Why do creationists largely use only straw-man arguments?

[Aizen]

Once again, this displays simply clinging to the idea of god and not be able to let go. Have you ever thought why would god use such a process when he could just poof it into existence? Accept your fate, there's no fairytale life for the goody goodies, and no endless torment for the baddies.

I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but there is a Heaven and Hell.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there is no heaven nor hell. (I can play this dumb game too!)

[Aizen]

You cannot not say that because you can't prove the supernatural is isn't real, that it is equally valid to believing it is real. Because there is no evidence for it, rational thinkers will choose not to believe it.

That's like arresting me now and accusing me of murdering somebody who I didn't even know, and have no way to prove didn't happen.

Does that make it just as likely that I'm guilty as innocent?

Both sides can't prove of disprove Heaven or Hell. So why are we even talking about it?

You're the one who said "Sorry to burst your bubble but there is a heaven and hell" as if it were a fact. The whole ordeal is your fault enitirely.

[Aizen]

There is, in fact, no warrant for that standard.

Incorrect. I can claim that the flying spaghetti monster exists. Are you insinuating that the burden of proof does not lie with me to prove the existence of said being? In the world of law it is on the shoulders of the prosecution to provide substantial evidence for the guilt of the defendant. Yes, there is very much a warrant for that standard that Pit described.

[Aizen]

 You instead obfuscate, conceding on the one hand that there is no evidence in either direction, while still awkwardly maintaining that the creature's existence is "improbable." The two positions directly contradict one another.

Incorrect. There was no "concession" that there is no evidence in either direction. That was given from the get-go. The claim was that there is no proof in either direction and that the existence of "god" is essentially 50/50. All we did was replace "god" with "flying spaghetti monster". Without the burden of proof being on the one attemtping to prove something the conclusion is that anyone can make any claim and have it be 50/50. The only "contradiction" here is the one you're attemtping to maufacture. Does god and the flying spaghetti monster have an equal chance of existing? That is what you're arguing.

[Aizen]

By the way, I must inform you that your articulation of the English language would benefit from a more parsimonious usage of monolithic words.

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Aizen]

I would like to offer up, to be fair, that many on the scientific atheist side offer up the most easily defeated position possible as being held common amounts most people ho have any kind of belief in a higher power.  Dawkins book, along with being poorly reasoned from his side, is basically just one strawman after another.

So, basically, we have two extremes here, determined to neither understand, nor see the merits of the arguments of the other side, with a vast array of individuals and beliefs occupying the middle...

I might just be tired but... what the hell are you talking about?

Your being a jackass, mainly.

oh

Perhaps I would be aided by knowing what your intent is in asking that question.  What, exactly, don't you get?

just read what you wrote aloud and see for yourself. it's actually quite comical imho.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aside from one spelling mistake, one letter omission, and having accidentally repeated a phase, I really don't see what is so laughable.

The real irony is that by pointing out these errors, rather than attacking my actual argument, you are proving my point.

what was your point again? i was distracted by your errors but i'm ready to listen to you now. let's do this.