The"SCARECROW THEOLOGY" of the dishonest Skeptic!

What is Straw- man THEOLOGY :
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument (Can God make a Rock to BIG FOR HIM TO LIFT? ) which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form ( Why would God DO THIS IF HE KNEW... THE ASSUMPTION BEING THAT GOD DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING IF HE DOES THAT THING WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND! ), but is false due to one or more of its premises being false. We know God knows what he's doing ELSE he would not be God,therefore the problem RESTS in our FALLIBILITY AND LACK OF UNDERSTANDING HIS PURPOSES !
The term fallacy is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument ,but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotions or intellectual or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments is one way to reduce the likelihood of such occurrences.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.
These fallacies are used in many forms of modern communication where the intention is to influence behavior and change beliefs. Examples in the mass media today include but are not limited to propaganda, advertisements, politics, and opinion news shows.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. THIS IS JUST WHAT "HERESY HUNTERS" IN THE CHURCH DO AGAINST WHAT "THEY THINK IS NOT ORTHODOX" TO THEIR EXPERIENCE!
Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions,THIS is WHAT PEOPLE DO TO ME IN COMMENTING ON MY BLOGS WHEN THEY DON'T FULLY DEVELOP MY THOUGHTS TO MY ORIGINAL INTENT.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion also known as proof by cases or the brute force method, is a method of mathematical proof in which the statement to be proved is split into a finite number of cases, and each case is proved separately. A proof by exhaustion contains two stages:
A proof that the cases are exhaustive; i.e., that each instance of the statement to be proved matches the conditions of (at least) one of the cases.
A proof of each of the cases.
The real dilemma is that this "straw-man theology" becomes the Lost persons "god for all seasons" being used INSTEAD OF PURE LOGIC OR EVEN COMMON SENSE to face the questions of life,and it becomes a STALE-MATE BETWEEN THEM & GOD over who can answer their questions EXACTLY AS THEY SEE FIT! A straw-man is an object, document, person, or argument that temporarily stands in for and is intended to be "knocked down" by something more substantial. We set up these things because we can't DEAL with real.. in your face issues about ETERNITY so we set up false arguments to defeat, to feel better about our own mis-understandings.
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:
(Surprisingly common). Pro-choice boosters claiming that pro-lifers "want" women to be raped and impregnated, or enslaved in the home, or killed by back-alley procedures.
Hints that a certain candidate "wants" a certain Iraqi dictator to be back in power. That is: If you are against my war which had effect X [which is the one good thing among 1000s of bad things], then you must be against X.
People who want to lower taxes must be against the poor, since the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
People against unions are against the working class. People who hate rap "music" hate black people. People who hate manipulations of the labor supply must hate job-seeking immigrants. Fits the pattern: "Practice X is associated with people Y. If you are against X, then you are against Y." Common, common, common.
Statements of the form, "The greatest president was Cal Coolidge", being refuted by, "Oh, right, so you're against the civil rights movement." The pattern is, "X was not associated with Y, thus if you are for X, then you are against Y."
If you are to make a point then make sure your point is a valid point and not one of these silly arguments with a simple "Straw-man EXIT"for your benefit,it begs for help and reveals ignorance of the subject! THE GAMES SKEPTICS PLAY
by
A.S.A. Jones

I would like to make a distinction between skeptics and rabid, drooling anti-Christian intellectuals. Ordinary skeptics aren't driven to skepticism by a hatred of Christianity. There are many atheists who sincerely don't believe in the existence of god for a variety of reasons. Some have even expressed the desire to believe in that which they honestly can't intellectually accept. When a skeptic, who doesn't have an axe to grind, sees sense in your argument, he will acknowledge it. When an anti-Christian intellectual sees sense in your argument, he'll do anything he can to shut you up, including making threats and following through with them. That said, the term 'Skeptic', as it appears in this essay, refers to the anti-Christian intellectual.

Conversely, there are Christians who desire no real intellectual exchange but who are motivated to 'debate' by the prospect of man-handling their beliefs into their opponent's minds. Throwing scriptures at people who don't believe in God is not only illogical, it is ineffective. Condemning people who don't believe in hell to hell, is not only illogical and ineffective, it's also hypocritical because the Bible has made it very clear that this type of judgment is reserved for God. Just like their skeptic counterparts, Christians, who resort to these tactics, thwart attempts for real understanding to take place. In this manner, the tactics described in the remainder of this essay also apply to Christians fitting the previous description.

When I debated as a skeptic, I had no desire to learn from Christians. My only purpose was to try and show them how illogical and absurd their belief in God was. It didn't matter if their arguments made sense. My arguments made sense, too! I was on a mission to destroy faith in God because I perceived Christianity as a direct threat to my individual rights and freedom. I thought that if enough Christians were elected in our government, it would only be a matter of time before the legal system would make us slaves to the morality of the Judeo-Christian religion. This hokey 'god' was going to infringe upon my rights to screw with other consenting adults outside of marriage! It was going to force women to carry their babies to term! It was going to demand that I wake up every Sunday morning and attend church, and if I refused, no respectable business in town would have me as an employee. I wasn't interested in any TRUTH! If there was even the smallest possibility that truth would interfere with my all out war against Jesus Christ & Company, I did not want to hear it. I wanted to destroy the enemy.

THE ILLUSION OF WINNING A DEBATE
My goal in debate was to make the intelligent Christians look stupid. The stupid Christians didn't need my help, but there were some who were smart enough to be an encouragement to others and this really irked me. Most of the time, I didn't have to find real problems with their arguments; I just found ways to psychologically undermine their audience's confidence in the Christian who was presenting those arguments. While I couldn't dissuade the superior Christian thinker from his well thought out belief, his audience was fair game.

If it is done skillfully, intellectual intimidation and ridicule can generate an uneven psychological playing field. Politeness can be mistaken for submissiveness when it takes place in an atmosphere of subtle (or not so subtle!) condescension and this can then have the effect of making another's argument APPEAR weak, not that it actually is. I created this illusion by taking advantage of the stigma of hypocrisy that Christians try to avoid. Not many Christians were willing to stoop as low as me, but when they did, I quickly lost the psychological edge. When both participants do an equally good job of discrediting the thinking of the other, the audience is forced to examine the argument itself. In light of this, I ask Christians to not be too critical of their brothers or sisters who adopt the 'tit for tat' method of debate. It could very well be that they are not speaking out from mean-spiritedness, but from recognizing the need of an even playing field. Proverbs 26:4-5 states, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Sometimes, an arrogant fool needs to be ridiculed and belittled in order to see how ridiculous and obnoxious he is. Of course, when my opponent would do this, I would jump all over them for being a poor representation of Jesus and I was overjoyed when his own flock would do the same!

The hardcore skeptics know this game of audience manipulation and that's why they post victorious titles to any argument, regardless of outcome. To declare victory is to create the appearance of having actually won. If your newspaper accurately reported the news but slanted the headlines, it could easily deceive the casual browser who didn't take time to read the entire article. Pay no attention to declarations of victory; focus on the actual arguments.

THE ILLUSION OF LOGIC
You may find yourself locked in debate with a skeptic and know that there is something about his argument that doesn't fit, despite his references to logic. In other words, it will sound as if this fellow knows all about logic yet has come up with a conclusion that is completely washed of any common sense. Usually, this person is either being stupid or deceitful.

There's an old adage that states, "You can't kid a kidder." In debate, you can't deceive a deceiver! If you are seriously considering making debate a hobby, I suggest Nicholas Capaldi's "The Art of Deception" as a very good introduction.

THE GAME
The real fun of the game begins at a level where both participants have some knowledge of both subject matter and logic. Mr. Owl shall now prove to you that your God does NOT exist!

*God is 'giving' punishment or wrath in the following arguments:

MR OWL -

1. God is an all-just judge, giving to each exactly what they deserve, no more and no less.

2. God is an all-merciful judge, giving to each less than what they deserve.

3. God can't give to each exactly what they deserve while at the same time giving them less than what they deserve.

4. Therefore, your God violates the law of non-contradiction and can't exist!

EX-SKEPTIC -

I shall now prove to you that my God isn't violating the law of non-contradiction. Note that I did not say that I shall prove that my God exists.

1.The nature of my God is described in the Bible.

2. The Bible never states explicitly or implicitly that my God is an 'all-just judge' or an 'all-merciful' judge.

3. Therefore, the God you have disproved is not my God.

Now you can see how important it is to know your bible inside and out! God is described as both merciful and just but never with the word 'all' attached; there are no scriptures that say things like, "God is an all just-judge all the time". Even if the word 'all' were to be present, this is a common literary device known as a hyperbole and it is used for effect, not accuracy. However, the hyper-analytical skeptic has to forget any college reading skills he may have had and ignore these devices so that he can pretend that the bible doesn't make sense when he encounters such things as metaphor, simile, or hyperbole. This is why I refer to debate as a card trick with words! If there was a statement that defined God as 'all-just', the skeptic tries to enforce a rigid literalism upon the text that will allow him to use logic in demonstrating that such a statement would be to the exclusion of God exhibiting mercy. When the skeptic adds 'all' to the description, he is stacking the deck and then wants you to be astounded when he pulls out all 5 aces. Let's continue with our game:

EX-SKEPTIC -

1. God's nature is described as both just AND merciful.

2. Therefore, God is just to some - that is to say He gives some exactly what they deserve.

3. Therefore, God is merciful to some - that is to say He gives them less than what they deserve.

4. While God can't logically treat the same person at the same time in a manner that contradicts, He can certainly treat different people differently without violating the law of non-contradiction.

MR OWL -

1. God is immutable - the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Therefore, God can't change.

2. Sometimes God acts as a merciful judge.

3. Sometimes God acts as a just judge.

4. Therefore, God changes.

5. Therefore God violates his own property of immutability and cannot exist!

EX-SKEPTIC -

1. God is immutable inasmuch as His NATURE never changes.

2. God's nature is described in the bible as ALTERNATING between being both a just judge and a merciful judge.

3. Therefore, when God acts either mercifully or justly, he is acting according to His nature.

4. If God is acting according to His nature, He is not changing His nature.

A. example

1. Charlie will never change his nature.

2. It is Charlie's nature to be both violent and romantic.

3. Charlie comes home from work, slaps his wife around and then buys her roses.

4. Still the same old Charlie!

Now, if Charlie one day decided to never do violence again, he would indeed be guilty of changing his nature. Likewise, if Charlie never treated his wife in a romantic manner, he would be changing his nature. However, it is Charlie's nature to be BOTH violent and romantic.

I would also like to note that 'immutability' is only mentioned in the bible twice, in Hebrews 6: 17-18, and in no way can it be taken to mean that God's nature prohibits Him from being both merciful and just.

MR. OWL -

These descriptions of your God being an immutable, all-just and all-merciful God come from YOUR theologians!

EX-SKEPTIC -

Frankly, I don't care where these descriptions come from. If they don't describe God in the manner in which the Bible describes Him, I'd say that's a good reason not to listen to these theologians who say such stupid things.

We find that MR. OWL has just constructed a straw man - a bogus representation - and then burned it down. He didn't disprove our God; He created a distortion of our God, slapped the 'Yahweh' label on it, and then disproved the distortion.

MR OWL -

Fine. I didn't disprove your God's existence. I disproved His fairness! Your God is not good!

1. To be just, one must give to another exactly what that individual deserves to get, no more and no less.

2. To be fair, one must treat everyone equally.

3. To be merciful is to give an individual more than what they deserve to get (in reward) or less than what they deserve to get (in punishment).

4. Being merciful is therefore unjust.

5. Unless everyone can be treated with the same degree of mercy or kindness, to be merciful or kind to any one person is to be unfair.

EX-SKEPTIC -

Now we finally get down to opinions of the heart. Mr. Owl seems to think that treating some people with mercy is unfair and therefore not good. This subject is addressed in Matthew 20:1-16, in the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

1. Two people are guilty to the same degree.

2. One person is sentenced justly; he gets exactly what he deserves.

3. The other person is sentenced mercifully; he gets less than what he deserves.

Is this fair? Of course not. Is this good? It all depends on the heart, not the logic in the head of the person making the value decision.

If you were the person who is being judged justly, if you had any love for the other person who was judged mercifully, you would rejoice that this person received a more lenient sentence. If your heart was good, you would see the unfairness but recognize the goodness of the judge out of the love you have for your brother. If you have no love for your brother, you would only see the unfairness and your bitterness over his lenient sentence would cause you to see the mercy in the judgment as bad.

If you are the person who was granted a lenient sentence, if you had any love for the person who was sentenced justly, you may experience guilt over your lighter sentence but even though the judgment was unfair, justice is being served because the other person is getting exactly what they deserve.

Justice without mercy leads a society to brutal self-righteousness. Mercy without justice leads a society to lawlessness. Life isn't supposed to be fair!

As a side note, this encounter with Mr. Owl was based on a real life debate with a professor of philosophy! What does this prove? Well... we've heard the saying, 'Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach.' Let's analyze this in relation to Mr. Owl!

1. Those who can do 'x', do 'x'.

2.Those who cannot do 'x', teach 'x'.

3. Philosophy is a subject that teaches students how to think.

4. Those who can think, don't teach it.

5. Therefore, Mr. Owl, who can't think logically, is attempting to teach children what he himself is incapable of doing.

Is it any wonder our educational system has failed us??? For those of you who will feel inclined to e-mail me on the validity of the first two premises in the above argument, I suggest that you keep your two cents and purchase a sense of humor.

IGNORING CULTURAL CONTEXT
Skeptics enjoy asking questions, but they aren't really interested in hearing answers. They would like to forget that the Bible was written 2000 years ago and in a culture very different from our own because it gives them the advantage in twisting scripture. When a Christian apologist tries to explain biblical passages within their cultural context, skeptics will accuse them of presenting 'couldabeens'. This type of ignorance, and the ludicrousness that follows it, can only be fully appreciated when one is aware of the culture that is being discussed. Take the following, for example:

RABID SKEPTIC: I say, there, Big Gun Apologist. There's a fella I talk to on the Internet who must be stupider than me! He can't even spell worth a lick. Always making mistakes like 'judgement' and 'realise' and 'humour'.

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: It isn't that he's illiterate, RABID. He's probably from England. Those spellings are correct British variations.

RABID SKEPTIC: Oh, yeah, yeah, he MAY be from England but he's still stupid! He tells me he drives his car on the wrong side of the road!

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: Um...In England, the wrong side of the road is the right side of the road...

RABID SKEPTIC: Say what? Now you aren't making any sense at all, ya big Jesus Freak! This fella's a moron! A complete fool! He rides on the roof of the bus for crying out sakes!

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: But Rabid, the buses in England have two tiers. You misunderstood what he was saying.

RABID SKEPTIC: Oh, go on with your ridiculous excuses for him, I still say he's a bigger fool than me!

BIG GUN APOLOGIST: (sigh)

SUMMARY

Debate is a skill, not unlike dancing. Its outcome isn't necessarily based on the strength of one's argument, but the skill of the one who is presenting that argument. More about presentation than a quest for truth, debate becomes a matter of positioning; the participant who knows how to assume the lead, can waltz his opponent across the dance floor. If after a few dances, you find that you are continually tripping over yourself, you may just have to admit that you don't have the grace that it takes to be a good dancer. Your inability to defend your position may not be indicative that your position is indefensible.

Actively participating in debate can provide ample motivation to learn more about the subjects of which we speak. There is nothing more exhilarating than being able to intellectually engage in gunfight and shoot your opponent's argument full of holes. However, all too often, we shoot off our mouths before we have taken the time to load our weapon. Don't get caught with your hammer back and no bullets in your barrel. Do the research and the reading and the thinking first, before you engage yourself in debate.

CONFESSION

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any Christians who may have suffered doubt because of my intentional deceit in playing this game for eight years. I couldn't know what faith in Christ was until I found it for myself. I ask the Kingdom of God to forgive me and I pray that our Lord can take my experience and use it for His good.

THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT...SO, LEARN FROM THIS AND FORGIVE THEM BEFOREHAND!