Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[LadyForCamus]

I have a microscopic leprechaun who lives on the tip of my thumb, and dances the jig all day.  Wait, you don't believe me?  Why not?  Just because you can't see the microscopic leprechaun dancing on my thumb, that doesn't mean he doesn't EXIST!  ...that's because he can't be found through empirical scientific methods. ...can you honestly say that the next logical step in a sane person's train of rational thought is to simply conclude:  my tiny leprechaun MUST certainly be real?

Your leprechaun example is stupid. It’s an obvious category error, the type that only fools fall into and childish contrarians put forth. Questions about being itself cannot be approached in the same way as questions about particular beings. Metaphysical questions are about what people can know about anything that is, regardless of what it is? For example, what do acorns, people, electrons, oil paintings, and numbers have in common with each other.

Maybe you think such inquiries are pointless or just bullshit. You have that right. But you cannot ignore that such stances come at great cost. Ideas about the fundamental nature of reality touch on the most important and consequential issues of life – values, autonomy, and rationality. They inform our social interactions, personal behavior, and private life of the mind. Your positivist stance disqualifies you from entertaining any meaningful thoughts or beliefs about the human condition.

You can't have it both ways Chad. You can't on one hand declare god and metaphysics outside the reaches of empirical science, but then on the other accuse me of not doing my due diligence in investigating the "true nature of being and reality."

(And thank you Cato for explaining my meaning in a more intelligent and succinct fashion than I ever could )

Tell me Chad, if the scientific method is an incorrect investigative tool for such metaphysical matters, how DO you propose we gather this knowledge? Just by thinking really, really hard about it? That is called day dreaming.

God is either knowable or unknowable. He is either in the same category as reality or outside of reality (which is utterly meaningless, in any case).

The only fallacy here is yours in thinking there is any substantial difference between your God and my leprechaun.

We are circling here though, because my main point to you has been this: just because one MIGHT concede that there MIGHT be a possibility that there are objective aspects of reality that modern science cannot as of yet obtain, this by its self is NOT a rational reason to just believe in a creator god. I am asking you to explain how you make this incredible leap in reasoning.

Oh, and by the way, screw you. I am a human being; I experience the human condition as richly as you do. But thanks for your Christian spirit in dismissing the sum and total of my humanity. Shame on you; What Would Jesus Do???

---

Your leprechaun example is stupid. It’s an obvious category error, the type that only fools fall into and childish contrarians put forth.

Your god example is stupid. It’s an obvious category error, the type that only fools fall into and childish contrarians put forth.

Fixed that for you. No thanks necessary.

He must have forgotten to proof read...[emoji41]