don't believe in God"'he/she doesn't believe in God"
Update: Added "There is no such thing as a 'true Christan'"
Update 8/1/08: Added argument from personal incredulity.
Here is one small piece of proof.
Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about “Who Killed JFK”. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is “Fritters” . I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put “who Killed JFK” on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can’t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of JD Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter . Now I un-jumble the letters of Ritter to TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R’s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800’s JD Tippit’s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step, I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit. Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia there I find; “Some thought that J. D. stood for Jefferson Davis. However J D does not stand for anything. That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S, do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?
Next what does FRITTERS mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters are a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to.
JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry’s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!
If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Chirst is telling you who killed the president so that you will believe that his messages are from God. Remember only God knows who killed JFK. He told me and I am telling you. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 year since the shooting. Nov. 22 is the anniversary.
I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.
Before I forget. Gods messeges usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for “Fence Shooter”.
Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one other Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.
Now the Dallas Police Department obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. Otherwise it could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the Dallas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too.
Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don’t know it. God let me know it was him.
This is proof because it is impossible for any one to do what I did with the clue word FRITTERS. I made it look easy. I can do that over and over again in all of God’s messages. It is impossible for anyone to do what I do.
Gods messenger, Mel Steffor
Atheism, an unrecognized disability.
“I have seen stupidity and arrogance under the sun, but nothing amazes me more than the one who question or even denies the existence of God”
by Juan Eduardo Alvear
The arrogant and fool says to himself that he is better than those of us that believe in God. He claims we “don’t get it!” for by the same token Santa Claus is a fairy tale, so is the existence of God. It is a fairy tale for children, he claims. Thus, he refers to us as foolish children who do not want to mature and see the reality with clarity. In other words, the Atheist and Agnostic wants us to look at life straight in the eyes.
To me, the arrogant is truly the foolish child for he is less clever than what he claims to be. He does not believe in God because he/she has being deceived by Satan, the fallen Angel. (Satan would not want us to believe in God and Eternal life, for his Kingdom lies within those temporal boundaries. He looses kingship and sovereignty when we become aware of the truth.) However, the fool (unbeliever) does not have the wit to outsmart Satan, for he is not even aware of his existence. The fool who does not believe in God, has therefore has been tricked by Satan. Yet, in his arrogance, the fool regards himself as smarter and more clever than us believers. Thus, I assume his stupidity is a product of his arrogance, or vice versa. That is what makes him be so stupid, his arrogance. Thus, arrogance and stupidity are synonyms of each other.
On the other hand, faith truly is a gift given by God to the humble. Faith is intelligence from heaven, to see the visible and even those things that are invisible to the naked eye. Faith is true intelligence from heaven to see beyond the stars, beyond our lifespan, and even the lifespan of the Cosmos itself. We, those who believe Christ is the Lord and God who becomes Eucharist, are truly the ILLUMINATED ones (not them). Therefore, it could be said humbleness is a synonym of intelligence.
The Illuminati, which are the ones that claim to have reach the summit of knowledge and enlightenment by discovering that God does not exist, are but a bunch of arrogant rascals that have been deceived by Satan. So, they are not as smart as they regard themselves to be (or pretend to be).
God, have mercy on them! Humble them so that they can see you.
Rather than going on every little thing you got wrong, I ask. What dose this have to do with the topic?
I hope this is in line with your post, otherwise I apologize in advance for clutterint up your thread.
“Whether something is natural or unnatural has no barring on whether it is right, wrong, true, false, good or bad.”
What criteria, then, decides that “same sex marriages are not wrong and marrying animals or children is wrong.”
(or were you using this purely as an example?)
Thats easy. Same sex marriage is between consenting adults.
That is an example of the false analogy fallacy.
To Juan Edwardo Alvear,
I question the existance of Satan. Does that make me an atheist?
Now I know there is a God. But why would God allow Satan to exist?
Why would God create evil? Does God have a bad side?
Last of all I disagree with your statement saying that those that don’t believe are fools. I don’t think Richard Dawkins is a fool. God doesn’t think he is a fool either. God is very fond of Richard. He could be more fond of Richard than he is of Juan. That if he is fond of Juan at all?
Gods Messenger, Mel
Lone Wolf – I like this list. May I link to it from my blog on Atheist Nexus?
And just, wow, your comments. Holy moly. It’s amazing some people are up and out of their padded rooms so many hours a day…
*hopes gun laws are strict in the state where MS resides…*
Of course you can link to it.
Lone Wolf, I appreciate your respect for logical reasoning, and I appreciate your not insisting that morality must be married to religious thought.
I have two issues with your essay, though: 1. You’ve successfully outlined how NOT to debate an atheist, but you have offered no suggestions on how TO debate an atheist. As an agnostic/”weak atheist” I myself would appreciate those insights.
Also, wonderful content aside, use a spell checker!
Learn what the atheists beliefs, non-beliefs and arguments are and come up with a logical, non fallacious rebuttal. Don’t just repeat an argument you have herd before, do some research to see if it is a valid argument, if it is use it giving proper credit to whom you heard it from, if it is not valid, don’t use it.
Could you give any good examples of valid arguments against atheism? I myself am a mild atheist (I claim that i don’t have to believe in god since there is no proof of him).
Do miracles in any religion count as an argument against my position? (i want to know this since i frequently get in debates with parents and relatives over this and i would like to be more articulate and prepared)
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
God forbid one loses an hour on Sunday. Your article is interesting, though not convincing. Also, you could afford to read over it once more. You were clearly not blessed with the gift of grammer.
Something to think about:
One of the oldest scientific laws states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Logically, this makes sense. However, if there is no way to create matter, than there should be no existance at all. Just a thought worth sharing
Atheists are correct in thinking the beliefs of a theist are strange. But many different cultures, without the ability to communicate, all seem to have come up with striking similar ideas thousands of years ago. How can one person begin to imagine these things, let alone millions? I personally believe a Supreme Being, a ‘God’, helped influence these ideas, but I’m curious to your take on these things. Also, pardon my english, as it is a newly learned language
Let me clarify… when I said “If there is no way to create matter…”, I had meant to imply there is no-one other than God to do such things, but I fear my comment may be misread as an arguement against scientific fact
First: Sorry it took so long for me to reply.
Your first point: Than logically, the energy of the universe was never created, it always existed. But then you can bring up the big bang. The big bang may not have been the beginning of the universe but a phase change from one form to another, it always existed.
Of course we are dealing with unknowns here. What the universe was like before the big bang if the universe existed before the big band and what the universe came out of, we have no information on. We can’t make any testable predictions so any ideas (theistic or not) about the pre-big band universe or what the universe came out of will just be conjecture.
Your second point: Humans have a tenancy to see agency where there is none. For example: many people, when they see a UFO assume its some alien ship or people assume a place is haunted when its just creepy.
Ancient people had no explanations for why the sum moves across the sky, why it rains, why the seasons change, etc. So they came up with supernatural explanations. They invented gods of this and that to explain why things happen. As time went by the gods that more important to peoples survival became more powerful, people attached narrative to their mythologies, people proclaimed that their god was more powerful than other gods and eventually (at least twice) someone proclaimed their god was the only god and all others were myths.