Some atheistic arguments against religion are exceedingly simple to dismiss. For example, consider this common argument:

1. It is only rational to believe in something that has been empirically proven.
2. The claims of religion, such as the claim that God exists, are not empirically proven.
3. Therefore, it is irrational to believe in the claims of religions, such as the claim that God exists.

This argument finds its roots in a European philosophical school called Positivism. Contemporary philosophers, however, by and large do not take Positivism seriously and believe it to be a debunked school of thought. Why?

Because point 1 itself has not been empirically proven, i.e., there is no empirical proof that it is only rational to believe in something that has been empirically proven. Therefore point 1 is self-referentially inconsistent and false, and the argument fails.

Even though academic philosophy has long thrown Positivism in the trash bin, you still find laymen and popular personalities, e.g., “new atheists” like Sam Harris, using these types of arguments and appeals to science and empiricism to attack religion. But many of their arguments can’t stand up to simple logical scrutiny.

By Daniel Haqiqatjuo


My own comment on this is ,you have on nairaland some wannabe atheists who can not thread their argument coherently yet mouth off so many in consistencies and we have a band of lazy thinkers who just tag along.

I don't really know why people (both theists and atheists) feel the need to go online and call others out. Though belief can be indoctrinated over time, it's hardly ever forced; calling out one another wouldn't lead to anything. An atheist who feels the need to always call out or criticise religious people isn't different from Christians who go around feeling superior and better than others or Muslims who think it's okay to hurt people in the name of Mohammed. On the other hand, a theist who feels the urge to always prove atheists wrong is most likely just feeling insecure in his own belief. It's understandable if these arguments come in specific scenarios where there's a clash of interests. In that case, the issue at hand would be the focus. Otherwise, I'd say live and let live.

Just an opinion.

You are right etrange all the grammar for what?? If you believe in God fine, if you don't fine! But mostly its the religious folks that keep rubbing on erbody's faces.

etrange:
I don't really know why people (both theists and atheists) feel the need to go online and call other out. Though belief can be indoctrinated over time, it's hardly ever forced; calling out one another wouldn't lead to anything. An atheist who feels the need to always call out or criticise religious people isn't different from Christians who go around feeling superior and better than others or Muslims who think it's okay to hurt people in the name of Mohammed. On the other hand, a theist who feels the urge to always prove atheists wrong is most likely just feeling insecure in his own belief. It's understandable if these arguments come in specific scenarios where there's a clash of interests. In that case, the issue at hand would be the focus. Otherwise, I'd say live and let live.

Just an opinion.

Pseudo strawmaning.