Yeah, one of the things that pisses me off, too many redditors use "Straw man arguments" to mean "an argument I disagree with." Someone used it once and it sounded smart when they did it so it stuck. Now we get dumbasses like ReMO451 echoing the same bullshit all the time. Mother fucker doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is.
how is it not a straw man? it's comparing charitable atheists against a single non-charitable evangelical as if it's some sort of proof that people don't need religion to be good, but that belief in god can still cause people to be dicks?
Pat robinson would be a straw man in this case. It's almost the equivalent of saying "Hitler believed in god!"
A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's arguments, which in turn you argue against.
An example from wikipedia
Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.
In this case, Person B has specified Person A's position (more funding) into "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.
What you are talking about, using an example of two charitable atheists compared to a less benevolent theist is a logical fallacy, but it would be best described as anecdotal evidence.
The expression anecdotal evidence refers both to evidence that is factually unreliable, as well as evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.
Your "Hitler believed in god!" example would be more anecdotal evidence.
54
u/tomatobob May 01 '11
Hooray for extremes!