This is not my work but it is GREAT information and definitely worth quoting

This should be read by all forum warriors who debate the existence of God and are Christians

I applaud the author *xuadobiht* whose information is at bottom
 

Good Luck and
God Bless
 

Introduction:
I find that online debate with Atheists* and scoffers is a regular part a net-savvy Christian’s life. This is not a problem as I enjoy a good debate. What I don’t like is having to duel with an opponent and have to explain the rules to him while beating him into the ground at the same time. It is just redundant. So this is to anyone that is going to argue with me, or any of my brothers and sisters that are arguing with an Atheist. These are some basic ground rules for debating. Most of these points are basic rules of logic that you should have learned when you were in middle school, but likely forgot over the passage of time. To all my fellow Christians out there, I recommend that you cite this page when you are debating with someone else, and instead of wasting your time explaining the same subject for the 93rd time, just give a link and citation. (Example: Violation RoE Section C-2) That way you can save time. And most of my brothers and sisters out there may not know this, but you can crush most atheistic arguments by just demanding that they address the subject logically. When the restraint of logic is placed on their argument, many of them immediately run out of ammunition. If you have felt squeamish about debating with Atheists, I hope that this might give you the weapons you need to stand up for what you believe in. Remember though, you should enforce these rules of reason in the argument, but you must additionally follow the rules yourself. Now make a stand!

*I capitalize “Atheist” to pay respect to their religious organization.

Section A: Logical Fallacies

Introduction:
This section will be the basis of the rest of the sections. Just about everything else that will be covered in the Rules of Engagement can be traced back to something in this section. This is the most basic foundation of the RoE, and any violations here can be very harmful to one’s argument. What should be remembered about this subject is that you can be right, but if your reasoning is wrong then you still have a bad argument. Example: “Dogs can’t fly. They can’t fly because they are mammals, not birds.” You see, the individual is right that dogs can’t fly, but additionally assumes that neither can any other mammal.* So the fact is right, but the reasoning is wrong. So how right you are makes no difference in an argument, because you have to argue by the rules of logic. Keep in mind, I’m not listing all of them here, but these should be enough for most arguments.

*Bats are flying mammals, for those of you who flunked zoology.

(Reference note: these are taken from notes in my college level Logic and Critical thinking class. These are not from any remotely religious texts. They are not quote verbatim, but I’ll thank Dr. E. Stocks for the organization of the material anyway.)

1: Fallacies of Irrelevant Authority

a: Appeal to Ignorance
This is to say, ‘we don’t know that the conclusion is actually false.” and assuming that that is an argumentative victory. This is no victory, it’s a “still unknown conclusion” at best.

b: Ancient Wisdom Fallacy

It’s true that people of old knew a lot of strange things that we would not expect, but that does not necessarily make them right about everything

c: Popularity Fallacy
Your friends, your teachers, your parents and your dog may all believe it, but that means exactly squat.

d: Fallacy of Self-proclaimed Expertise
If you really understand a subject, quit talking about how smart you are and prove it.


2: Fallacies of False Emphasis

a: Accident
This is the kind of thing that happens when someone is wronged by a technicality. For example: You are at a restaurant, and you end up waiting an hour for your food. You may label the restaurant as being “bad” but it may just have been a simple one-time error on their part.

b: Division
Assuming that something has the properties of its parts. For example: The Catholic Church fought in the Crusades and carried out the Inquisition, which were evil acts. Catholics are Christians. Therefore Christians are evil.

c: Composition
Assuming that the parts of something have the same properties as the whole. For example: God is good, therefore all people who claim to follow him must be good too.

d: Slippery Slope
Rapid succession of assumptions leading to a worst-case conclusion. Example: If people start believing in God, then they will start getting hyper religious, then they will start forming wild-eyed cults, then they will start performing human sacrifices, then they will overthrow the world, and we will all be their slaves!!

3: Fallacies of Changing the Point

a: Irrelevant Conclusion
Using premises that do not support the idea you are presenting. Example: Cereal boxes of the world will be more economical if you admit I am correct.

b: Argument Against the Person
This is when someone attacks the person instead of their argument. Example: “You say that you disagree, but you only say that because you smell like pork-butts.”

c: Strawman
Distorting your opponent’s argument by shifting it into something indefensible. Example: “You call this thought-out art? It’s a bunch of wires wrapped in a donut shape with stuff hanging off of it!” -Mr. Hughes, my former Art Professor

d: Complex (or Loaded) Question
This is when you place an assumption in a question. Example: Have you finished lying to me yet? (Was he really lying to begin with?)

4: Other Fallacies

a: Begging the Question
This is when you present evidence from your argument that is taken from your conclusion, effectively assuming as fact what you are trying to prove. Example: You can tell how old a fossil is by examining what layer of sediment it was found in. Inversely, you can determine how old a layer of sediment is by what fossils are inside of it.

b: False Dichotomy
This is when you insist there are two choices to answer a question. Example: “You are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” -President Bush (What if I don’t agree with either one’s course of action?)

c: Equivocation
Using a phrase or term of inconsistent definition. Example: The Bible says that God does not discriminate against people for their ethnicity (Rom 1:16), but the Bible says that sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God (ICor 6:9). Therefore, God hated the people of Sodom purely for their ethnicity. (Not quite the same “Sodomites”, if you know what I mean)


Section B: Bad Arguments

Introduction:
If there is one thing that I know about arguing with Atheists, it’s that they will use the same argument over and over again, and then accuse us of the same thing when they don’t know how to defend against our comebacks. Why do we Christians keep using the same argument? Because you still haven’t given us an answer, genius! Anyway, here I hope that I might address some of the really bad Atheist arguments so that these time-wasting toilet-nuggets might be flushed for good.

1: “Evolution is a fact”
This is a sadly mistaken idea. Evolution cannot be proven because it doesn’t happen. Nobody has seen it happen, and science has certainly not proven it. Even if it has happened, it has not been proven, and is therefore not factual. (Inversely, however, it is also a bad argument to say that “God is a fact”. Not that I deny God, but stating that he is a fact does not provide a significant or logical argument. If that is your point, you need to prove it.)

2: “Christians at some point in history [*insert your own atrocity here, e.g. fought in the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.]!" or “[*Insert name of really bad person in history, usually Hitler] was a Christian”
This is related to guilt by association. You can’t attack an entire religion because someone wanted to use the faith to manipulate it for their own purposes. This is a fallacious argument. An even less intelligent means of argument is to judge an entire belief or philosophy by a single individual, as Godwin's Law, the over-used Reductio Ad Hitlerum (comparison of anything one perceives as bad to a certain 20th century German dictator) stands as the prevalent example of. For the record, Hitler was not a Christian in the biblical sense. He utilized the Church to gain popularity with the people, and at the same time, he taught secular evolutionary ideas in his public schools. So he put on the faith-face for the public, but simultaneously made an effort to eliminate Christianity from the state.

3: “The Bible was written by men”
Yeah, you figured that too, huh? It is true that man is corrupt, but we were also made in the image of God, and in addition, we have been given the Word of God so that corruption can be overcome. So what is being addressed is essentially this: One side says there is no God, therefore the words of the Bible are written by men of corruption. The other side says that there is a God, and he has given his people the strength to overcome corruption by his Word, and therefore the Bible is not corrupted. Essentially, it all comes back down to the existence of God, which is probably the subject at hand anyway. So the argument has no additional direction to it, and should be ignored, unless reasonable grounds to question the Bible are cited .


Section C: Lack of Arguments

Introduction:
This is more common than you might think. People will blast you for the longest time about this subject or that, but are actually saying nothing at all. Don’t believe me? Count how many times you have seen these:

1: “You’re too stupid to argue with.”
People use this one because they’re backed into a corner and have no way out but to make a lame attempt at insulting your intelligence. The subject is not addressed, and nothing has been answered, yet they claim victory by some kind of disqualification of rational thought. If they call you stupid, moron, idiot, etc, ask them to prove their point by citing logical errors on your part.

2: “You’re too closed minded”
This is my favorite. The individual is, once again, avoiding the subject and trying to make you into the reason that the debate has not been resolved. If one side says the other is closed-minded by virtue of the fact that their opponent does not see things their way, then both sides by that logic can be called closed-minded since neither side is accepting the other's conclusions. Unless they simply refuse to even consider valid evidence or argument, never call someone “closed minded” in an argument, if you do, it’s a good sign you are losing. If you want your opponent to see things your way then make an imaginative illustration for them, but this argument in itself says nothing.

3: “You are ignoring the truth!”
This argument isn’t so bad as long as it incorporates facts and examples. However, If this comment is thrown out by itself with no more back up than, “This is what I’ve always been taught” then it’s bogus. Even if the facts are right, the argument is bad for the lack of substance.

4: “You only believe that because that’s how you were raised”
I just love this one. It's actually formally called the genetic fallacy - attacking the opponents possible reasons for believing the argument rather than the argument itself. People think that I only believe in Christianity/Creation/God because I was raised to believe that. Problem: What I was raised to believe does not affect the state of the truth. Since truth is an absolute state, and is not influenced by how I was brought up, this argument is not worth addressing. Again, it says nothing, and addresses no facts of the discussion.

5: “You’re wasting your time with your beliefs”
This is another nothing-statement that’s kind of funny. This is what happens when the Atheist tries to match your beliefs to their own idea of epistemological worth. You might think of it like this: A glassblower says to a miner, “Why are you mining for gold when you can do something meaningful, like glassblowing?” In this case, the individual regards forming glass much more highly than acquisition of gold. Is it really of more worth and meaning, or is it just the glassblower’s opinion? If the glassblower truly believes that his trade is of more worth, then he needs to demonstrate why that is the case. It might make sense in his mind, but the rest of us might feel more of a liking to gold than glass, so he has to work hard to make his point than assume that we will all agree with him.

6: “You’re so stupid that you believe [insert belief that you assume to be ridiculous]!”
Here’s a fun one. The “You actually believe that??” argument. Some people still think that this is clever. But they attack the argument assuming that the person that they are arguing with actually sees the problem with the argument. If I don’t see what’s wrong with my argument then you have to explain it to me, then we can communicate clearly. See? This is also the classification of people who ignore your arguments by laughing at them, and then refusing to actually address the issue. Tip: If you’re going to laugh at someone’s idea, then that is all the more reason to address it, because you are acting like you have that power to debunk it reasonably.


Section D: Facts

Introduction: A big problem with a lot of Atheists is that they like the idea of being right when they aren’t. They will start using things such as facts that aren’t really factual. This is another rule that applies to all sides: check your facts. I had an argument with someone some time back on the age of the Coral Reef. She argued that it was at least 175,000 years old, and according to the Bible’s flood account, it could be no more than 4,400. Well, I checked around and found her source, then I checked around and found some statistics on the CR that were not addressing, and therefore nonbiased to, the subject o f age. When I compared the thickness of the reef and the coral growth rates to her source I found horrendous errors. When I punched realistic numbers into the formula, I came up with an age of about 4,350 years old. Keep in mind though, anyone can be subject to a couple factual errors, so don’t toss out someone’s entire argument because they have a couple goofs in their info. The goofs can only affect that point, and can’t destroy the entire argument unless the goof is regarding a central pillar of the debater’s defense.

1: Stretched Facts
This is when the truth is almost told. It’s stretched a bit to make the individual sound more right than they would otherwise. This isn’t usually damning to an argument, but it’s bad taste anyway.

2: False Facts (aka Lies)
The source I cited in the introduction was only the sort of distortion that comes from an outright lie, and that is exactly what this point is addressing. Don’t think that just because you found someone that says something, that that means it’s true. They may work at Harvard, but they may still very well lie for money and attention.

3: Mistranslation of Facts
Sometimes people will take facts and extrapolate false information from them. Example: “There is a red shift in astronomy. That means there was a Big Bang!” Analyze the issue, don’t jump to conclusions.


Section E: Grounds for Dismissal

Introduction:
It’s sad but true, but some arguments are just not worth the trouble. It is important to know when you are debating with a war-mongering fundamentalist Atheist. These people are not worth the trouble of debating, because their intentions are not to have an intelligent and/or interesting conversation, but to make a mockery of religion and to see if they can do so through you. See, the longer you let them talk to you, the more opportunity you give them to spill out their hate speech like a monkey throwing his own poop, and seeing how big an audience will watch him. These are some signs that you should consider ending your conversation with the individual. These people cannot be helped with words, they need your prayers.

1: “Christians should be persecuted!”
If the person you are talking to is so bold as to state openly hateful rhetoric, it’s likely that nothing you say to them will mean anything, as they will just try to find some reason to hate you more.

2: Utilizes Open Blasphemy to Make a Point
I’ve had to break off one conversation thus far, and it was for this reason. If the individual is so coarse as this, there is no point speaking to them. They have already decided to hate you and God. There is no way that your logic will convert them.

3: “I’m Satan”
People who are so cheap as to actively pretend to be a demonic entity during the conversation are not worth talking to as they don’t want to take the subject seriously. They are both hateful, and mocking. And doubtless, there is actually some truth to their claim, since Satan probably does have a hold on them spiritually.

4: Insults
I don’t have any qualm against some friendly teasing in a debate, but when it is up-close, personal, and ill intended, it is just unsportsman-like. When one person starts taking the argument too seriously, and tries to defame their opponent, then the argument is well past due to end.


Section F: Miscellaneous

1: The Victor
When your opponent is no longer capable of making any progress in the argument without breaking any (or all) the rules of engagement, it is time to stand victoriously, and tell them that they have lost the debate. Don’t rub their faces in it like a bully on a playground, but just nudge them off to consider the logical beating that they have just experienced. They may want to try and continue the argument, like the broken, beaten, and sickly chess club member, waving his fist at the disinterested linebacker and yelling “Is that all you’ve got???” Pay them no mind. Maybe they will be more cautious the next time they want to try to pick on one of God’s people.



(Special note: I'd like to thank my brother, Josh, for being my editor on this article)

My other articles:

My Philosophy on Art [link]
GNOSTIC [link]
I am More Open Minded than You [link]
"Let's Discredit the Bible!" [link]
"Christian Hate Speech?" [link]
Logic Anyone? [link]
Issues in Churches [link]

My humor:

How Ignorant People see Christians [link]
President Miazaki?? [link]
My Ears are Eggplants [link]


Links
[link] My big brother’s site. He’s really good with Bible issues, and he has a lot to say about the misconceptions of Calvinism.

[link] A little bit of tough love for the world.

[link] Creationism website. A lot of people who don’t believe in God believe in "science" which is falsely so called. This is for you guys.