Atheists don't realize asking for evidence of God is a strawman

[Mister Agenda]

I've already explained the strawman to you many many times. If you still don't get it look at the conversation I had with MA above.

That conversation with me in which you displayed a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes a straw man fallacy?

---

Being a 'religious work' doesn't exempt it from providing evidence for its claims.

This is true. Make a small change and it becomes false:

Being a 'religious work' doesn't exempt it from providing scientific evidence for its claims.

Because guess what either a work has to be a scientific work or it has to claim that it is a scientific work and it can withstand scientific scrutiny in order to subject it to scientific scrutiny.

No, it only needs to contain claims that can be subjected to verification by examining the evidence. Harry Potter does not claim to be a scientific work, but if for some reason you thought the events described were real, you could go about investigating whether there's corroborating evidence. If one of the books said a cargo ship called the Prince Willy docked in London on Sep 14th, 1986; and that it was reported in the London Times because it was carrying an unusual cargo of 18 kangaroos, you could check to see if that story was really in the LT. If you find that it's there, congratulations, you just found evidence that something in Harry Potter novels really happened. And if it didn't you found evidence that one thing in it didn't happen. Either way, you haven't proven anything about the veracity of the rest of the novels. Rowling could pack them full of true facts, and it would have no bearing on whether the fantastical parts are true. And still would not make it a 'scientific work'.

Any work that makes claims can have those claims examined. This rule that 'it has to be a scientific work' seems to be completely made up for this discussion, apparently for the sole purpose of evading the burden of proof.

---

So my argument is this:

* Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

* Bible doesn't claim it's a scientific work nor does it claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

* So if someone asks for scientific evidence for God it also carries a implicit claim that Bible has claimed it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny. This implicit claim is what I called the straw.

1. That's not true.
2. That is true.
3. Since 1 is not true, 3 does not follow.