Strawmanning? Are we no better than the Theists we criticize?

A Wild Strawman Appears! And it's...an Atheist's?

Response/rant to Coughlan's video about inaccuracies taken by atheists in strawmanning opponents.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Response
• Video
• Pat
• Robertson
• Strawman
• Strawmen
• Strawmenning
• Cults
• Atheism
• Theism
• Gurus
• Individuality
• Athiest
• Community
• Logical
• Fallacy
• Lazy
• straightd0pe
• reasons
• for
• atheist
• ebegging
• analysis
• coughlan616
• coughlan000
• devidicus
• thunderf00t
• is
• twat
• debate

[PurpleGhost]

Continued-

Even into the atheist community. We are still products of our environment, even if we fight back against it in most ways, we will still carry refinements of it.

There are some cases where we just aren't better than any other human being, and there are some things that the whole populous just can't "rise above".

Not at least as long as we are still bowing down to power structures in every other aspect of our lives. (governmental/monetary systems)

Continued-

[Devidicus]

@PurpleGhost I completely agree with your point about us being inevitable products of our environment. I think that's an incredibly important fact and it's what makes those of us born in a society extolling religious affiliation particularly vulnerable to a type of follower mentality. It's something I hope to address more in future videos. I also really like you're choice of word "refinements" as what we carry. It really captures well the nuances of the kind of influence I'm referring to.

[VarmitCoyote]

Wow...well said good sir. I couldn't understand you fully at one point or another because of words being cut off, but the overall point definitely got across.

And I agree. In the end, it's a logical fallacy. Anyone who employs them, no matter who they are, how popular, or to what communities they belong, it's still a logical fallacy. And a bad one at that, because it shows a break down in the communication process when engaged in important discourse.

[Devidicus]

@VarmitCoyote Yeah it seemed that in processing the video, post-editing, certain words were chopped off. It's kind of weird, but it's not the first time this has happened to me. Thanks for the kind words nevertheless :)

[unassumption]

Dawkins (and TF, his internet equivalent) are not the pope. They don't claim to be infallible, so it doesn't matter that they're not. They don't ask for a tithe, they don't threaten you with hell or promise heaven. As prominent members of a minority, they will for better or worse be seen as representatives of that minority by the majority. All differences between these guys and preachers, but most important difference is that what they're preaching is true, surely that counts for something?

[unassumption]

...we can't use illogic to spread the use of logic, that's be contradictory. But is it possible to spread the use of logic in such an illogical species, I highly doubt it, it seems the only thing we can do is try and spread atheism and rejection of religion (which is far less valuable than spreading logic, but still worthwhile).

The "atheist gurus want us to worship them" idea seems as much a straw-man and exageration as anything, I hear that logic all the time and it's getting annoying now.

[unassumption]

Emotional arguments seem a much better way of spreading ideas than logic or evidence, but are unlikely to come to truth. Different tactics seem to be needed to spread truth and to come to it. That said the kind of emotional arguments being used (cowering before an exaggerated boogie-man of religion) don't seem very productive. If the goal is to spread the conclusion, that god doesn't exist and religion is phoney, any tactic is open. If the goal is to spread the use of logic though, we can't...

[unassumption]

Atheists are humans too, even the popular ones, and should be judged by human standards. The most important and contraversial thing in Dawkins is his seeming acceptance that it IS ok to be ignorant of the details of a thing you're arguing against. If the details of 'fairy-ology' don't need to be known to reject fairies conclusively and certainly, then studying those details is a waste of time and effort. If an argument isn't as important as it pretends to be, treating it srsly is a red herring

[unassumption]

The Amazing Atheist did a video explaining how insults are not ad hominims, and although anubis2814 has pointed out how such a tone is unlikely to convince, I'd say rhetoric that pretends you intend the absurd or unpalletable consequences they see flowing from your arguments or actions isn't a strawman in any important sense, unless the idea that you intend that is an important part of their argument. You can do whatever you want rhetorically with stuff that's not important for your argument IMO

[unassumption]

I can't speak for them but I'd say they're just using it as rhetoric, to show what they think you might as well be doing / to say something with consequences identical (in their estimation) to what you're doing. I dislike both parties involved here to varying degrees. People are falsely called strawman as often as they are falsely called troll, not saying your using it that way but so many claim any argument from ridicule or consequence is a strawman, if they don't intend all the consequences

[PurpleGhost]

Continued-

I think it is the question of harm: Are the atheist guru's doing as much harm, as the theist ones? I do not think so. But you are welcome to show me the truth if it is of a different colour. (So to speak)

The edgey "us against them mentality" is the only harmful one I see consistently in the atheist community; but being honest, I think that's a human trait, I don't think we can escape that by simply wanting to. We'd have to evaluate each thought. Humans like easy, that ain't easy.

[PurpleGhost]

Potential harm. That's the difference.

Although, I agree with your points, that the atheist "guru"s sometimes seem to be behaving badly, and I notice what you do, that there are atheists using straw-man arguments... but I still think the potential harm is lower. Are there hordes of subscribers lowering themselves by not thinking for themselves? Yes. And there always will be, since fighting to have everyone think is against the current dominant cultures, that pervade even into -

Continued -