"My opponent claims X, but that's ridiculous because A,B,C".
No. Your opponent does not claim X. You are asserting that your opponent claims X when in fact they do not. This misrepresentation is a very effective tool. It's propping up a false position of your opponent (strawman), then making them and their position seem ridiculous by tearing up the false assertion instead of addressing their actual position. It's very disingenuous.
Speaking of disingenuous, that's the single word I would use to describe the recent film, "God's Not Dead". Disingenuous on multiple fronts. The film itself is basically a 2-hour long strawman argument of atheism. The protagonist of the story is a college freshman named Josh Wheaton. Wheaton bravely takes Philosophy 150: Introduction to Philosophical Thought taught by the sinister and evil super atheist, professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo of Hercules fame.)
Every single non-Christian in this film is a terrible person, including Radisson. I have seen numerous (false) Internet memes about mean, bullying, atheist professors who were taken to school by steadfast paradigms of faith Christian students. The most famous one, of course, was an account of Einstein intellectually whipping an atheist professor during his freshman year. A false story, indeed, as Einstein found the idea of a personal, loving, intervening God preposterous. Nonetheless, this film played right into that class of glurge. Radisson's character was an intellectual bully.
In the first three minutes of his first class he proposes to the class that they bypass the portion of the syllabus which discusses God and just all agree that God is a myth. Therefore, simply write "God is Dead" on a piece of paper, sign it, turn it in and you get an automatic credit for 1/3 of the class.
|"There is a god in my class, it's me. And I'm a jealous God."|
On issues like God, morality, ethics, epistemology, the divine, the supernatural, etc. a great deal about how one should properly think can be demonstrated by tackling these subjects regardless of where one falls on the conclusion. In general, philosophers care less about conclusions (God does or doesn't exist), and more about how one properly supports said conclusion. In other words, philosophers care less about what you think and more about why. The why is how we can examine and properly assess philosophical thought.
When Wheaton refuses to sign a statement of non-belief, Radisson tells him he must defend his refusal in front of the class or fail the class. I found the statement of belief upon threat of failure to be particularly dishonest and hypocritical, and every other Christian should feel the same way.
The only universities that require students to sign statements of belief upon threat of failure or expulsion are Christian universities.
Let that sink in for just a moment.
The very practice that the movie adamantly portrays as unfair and bullyish is a common practice among Christian universities. Instead of giving students the tools to arrive at their own answers, they hold a student's good standing with the university hostage. This is a very affront to education.
Aside from this glaring hypocrisy-bomb, the movie featured numerous other story lines. I won't go into all them but they can all be summarized thusly: a really terrible and mean non-Christian picks on Christians and through the resolute faith of the Christian, comes to be saved, or gets cancer, or hit by a car, or both.
I am thoroughly well-versed in the arguments for atheism, and none of them appeared in the movie. Well, not correctly anyway. Every argument for atheism was a pretty bad bastardization for a good argument that was thoroughly deconstructed by a college freshman in ten minutes which culminated in mean, old Professor Radisson running out of his classroom crying. Yes, seriously.
Give me a break.
In short, this movie was disingenuous, dishonest, highly insulting, hypocritical, and was a two-hour long strawman. But hey, at least it had Duck Dynasty in it. Summary: I was embarrassed for this movie. I was embarrassed for everyone who participated in it.