Atheist Strawmen 1
This was a short conversation in comments on a video made by some atheist YouTuber (I didn't record which one). Another user, @JustMe-wo8lg, responded to a comment I made about that video.
Me : Atheists imagine a god who cannot exist, and then say that proves there is no god. I love the circular reasoning.
@JustMe-wo8lg : No, atheists take the god the theist claims exists. I know the god you think exists could be different than any other god. So if I interacted with you I would ask you what god do YOU believe in and why.
Me : What god I believe in isn't particularly important at this moment. Do you understand what a straw-man argument is? That is what atheist arguments frequently are. Not always, but most of the time. An atheist sets up parameters for god that they claim theists have for god, and then knock them over easily, as if this disproves god. That's what I'm saying. The usual argument against god is that theists believe this or that, and since that's clearly wrong (to them, at least), therefore god doesn't exist. Maybe "circular" isn't the right term, but "straw-man" is more in line with what I'm trying to say. The existence or non-existence of god isn't even approached in these kinds of arguments. And that's what most atheist arguments are. On the other hand, a lot of theist arguments for god are likewise intellectually bankrupt.
@JustMe-wo8lg : That is absolute nonsense. Atheists simply take the position that the theist has not met their burden of proof. So you tell me what you believe and why and then I'll respond to that. And if you don't or won't then I simply have no reason to accept your claim. There is absolutely zero need for the atheist to setup a strawman.
Me : Of course there's a need to set up a straw man -- because the actual question of the existence of God cannot be falsified. And the most brilliant of men do this.
Have you read "Brief Answers to the Big Questions," Stephen Hawking's last book, published posthumously? The first chapter is a well-written, cogent argument against the existence of a Creator. It's quite good, but it takes exactly the tack of setting up a straw man and then easily knocking him over. If you haven't read his book, I recommend it -- it's an excellent read in many respects. But his argument against the existence of a Creator is so easily dismissed that even I, a merely smart man, could see the fundamental error. Note: I did not explain to @JustMe-wo8lg why Hawking's argument was a straw man, as space and time was limited. But here it is: Hawking's Argument Against God is a Straw Man.
Here I am. I am real. I have had personal experiences with God that lead me to be convinced that He exists, that He knows who I am, and loves me (inexplicably, for I am nobody special). I cannot convince you of God's existence using my personal experiences because they happened to me, and I can only tell you of them. On the other hand, you cannot convince me that God does not exist because you cannot convince me that what happened to me did not happen. You weren't there.
So the only thing left to an atheist to prove the non-existence of God, is the non-falsifiable, and the straw man. And all that is left to me is to the non-falsifiable, and the sincere suggestion that you sincerely try connecting with God yourself. It's the only way, unless you trust me enough to just take my word for it. Which I don't necessarily recommend.
I don't recall if @JustMe-wo8lg posted a response. These kinds of "conversations" can sometimes take place over several days, and occasionally weeks. And frequently just peter off into nothingness. I think this one did just that, but I cannot be sure.
