What is the Straw Man Fallacy?The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
[
Source]
Texture by ~
blackxwinter.
More Stuff to Read:
Misconceptions about Atheists
An Introduction to Atheism
That being said, this goes for everyone! Don't use straw man arguments, it's just bad form.
There is no such a thing as believing in "nothing".
Very cool! I'm a Christian, but as long as someone's nice to me, I don't care what they believe in. I mean, my boyfriend's an atheist.
Here's a similar stamp that I think you'll like: [link]
<perky> I mean OH my Flying Spaghetti Monster the baking recipes I have gotten. My triple chocolate fudge "Cookies of the Abyss" are so good you have to be committing multiple mortal sins with every bite.
That one gets the door to door people every time
oh m y god did these people ever pay attention in biology class
WE CAME FROM FISH
in all seriousness, evolution is adaptation+mutation=change
if you believe that adaptations can occur and that mutations can occur, but you deny evolution, what's the point
really like be educated people seriously I learned this last semester and i'm in Mississippi as a 9th grader it's NOT THAT HARD
YOU ARE THE ONES MAKING IT HARD
not you manderz okay just those people
also I think I am the kind of atheist people hate since I am nihilistic and such.
never have I ever believed I was better than a theist because i'm an atheist. I've only believed myself to be better than ignorant people by being educated and questioning things.
For example;
If Person A opposes X, and many people who oppose X do so because they believe in Y, then you may decide to attack them on Y because it is easy to destroy, and you believe that in destroying Y you have shown opposition to X to be irrational.
Except that Person A has entirely different reasoning behind their opposition to X, and the attack has done nothing but challenge a non-existent opponent...
I call it "An Inference Too Far", and unfortunately, I have in the past been a supporting actor.
In any case, I used to think that the fallacy above was reasonable and logical and that only a fool would claim otherwise. Such was the mind of a brainwashed young Fundamentalist.