An honest atheistic assessment

Consider what one atheistic philosopher has to say about a fellow philosopher who is also an atheist: ” Instead of grappling with the arguments for and against the existence of God, which every great thinker for at least two millennia has done, he dismisses religious belief on the basis of its origin. Like Freud, he believes that religion is a wish-fulfillment. Theists, he thinks, want a transcendent father, so they create one. God is loving and stern, like an earthly father, but with no imperfections. Belief in an afterlife is rooted in fear of death. …What he doesn’t realize is that everything he says about theism is true of atheism. Theism is belief that God exists. Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is belief that God does not exist. Why should one of these beliefs be disreputable but the other not? If giving a naturalistic explanation of theism calls theism into question, why does giving a naturalistic explanation of atheism not call atheism into question? After all, theists can tell the same sort of story about atheism as atheists tell about theism. Atheists, it might be said, are rebelling against their earthly father. (This would explain why most atheists are men.) …Motives are not reasons. How a belief came about has nothing to do with whether it is true. “

It seems that both the atheist and the theist can use the same sort of fallacious reasoning as such:

1. Your belief that ‘X is true’ is due to some wish fulfillment that you have
2. Hence, your belief that ‘X is true’ is false

Now, substitute anything you want for X whether it be Christianity, Islam, or atheism. You’ll see that this sort of argument is clearly invalid. Quite an honest assessment indeed.