While they are certainly not the only group to do this, it seems, in my experience, that the group who are most likely to commit the straw man fallacy are the atheists. This makes a lot of sense. First, atheism is more about denial than defence of an actual belief. Thus, they are more likely to misrepresent the opposing beliefs. Second, of course, Christianity is a rather solid set of beliefs. It's very difficult to attack it while representing it accurately. Thus, atheists rarely do. Sometimes, this seems to be deliberate, such as the "cosmic Jewish zombie" thing. That one's so dumb that unless you know literally nothing about the Christian faith, you couldn't take it seriously unless you wanted to be ignorant. On the other hand, one can see how an atheist might misunderstand the faith, especially since some Christians do, too.
As easy as it is to make a straw man argument, no one sensible wants to do it. Deliberately misrepresenting an opponent is one of the lowest things you can do in debate. There is one equal and opposite exception. With a straw man argument, the misrepresentation makes your opponent's view or argument look stupid, giving the impression that you have defeated them, but with great ease. By contrast, to steel man an opponent's argument is to make their belief or argument look better than it actually is.
To give an example, let's take Divine Hiddenness. Atheists often argue that belief in God is irrational because no one has ever actually seen Him. A standard response to this is to point out a number of things no one has ever seen that we believe in based on non-visual evidence. Math, love, logic, even the atheist's own brain. Hilariously, many atheists even believe in Evolution, which not only has no one ever seen, no one would live long enough to see it.
Thus, to steel man the argument, we would come up with a number of reasons - or at least one reason - Divide Hiddenness would be a problem for Christianity. Why would we expect to see God? This would cut off the usual escape route. We don't see air because it's invisible, but if an atheist can show God isn't supposed to be, then to compare Him to air is not a valid escape route.
From this, you see how creating a steel man actually makes it harder to respond to your opponent, and actually, if successfully refuted, may make your own case appear stronger. But with the frequency at which atheists straw man Christianity, I believe encouraging them to steel man might have a different effect. Maybe, just maybe, it will help them understand the argument as it actually is. Let's look at three examples.
Cosmological argument
What atheists usually hear: Everything has to have a cause, and that cause is God.
How atheists usually reply: Then what created God?
The Cosmological argument is one of the oldest, and most effective arguments for general Theism. While it does not get us all the way to Christianity, it does establish the necessity of what is often referred to as a "prime mover". An uncaused cause from which all subsequent effects originated. This is a key premise that atheists seriously misunderstand. It isn't that everything has a cause, but that everything that →begins to← exist has a cause.
This presents a problem, because if everything that begins to exist has a cause, yet everything began to exist, then nothing could ultimately begin to exist, as there must be an infinite amount of causes prior to it. Yet, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Thus, somewhere along the line of causes, there must be a cause without a cause. Something which exists, but did not begin to exist.
With this established, we can already rule out a number of contenders. This includes atheistic theories, such as the Big Bang, and lesser gods, such as Horus. Why? Well because these things would have a beginning, and therefore require a cause, meaning if they were a cause, they could not be the cause.
The contrast here is that there was never a time when God did not exist. Even in the very first verse of the Bible, we read "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). The implication here is that when all things began, God was already there. This is but one of many Scriptures which tell us God is eternal.
You see, then, how "what created God?" is a bad response to the real Cosmological argument. The only real response would be to propose an alternative to God. However, in so doing, you would only ever be able to argue that something like God exists, and must have created the universe and everything in it.
Moral argument
What atheists usually hear: Without God, we can't be good people.
How atheists usually reply: I don't need God to tell me to be a good person, and if you do, you're just a bad person with a control mechanism.
Where the cosmological argument deals with the necessity of God's existence, the moral argument deals with one of the implications. It is a fairly effective argument (though it may also backfire) because of its emotional impact, not merely establishing that God must exist, but also that we want Him to.
The key element of the moral argument is the objectivity of moral values. We all know that opinions come in one of two forms: Objective (true regardless of the mind) and subjective (entirely dependent upon the mind). The shape of the Earth is an example of the former. Members of the Flat Earth Society may be found all over the globe, but regardless of their beliefs, the Earth is a globe. Globe Earthers are right, and Flat Earthers are wrong. By contrast, people who prefer chocolate ice cream can also be found all over the globe, yet this is a subjective opinion. Chocolate ice cream is the best to those people, but I prefer lemon. It is the best to me. When it comes to ice cream preferences, no one is right or wrong.
The moral argument contends that moral opinions are in the objective category. It is possible to hold moral views that are either right, or wrong. For example, a lot of people understand that rape is evil, and this is not a mere preference. It's not a case of "I don't like or vanilla ice cream". There is a reality behind the opinion.
The problem the atheist has is that if there is no God, there is no reality behind moral opinions. Morality is not a tangible concept. It isn't like an object, which can be handled or observed. It isn't even like other abstract concepts, like math. What formula can you type into a calculator to reliably figure out the answer to a moral question?
In reality, moral laws most closely resemble legal laws. We cannot determine what is legal or illegal unless there is a functioning government. Where no government exists, there are no laws. Where a government exists, there are. Yet, multiple governments exist, and their laws do not agree. Furthermore, we recognise that though they do not, there are scenarios in which they absolutely should. Thus, not only is it clear that moral laws exist, but we see they must come from somewhere higher even than the governments which enforce them. To put it in a way an atheist might understand, if Christianity is true, the Nazis were the bad guys. If atheism is true, they were just the losers.
The primary drawback of the moral argument is that it can go the other way. Rather than recognising that moral laws exist, and therefore so does the God who gives them, the atheist might cling to their disbelief in God, and thereby discard objective moral values. After all, the atheist is right about one thing: They don't need God to tell them what their opinions are. Therefore, if they think rape is wrong, they don't need God to tell them that. The only real problem they'd have is the awkwardness of understanding that this is therefore only an opinion, and that their opinion is equal to a rapist's.
Ultimately, however, the moral argument is logically sound; you do need some kind of divine power in order to claim a moral opinion is true, not merely for you, but for everyone else. No God = no objective morality, and objective morality = God. In the mean time, Christians have other arguments for God.
Liars make poor martyrs argument
What atheists usually hear: The Apostles died for their faith, that proves Christianity true.
How atheists usually reply: The 9/11 hijackers died for their faith, does that make Islam true?
Unlike the previous two arguments, this is an argument Christianity makes for itself: Witness testimony. Most of Scripture - especially the Gospels - are the first or second hand testimony of witnesses and contemporaries of the events they described.
On its own, testimony is next to worthless. It's possible the witness is telling the truth, but lunacy and lies are also possibilities. Lying, however, becomes increasingly improbable when there is a high risk and low reward for doing so. Although anyone can willingly die for a lie, as did the 9/11 hijackers, few people are going to willingly die for what they know is a lie.
We actually live in a culture that superbly demonstrates this. Our very survival as a species is dependent upon a core truth that we are being aggressively pressured to deny: The fixed gender binary. But many people deny this truth even without the threat of death. For some people, it is better to use a person's "preferred" pronouns than to lose their job, or even their friend.
This shows that people often lack the conviction to stand for even what they believe to be true, if taking that stand results in negative consequences for them. So, why would people willingly risk their lives for what they know is a lie?
This is a key difference between the Apostles and the 9/11 hijackers. In the case of the hijackers, their willingness to die for their beliefs proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that they genuinely believed what they claimed. Their beliefs are lies, but they weren't in a position to know it.
By contrast, the Apostles were in a position to verify their own beliefs. Thomas, for example, had the privilege of handling Jesus' wounds. This is evidence that is not available to me as a Christian today. If my life is ever threatened, I pray I will have the courage to stand by what I believe, but if I am killed for my beliefs, that only proves I believed them. Thomas, by contrast, obviously knew whether or not he had truly seen the Risen Lord. Thus, if he gave such a testimony, and did not recant even under threat of death, that willingness to die means something. Specifically, it means he really believed he had seen the risen Lord.
With the sincerity of the Apostles proven by either their martyrdom, or willingness to become martyrs, the only question that remains is why did these people genuinely believe these things? If it was just one witness, lunacy would be a possibility. However, when multiple people observe, and testify, to the same things, and especially when their testimonies line up so well, that strongly suggests there is a reality behind what they believed. Many have tried to come up with a coherent alternative to the events of the Gospel, but to this day, none can be found.
Conclusion
As you can see, atheistic responses to common arguments depend almost entirely upon misunderstanding, and misrepresenting, those arguments. The real arguments, however, are significantly better than the straw man version. If an atheist truly does not understand the argument, it would be incredibly helpful for them to try to make it better in their own heads, then attempt to respond to that. This strategy - the steel man - would usually be a way of making a debater's case seem stronger. "I can beat an argument twice as strong as the one you gave!" But in cases like the ones shown above, to steel man the straw man might actually result in the atheist discovering the truth, not only by reaching a correct understanding of the argument, but by finding that there is no powerful response. Thus, they may well guide themselves to the truth.
AI usage
AI was used in the following ways for this article:
1. The creation of the armored scarecrow in the header image.