Classical A/theism Debate in New Age Format!

Opponents Creating  Straw Men of Each Other: Watch the Battle!

In this first video, theists commit the straw man fallacy by making fun of atheists. The proponents of theism are also guilty of committing other fallacies of irrelevance with the use of sarcasm, personal attacks and guilt by association.

.

In this second video, atheists respond with a video in which many of the same fallacies are committed. Very entertaining, to say the least! Can you spot the fallacies used?

Keep in mind that what is happening here, as we step back to look at the structure of second the opponent’s argument in relation to the first, is an argument from analogy and a reductio ad absurdum, as well. This means that the second argument has the following structure:

• You say that atheists are evil because this historical figure was an atheist and he was evil. Hence we should not be atheists.
  (Guilt by association!)
• But if that is a good way to argue, then so is this!
  (Analogous argument: Hitler believed in God and Hitler was evil, so we shouldn’t believe in God.)
• But that is a horrible way to argue. It is fallacious.
  (If your argument is good, then so is mine; but mine is really bad, so clearly yours is absurd too!)
• Hence your conclusion must be false.
  (I have reduced your view to absurdity — reductio ad absurdum.)

.

Advertisement