Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 4 weeks ago

Does anyone else see how ****** up straw man arguments are when talking about religion?

They lead to people defending or arguing against a position that they never had or said and it sucks.

8 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago
    Best Answer

    Have a look at the link, for 'Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement'.

    At the bottom of the non-argument heap is the name-caller; ridiculing, mocking, insulting the opponent.

    Above that base level is the ad hominem attack on characteristics or authority of the opponent, ignoring the points.

    Then comes a response to the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the opponent's arguments.

    Next is contradiction - just stating the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence.

    At last, we might get counter-argument that contradicts then backs it up with reasons and evidence.

    Rejoicing comes with actual refutation of a case, finding the mistake and explaining, with quotes/sources.

    And best of all is the person who explicitly refutes the central point.

    On here, we have the vast majority doing name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Infantile people like that should be ignored and attention given to people who ask decent questions and/or give reasoned answers.

  • Derek
    Lv 5
    4 weeks ago

    Am I on the right lines when I think of straw scarecrows flapping about in the wind here? Lots of them dotted about the R&S site. Just glancing across this page I see one trending - "Christianity is a false religion. Isn't the evidence clear?" (without a bit of evidence mentioned). Or, Can a Foreskin be repaired with a skin graft?

    I mean, circumcision is mentioned in the Bible and is a big part of Judaism and Islam, but the idea of a scarecrow needing its foreskin given a skin graft? Yuch. Enough to put the frightners on any chap on here.

  • Nous
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    The simple problem is that the first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!

    Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

    Does not matter what substance the arguments are mad in the impossible claims for a god cannot stand any challenge!

    Especially given so much evidence against them!!!!

    The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

    There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

    There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

    He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

    Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

    Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

    At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

    Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

    Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!

    Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

    Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

    Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

    Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

    Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

    Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

    Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

    Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

    Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

    Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

    Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

    Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

    Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

    Research shows whilst education reduces religious belief each year of further education reduces religious belief by up to 10%!

    • trancinguy
      Lv 6
      4 weeks agoReport

      And we must also take into account that belief also means: trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

  • Jea
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Without their Divine Straw Man, christians wouldn't have any arguments at all.  It is why the Straw Man is Holy.

    • Jea
      Lv 7
      4 weeks agoReport

      What Zero?  Christianity?  Making stuff to belittle others is a favorite technique of christianity.  God, and your silly made-up Jesus are zeros, I'll give you that, made of pure imagination,.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    That is not quite what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is when you give an example of another position that is constructed to have flaws that you can easily (and obviously) defeat, while not addressing the actual position.

    It is not misconstruing what the other person said.

    • Annsan_In_Him
      Lv 7
      4 weeks agoReport

      It doesn't have to, but it often does, when the audience is known not to be well informed on the 'opponents' stance. Then half-truths are slipped in without the audience realizing it. That can be part of the straw-man argument.

  • Archer
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    If one "never had" or stated they had why would they feel compelled to defend such or are you just stupid!

    • Rufus T. Firefly
      Lv 7
      4 weeks agoReport

      I'm not the asker, but people who are not well trained in argumentation can be easily tricked and confused. It's also easy to bully some people. That youthful "I know I'm right, but why am I losing?" frustration when up against a bully or dishonest fighter.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Example? I'm not up on terms?

    We need to stay on target.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago


    Atheeve-eoe claims that "skydaddy doesn't exist" is such a straw man. Especially when it's not even the question.

    But what else can we expect from the uneducated masses?

    • Rufus T. Firefly
      Lv 7
      4 weeks agoReport

      The question is "Where is your proof of this god you keep bringing up?" So in essence your answer is a strawman.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.