Wikipedia entries are written by the winners, or closed down tue to flame wars. You really think wiki entries are free from the same forces as history books? Seriously?
I take it you have not actually been directly involved in any open source project? Trust me, you go along with the opinion of the founders or you split, just the same as with religion :)
Bogrich55 .....YOUVE BEEN SHEEP DIPPED...... Why are millions world wide turning to a different point of view from MSM lies and party propoganda. Just for one moment go and watch the news , come back and tell evryone that the news is correct and not insane... "1346 views" WOW!! You may be handsome but you have a ugly charactor...Goodluck!
"Why are millions world wide turning to a different point of view from MSM lies and party propoganda. Just for one moment go and watch the news , come back and tell evryone that the news is correct and not insane..." stopthesheepshearing
Uhhh Mary stone the ding dang crows? What in the name of sanity are you talking about?
This is a simple instructional video on the straw man fallacy that is hopefully entertaining as well as informative. What are MSM lies??
"I would just like to add that I think Blogrich55's videos are generally well designed, informative, entertaining and thought provoking." BoneySkylord
The compliment is genuine & comes with all sincerity. I've seen a few of your videos & I do honestly feel they are generally very good.
Unfortunately, you are very wrong on some things, mainly tangential to the primary purpose of your informative videos.
Creationism is an example. I have no problem at all with religious belief, especially if based on personal experience. But creationism is nonsense & has zero credibility. It is a terrible basis for faith.
The first full moon after the spring equinox has, for many thousands of years, been a traditional time for thinking about starting afresh and regenerating.
That's why the crucifixion/resurrection myth got grafted on to it.
So I'm going to move on from this time wasting YouTube trolling.
Thanks Blogrich55 for this recent little exchange. Nothing personal.
Thanks Boney. You tube trolling is not time wasting . It is a noble persuit engaged in by people who dont have a decent pub to go to. Besides, you have to look very hard in England to find any Fundamentalist Christians. Hello America ! thanks for giving us a chuckle (as well as liberating Europe from the Nazis and defeating Communism , inventing all that great music and building my Harley Davidson) Put a flower on Stevie Ray Vaughan`s grave and give John Macarthur the finger for me xxxxxx
One of the delights of being an outside observer of religion is seeing the way all the different sects use straw men to attack each other. Very entertaining.
The biggest and most pernicious of straw men are the ones the lying creationists use for attacking rational research and realism. They even take them into the courts to try to subvert education and close down children's minds.
"They even take them into the courts to try to subvert education and close down children's minds."
BoneySkylord
As was pointed out in Ben Stein's movie EXPELLED it would seem that the evolutionists are the ones doing the discriminating. We are not even allowed to think about an alternative to evolution. Evolution is, by the way, still a theory--all protests to the contrary.
Abiogenesis has not been satisfactorily explained either. The two do seem to go together.
These canards are classic straw men, portraying evolution as being something other than it is so that it can be attacked fallaciously. The user either doesn't understand evolution or does understand and is lying.
See if you can explain each one. Also see if you can spot the extra half straw man that was lurking with these four. Let me know if you need any help.
Let's take these charges one at a time and see if they are really straw man arguments.
1. Evolutionists are discriminatory:
Evolutionist have a monopoly on what is being taught in the public schools due to government control. They do not want the opposing views to be heard.
This is not part of an argument against evolution so hardly qualifies as a straw man or misrepresentation of their position. It is an observation or statement of fact.
Alternatives are not allowed to be taught in the classrooms. How is this statement of fact a straw man argument? It says nothing about evolution one way or the other.
3. Evolution is a theory:
This is a statement of fact. How is it a straw man?
4. Abiogenesis:
This is hardly an argument at all. Just a word. I said it was an unproven theory. I did mention it having a link to evolution. Life can't evolve if it isn't already alive.
2 Valid scientific alternatives to evolution would definitely be taught and considered - if there were any!
Science is driven by people thinking up and then testing alternative explanations for natural phenomena. This includes the ongoing progress in our understanding of how evolution works.
Like all scientists, biologists are actively encouraged to think up & test alternative ideas.
You claim IS a straw man, designed to reinforce the first one.
"You claim IS a straw man, designed to reinforce the first one."' BoneySkylord
No, on the contrary, you obviously fail to understand the nature of a straw man argument. How is my claim that we are no allowed to think about an alternative a strawman of anything??
Your "refutation" is : Valid scientific alternatives to evolution would definitely be taught and considered-if there were any.
OK, here we go. I'm really just repeating myself but I'll try to put it into different words:
The assertion that scientists discriminate against valid alternative viewpoints is simply false. Alternative viewpoints that have gone through the same degree of rigorous testing and peer review are always welcome. That is how real science works. Healthy, sane debate is an essential part of scientific progress.
Claiming such imaginary discrimination and then attacking it IS a straw man argument.
The bias science has against the supernatural is not imaginary. It's insistence on empirical evidence demonstrates its bias and rules God's involvement in the origin of life and the universe out. It is not a straw man argument to point this out.
God is not an object of empirical investigation. He cannot be forced to reveal Himself unless He wants to. He cannopt bee prodded or poked and will not jump into a test tube and change colors like a piece of lithmus paper.
"Ironically, your attempt at misdirection is another straw man!" BoneySkylord
Now WHAT are you talking about? WHAT attempt at misdirection? I reject your addition to the rules and laws of logic you claim is historicla and NOT in the books. That is NOT misdirection.
If I misrepresented evolution as saying Darwin taught men were just advance monkeys or some such nonsense THAT would be a straw man. The idea that God created everything is not science per se. Neither is it to be brushed off.
Sorry, I should never have raised the issue of the earlier use of the term "straw man".
This is an ancient military tactic, still used today - although not with actual men made of straw. Wooden tanks & aeroplanes perhaps, but not straw men.
The phrase "straw man" is no longer widely used in this way & I acknowledge that it has no real relevance in the context of this discussion.
Science is the study of natural events and forces. Therefore it is not bias to say the supernatural is outside of the natural and has nothing to do with science. Nothing in science proves anything about the divine. The divine is simply not a part of science at all. Science is about the natural. The supernatural is outside of the scope of scientific enquiry. Now. No scientific theory, regarding the evolution of life, origins of life, or the orgigins of the universe deny god
Science explains the natual, it explains (or tries to), how things happen, and happened in terms of natural phenomenon that can be measured and recorded and predicted. When will people get it into their heads that science talks about the natural, and restricts it's scope to that. This is not bias, this is simple fact. It is not a bias of boats that they float on water, it is simple fact. The simple fact is, that if God exists, he/she/it is outside of the scope of science.
3 In your original comment you very obviously used the "theory" straw man in the tired old way it is used so often to imply that evolution is somehow less than factual.
This is a particularly fatuous & pernicious straw man. It depends on the reader/listener not knowing the difference between the two distinctly different meanings of the word "theory" that can be applied in this context.
"This is a particularly fatuous & pernicious straw man. It depends on the reader/listener not knowing the difference between the two distinctly different meanings of the word "theory" that can be applied in this context." BoneySkylord
If true, this would be an equivocation and not a straw man.
Mmmmm... perhaps you genuinely don't understand "theory" yourself, in which case this mistake can be forgiven - but just this once!
"Theory" is the highest possible level of scientific proof, just one stop down from pure mathematics. "Theory" is a coherent & internally consistent explanation for a significant body of tested facts.
The creationist straw man pretends that "theory" means nothing more than "imaginative, unproven idea".
4 Abiogenesis is entirely separate from evolution.
As yet, nobody has thought up a fully convincing and testable model for demonstrating how abiogenesis may have occured.
As such, abiogenesis is perhaps more of a red herring. But trying to link it in any way at all with evolution and thereby implying that evolution is equally uncertain IS, very definitely, a straw man.
So there it is. 4 straw men. Thank you for the chance for highlighting such dubious creationist tactics.
"As such, abiogenesis is perhaps more of a red herring. But trying to link it in any way at all with evolution and thereby implying that evolution is equally uncertain IS, very definitely, a straw man." BoneySkylord.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of making a strawman argument. Is this the way you brilliant atheists and agnostics try to win debates?
My point is simple. Nothing could evolve unless it was there to evolve. Not connecting the two at all. LOL
Your exact words were: "Abiogenesis has not been satisfactorily explained either. The two do seem to go together."
YOUR words. Not mine.
The use of "either" is very telling. "...not been satisfactorily explained EITHER." Such a statement is obviously designed to imply that our understanding of how evolution works is also speculative. This is entirely false and is a classic straw man argument.
This is why creationists get laughed at and keep losing in the courts!
If you want to attack any testable theory you have to show first of all that you understand it and that the way you are attacking it makes sense.
To be taken seriously, you need to be able to explain why someone who disagrees with you sees your statements as being straw men. Otherwise you are simply showing that you do not have the breadth of vision to be able to see the overview.
Can you really, genuinely not see your statements for what they are?
"Can you really, genuinely not see your statements for what they are? " BoneySkylord
Or is it that I don't see my statements as you see them or want them to be? Putting words in peoples mouths or twisting them and then accusing them of straw man arguements is no way to win an argument. You assume evolution. Then you use circular reasoning to try to show creationism is false or unreasonable.
1 Opposition to creationism in science class is purely because creationism is not science. Creationism starts with a massive assumption, asserted as truth, then looks for proof.
Creationism belongs in classes on comparative religion, anthropology or history. It has no more place in a science class than French grammar would have in a mathematics class.
There is no "discrimination" against it whatsoever. Stein is a blatant liar and your claim IS a straw man.
Jesus our example never spoke in other tongues in the sea of galilee or anywhere. Neither did he pray the sinners prayer. But he was baptized by John in the river Jordan-Math 3:12-17, he walked 70 miles to do it. Paul was baptized in Jesus name along with the 3,000 at Pentecost as were the samaritans by Philip and some of john's disciples by Paul and the Corinthians. Read it yourself. Faith without works is dead both James ch2 and ! John speak of this as did Mark 16:16.Trust&obey or be straws.
"Paul was baptized in Jesus name along with the 3,000 at Pentecost " luztheloser
How could you POSSIBLY know this? Do you even have a clue as to why Jesus was baptized? Also, in case you didn't notice, this video is NOT about baptism in Jesus' name. Your comments might go better at another video.
Blabroach 55 is correct that people have choice to be saved and Also you recieve the Holy spirit after baptism in Jesus name. The Holy Spirit in form of a Dove came upon him after he came out of the water-Math3:12-17, Rom 6:1-6@Col 2:10-12.Baptism in Jesus name is required-Mark 16:16,Luke 24:45-47,Acts 2:384:10-12,8:12-16,10:36-48,19:1-5,22:16 along with Gal 3:27, 1 peter 3:21 and Col3:17 among many others. The gift of the H.G. with evidence of another language is just that a gift.
"Blabroach 55 is correct that people have choice to be saved and Also you recieve the Holy spirit after baptism in Jesus name."
I don't know where I was supposed to have said this. You might notice that this video is NOT about baptism. If you want to discuss this perhaps you should leave a comment on the baptism video. Just a suggestion. If you want to preach mayibe you should get licensed or ordained by your Apostolic friends.
Okay, I'm guilty as charged. But I hope you see my criticisms are for good not evil. As the Dalai Lama kinda said "We shouldn't abandon our religion for another, we should do our own religion better."
It seems to me that the Oneness Pentecostals are guilty of this fallacy.They are constantly trying to infer that Trinitarians believe in more than one God.
In the video series "United Pentecostals vs Christianity Debate", with Walter Martin and Cal Beisner, Beisner points out many times where his Oneness opponents commit the straw man fallacy.
Trinitarians believe there is only one God and we believe that just as strongly as the Oneness Pentecostals do.
Brother murray says, "I hate it when I see people preach on a subject and condemn it when they're openly committing the very act."
I really have no idea what you are talking about. Where in this video have I committed the fallacy in question. Perhaps you are referring to comments made on other video sites against the Oneness Pentecostal Heresy? Have they quit teaching Jesus is the Father made flesh?
Have they quit heretically teaching the Holy Ghost is just another name for the Father?God bless
You did not employ the strawman fallacy in this video, but you did it several times in our discussion over the weekend. Its called hipocrisy and it is not good fruit.
Brother M says,"You did not employ the strawman fallacy in this video, but you did it several times in our discussion over the weekend. Its called hipocrisy and it is not good fruit."
As I have pointed out on another video site, there are literally DOZENS of small Apostolic groups and I am bound to be charged with the straw man fallacy by someone just for repeating doctrines personally told me by their own preachers.Sorry. Also,in debate, one shows the logical implications of ideas.
You're employing the strawman fallacy right now! This is amazing.
You bring up some 'small Apostolic groups' that you heard of and think it in some way proves your argument. By trying to associate me with someone who I disagree with and don't even know, YOU EMPLOY THE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT! Now you have admitted to doing so on a video in which you condemn it.
Brother Murray says,"You're employing the strawman fallacy right now! This is amazing."
You need to be more specific.Exactly HOW am I employing the straw man fallacy here? As to associating you with other Apostolics,you
miss my point entirely.The purpose of my videos is to defend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.I am not,nor is ANYONE,capable of being totally familiar with every wind of false doctrine held by every splinter of this heretical movement.The Bible alone disproves Oneness theology.
You employ the Strawman fallacy by attributing someone else's beliefs to me.
Its sad that you reject the counsel of God and the ministry of his Apostles. Is your tradition that special? How has your tradition led you in your life? How has it effected your personal relationships? Where has this path taken you? Don't justify yourself. Examine yourself.
Brother Murray says, "You employ the Strawman fallacy by attributing someone else's beliefs to me."
I don't recall attributing anyone else's beliefs to you. As I clearly stated with dozens of small groups various takes on Oneness doctrine abound and there is to be some confussion as to who believes what. You DID almost get quoted on the video I am currently working on when you said, and I quote: "God is not a person He is a Spirit." But since I couldn't find the quote you aren't mentioned. GBU
Brother Murray says, "Its sad that you reject the counsel of God and the ministry of his Apostles. Is your tradition that special? How has your tradition led you in your life? How has it effected your personal relationships? Where has this path taken you? Don't justify yourself. Examine yourself."
Feelings and emotions or personal experience have no place in evaluating doctrine for truth or falsity. The Bible alone is the Word of God. It is our only guide for faith and practice. Learn humility.
Blogrich55, you need Jesus. Humble yourself. Examine yourself. Repent. I have received correction before on the subject of the Godhead and did I stiffen my neck? No. If you're overtaken in a fault, admit it and go to the Bible. Unfortunately, you refuse to admit when you're wrong. You can be caught in the act and you will still deny it. Its called being stiffnecked.
God is a Spirit. Will you accept his person (singular)?
Brother Murray says "Unfortunately, you refuse to admit when you're wrong."
That's because I am right about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The idea that you must be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost is a fairly common belief in the United Pentecostal movement. It doesn't matter if you personally believe it or not.
Please try to remember this site is not about you or dedicated to you or your personal version of Oneness theology. Please quit being insulting or you will be ignored or blocked.
Actually, you don't need to be baptized with water to receive the Holy Ghost. You just presented ANOTHER strawman argument. If you receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism, you should be baptized immediately afterwards (Acts 10:45-48).
Have I been rude? Have I said you know absolutely nothing? No, you have though. I have shown through scripture that your beliefs in several area ranging from the Godhead to eschatology are completely flawed, but I do not consider this as being rude.
"Actually, you don't need to be baptized with water to receive the Holy Ghost. You just presented ANOTHER strawman argument. If you receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism, you should be baptized immediately afterwards (Acts 10:45-48)."
I could actually care less what you PERSONALLY do or do not believe. You are NOT the entire Oneness movement. No one said you believed the idea. I said it was fairly common in that movement and it is.
Completely flawed?That sounds a bit rude or insulting to me.
Brother Murray says, "I thought this was a Biblical debate, not a debate on movements/denominations. I guess I'm on the wrong blog.Blessings and peace in Jesus name"
This particular video is about the straw man fallacy. Of course their is bound to be some overlap between my videos. Yet it seems you came here with false accusations based on things written on a site defending the Holy Trinity.Oneness heresy is the topic of other videos. Movements believe it. The Bible DOESN'T teach it.God Bless
Hi Mate! The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent your opponent's argument or position and then attack the misrepresentation instead of the actual argument. Upon demolishing or defeating the strawman or misrepresentation, you think you have defeated the other person's argument. I used the Scarecrow of Oz because He's a strawman we all know,love and recognize.
It is always easier to destroy a strawman than the real man because it is an oversimplified distortion. Hope this helps. Take care!
Lots of Straw Men have been used to fuel the fires of the enemies of freedom in their attempt to take away our political and religious rights. God bless.
No problem! Have you ever noticed how many times the Straw Man is leveled at trinitarians and Calvinists and just about all theists by the world and cults? God bless.
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Wonderfull Video About Bad Argumentation.
tomkendell 1 year ago
Exodus 5:16
hrogers0369 2 years ago
Comment removed
omgamicarnal 2 years ago
@ omgamicarnal Interesting if true.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
well many Darwin wingers say its not true but noone actually knows so i renounce my statement cuz i dont wana sound like a liar
omgamicarnal 2 years ago
this is interesting! to say the least this isn't what I was looking for but its funny to see the word "strawman" used this way good job!
widowerson 2 years ago
Thanks!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Just because somethings in the history books doesn't make it fact.. History is documented with an agenda
LonzieK 2 years ago 4
Yes it is.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
@LonzieK Not only that - it's written by the "winners" only. (History books arent wikipedia entires subject to peer review)
BiggerThinking1 1 year ago
@BiggerThinking1
Wikipedia entries are written by the winners, or closed down tue to flame wars. You really think wiki entries are free from the same forces as history books? Seriously?
OnTruthCanSetYouFree 11 months ago
@OnTruthCanSetYouFree At least its an open source - not a single biased opinion with agenda.
BiggerThinking1 11 months ago
@BiggerThinking1
I take it you have not actually been directly involved in any open source project? Trust me, you go along with the opinion of the founders or you split, just the same as with religion :)
OnTruthCanSetYouFree 11 months ago
Bogrich55 .....YOUVE BEEN SHEEP DIPPED...... Why are millions world wide turning to a different point of view from MSM lies and party propoganda. Just for one moment go and watch the news , come back and tell evryone that the news is correct and not insane... "1346 views" WOW!! You may be handsome but you have a ugly charactor...Goodluck!
stoptheshearing 2 years ago
"Why are millions world wide turning to a different point of view from MSM lies and party propoganda. Just for one moment go and watch the news , come back and tell evryone that the news is correct and not insane..." stopthesheepshearing
Uhhh Mary stone the ding dang crows? What in the name of sanity are you talking about?
This is a simple instructional video on the straw man fallacy that is hopefully entertaining as well as informative. What are MSM lies??
Why the nasty crack about me?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
straw man :- a reply from a person who has lost an argument to another person
painsey 2 years ago
"straw man :- a reply from a person who has lost an argument to another person " painsey
ROFLOL I assume this comment was a joke.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
no im serious, when i say that gov wants gun control to rule the people i get the reply that im using the straw man argument
painsey 2 years ago
I don't see how that could be a straw man argument. You could be accused of the slippery slope but I dunno.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
well thats was the anti gun nuts say
painsey 2 years ago
I would no more pay attention to them then try to sell hotdogs to PETA.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
lol nice one lol
painsey 2 years ago
Just in case anyone is the least bit interested, the order of my comments has got muddled.
"This is getting tedious..." comes first, followed by "OK, here we go...." then they are in order as numbered.
I would just like to add that I think Blogrich55's videos are generally well designed, informative, entertaining and thought provoking.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"I would just like to add that I think Blogrich55's videos are generally well designed, informative, entertaining and thought provoking." BoneySkylord
Thanks
Blogrich55 2 years ago
The compliment is genuine & comes with all sincerity. I've seen a few of your videos & I do honestly feel they are generally very good.
Unfortunately, you are very wrong on some things, mainly tangential to the primary purpose of your informative videos.
Creationism is an example. I have no problem at all with religious belief, especially if based on personal experience. But creationism is nonsense & has zero credibility. It is a terrible basis for faith.
Good luck with everything.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
By the way, Happy Easter everyone!
The first full moon after the spring equinox has, for many thousands of years, been a traditional time for thinking about starting afresh and regenerating.
That's why the crucifixion/resurrection myth got grafted on to it.
So I'm going to move on from this time wasting YouTube trolling.
Thanks Blogrich55 for this recent little exchange. Nothing personal.
Goodbye. Good luck. May your God go with you.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Thanks Boney. You tube trolling is not time wasting . It is a noble persuit engaged in by people who dont have a decent pub to go to. Besides, you have to look very hard in England to find any Fundamentalist Christians. Hello America ! thanks for giving us a chuckle (as well as liberating Europe from the Nazis and defeating Communism , inventing all that great music and building my Harley Davidson) Put a flower on Stevie Ray Vaughan`s grave and give John Macarthur the finger for me xxxxxx
ilikezappa 2 years ago
Interesting little video.
One of the delights of being an outside observer of religion is seeing the way all the different sects use straw men to attack each other. Very entertaining.
The biggest and most pernicious of straw men are the ones the lying creationists use for attacking rational research and realism. They even take them into the courts to try to subvert education and close down children's minds.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"They even take them into the courts to try to subvert education and close down children's minds."
BoneySkylord
As was pointed out in Ben Stein's movie EXPELLED it would seem that the evolutionists are the ones doing the discriminating. We are not even allowed to think about an alternative to evolution. Evolution is, by the way, still a theory--all protests to the contrary.
Abiogenesis has not been satisfactorily explained either. The two do seem to go together.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
See what I mean, everyone?
Religion, especially creationism, really does close down the mind!
How delightfully ironic. Someone who posts a video about The Straw Man Fallacy uses that very tactic as the first response to a challenge.
Blogrich55's reply to my comment contains FOUR distinct straw men.
Can you see them?
Seeing them or not will give you a measure of whether religion has damaged your insight and understanding.
Good luck. Have fun working it out!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"Blogrich55's reply to my comment contains FOUR distinct straw men.
Can you see them?" BoneySkylord
Would you mind trying to list the suppossed FOUR straw men you accuse me of? You can't because there aren't any. You are welcome to TRY.
Do you even know or understand what a strawman argument is?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"Evolutionists are discriminating"
"Not allowed to think about an alternative"
"Evolution is a theory"
"Abiogenesis"
These canards are classic straw men, portraying evolution as being something other than it is so that it can be attacked fallaciously. The user either doesn't understand evolution or does understand and is lying.
See if you can explain each one. Also see if you can spot the extra half straw man that was lurking with these four. Let me know if you need any help.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Let's take these charges one at a time and see if they are really straw man arguments.
1. Evolutionists are discriminatory:
Evolutionist have a monopoly on what is being taught in the public schools due to government control. They do not want the opposing views to be heard.
This is not part of an argument against evolution so hardly qualifies as a straw man or misrepresentation of their position. It is an observation or statement of fact.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
2. Not allowed to think about an alternative:
Alternatives are not allowed to be taught in the classrooms. How is this statement of fact a straw man argument? It says nothing about evolution one way or the other.
3. Evolution is a theory:
This is a statement of fact. How is it a straw man?
4. Abiogenesis:
This is hardly an argument at all. Just a word. I said it was an unproven theory. I did mention it having a link to evolution. Life can't evolve if it isn't already alive.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
2 Valid scientific alternatives to evolution would definitely be taught and considered - if there were any!
Science is driven by people thinking up and then testing alternative explanations for natural phenomena. This includes the ongoing progress in our understanding of how evolution works.
Like all scientists, biologists are actively encouraged to think up & test alternative ideas.
You claim IS a straw man, designed to reinforce the first one.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"You claim IS a straw man, designed to reinforce the first one."' BoneySkylord
No, on the contrary, you obviously fail to understand the nature of a straw man argument. How is my claim that we are no allowed to think about an alternative a strawman of anything??
Your "refutation" is : Valid scientific alternatives to evolution would definitely be taught and considered-if there were any.
Talk about circular reasoning!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Okaaaay.. Straw man is:
1 A figurine on your battlements so you look better defended than you really are.
Creationists use plenty, eg "hard evidence against evolution". The problem is they only fool their own supporters.
2 Misrepresenting your opponent's position to look fallacious then attacking them according to your own inaccurate definition.
Another creationist favourite, eg the 4 items cited earlier.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
1 A figurine on your battlements so you look better defended than you really are.
What logic book are you getting this from?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
History book, not logic book. It is an earlier concept. The current concept, as in your video, came later.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
OK, here we go. I'm really just repeating myself but I'll try to put it into different words:
The assertion that scientists discriminate against valid alternative viewpoints is simply false. Alternative viewpoints that have gone through the same degree of rigorous testing and peer review are always welcome. That is how real science works. Healthy, sane debate is an essential part of scientific progress.
Claiming such imaginary discrimination and then attacking it IS a straw man argument.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
The bias science has against the supernatural is not imaginary. It's insistence on empirical evidence demonstrates its bias and rules God's involvement in the origin of life and the universe out. It is not a straw man argument to point this out.
God is not an object of empirical investigation. He cannot be forced to reveal Himself unless He wants to. He cannopt bee prodded or poked and will not jump into a test tube and change colors like a piece of lithmus paper.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Interesting point & true to a certain extent.
Science certainly shows very clearly & convincingly that "God" is not needed for explaining the existence of the universe or the complexity within it.
It is still a straw man to claim science "discriminates" when it objects to creationism being taught in schools as if it was an equal.
Ironically, your attempt at misdirection is another straw man!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"Ironically, your attempt at misdirection is another straw man!" BoneySkylord
Now WHAT are you talking about? WHAT attempt at misdirection? I reject your addition to the rules and laws of logic you claim is historicla and NOT in the books. That is NOT misdirection.
If I misrepresented evolution as saying Darwin taught men were just advance monkeys or some such nonsense THAT would be a straw man. The idea that God created everything is not science per se. Neither is it to be brushed off.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Your original words were: "...the evolutionists are the ones doing the discriminating. We are not even allowed to think about an alternative..."
You have now changed this to: "The bias science has against the supernatural is not imaginary"
The first statement is demonstrable nonsense. The second one is true. They are not the same, but you tried to make out that they are.
I see that as being misdirection & a misdefinition of your opponent's statement, aka a straw man.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Sorry, I should never have raised the issue of the earlier use of the term "straw man".
This is an ancient military tactic, still used today - although not with actual men made of straw. Wooden tanks & aeroplanes perhaps, but not straw men.
The phrase "straw man" is no longer widely used in this way & I acknowledge that it has no real relevance in the context of this discussion.
I was just being a bit too pedantic and thorough!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
@Blogrich55
Science is the study of natural events and forces. Therefore it is not bias to say the supernatural is outside of the natural and has nothing to do with science. Nothing in science proves anything about the divine. The divine is simply not a part of science at all. Science is about the natural. The supernatural is outside of the scope of scientific enquiry. Now. No scientific theory, regarding the evolution of life, origins of life, or the orgigins of the universe deny god
OnTruthCanSetYouFree 11 months ago
@Blogrich55
Science explains the natual, it explains (or tries to), how things happen, and happened in terms of natural phenomenon that can be measured and recorded and predicted. When will people get it into their heads that science talks about the natural, and restricts it's scope to that. This is not bias, this is simple fact. It is not a bias of boats that they float on water, it is simple fact. The simple fact is, that if God exists, he/she/it is outside of the scope of science.
OnTruthCanSetYouFree 11 months ago
3 In your original comment you very obviously used the "theory" straw man in the tired old way it is used so often to imply that evolution is somehow less than factual.
This is a particularly fatuous & pernicious straw man. It depends on the reader/listener not knowing the difference between the two distinctly different meanings of the word "theory" that can be applied in this context.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"This is a particularly fatuous & pernicious straw man. It depends on the reader/listener not knowing the difference between the two distinctly different meanings of the word "theory" that can be applied in this context." BoneySkylord
If true, this would be an equivocation and not a straw man.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
3 continued:
Random DNA change is an observable, measurable & testable natural phenomenon.
Natural/sexual selection of the phenotypic expression of such DNA change is also an observable, measurable & testable natural phenomenon.
Our understanding of the geologic timescale is based on observable, measureable & testable natural phenomena.
Suggesting that evolution is "just" a theory & therefore somehow no more valid than creationism IS a straw man.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"Suggesting that evolution is "just" a theory & therefore somehow no more valid than creationism IS a straw man. " BoneySkylord
And suggesting that a theory is really an established fact is a lie no matter how well accepted it is.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Mmmmm... perhaps you genuinely don't understand "theory" yourself, in which case this mistake can be forgiven - but just this once!
"Theory" is the highest possible level of scientific proof, just one stop down from pure mathematics. "Theory" is a coherent & internally consistent explanation for a significant body of tested facts.
The creationist straw man pretends that "theory" means nothing more than "imaginative, unproven idea".
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
4 Abiogenesis is entirely separate from evolution.
As yet, nobody has thought up a fully convincing and testable model for demonstrating how abiogenesis may have occured.
As such, abiogenesis is perhaps more of a red herring. But trying to link it in any way at all with evolution and thereby implying that evolution is equally uncertain IS, very definitely, a straw man.
So there it is. 4 straw men. Thank you for the chance for highlighting such dubious creationist tactics.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"As such, abiogenesis is perhaps more of a red herring. But trying to link it in any way at all with evolution and thereby implying that evolution is equally uncertain IS, very definitely, a straw man." BoneySkylord.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of making a strawman argument. Is this the way you brilliant atheists and agnostics try to win debates?
My point is simple. Nothing could evolve unless it was there to evolve. Not connecting the two at all. LOL
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Your exact words were: "Abiogenesis has not been satisfactorily explained either. The two do seem to go together."
YOUR words. Not mine.
The use of "either" is very telling. "...not been satisfactorily explained EITHER." Such a statement is obviously designed to imply that our understanding of how evolution works is also speculative. This is entirely false and is a classic straw man argument.
This is why creationists get laughed at and keep losing in the courts!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
This is getting tedious.
If you want to attack any testable theory you have to show first of all that you understand it and that the way you are attacking it makes sense.
To be taken seriously, you need to be able to explain why someone who disagrees with you sees your statements as being straw men. Otherwise you are simply showing that you do not have the breadth of vision to be able to see the overview.
Can you really, genuinely not see your statements for what they are?
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
"Can you really, genuinely not see your statements for what they are? " BoneySkylord
Or is it that I don't see my statements as you see them or want them to be? Putting words in peoples mouths or twisting them and then accusing them of straw man arguements is no way to win an argument. You assume evolution. Then you use circular reasoning to try to show creationism is false or unreasonable.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
OK, here we go:
1 Opposition to creationism in science class is purely because creationism is not science. Creationism starts with a massive assumption, asserted as truth, then looks for proof.
Creationism belongs in classes on comparative religion, anthropology or history. It has no more place in a science class than French grammar would have in a mathematics class.
There is no "discrimination" against it whatsoever. Stein is a blatant liar and your claim IS a straw man.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Jesus our example never spoke in other tongues in the sea of galilee or anywhere. Neither did he pray the sinners prayer. But he was baptized by John in the river Jordan-Math 3:12-17, he walked 70 miles to do it. Paul was baptized in Jesus name along with the 3,000 at Pentecost as were the samaritans by Philip and some of john's disciples by Paul and the Corinthians. Read it yourself. Faith without works is dead both James ch2 and ! John speak of this as did Mark 16:16.Trust&obey or be straws.
luztheloser 3 years ago
"Paul was baptized in Jesus name along with the 3,000 at Pentecost " luztheloser
How could you POSSIBLY know this? Do you even have a clue as to why Jesus was baptized? Also, in case you didn't notice, this video is NOT about baptism in Jesus' name. Your comments might go better at another video.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Blabroach 55 is correct that people have choice to be saved and Also you recieve the Holy spirit after baptism in Jesus name. The Holy Spirit in form of a Dove came upon him after he came out of the water-Math3:12-17, Rom 6:1-6@Col 2:10-12.Baptism in Jesus name is required-Mark 16:16,Luke 24:45-47,Acts 2:384:10-12,8:12-16,10:36-48,19:1-5,22:16 along with Gal 3:27, 1 peter 3:21 and Col3:17 among many others. The gift of the H.G. with evidence of another language is just that a gift.
luztheloser 3 years ago
"Blabroach 55 is correct that people have choice to be saved and Also you recieve the Holy spirit after baptism in Jesus name."
I don't know where I was supposed to have said this. You might notice that this video is NOT about baptism. If you want to discuss this perhaps you should leave a comment on the baptism video. Just a suggestion. If you want to preach mayibe you should get licensed or ordained by your Apostolic friends.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Oh no, You mean we Trinitarians don't believe in three Gods? They said we did. I must be so.
troy1387 3 years ago
Cool!
embersmokeman 3 years ago
Glad you liked it!
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Okay, I'm guilty as charged. But I hope you see my criticisms are for good not evil. As the Dalai Lama kinda said "We shouldn't abandon our religion for another, we should do our own religion better."
RudeJesus 3 years ago
It seems to me that the Oneness Pentecostals are guilty of this fallacy.They are constantly trying to infer that Trinitarians believe in more than one God.
In the video series "United Pentecostals vs Christianity Debate", with Walter Martin and Cal Beisner, Beisner points out many times where his Oneness opponents commit the straw man fallacy.
Trinitarians believe there is only one God and we believe that just as strongly as the Oneness Pentecostals do.
lightspeed52 3 years ago
I hate it when I see people preach on a subject and condemn it when they're openly committing the very act.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
Brother murray says, "I hate it when I see people preach on a subject and condemn it when they're openly committing the very act."
I really have no idea what you are talking about. Where in this video have I committed the fallacy in question. Perhaps you are referring to comments made on other video sites against the Oneness Pentecostal Heresy? Have they quit teaching Jesus is the Father made flesh?
Have they quit heretically teaching the Holy Ghost is just another name for the Father?God bless
Blogrich55 3 years ago
You did not employ the strawman fallacy in this video, but you did it several times in our discussion over the weekend. Its called hipocrisy and it is not good fruit.
Repent.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
Brother M says,"You did not employ the strawman fallacy in this video, but you did it several times in our discussion over the weekend. Its called hipocrisy and it is not good fruit."
As I have pointed out on another video site, there are literally DOZENS of small Apostolic groups and I am bound to be charged with the straw man fallacy by someone just for repeating doctrines personally told me by their own preachers.Sorry. Also,in debate, one shows the logical implications of ideas.
God bless.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
You're employing the strawman fallacy right now! This is amazing.
You bring up some 'small Apostolic groups' that you heard of and think it in some way proves your argument. By trying to associate me with someone who I disagree with and don't even know, YOU EMPLOY THE STRAWMAN ARGUMENT! Now you have admitted to doing so on a video in which you condemn it.
You need Jesus.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
Brother Murray says,"You're employing the strawman fallacy right now! This is amazing."
You need to be more specific.Exactly HOW am I employing the straw man fallacy here? As to associating you with other Apostolics,you
miss my point entirely.The purpose of my videos is to defend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.I am not,nor is ANYONE,capable of being totally familiar with every wind of false doctrine held by every splinter of this heretical movement.The Bible alone disproves Oneness theology.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
You employ the Strawman fallacy by attributing someone else's beliefs to me.
Its sad that you reject the counsel of God and the ministry of his Apostles. Is your tradition that special? How has your tradition led you in your life? How has it effected your personal relationships? Where has this path taken you? Don't justify yourself. Examine yourself.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
Brother Murray says, "You employ the Strawman fallacy by attributing someone else's beliefs to me."
I don't recall attributing anyone else's beliefs to you. As I clearly stated with dozens of small groups various takes on Oneness doctrine abound and there is to be some confussion as to who believes what. You DID almost get quoted on the video I am currently working on when you said, and I quote: "God is not a person He is a Spirit." But since I couldn't find the quote you aren't mentioned. GBU
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Brother Murray says, "Its sad that you reject the counsel of God and the ministry of his Apostles. Is your tradition that special? How has your tradition led you in your life? How has it effected your personal relationships? Where has this path taken you? Don't justify yourself. Examine yourself."
Feelings and emotions or personal experience have no place in evaluating doctrine for truth or falsity. The Bible alone is the Word of God. It is our only guide for faith and practice. Learn humility.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Blogrich55, you need Jesus. Humble yourself. Examine yourself. Repent. I have received correction before on the subject of the Godhead and did I stiffen my neck? No. If you're overtaken in a fault, admit it and go to the Bible. Unfortunately, you refuse to admit when you're wrong. You can be caught in the act and you will still deny it. Its called being stiffnecked.
God is a Spirit. Will you accept his person (singular)?
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
Brother Murray says "Unfortunately, you refuse to admit when you're wrong."
That's because I am right about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The idea that you must be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost is a fairly common belief in the United Pentecostal movement. It doesn't matter if you personally believe it or not.
Please try to remember this site is not about you or dedicated to you or your personal version of Oneness theology. Please quit being insulting or you will be ignored or blocked.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Actually, you don't need to be baptized with water to receive the Holy Ghost. You just presented ANOTHER strawman argument. If you receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism, you should be baptized immediately afterwards (Acts 10:45-48).
Have I been rude? Have I said you know absolutely nothing? No, you have though. I have shown through scripture that your beliefs in several area ranging from the Godhead to eschatology are completely flawed, but I do not consider this as being rude.
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
"Actually, you don't need to be baptized with water to receive the Holy Ghost. You just presented ANOTHER strawman argument. If you receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism, you should be baptized immediately afterwards (Acts 10:45-48)."
I could actually care less what you PERSONALLY do or do not believe. You are NOT the entire Oneness movement. No one said you believed the idea. I said it was fairly common in that movement and it is.
Completely flawed?That sounds a bit rude or insulting to me.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
I thought this was a Biblical debate, not a debate on movements/denominations. I guess I'm on the wrong blog.
Blessings and peace in Jesus name
BrotherMurray 3 years ago
Brother Murray says, "I thought this was a Biblical debate, not a debate on movements/denominations. I guess I'm on the wrong blog.Blessings and peace in Jesus name"
This particular video is about the straw man fallacy. Of course their is bound to be some overlap between my videos. Yet it seems you came here with false accusations based on things written on a site defending the Holy Trinity.Oneness heresy is the topic of other videos. Movements believe it. The Bible DOESN'T teach it.God Bless
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Yeah, I've seen it tossed at both sides of any issue...terrible.
Raditz86 3 years ago
I think we've all had it done to us and you're right it is terrible. Thanks for the input.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
I can't tell you how many strawmen that i've got thrown at me.
ApostolicGodsChild 3 years ago
Same here young brother. God bless.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Rich I'm a wizard of Oz fan!(who aint?)
Not quite sure what the straw man reference thing is.
could you give a brief summery....PLZ!
Cheers!
Dave.
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
Hi Mate! The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent your opponent's argument or position and then attack the misrepresentation instead of the actual argument. Upon demolishing or defeating the strawman or misrepresentation, you think you have defeated the other person's argument. I used the Scarecrow of Oz because He's a strawman we all know,love and recognize.
It is always easier to destroy a strawman than the real man because it is an oversimplified distortion. Hope this helps. Take care!
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Cheers mate!
That clarifies that for me!
DaveODrisc 3 years ago
Hey Rich,
How did I become lightspeed53?
lightspeed52 3 years ago
Hey Rich,
How did I become lightspeed53?
Uhhhh? I promoted you from Lightspeed52 ROFLOL
Blogrich55 3 years ago
muy chistoso.
HermanoRicardo336 3 years ago
Thanks Rich
v=j9uNepctKvs
Dawkins fave strawman...
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
Glad to be of service to God's kingdom. I'm afraid I don't get the
v=j9uNepctKvs part though. God bless.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
That's a link to youtube video (they don't let you post full links) look up at the URL and replace the v= part... you'll see.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
Gothcah! Thanks.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Thanks for the eye opener.
freedomalert 3 years ago
Lots of Straw Men have been used to fuel the fires of the enemies of freedom in their attempt to take away our political and religious rights. God bless.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Thanks for this Rich!
Lachance8 3 years ago
No problem! Have you ever noticed how many times the Straw Man is leveled at trinitarians and Calvinists and just about all theists by the world and cults? God bless.
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Awsome. Keep them coming my brother.
Oct31st1517 3 years ago
Thanks brother! The Apostolic gang rides today. God bless.
Blogrich55 3 years ago