RealAtheism

An Introduction to Atheistic Rhetoric

Atheists who argue against religion often rely on the same small set of rhetorical tricks to mock or “dunk on” believers. These techniques can sound clever at first, but they usually fall apart under closer inspection.

As the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out long ago, rhetoric is not the same thing as dialectic. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking or writing — it’s about influencing people’s emotions and opinions. Dialectic, on the other hand, is the method of logical reasoning that aims at discovering actual truth. Because rhetoric focuses on persuasion rather than strict logic, it doesn’t automatically carry any truth value on its own. A powerful-sounding speech can support a true idea, a false idea, or something in between.

One common tool in rhetoric is something called an enthymeme. You can think of an enthymeme as a “half-syllogism” or a shortened argument. A full syllogism is a complete logical statement like: “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” An enthymeme leaves out one of the parts, assuming the audience will fill it in. The problem is that enthymemes can come from solid, logical arguments — or they can come from weak, flawed, or even completely nonsensical ones. They work by sounding reasonable without always being fully tested.

When you strip away the confident tone and clever phrasing from much of the rhetoric used by vocal atheists, it often turns out to be surprisingly empty and immature. What seems like a sharp takedown frequently relies on shortcuts, unstated assumptions, or emotional appeals rather than strong evidence or careful logic.

This page sets out to catalog and examine the major rhetorical techniques commonly used by these more aggressive, “militant” atheists. By laying them out clearly, we can see how they function and why they are often less impressive than they first appear.