Most people don’t recognize a strawman.

Here’s one:

scarecrow on snow covered land
Photo by Анастасия Демахина on Pexels.com

Okay, that one was pretty easy.

There is another kind of strawman that shows up during disagreements…

…or arguments if you prefer.

A straw man is when you set up a distorted version of an argument to argue against.

Here are some examples:

  • Other Person says: “Gun control legislation will not prevent gun violence.”
  • Your Strawman is: “I guess you approve of school shootings, huh?”
  • Other Person says: “Abortion should not be legal.”
  • Your Strawman is: “You don’t want women to have health care!”
  • Other Person says: “Illegal immigration must be stopped.”
  • Your Strawman is: “You must hate people with brown skin.”

But let’s examine an actual strawman in its natural habitat…a blog comment section.

I offered a statistic that 51% of scientists believe in God or some higher power.

In return, I was offered this lovely strawman:

It’s important to note that a strawman is a distortion of someone else’s position.

A single phrase can’t be a strawman all by itself.

Here’s an example of what a straw man IS NOT:

A strawman can’t stand alone.

So…your point of view can’t be a strawman.

It can be incorrect.

It can be incoherent.

But it cannot be a strawman.

Accusations of “strawman argument” are frequently raised by horrible thinkers.

Because horrible thinkers have bad ideas.

When you restate their ideas so they understand how bad they are…

…they accuse you of building a strawman.

Humanist: “People can be good without God.”

Me: “How do you define good?”

Humanist: “Anything that fosters well-being.”

Me: “Some people experience well-being when they’re selfish and cruel.”

Humanist: “That’s a strawman!”

So be on the lookout.

Not every strawman you encounter will be a likable character on his way to Oz.

But every strawman will certainly be brainless.

You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.

Leave a comment

58 Responses

  1. Wow, I do life, stop by and see things get really rude here from the atheists. Doesn’t make atheism any more appealing nor attractive.

    Btw, I used to buy Darwin, but the longer you look at it, and real life, the more holes you find.
    (Check out the life-form explosion in the Cambrian period – with no evolutionary fossils to cover Darwin’s – um, theories) Plus, and more importantly, having a relationship with the One Who created you kinda turns many theories upside down.

    Very rude, here. I don’t know how you can take the snide abuse, John. May your sense of humor increase exponentially! Do you think they’ll ever stop and want to let some light and fresh air into their souls? Kudos for trying to reach them. If I didn’t know how much God loves them and grieves when they blame Him for evil and walk away from Him, I’d want to leave ‘em and let them rot in the muck they’re wallowing in. Life is so much better walking with Him than alone. I’m very sad they don’t seem to want that joy and love.

    I notice the atheists haven’t checked out Blaise Pascal’s Wager.

    Further hoping they try to read C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell…

    Thank you, John, for what you’re attempting to do. Thank you, especially, for your sense of humor. Sending love to you and your family, and to any atheists who have some cracks in their hardened hearts and are willing to take it in.

    1. It was fun to read through the comments. The self-righteous snobbery of the faux intellectuals hasn’t changed in years. They literally never learn.

      It was fun watching you try to pin Pastor Mike down about a belief. Earlier this year, he promised to write a series of blog articles outlining his new, enlightened worldview since he’s “recovered” from Christianity. Here’s what he’s offered:

      “My Worldview, if I have one at all currently, would probably still be in flux. But if I had to choose today, I’d probably say I’m an Agnostic Humanist. Whatever that means. I guess I’ll find out, Lol.”

      Isn’t that spectacular?

      1. Sigh. Yeah seems I wasted years of my life trying to pin Mike down on a worldview. He has been void of one for since we met. That is why I rarely waste my time with these lunkheads anymore, but respect the heck out of your efforts.

    2. You wrote this? Wally, this is delightful!
      😂
      Thank you for trying to reach them.
      You’re wonderful!

  2. The dinosaur issue is truly irrelevant to the existence of God. However, since you brought it up. There is no accurate way to age dinosaur bones. They have no carbon left in them and even if they did carbon dating is only accurate up to about 50,000 years. The observable evidence that we have in regards to dating proves it is inaccurate. There have been rocks from the Mt St Helens eruption dated to over 100,000 years old, when they were in fact only 20 years old. This dating was not done by a “Christian” lab, but a secular lab. Please explain to me why someone who wants scientific proof would accept this dating method?

    1. I did not say it was done by a Christian lab, but stated there are plenty of Christians that acknowledge the fact that (such) YEC claims are simply nonsense … based on genuine scientific work.
      Surely it is not that /em> difficult to read carefully?
      And I included the biologos link in the comment simply
      because it is a christian site, being aware of the immediate tendency of fundamentalists to scream bias.

      But, just for the record, surely you are not one of the Young Earth Creationist whack jobs who considers people like Ken Ham are the greatest thing since sliced bread?
      Oh … say it isn’t so.

    2. Oh and as for your YEC St Helens lava dome claim.

      Crumbs, are YECs still going on about that?

      I sincerely hope that lurkers at least exercise a bit of impartiality and read the links .

      Here’s one link debunking your St Helens nonsense.It is quite ”sciency” but pretty straightforward.

      https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

      1. I assure you, if there are any “lurkers” they aren’t going to be siding with you.

        Everyone reading knows you didn’t answer Mike’s question. And if they’ve dealt with you before, they know you never (ever, ever, ever) will… Do you honestly not possess the self-awareness to know when you’re looking foolish? Do you ACTUALLY think people are interested in what “skeptoid.com” has to say?

        LOL!

        Mike asked, “Why would someone accept this dating method?” and instead of answering, you copied and pasted a link to howstuffworks.com …. The lurkers haven’t missed this.

        1. PREDICTION: Ark will respond with some ad hominem comment and a snide reference to your mental illness. He may also ask, “How’s your grandfather?”

          …I don’t think he understands anything about carbon dating either. He suggested the article was “sciency” which makes me suspect he didn’t read it.

          1. …maybe he doesn’t know what a question mark means. I know about South African crime–but I’m not sure if their schools are equally pathetic. I’ll look into it. (Maybe there’s an article on Skeptoid about it. haha.)

        2. Please explain to me why someone who wants scientific proof would accept this dating method?

          Because the dating method used to determine the age of the dinosaurs and the age of the rock from St Helens eruption is correct.
          And I am NOT referring t the ridiculous nonsense put forward by Young Earth Creationist idiots.
          If you read the links and do not understand the science …. that ain’t my problem. Consult a paleontologist and a geologist who can explain it using pictures and crayons.
          Any more questions?

          1. If your answer will always be “ask someone else” then, no, that will do for me. Haha!

            You can ask Mike whether HE’D like to take another shot though…

          2. Theist asks question.

            Ark: “Here, read Skeptoid. Any more questions?”

            I’m laughing out loud over here.

          3. Yep.
            Imagine how he would respond if we sent him to read C. S. Lewis or Tim Keller.

            Laughing is appropriate.

          4. And I missed where you said how old the Earth is… Ark wouldn’t stoop to strawman argument… WOULD HE!!?

          5. Still nothing from Ron.
            How shocking!
            I wonder why the heathen are so reluctant to flex their intellectual muscles…

          6. They’re not reluctant! They think that’s what they’re doing!
            It’s like when I ask my 4-year-old to show me HIS muscles… He immediately thrusts his skinny arms in the air, beaming proudly. Meanwhile I can count each rib. 🙂

          7. The book I’m reading talks about Aristotle’s concept of “cause”. Some philosophy reasons that if God wasn’t “paying attention” to us, we would wink out of existence.

            Think Ark would be receptive to a discussion about that?

          8. It’s a mile over his head. God isn’t an old man in the sky. Therefore, the average Atheist gets frustrated and quits.

            I think it’s laziness.

          9. I told Pastor Mike I could demonstrate the existence of oranges necessitates God. He refused to even let me try. Then he and JZ will stroke each other about their insatiable curiosity.

        3. Oh, and you are really so utterly pathetic that you are suggesting the earth is no more than 10,000 years old?
          Tell me, when do you think those big ol’ nasty post-vegetarian T-Rexs roamed the earth, then?
          Seriously?
          Smile .. that funnier than one of your daddy’s utterly hilarious comedy sketches.

          Go look up TTI Time Temperature Index.
          It’s used to find certain oil deposits.
          Even you should be able to work out the reason why once you read up on it.
          Oh and if you are able to do this without jumping back with some idiotic YEC remark, then so much the better. At least this might show your are interested in evidence.

          Maybe you need to hold Katy’s hand and explain a little science to her?
          Seeing as you’re so smart an’ all.

          Lol…

          1. I have no idea how old the Earth is and could not care less. I also don’t know why we’re talking about it…

            Oh wait, yes I do. You’re looking for attention again… ANY attention. Even if it means bringing up dinosaurs on a post about strawmen.

            Lol!

          2. I have no idea how old the Earth is and could not care less.

            And this is why you are an hysterical disingenuous idiot.

            Looking for attention? Aren’t you the one fervently praying to your god?
            Well, oh dear, if he is not even listening , Amanda, doesn’t this mean you are wasting your time? As you certainly aren’t receiving the attention you must be desperately after.
            Let’s be honest here, just how insecure are you that you need attention from more than one father?

          3. And this is why you are an hysterical disingenuous idiot. You’re actually suggesting that butter tastes the same as margarine?

            Ridiculous! Pathetic! And don’t come back with some sad, Atheist nonsense about golf balls.

          4. You are so funny … stick to babies…. and vegetarian dinosaurs.
            You make ordinary Young Earth Creationists sound almost normal.

          5. Are you REALLY so utterly pathetic that you’ll do the Chicken Dance and call it the Salsa?…
            *Smile*

    3. You’re right, Carbon 14 is indeed only used for objects under 50,000 years old, which is why it is the breakdown of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar) that is used to identify the ages things older than 50,000 years.

      Please don’t make the same mistake again.

      1. Slow day in Brazil I guess.
        Thanks for this extremely important comment! Mike will be able to get on with his life now.

        1. Is he intentionally waiting to comment on stuff that is almost two months old?…

          So his buddies won’t know he’s over here again, maybe? (And–of course–so very few people will read his blathering.)

          1. I didn’t bother going back to re-read the discussion (FROM TWO MONTHS AGO) to try and figure out why he thinks it’s relevant.

            …I know enough about Zande to be confident that carbon-dating had very little to do with the main point.

          2. Oh, I remember now! (I just scrolled up.)
            It was ARK who brought up dinosaurs and the age of the earth! Mike actually said, “The dinosaur question has nothing to do with the existence of God…”

            So, Ark showed up and dropped an off-topic comment that other Atheists mistook for important. How surprising! 🙂

            Wonder if JZ has any reason to believe in the existence of Tut?

  3. ”Scientists are discovering soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, changing the time frames that evolutionary Darwinian biologists believed. (They’re being persecuted, for provable facts, because it messes with the beliefs of the Darwinians, and comes closer to substantiating the Bible.)”

    Er … while there has been soft tissue discovered in a few Dinosaur bones the Darwinian issue regarding time fames as proposed by Young Earth Creationists has been scientifically refuted so these are not provable facts at all.

    Are you one of those Christ-haters who are persecuting Christians?

    Er …. There are scientists who are Christian who are in agreement that
    these dinosaurs are millions of years old.

    So these aren’t proper Christians then, obviously.

    Er …. say what?

  4. John Branyan’s debating for dummies when someone asks you to provide empirical evidence for God’s existence:

    0. Recall seeing artefacts recovered from Tut’s tomb during a school field trip
    1. State that King Tut was made up by ancient Egyptians
    2. Quote the request asking you to provide empirical evidence for God’s existence
    3. Admit you cannot satisfy that request
    4. Misrepresent what was requested
    5. Use that as evidence in support of point one
    6. Admit you cannot demonstrate you exist
    7. Conclude you do not exist
    8. Pretend you’ve made any coherent argument
    9. Double down with follow-up posts when called out for your silliness.

    1. You want to crash and burn again on this post? Okey-doke!

      Demonstrate King Tut existed. Your demonstration must be observable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable and predictable.

          1. I think it’s more of a miracle that some humans CAN think and reason. Isn’t that the Argument from Intelligence?

            Maybe eventually denying the Supreme Mind has consequences… Like mindlessness.

          2. Next time I read “The Great Divorce”, I’ve got actual names I can give to all those people on the bus!

      1. No response to my request for a demonstration of Tut’s existence.
        Do you think something happened to Ron? I hope not!
        But I can’t imagine why it’s taking so long.
        Surely he’s able to fulfill such a simple request.
        …what do you think?

  5. Hi Katy,

    When an atheist says, ” Logic and Reason (Science) definitively disproves the Existence of God” they are not making a strawman. They are stating their argument. It would be fair to respond by asking them to unpack that statement with some examples. How do you disprove God with logic?

    Strawman arguments are often used by atheists to distort the arguments in favor of God’s existence.

    1. Yes, I was thinking of the comments that follow as they try to prove their point. Many times, it runs down to really odd straw men.

      I keep thinking of a guy on a plane sitting next to me. We talked together for a long time. When he finally asked me what I did, he exclaimed “You can’t be a scientist! You’re so nice and scientists are so rude and cold!” That was weird! It’s as if he thought real scientists are like the fictional Spock.

      Many Astrophysicists are Christian.

      CERN is unfortunately a bastion for some Christ-haters; yet surprisingly they are not atheists. It’s scary what some of them are opening themselves up to through what some of them worship, instead.

      Scientists are discovering soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, changing the time frames that evolutionary Darwinian biologists believed. (They’re being persecuted, for provable facts, because it messes with the beliefs of the Darwinians, and comes closer to substantiating the Bible.)

      Thank you, John, for what you are doing. Hopefully some who don’t realize the peril they are in can be rescued. I’m grateful you’re trying to reach them.

      Pascal’s Wager, dear atheists!

      1. Hi, Katy.

        I have never yet come across anyone who claims to be a ”Christ- hater”.
        In fact, although I have seen the term ”God-hater” used, this is the very first time I have seen ”Christ-hater”.
        What do you think would motivate someone to be a ”Christ-hater”?

        You mention astrophysicist. Is this you field?
        Also, do you have an up to date link for the soft tissue issue found in dinosaur fossils?
        I was under the impression the young age claim had been explained, and rejected, even by most Christians, and especially those I have read who work in the field of paleontology.
        Odd, then, that you would state that Christians are being persecuted.
        Which Christians exactly?

        You can read one such refutation of the age issue on biologos if you like, which is a Christian site. There are several others, some are secular, but I thought you might accuse me of bias if I referred you to a non-Christian site.
        Here’s the link.

        https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say

      2. As to the dinosaur soft tissue, Schweitzer herself has already explained it, in 2013: Iron. She published this in journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

        Please do some research before posting nonsense

  6. Nice, John.

    One of the biggest straw men that I see in arguments by atheists is: Logic and Reason (Science) definitively disproves the Existence of God.

    Wrong!

    Many logical and reasonable, scientific persons have used analytical thinking to try to disprove the existence of our very logical, analytical, scientific and creative, loving God – and have ended up finding Him, instead.

    Atheists would benefit by reading Lee Strobel’s and C.S. Lewis writings, among many.
    Please also read Pascal’s Wager: THAT will profoundly change your life if you apply logic, reason and thinking to what he is saying.

    Please, open your hearts and minds to the love that waits for you.

Dive into the discussion...

Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Get my blog in your inbox!

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox:

Your Cart