Rational Debate

Thou shalt not exaggerate or misrepresent an argument in order to make it easier to attack - Strawman Fallacy

Example

"The following are the rules laid down by [the Christians]. ‘Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence.’ By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children."
-Celsus

Here, the 2nd-century anti-christian philosopher misrepresents the Christian viewpoint, putting words in the Christian mouth they never spoke, in order to make their position easier to attack.

Commandment #3

Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the whole - Hasty Generalization

Example

The fruits of Christianity were religious wars, butcheries, crusades, inquisitions, extermination of the natives of America, and the introduction of African slaves in their place.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

Here, Schopenhauer is using a limited number of rather dubious examples of atrocities with questionable association with Christianity - to represent all of Christianity. Some examples were exaggerated - the natives in America were not exterminated, their descendents enjoy equal rights in modern America, as do the descendants of African slaves, and the extent to which some of these crimes can be attributed to Christianity is limited to say the least, making them part of a potential post hoc argument. Even disregarding that, what causes this to fall under the category Hasty Generalization is that it focuses in on a limited number of negatives associated with Christianity, committed by a tiny minority, and claiming they represent the whole of Christianity throughout history, ignoring any of its positive impacts, and the overwhelming majority of peaceful believers, some of whom helped free the slaves under Christian President Abraham Lincoln. The implicit suggestion is that the alternatives are less violent, but the overwhelming majority of atrocities were committed by other religious, or indeed a-religious groups, sometimes directly persecuting Christians. In fact, the worst atrocities were committed by antitheists with antichristian motivations, but you don't see me claiming that these atrocities represent atheism as a whole.

Commandment #4

Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true - Begging the Question

Example

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
-Richard Dawkins

Here, the anitheist attempts to justify his ongoing crusade against theism by assuming the premise of his justification - that religion "teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - is true. This begs the question "Does religion really 'teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the world'?" On the contrary, even a cursory glance at the Bible gives many examples of encouragement to seek the truth, and even an in depth analysis shows no encouragement to ignorance, but warnings against it:

Hosea 4:6-
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge"

- A warning against ignorance

Proverbs 4:7-
“The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.”

Proverbs 18:15-
“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.”

Colossians 1:9-
"We will continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives.”

Thessalonians 5:21-
“Test all things; hold fast what is good.”

Teaching us not be be dismissive or blindly accepting of prophecy, but instead to test before making a judgment.

John 8:32-
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

- The power of truth to free us from the shackles of ignorance and deceit.

Some "Modern thinkers" insist that an argument must be fully circular in order for it to meet the BTQ parameters, I prefer instead to go instead to the original source, the man who originally coined the term:

"...failing to prove when the failure is due to the thesis to be proved and the premiss through which it is proved being equally uncertain" - Aristotle

Commandment #5

Thou shalt not claim that because something has happened before, it must be the cause - Post hoc / False Cause

Example

"If you're born in India, you're probably a Hindu. If you're born in America, you're probably a Christian. If you're born in Pakistan, you're probably a Muslim. That's convenient isn't it? You are always born into the right God... always."
-Ricky Gervais

Antitheist Ricky Gervais contends that what faith you have is dependent on geography rather than evidence, that what happened before - a person being born in a nation with a majority of one faith or another, is always the cause of what followed - that person also following that particular religion, and dismisses the possibility the evidence could lead one to theism, and indirectly accuses theists of nationally isolated "Bandwagon Fallacy". There are many problems with this, primarily, that correlation is not the same as causation, and it is odd that someone who self-identifies as a "scientist at heart" appears unaware of this. Why didn't he bring up "and if you were born in China, Vietnam, or North Korea you're probably atheist" - in my experience antitheists tend to avoid the application of equal standards of their criticisms, especially when equal standards may lead to avenues of thought and investigation revealing evidence of religious oppression committed by antitheists.

It also ignores the fact that many people take a very different course in theological life than what was put before them growing up. My country is less than 50% Christian with reports that atheists now outnumber theists. I grew up with the works of Dawkins and Hawking on the shelves, among others which claimed my ancestors lived off nuts in Africa, and not a bible in sight, other than what I brought into the house, yet I remain Christian, and assuming statistical accuracy - a heretic in my own land, despite a vast amount of attempts to ridicule my faith. There are also many who were raised Christian, and have since renounced their faith. He also doesn't account for the fact that many nations impose a faith, or lack thereof, onto the population, and that the true figures may be distorted due to heretics fearing persecution, especially common in Islamic and atheist nations. Although such nations as China, North Korea and Vietnam pay lip service to the concept of freedom of religion in their constitution, they do not practice this in law, with severe restrictions placed on theists. Regarding America, it does not have a national religion or non-religion. The first amendment to their constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -Constitution of the United Stated of America

The difference in America is that this is more than lip service, it places legislative restrictions upon any state's potential attempts to interfere with religious freedom. I'm not sure Mr. Gervais would be so keen to insist that faith choices are a matter of geography, when geographics show that the more religious freedom the people of a region have, the more Christianity flourishes, and it is in nations where there is a crack down on religious freedoms where atheism and Islam become dominant...

Commandment #6

Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to 2 possibilities - False Dichotomy

Example

"We have a choice. Have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That’s it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.”
-Sam Harris

Here, the antitheist reduces the argument to 2 possibilities, namely a choice between "conversation" and "violence", and behind the one false Dichotomy lies another, more sinister one. The antitheist directly implies that faith precludes conversation, thus the real choice he wants you to see is between atheist conversation or religious violence, and essentially arguing that their can be no peaceful faith and that it always leads to violence, and atheism leads to peace. Obviously this is entirely false, as there are other options to consider, atheists can be violent, religious people can have peaceful conversation, you can have conversation and violence, and you can have neither. Atheists and theists can be silent together, without conflict, and they can have a conversation that can turn violent. We could always just go about our lives at peace with what we share in common, rather than narcissistically demand others agree with us, but Mr. Harris does not seem to think this is possible. This is part of the narrative blaming theism for violence when history shows far more violence has been caused by antitheism, evidenced earlier.

Also beware of anyone trying to reduce the argument down to the false dichotomy of "Faith vs Science". As mentioned in the first section, you can have faith in something which later becomes scientific fact.

Commandment #7

Thou shalt not argue that because of our ignorance, a claim must be true or false - ad ignorantiam

Example

"If you're at a plane at 5000 feet and the wings break off and it falls (...) all the Christians pray for their own souls and the souls of other Christians, the plane crashes, the Christians walk away and everyone else is dead, oh my gosh! That's some remarkable evidence that prayer works, that Christianity is the one true religion and the other ones are false, but when planes fall from 5000 feet everyone dies. There's plenty of ways I can think of having evidence for that your God is the one true God and it does not exist"
-Neil De Grasse Tyson

Here, the antitheist is making his case against Christianity by suggesting that absence of evidence in a hypothetical is evidence of absence in reality. If such a situation occurs, deaths of all the praying Christians on board would be no more evidence against the existence of God than the plane flying in the first place would be evidence against the existence of gravity.

Commandment #8

Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof unto him that is questioning the claim - Burden of Proof Reversal

Example

"You can't present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact"
-Bill Nye

Evolutionists such as Bill Nye, make the claim that evolution is undeniable scientific fact. That is an extraordinary claim, because it invokes the term "scientific" and dismisses all other possibilities - so not only is the burden of proof upon the person making the claim, but the strictest possible parameters of proof are upon the claimants - that is to say, the scientific method, and in such a way as there being a need to disprove any other possibility in order to meet the criterion "undeniable". However, instead of demonstrating true evolutionary speciation, he shifts the burden of proof unto those who challenge evolution's claim to being a scientific "fact".

Commandment #9

Thou shalt not assume 'this' follows 'that' when 'it' has no logical connection - Non Sequitur

Example

"Just as the theory of gravity explains why apples fall and planets orbit, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth[...]Evolution, in this sense, is a theory like atomic theory or germ theory. You wouldn’t say atoms or germs are “just theories.” They are facts[...]The essence of evolution is change over time—specifically, change in the genetic makeup of populations from one generation to the next"
-The "Science" Desk

In the article linked, the authors are claiming that evolution is a fact and not "Just a theory" and attempt to use the empiricism around completely unrelated science, such as gravity, germs, atoms and differentiation between parent and child DNA to justify their claim with "You wouldn’t say atoms or germs are “just theories”" - the inference being that you shouldn't dismiss evolution as "Just a Theory" either because of this. A non sequitur occurs when, however valid the premises regarding the certainty of gravity, germs, and atoms may be, there is an absence of logical connection between such evidence and the conclusion of evolutionary "fact". The closest thing they have to that is in fact an event that was well established to have been brought about deliberately in a lab - COVID19, and all "variants" were still C19 regardless of where anyone claims they originated. Even if evolutionists were granted an ideal logical extreme, such as an event where two apes had human offspring, it wouldn't prove that it occurred millions of years ago any more than our ability to cause asexual pregnancy in humans via IVF would prove the virgin birth over 2000 years ago. Showing something can happen in the present doesn't prove it happened in the past - perhaps I am on the verge of coining a new fallacy, a kind of "pre hoc" argument. Not that it matters of course because antitheists can't prove evolution today anyway. I am not afraid of applying equal standards, the difference is I identify my faith as just that, faith - yet I seem to apply stricter standards to what I identify as my own faith, than antitheists dare to apply to what they identify as "undeniable scientific fact" and force people to accept it as such... A more reasonable statement comes from an unexpected source:

Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed. - Charles Darwin

Commandment #10

Thou shalt not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true - Bandwagon Fallacy

Example

"We follow the science"

-Joe Biden

During the pandemic, populations were instructed by lawmakers to hop on board the bandwagon of pseudoscientific consensus, AKA "The Science^™", as if there was only one interpretation of "The Science^™". This is Bandwagon Fallacy because it uses the popularity and authority of The Science^™ & The Scientific Community^™ as social amplification to overrule critical thought, poisoning the well for the opposition by framing anyone who disagrees as "anti-science". Reading between the lines, he also goes well beyond the minimum threshold for a logical fallacy where there is a need to equate said popularity with a truth claim, he also forces the consequence of the alleged truthfulness of the claim through tyrannous legislation. Science is supposed to be based on evidence, and had that evidence been in their favour it would have been shown without agenda driven distortion - a perfect example of said distortion is the post hoc / false cause argument attributing all deaths of people who had a positive Covid19 test to Covid19 - the claim that if a person died after a C19 diagnosis, that death had to have been because of C19 - thus enhancing the perceived threat of C19. Such pseudo-scientific methods could be used to claim athlete's foot is the world's biggest killer - with equally vigorous testing, and similar attribution of all deaths after a positive test to athlete's foot.

The Science^™ however, is nothing more than popular opinion among The Scientific Community^™ weaponised to promote what would otherwise be unpopular agendas, including lockdowns, experimental vaccine mandates in violation of the The Nuremberg Code and the transfer of enormous wealth to Big Pharma from the taxpayer. There are many antitheistic alternatives I could have used here - many citing bandwagons such as "consensus" & "consilience" among The Scientific Community^™ "science says" etc - as though such bandwagons were valid arguments, but for the final example I wanted to provide an illustration of the dangers of what I call politically weaponised evolutionary pseudoscience. I believe prematurely declaring something as "scientific fact" is dangerous, and often such a declaration masks a tyrannous agenda, such as the brainwashing of children into evolutionist cultism, Global Warming and Covid19 laws. The word "science" is supposed to invite debate, criticism and attempts to disprove a theory, and offers of alternative explanations. Instead, during the Covid19 era, the word "science" was used to stifle debate, to shut down public discussion and initiate censorship of all contesting viewpoints, because unlike actual science, The Science^™ cannot be challenged.

Conclusion

I hope this can aid in more logical, scientific, civilized debates. I have seen other guides which antitheists have created, but with entirely made up examples, to misrepresent their religious and political opponents in order to make them easier to attack, effectively making their entire guide a series of Strawman Fallacies. Here, I have provided real world examples from a variety of public figures with millions of like-minded supporters. I could only choose 10, so obviously it cannot be universally representative, but it is certainly better than childishly putting words in imaginary opponent's mouths. It is also much more challenging, I didn't want to use examples from personal interactions, nor did I want to use 2 examples from the same person, and I wanted all examples to come from public figures and verifiably so. It was especially difficult to find a post hoc argument. I am not entirely sure it is possible to make a post hoc argument directly in favor of evolution, because it would would require an event of evolution to have happened in the past, then to say it is the cause of something in the present, but actual events of evolution in the past do not exist, and pseudoscientists' "observations" of the present are often clouded by confirmation bias, meaning I could only find one that attacks theism, rather than supports evolutionism. I have no problem with atheists, or anyone else who takes a different view from me. I do have a problem with people who take it upon themselves to attack the faiths of others, perverting the definition of "science" to suit their needs, an unpleasant group of people who I have labeled "antitheists" - not to be nasty to them, but to spare general atheists and agnostics from being tarred by the same brush.