One of the most annoying, and yet common fallacies to encounter in religious debates is the straw man argument. The straw man argument is when one misrepresents either the belief they are arguing against, or an argument their opponent has made, and proceeds to refute the misrepresentation. Until this is exposed, it gives the appearance that the view or argument has been refuted. Sort of like beating up a straw version of a boxer, then claiming to have defeated that boxer.
Atheists are champions when it comes to straw man arguments. For example, they are well known for depicting God as some old man sitting on a cloud, in spite of the fact the Bible rather explicitly states that God is not a man, even forbidding the construction of images of Him. Thus, atheists can often be found asking why no one has ever seen Him? Why, if we can see distant galaxies, can we not find an old man in the sky? As one arrogant astronaut once put it, "I see no God up here." (The snappy response to which would be "take off your helmet and you will").
But the shortcomings of such intellectual laziness go far beyond a complete absence of will to understand one's own opponent. Often, atheists do not even like to build their own straw men. Instead, they like to borrow from others. And they have a wealth of options.
See, while common sense tells you that every religion is different (to the extent where atheists love to point out that they can't all be true), the fact remains that they exist. Therefore, atheists don't even have to make stuff up and pretend Christians believe it, because there are people in this world who genuinely do believe it.
"Imagine no religion", says one meme, prominently displaying the Twin Towers before they were tragically destroyed in a terror attack. The implication? Get rid of all religion, the two towers would still be standing. But there are two main problems with this.
The first is that Christianity is in no way responsible for 9/11. Nor indeed are there any terror attacks that can be reasonably attributed to Christianity, an inherently peaceful religion. If Christianity was the only religion you got rid of, 9/11 would still have happened, and if Islam was the only religion you got rid of, religious war in general would literally be sliced in half. Incidentally, getting rid of atheism would have made the past 200 years significantly less bloody, as atheistic regimes have claimed millions of lives.
So, what that means is it's actually dishonest to just lump all religions in together whenever it's convenient to do so. Representing Christianity as if it was connected to Islam, then refuting Islam and pretending to have refuted Christianity, is the very definition of a straw man argument. I always like to tell atheists that if they want to debate Islam, they should go find a Muslim. Even if they want to debate counterfeit versions of Christianity, they should go find someone who believes that. When you debate me, you're not debating a Muslim. You're not even debating a Catholic. You're debating a faithful, Biblically educated Christian.
But of course, at that point, it becomes obvious why atheists have to attack so many straw men. Whether they build the straw men themselves by portraying God as a man, or borrow straw men by trying to pin the Qur'an on Jesus, the straw men will always be a lot easier to attack than the actual Christian faith.
See, the second problem with suggesting the removal of religion would lead us to some grand utopia is that Christianity is both true, and philosophically solid. The very science by which we invent new things originated with the Christian faith. No Christianity = no science. No science = no advanced architecture, no advanced medicine, no advanced machinery, you'd be lucky to get any technology that wouldn't be seen 500 years ago.
And isn't it ironic that atheists often argue that way? They argue for their atheism based on all the good things science has done, as if Christianity and science are somehow opposites? It's like arguing against the ocean by showing us a fish!
The saddest thing about this whole article is that those I am criticising will almost certainly not read it. Even if they do, they won't take it on board. They won't have some Scrooge moment wherein they realise the error of their ways and change. I'm criticising dishonesty, and dishonesty already knows it's dishonest. Thus, the atheists who do this stuff won't even blink an eye when it is exposed. Instead, they'll sit there cackling like chimps in a farting contest. They don't care.
So why am I writing this article? Because you shouldn't either. Of course, weep for their souls. But don't pursue them. There are times when a Christian is called to kick the dust from our feet, leaving their tragic fates on their own heads. They chose to treat life as a game, so Hell is the prize they win. And who knows? Maybe, by being significantly more mature than them, they might be tempted to pursue you with reason. After all, it's the attention they crave.