A short while ago I found myself watching the latest DarkMatter2525 production and I found myself in awe of how polished and popular it had become. It was still full of the same terrible logic and misinformation as it always has been, but DarkMatter2525 had become bolder, and was dealing with the topic in more interesting ways that I had seen before. I wasn't sure it merited a response, but it sure was attracting a lot of attention. Then I turned to some of AaronRa's presentations on the flood. Of course, full of misinformation and misunderstanding. These people seem to have a few good arguments, but they don't focus on them, they focus on a landslide of what amounts to very little.

Thus, this page. However, dear Atheists, this is not a page for your average Christipher Hitchens, Bill Nye or Ricky Gervais fan. I don't think the issue is as trite as that class of person will present.

The Protestant's original claim to ecumenical authority over the Catholics is that the Catholics changed the bible and had what amounted to an Oral Law that contradicted the un-altered Bible. This was sabotaged very early as the Protestants for the most part adopted the Catholic new testament canon, and then went on to reinterpert the bible outside of the realm of Sola Scriptura. Today, Christianity is the most variegated religion in the world because of this (because of the Protestants and their idea of Sola Scriptura). However, their version is based on Eisegesis, while mine is based on Exegesis. Please see Ground Rules, Sola Scriptura, Ecumenical Authority and Exegesis for more information on these important concepts.

As a general response, a sort of “respone to atheist ground rules”, let me open with the Ten Sins of Atheist Debate. A sort of ten commandments, but for atheists who think they have what it takes. No further explanation should be necessary, if such an atheist believes he has what it takes to issue a formal response.

‘You’ internet atheists are a fun bunch. I find that many internet atheists are not honest actors in the sense that they set out not to debate but to mock or belittle religious people. I can understand where you are coming from on that one, but please consider that at the core, religion is intended to be a moral platform. It's not nice to belittle people who are trying to do the right thing. It's the thought that counts. I would ask you to consider that many times, atheists who engage in this kind of debate appear to be presenting a kind of “cut flower ethics”. This is not in line with the goal of people who have sought religion based on a platform of morality, and is why some religious people might become frustrated with Atheists.

I am probably using the word wrong. It means argument from improper authority. Other terms which struck me are bandwagon fallacy and the genetic fallacy. Essentially this is the argument that some Christians in the past did horrible things, and therefore all Christians today are horrible people, or that Christianity (I mean, religion in general) leads to the commission of horrible acts. A logical and honest person should consider their arguments in this vein much more carefully. The argument that a belief in God does not make one a more moral person, for example, can be dealt with trivially with the example of theft of food while hungry; no one would steal an apple in the face of a policeman. In a similar vein, the belief that God is watching will often prevent a religious person from committing some sort of sin or crime that they may otherwise assume they would ‘get away with’.

I.E. not doing your homework (or being naive in your approach). You are expected to know the subject you are debating. When I quote the bible it is not “for your edification”. If you find it is the first time you have read a passage which speaks to the statement, you are most assuredly not qualified to debate that statement in a religious debate (at least to the point of judging said religion). This one is where most of you will trip up. I would say, from my survey of what's out there, that most internet Atheists (say, the ones on Youtube) are probably not qualified to debate issues in the Bible (such as slavery) from a biblical standpoint. This may change; I hope it does; But it won't if Atheists continue to use shoddy arguments in their approach.

“Ignorantio Elenchi”, of which “Red Herring” is a form of, and your common “Straw Man Argument” are other popular tactics which I will give credit to Atheists, are often used unintentionally due to the naivety with which they approach the bible.

Whether I am right or wrong, I feel the quality of debate has suffered in recent years. I hope that this will improve into the fututre.