Because someone is an atheist, they are inherently detrimental or at least useless to society.

I was watching a speech by Ben Shapiro, who I usually find to be pretty clear and rational of speech.

On the topic of atheism, he said "I don't have many arguments against it, but it's not a helpful or practical way of life. It can't produce any value to society."

To me, that is no different than me saying "I don't have many arguments against the disbelief in Santa, but it's not a helpful or practical way of life". And he is linking someone's lack of belief in a God (s) to their worth to society. I was thinking it was a straw man fallacy, but my friend says differently so I am asking posting it here!

Shapiro is just making an unsupported assertion (or stating an opinion). He's not saying WHY it's not a helpful or practical way of life or can't produce any value to society. So your friend is right in that it is really not a strawman. I would like to see Shapiro form an argument from this, then we can probably find many fallacies.

I hear the argument as such:

Atheism is not helpful
Atheism is not a practical way of life
Therefore Atheism can't produce any value to society.

The problem with this argument is that the premises don't support the conclusion. One could believe in the premises and still not believe the conclusion. There is a bit of false alternative going on here as well. The argument is ultimately claiming that you can either be helpful and live a practical way of life or you can be an atheist, but you can't do both. Finally, there are some definition issues here. What does Ben Shapiro mean when he says "not helpful?" -To what ends? What is he referring to when he says -"a practical way of life." The premises can't be fully examined in relationship to the conclusion until these are clearly defined.

This to me seems an ill-considered slur, and an emotional claim intended to discredit atheism.

There are specific terms for the misleading nature of the claims here, so excuse my ignorance in not applying them.

"

I don't have many arguments against it, but it's not a helpful or practical way of life. It can't produce any value to society."

- 'not helpful.' Atheism does not claim to be able to 'help' with anything. It is simply a personal belief.
- '...practical.' I know of no atheist who claims that the premise of denying or disbelieving in a particular superstition has any 'practical' value. Atheists are exercising their freedom of intellectual choice.
- 'way of life.' It is not 'a way of life.' It does not claim to be. All atheists I've ever met live their lives totally untouched by preoccupation with myths and belief systems.
'produce any value to society.' What? You can apply that argument to professional soccer players. They do not produce any value to society. So what?

The argument strings together a collection of responsibilities and duties that the speaker presupposes an intellectual stance should have. It indicts atheism for 'faults' which are irrelevant. The speaker claims that an intellectual choice should be 'helpful,' 'practical' and 'a way of life.' Since when?

The argument is a series of cheap shots that attempt to discredit something by attributing irrelevant faults to it.