Debating a Christian – The Atheist Handbook

by Jeremy L. Moran, JT Eberhard, Adam Brown, and other contributors

(START WITH THIS FLOW CHART FOR AN EASY TO FOLLOW INTRO TO DEBATING A CHRISTIAN)

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 2. Theistic Understanding.

Part 3. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 4. Skills of the Debate.

Part 5. Closing Statements.

Part 6: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

This culmination of knowledge is put together in the hopes that both theist, and atheist alike would be able to take something from it & improve upon the human they are. All information considered for this article aims to be as honest as possible, given our current state of technology & scientific discovery. Unfortunately that means this article is not balanced towards each side of the debate, and clearly favors that which is more logical, and trustworthy. While science does not, and does not claim to have all of the answers, it has proven it’s self ethically honest when put to debate. When science makes a claim of knowledge, it does so with the understanding that any new evidence will be compared to it’s previous claims. Unlike religion, if this new evidence contradicts a previous claim, rather then religiously discard the evidence, science openly & willfully reworks the claim to accept this new evidence. As always empirical evidence is put to the test of peer review to certify its validity. Rather then shunning questions about their findings, processes, and evidence. Science thrives on the fundamental belief that only through trial and error can a scientific claim be certified to the highest stages of acceptance. As such, any & all challenges & questions to this article are openly accepted.

There is no greater debate then that between faith and fact. For “fact is when man relies on empirical evidence which leads to a scientific conclusion. Where faith is when man relies on erratic emotions resulting in spiritual confusion.” (quote by Jeremy Moran) Contrary to it’s teachings, religion provides so few answers, and only opens the door to an infinite amount of more questions. Unless you are able to withstand the will of natural human curiosity, withdraw your questions, and resort to blindly follow. There are those who are unwilling to quell those inner questions, and simply accept those stories of old. We are the free thinkers who question everything, seeking the greater truth about all of this existence that encompasses us. We are constantly striving for new evidence that teaches us about the true questions of existence. While it’s very easy to assert that “God(s)” did it, it’s not so easy to accept this claim without any evidence. In the light of mountains of evidence contradicting such a claim, it only shows how truly improbable the existence of a supernatural creator is.

For the sake of clarification, if & when I state IF god…this, or IF god…that. I am simply purposing a theoretical argument, from the perspective of a theist / deist. Under no circumstances should this be misconstrued as an actual belief in god(s). Even attempting such a statement goes to show the true lack of educational ethics of the person presupposing it. For in any argument there are 2 ways to go about debating a claim; we can attack the claim it’s self, eroding the validity of it through contrary evidence, highlighting logical errors, and discrediting evidence provided for the claim. We can also use theoretical debating by presupposing that the claim is true, then showing how any results of such a claim would show the logical errors of the claim due to their own contradictions, errors in logic, or chances of probability. When an Atheist states “If God”, for the sake of an argument, they are NOT accepting the actual statement to be true.

Memorize some of these to remember when you hear “Religion is good!” – THE HARMS OF RELIGION – a growing list!

For a simple breakdown in 12 arguments against “god”, JT Eberhard gives you:

ARGUMENT #1 – Biblical Prophecies /    ARGUMENT #2 – Miracles /    ARGUMENT #3 – Design /  ARGUMENT #4 – Fine-Tuning

For a deeper knowledge base, Jeremy Moran gives you a plethora of source (academic and otherwise):

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

There is much debate about what it means to be an atheist. I’m an Atheist, & like most atheists I understand what it means to me personally, yet it still remains one of the biggest debated points day after day. Even many of the standard dictionaries do not help to quell the argument, and only lead to further confusion by providing erroneous and often offensive definitions of atheism. Including, but not limited to: Doctrination, Godlessness, wickedness, immoral, etc. Atheism is not a belief, nor a religion. There are no rules, regulations, or commandments to atheism. Atheism does not hold daily, weekly, or any kind of official gatherings. Atheism is simply the realization that all claims of supernatural gods are highly unlikely or improbable. There are varying degrees of atheism, from the agnostic and weak or undecided atheist, to the stronger atheist. Each of these levels of signifies the degree by which an individual refutes the gods of men. I think addressing these difference degrees, and providing further definition will help to stem the semantic part of the debate, and get back to the heart of the issue.

Those who think that there is only 2 options to a question, yes or no, will find it hard to understand atheism. At the very basic level atheism is a neutral ground for the acceptance for any & all supernatural gods. The weak atheist is one who does not accept gods, nor denies them outright. They simply realize that without proof, such claims can not be accepted as fact. Likewise the weak atheist generally does not say they are 100% certain that there are no gods. Again, they are undecided or neutral as to the question of the existence of supernatural gods. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. An atheist of the middle ground are ones who not only do not believe in any supernatural gods, but also feel there is enough scientific evidence to contradict the claims by all of the worlds religions as to the actions of these gods to create the universe and life. These types of atheists not only don’t believe in any deities, but also consider the evidence that contradicts these gods is enough to say all of these deities most likely do not exist. Based on my discussions with thousands of individuals, these atheists make up the greatest percentage of atheism world wide. The last group to be described here are strong atheists. I’d like to first point out that man people tend to mix up or confuse the definition of agnostic & atheist. A strong atheist are people who state not only are there no deities, but they absolutely (within a 99% probability) do not exist. For the strong Atheist not only the evidence contradicting claims of god(s), I.E., origins of the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. leads to their acceptance of their not being a god or gods, but they also realize that by their very deffinition supernatural (or above nature / outside of nature) gods are as real as a square circle.

All things considered defining who we are, as atheists, has been one of the largest hurdles we’ve had to over come. And still to this day Theists attempt to expand Athesim into something it’s not. Whether by association, injecting some extenuating circumsatances, or just plain stretching the truth, the purpose becomes very clear. First, generally as an argument from ignorence by lacking the proper knowledge of atheism – or as an argument from authority they’re clearly lacking, they will assert some kind of claim about atheism based on their vast knowledge (claimed authority) such as; Atheism is just another religion that worships nature, humanism, materialism, the universe, etc. Or Atheists DO believe in God because all of their claims for their not being a god start with “there is no god, because he…” (relating back to my point made in the opening statements about theorhetical or hypothetical arguments.). They set up these special circumstances in order to create an easier target for them. They know very well that Atheism makes no claims, we simply do not accept the religious claims that there is a super natural god or gods. Logically the ONLY way to “attack” a non position would be to provide evidence for their own claims… which there is NO empirical – demonstrable – objectively – peer reviews evidence to support their claims. So again, unable to defeat the atheist position, they assert special extentions to atheism that are far easier to attack. They feel by setting up this new target, then attacking it, they are somehow attacking atheism as well… which simply is NOT the case. They’d truly like if atheism was a religion, because beleifs are far easier to attack then true knowledge. As atheists we know this from fighting their beliefs, they know this as well. By asserting a hypothetical argument somehow equals a litteral beliefs in a god, they again get to assert Atheism is a belief structure. And by asserting a stereotypical belief that ALL atheists are materialists, naturalists, humanists, etc. this again allows them to attack these other “isms” rather then atheism. Not a single one of these attack tactics holds a drop of logical reasoning or proper debate capabilities.

Atheism Definition Links:

Proper definition:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism

atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition

buzzle.com/articles/definition-of-atheism-not-a-belief

www.fb-atheists.com/definition

Improper Definition:

thefreedictionary.com/atheism

dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

General Atheist Related Links:

www.FB-Atheists.com

images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3500000/IQ-v-Religion-graph-atheism

politicn.co.tv/states-ranked-by-religiousness

skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

Atheists might question the purpose of having any form of theistic information within this article, but at the most basic level it must be said; if you do not know what the other side of an argument is, how can you possibly fully understand your own view points. For if you can not perceive the other side of the debate, how can you be firm on your own? Also, when having a debate it is essential to define the terminology used in the argument. Without being able to pin down very specific terms, then we are taking away from the actual substance of the debate, and are left arguing semantics. With that being said, let’s get into the details and start to understand theism even better.

Deism is the philosophical beliefs that truth reason and observation of the natural world can determine the requirement of a supernatural being, without the need for organized religion. In the simplest of terms theism is the belief in at least one supernatural deity. Within theism there are different subcategories, based on the number of deities a religion worships. Monotheism is the belief that only a single deity exists. Some modern day monotheistic religions include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism. Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods. In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities. Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties: Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be the Egyptian and Greek Religions; along with certain schools of Hinduism. Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Some forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism. Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded: Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but worship of only one of them. Kathenotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshipped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshipped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn. Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones. <- parts taken from Wikipedia.

Now that we have the basic understanding of the different types of theology, we can start addressing specific religions, but still maintain the knowledge that not all worshipers or types of religion are the same as others. Even if they claim a familiar or similar name to other types. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. <- parts taken from Wikipedia. While we could go on for days about each & every subtype of religion, for the purpose of this article we will only be providing links beyond this point. I would highly suggest any free thinking individual to update themselves with the latest info.

Top Religion Statistics: Taken from Wikipedia

Christianity, 1.9 billion – 2.1 billion followers, estimated 29% – 32% of the worlds population. Islam, 1.3 billion – 1.57 billion followers, est. 19% – 21% of the worlds pop. Buddhism, 500 million – 1.5 billion followers, est. 7% – 21% world pop. Hinduism, 950 million – 1 billion followers, est. 14% – 20% world pop. For a total of 4.65 billion – 6.17 billion followers world wide, or an estimated 68.38% – 90.73% of the worlds population.

Religious Information Links:

www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

Lets get down to the facts, evidence, and info that’s currently available, on some of the more predominant topics disputed by either side. As always it’s best to get info from both sides, not just one. That way not only do you have the facts, but you also know the regular rebuttals put forth by the opposition. Knowing the opposition will allow you to word your statements in such a way as to nullify their rebuttal before they even state it.

Origins of the Universe:

It’s worth noting that science has NOT figured everything out when it comes to the creation of the universe & all existence, nor does it claim to. In fact there are actually around 6 competing theories for the big bang, each greatly different then the next. Most scientists would agree that before the big bang or expansion event, there was a singularity. Within this singularity held all the base matter, energy, as well as space & time it’s self. What existed before, what happened to cause, & what happened immediately after the big bang is not entirely know for sure, yet… As we learn more, develop new tools, & thus achieve new evidence these theories will become more detailed, and accurate. That being said, we still do know quite a bit about the origins of the universe in comparison to the assertions that a god or gods willed it into existence. For all of the various theories out there for the big bang, the one thing they hold in common is existence of actual evidence. There has yet to be any evidence supporting any religious creationist claims.

Origins Links:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/universe

www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/astronomy/origins

www.suite101.com/content/origins-of-the-universe

berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text

www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings

superstringtheory.com

Abiogenesis:

Similar to the big bang, science has not been able to slam two rocks together & get a frog to jump out when it comes to proving abiogenesis. While that scenario isn’t even possible, most creationists won’t accept anything less for proof of abiogenesis, only showing their level of ignorance and unwillingness to look at the actual facts. There is quite a bit of information out there about abiogenesis, once you’re able to work your way through the intellectually counterfeit religious science web sites that outright deny it possibility. I had to dig fairly hard as many different churches, online ministries, & the like have successfully polluted the web with nonsensical websites attempting to derail actual intellectual research with their self righteous claims of Divine authority. Make no mistake, despite their illogical & fallacious attempts to divert your attention to their claims of heavenly creation, there simply is no evidence, at all, supporting their claims. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence supporting abiogenesis.

Since the late 1800′s, into the 1950′s man has been able to create single strand of amino acids using nonliving materials subjected to various conditions; chemical reaction with other materials, high energy application, deep space like pressures, etc. These basic amino acids are not life, but are the basic building blocks of proteins. As recently as 2008 Cal. Tech. has ben able to take these single string amino acids, and through an impact simulation (like a meteorite impact) been able to combine them into polyamino acids, the final steps for creating proteins, peptides, & the required materials for the creation of life. While this all seems (and is) highly complex, we can look no further then deep sea / ocean floor “black smoker” hydrothermal volcanic vents to see such processis happening in a natural environment to this day.

Abiogenesis Videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzUgi6YNlY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgh2E-b8E2g&feature=related

Abiogenesis Links:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/miller-urey-revisited

www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_33AR

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/abiogenesis_isnt_simple

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205

www.whoi.edu/oceanus

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14576428

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15217990

thesis.library.caltech.edu

wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/seafloor-microb

newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime

beyondyourken.com/phoenix

www.springerlink.com/content

abiogenesisevo.blogspot.com

Evolution & Natural Selection:

We’ve come a very long way since Darwin first purposed the theory of evolution back in 1859. “He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. The scientific community and much of the general public came to accept evolution as a fact in his lifetime. However, it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. In modified form, Darwin’s scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.” <–wikipedia

Evolution Links:

http://www.atheismresource.com/evolution

List of court cases – www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html#court

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs

www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

anthro.palomar.edu/evolve

www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.full

www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence

bioweb.cs.earlham.edu

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID1Samplingerror

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID2Genesdrift

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1cPeripatric

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22375

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22660

www.sdsc.edu

Special note, Evolution to Morals:

The Stone Age or Paleolithic Period is the name archaeologists have given to the beginning of archaeology–that part of the earth’s history that includes the genus Homo and our immediate ancestor Australopithecus. It began approximately 2.5 million years ago, in Africa, when Australopithecus began making stone tools, and ended about 20,000 years ago, with big-brained and talented modern humans spread all over the world. Traditionally, the Paleolithic period is broken into three parts, the Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. Taken from: http://archaeology.about.com/od/temporalstudies/u/human_history.htm

Ethics & Morality:

Religion would assert that morals are a god given set of rules or commandments we follow, and without them man would be morally corrupt. However a quick logical look at human history would convince one otherwise. Man (Homo) has existed for an estimated 2 million years, with the modern concept of Homo Sapiens arriving roughly 200,000 years ago. All men are born atheists, and not until they learn or invent the concept of gods do they become a person of faith. Long before the gods were invented humans had morals. As simple hunter gatherers our morals allowed us to be a productive people sharing the benefits of the entire groups progress. Having morals is partially what allowed us to develop even further progressing us to live in communities. Had there been no morals without god(s), then surely man would have been far to selfish to coexist in a hunter gatherer group, in a small community, town or village. Man has existed with out gods for over a hundred thousand years, only in the last few Milena has man invention of god(s) become part of the equation.

Ethics & Morality Links:

List of theories – changingminds.org/explanations/theories

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

plato.stanford.edu

joplinfreethinkers.friendhood.net

www.wjh.harvard.edu

www.butterfliesandwheels.org

www.thestar.com

afbluemountains.blogspot.com

www.ephilosopher.com

www.booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/essay/shane/unethical-god

www.endhereditaryreligion.com

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Debate:How_to_debate_a_theist

Science & technology:

Besides cherry picking their interpretation of their own holy books & the best parts of their religions, the religious individuals also cherry pick from science & technology what is & isn’t to be considered evidence. They attempt to use logic to prove their claims, while refuting it’s use for contradicting claims, or when it outright dispels their faith as not equivalent to fact. Christian scientists (the ultimate oxymoron) attempt to use fossils to prove their claims of creationist nonsense, but failing to understand or accept ALL of the evidence fossils provide; their placement through different geo-archaeological strata or layers providing a timeline, diversity across continents supporting evolution, and similar. Very frequently they will compare their belief in fictitious gods to an asserted belief in scientific evidence. Often they will attempt to paint the scientific community as bias against their religions, as though they’re holding a deep seeded conspiracy to over through all religion. All in an attempts to discredit the parts of the evidence that contradict their beliefs, and cherry pick the parts that appear to support those beliefs.

Science & Technology Links:

www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov.htm

markhumphrys.com/science.religion.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/511746-mekka-center-universe.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy

www.atheistnexus.org

www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html

General or Varying Topics:

www.religioustolerance.org

rationalwiki.org

http://debatingchristianity.com

www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9554.htm

www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/how.html

freethought.freeservers.com

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

Now you have a decent sized ammo cache of evidence, facts, and rebuttals in your arsenal. From here though, we need something that will fire all that ammo with accuracy, minimal spread, and a high rate of fire… but we’re only talking about debating here, how do we achieve all that? Think of accuracy as one’s ability to land a statement in such a way that it leaves a sting in the mind of your opponent. Minimal spread, fairly obvious but something you must always be aware of & not just while attacking. Theists will often attempt to topic jump frequently, which prevents you from pinning them down to a certain choice or belief. Likewise, you will want to make sure to not topic switch yourself out of your comfort zone either. And lastly, a high rate of fire… As I’ve often told the theists I’ve argued on the FB Page, “I type faster, therefore I am righterer”. I prefer the intentional misspelling as a sign of disrespect to their intelligence. There are 2 major things that will play the most involvement on your rate of fire. Firstly, your typing speed.

I know it doesn’t sound like to much fun, but just like a face to face argument, he who talks loudest, talks mostest! Same thing applies here, but relative to the online environment. Hence the typing speed. Secondly, memory retention. browsing over the basics will only get you so far. You need to build up your level of general theist & atheist talking points. As to be fully prepared for what a theist will most likely claim, and to be aware of the most successful rebuttals, or counter points. Increasing your accuracy is about the easiest to handle. By increasing your general knowledge, across all the fields relating to the religious debate, you are making yourself a much more effective weapon in the war for the mind. We’ve already addressed the most predominant topics related to our typical arguments with theists If we also sharpen our general debating skills then we will be less likely to make simple debating mistakes, which as theist might interpret as a small win… even though arguments & debates are generally only won with proper facts. So, for the sake of becoming a skilled debater… let’s get started honing those skills!

Debating Skills (Religious & General Debates):

www.daylightatheism.org/2007/07/not-being-an-angry-atheist

www.freethoughtpedia.com

www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html

www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm

www.freewebs.com/debatingtips

unreasonablefaith.com/2009/12/10/how-to-debate-a-christian

www.lsatdiscussion.com/index.php?topic=167.0

www.studygs.net/wrtstr4.htm

www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/08/how-to-win-an-argument

Word, Sentence, Grammar,& Vocabulary:

www.scribd.com/doc/17655885/Useful-Debate-Vocabulary

aurora.wells.edu/~lpurdy/vocabulary_of_argument.htm

www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html

blog.emurse.com/2007/02/08/complete-list-of-English-power-words

Speech, & Phonetic Skills:

www.vocabula.com/VRbestwords.asp

searchwarp.com/swa278542.htm

www.copyblogger.com/trigger-words

bach.arts.kuleuven.be/MOAP

Typing, & Memory Enhancement:

memoryzine.com

www.sheppardsoftware.com/vocabulary_tips.htm

www.memory-improvement-tips.com/better-memory.html

www.memory-improvement-tips.com/brain-games.html

www.howtostudy.com/how-to-study/p0400.htm

www.lumosity.com

www.typing-lessons.org

www.powertyping.com/qwerty/lessonsq.html

www.freetypinggame.net/play.asp

www.typingtest.com/games

www.calculatorcat.com/typing_test

www.powertyping.com/typing_test/typing_test.shtml

Dirty Fighting:

www.tritebuttrue.com/blog/archives/2010/03/unfair_ways_to.html

www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/Expressions-showing-anger-and-used-in-arguments

www.rinkworks.com/persuasive

www.lextek.com/manuals/onix/stopwords1.html

blog.self-improvement-saga.com/2010/01/communication-argument

www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

I’ve provided a great many links above, & depending on your current level of information you might chose to just browse through several rather quickly, & only spend extended time on a few here & there. Please know that each link I have gone through myself & judged to be worthy of inclusion in this article. As such, I’d suggest at least spending as much time as you can on each. Judge for yourself what your current skill & knowledge levels are, but trust that any improvement towards becoming a better debater will not only benefit you, but our entire community.Thank you for your time in reading this, & researching the information for yourself. I hope you also enjoyed yourself while expanding your capabilities. Bland boring learning makes it hard to stay focused, so I try to entertain you the best I can. If you have any suggestions on topics, links, or text to be added to this article, PLEASE let me know. The higher quality article this is, the higher the quality of our debaters & the more likely our message will spread.

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

PHILOSOPHICAL QUOTES:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

“Religion is like a penis. It’s fine to have one. It’s fine to be proud of it. But please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around, And PLEASE don’t try to shove it down my children’s throats.” – Web Quote (unknown)

“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?” – John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” – John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

“The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God.” – Susan B Anthony

“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” – Susan B Anthony

“What can be accomplished by a few principles is not effected by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle, which is nature, and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle, which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.” – Thomas Aquinas, anticipating Occam’s Razor but never going on to deny or refute it; to be sure, after this example of an objection to the claim that God exists, Thomas continues: “On the contrary, it is said in the person of God: ‘I am Who am,’” citing Exodus 3:14, at which point Thomas begins his famous effort to prove God’s existence five different ways, quoted from George H Smith, Why Atheism? (2000), chapter 2

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” – Richard Dawkins

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” – Richard Dawkins

“To those seaching for truth — not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction — faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” – Thomas Edison

“I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States.” – Thomas Edison

“I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.” – Thomas Edison

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” – Albert Einstein

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.” – Benjamin Franklin

“He [the Rev Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.” – Benjamin Franklin

“The most henious and the must cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.” – Mohandas K Gandhi

“… the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Whatever one’s religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts — including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state.” – John F Kennedy

“I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end … where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice.” – John F Kennedy

“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” – Abraham Lincoln

“It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity.” – Abraham Lincoln

“We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – Abraham Lincoln, closing the Gettysburg Address, according to the Nicolay Draft (see photo, below), one of two that he wrote on the day he gave the address. Neither draft contains the phrase, “Under God”.

“I do not want church groups controlling the schools of our country. They must remain free.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

“Anyone who knows history will recognize that the domination of education or of government by any one particular religious faith is never a happy arrangement for the people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

“I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Web Links About Quotes:

www.positiveatheism.org

www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php

www.facebook.com/pages/Brightsville-FL/Atheist-Quotes-Of-The-Day

www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Quote-of-the-Day

www.monkeyquiz.com/atheist-quotes.html

Part 1. Opening Statements.

Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–

Jeremy “Mr.J0K3R” Moran – Primary contributer & article author.

Christopher Herda – Atheist quotes, & related links.

Ashley ‘Velma Vile’ Hill – General informative links.

Krista Downs – Provided the Religion is like a penis quote.

FB-Atheists.com – Central community that provided the article.

Article Stats:

Part 1. Opening Statements.


Part 3. Theistic Understanding.

Part 4. Science of Historical Precedence.

Part 5. Skills of the Debate.

Part 6. Closing Statements.

Part 7: Philosophical Quotes.

Credits.

–BACK TO TOP–