Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Atheist Nonsense Introduction (Part I) - Leprechauns

I have decided to start a new series regarding atheism and its errors due to the fact that my "Atheism is stupid" and "Atheism Dilemma" posts have been extremely popular. This new series will be on specific misconceptions that are often repeated by atheists or those who claim to be an atheist. The first misconception will deal with Leprechauns since today is St. Patrick's day.

Why Leprechauns?

Well, take a look at some of these nonsensical tweets.

Problem With Argument
The persons behind these accounts are trying to equate God with a Leprechaun.  They argue that Leprechauns and God are one in the same: myth.  To an uneducated person who is not well versed in logic, this argument would seem to be very convincing.  However, to one who is educated and well versed in logic, he or she would see that this argument is a False Equivalence fallacy.  A False Equivalence fallacy is when a comparison of two or more subjects is made, attempting to make a logical connection when there is none (Phillips & Bostian, 2014).

Leprechauns are mythical creatures said to reside in Ireland and guard pots filled with gold or gold coins. The word "Leprechaun" comes from "leiprechan" or "Luchrupan." in Gaelic.  They are said to be humanoid fairies of some sort (offspring of an evil spirit and fairy) who guard a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and also make shoes.  The myth of the creature originates from a story from the medieval ages entitled "Adventure of Fergus Son of Leti" (Koch, John T. (2006).

So we see that Leprechauns are nothing but mythological formulations of the human mind since they can be traced to a human author. The attempt to conflate God with Leprechauns is ignorance at best. We cannot say that God is a myth because we do not have an author from which to trace Him to. Some may say that the Bible shows God's original in authorship; however, this argument fails because the concept of God or gods predate any "sacred books" found in any religion or culture. Others may say that the concept of God originated from oral traditions.  This argument also fails as the concept is a universal one that can be found in every culture known, both current and extinct. Interestingly enough, the concept of Leprechauns can only be traced to one region: Ireland.  It is not a universal concept.   Moreover, biologically and psychologically speaking, we are all hard wired to believe in God (Boyer, 2008). This is interesting because we are not hard wired to believe in Leprechauns, Fairies or anything of the like.

Therefore, the idea or suggestion that God and Leprechauns are both comprised of myth is illogical and complete nonsense.  This argument is a False Equivalency fallacy that fails to take into account facts and evidence.  It shows the lethargic cognition that some atheists are capable of engaging in.        


  1. Ellif:
    You've made this argument before, and it still falls flat. A known author isn't a requirement for something to be considered a myth. You've been challenged on this many times when posting your "God is a myth" challenge.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    It is a requirement if we are to know the origin of a story or idea. Do you honestly think historians and the like just sit back a do nothing in regards to researching artifacts, stories, legends and so forth? You clearly are unaware how academia works.

    The concept of God as in the Abrahamic God is not found in every culture current or extinct. It's spread from a very small culture so it's now present in an easy majority of current cultures.
    The concept of a god as a creator, father figure or lawgiver (either monotheistic or polytheistic) is found in a lot of cultures present or past it's true, But your claim it's universal is suspect at best:

    Sacerdotus replies:
    I cannot stress enough that wikipedia itself states that it is not a valid source:

    Moreover, the article does not state that the Abrahamic concept of God is found in every culture. This was inferred by you. In regards to the Pirah culture, if you study them well you will realize that they do not have words for many common things including color. This is common in cultures that live isolated. Some African cultures do not have a word for "cold" or "snow" since they have never experienced these. Moreover, the Pirah people use the word XigagaĆ­ to describe a spirit being that lives in the clouds or above the clouds.

    This is true, although Leprechauns are known of elsewhere after the concept spread from one region. If however you consider the idea of fairies or spirits that concept is found in many cultures past or present. Probably even given god a run for it's money.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    Actually the concepts of fairies and the like only exist in Europe (Northern). You will not find these ideas (to my knowledge) in African, South America etc. However, with "God," this concept can be found everywhere around the globe in different definitions and variations but all with common themes, "creator," "Supreme being," "spirit," etc.

    Your argument there also seems to be comparing the general concept of god with the specific concept of leprechauns rather than the general concept of spirits of faeries.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    There is no general concept of spirits or fairies. Again, you inferred this.

    Ellif:It seems you're engaged in the same " lethargic cognition" that you state atheists are capable of. Although not sure why you mention that. Everyone's likely capable of that.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    Not at all. You see how fast I responded to your misconceptions. The problem is that you love to ignore the facts and infer what is not the article based on your mental filter.

  2. More Google + replies from "atheists" who are afraid to post here and my response to each:

    Romeo Sapien (Google +)
    You presumably live in a closet, then.
    Please inform us of the many cultures around the world which have no concept or tales of either spirits or faeries.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    I touched upon these cultures in the reply in the above comment to Ellif. Had you paid closer attention, you would have noticed.

    Judy Weismonger (Google =)


    Sacerdotus replies:
    This post above already does. Since Leprechauns have their origin in human authorship, then it is proven that they do not exist in the nature world.

    Judy Weismonger


    Sacerdotus replies:
    I have already replied here. If you need to resort to ad hominem then that just tells us that you lack the intellectual capacity to address points made and need to deflect your inability via personal attacks.

    Ellif (Google +)
    Strawman argument on your part.
    It'd accept knowing the author is required to know the origin (although sometimes we have to settle for the a culture and time frame) and I'm sure it's something historians and the like spend a lot of time and effort researching and trying to discover. However that wasn't the point I made, the point I made was that a known author isn't required for something to be a myth.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    You clearly do not understand what a strawman argument is. Clarifying for you how academia works in regards to ancient cultures and their literature or stories does not equate to a strawman argument. Your own comment agrees that "the author is required to know the origin." In light of this, an author has to be known in order to verify that something labeled a myth is truly a myth. I do not understand why you continue doubting this fact.

  3. Ellif
    I'm not using it for academic use. I'm using it a for a quick reference (that has citations) to respond to a post on G+. I know the Abrahamic god isn't found in every culture, that's why I pointed out that the concept of god isn't universal either. The distinction was necessary however to make the later point about specific and general concepts.

    Thank you however for showing that other cultures besides europeans have a concept of spirits.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    Do not use it at all if you want to be taken seriously. It is like citing from Brian Williams on a story regarding Iraq. The concept of God does not have to be Abrahamic, Christian etc. I explained this to you in my previous reply. The idea of God/gods is universal but presented in many differents with common attributes, "creator" etc. Rehashing a comment I already refuted does not refute my response. Moreover, as stated, the culture in question does not have words for many common things. Spirits (ancestors etc) are worshiped in many cultures even today.

    So Native Americans, Aborigines of australia, various tribes, Japan etc have no concept of spirits?

    Sacerdotus replies:
    See my previous comment regarding spirits.

    This is avoiding the issue that you're comparing a general concept to a specific concept.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    What issue? You were the one who made the inference.

    No I didn't see how fast you responded, because you replied to comments posted here on your blog and didn't copy them here or at the very least inform people you'd replied.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    I believe that I informed you a few days ago that I would post replies on the article comment box since you have a phobia of posting on my blog. For further reference, this is what will be done to anyone who comments on my threads on Google + so tell your friends. I will select the comments worth replying to and will tackle them here.

  4. Cheapphilosophy (Google +)
    Ohh, how about the Supernatural Leprechaun?
    Forget about the folkloric interpretation, but focus in the "Real Leprechaun", from whom the mythical leprechauns took their image in the irish tales.
    Gods are local to each culture (the Ra god, the Yahweh god, the Allah god, the Quetzalcoatl god, and so on).
    Mythical anthropomorphic magical beings are a concept found in every culture around the world... Some even considered that their gods had the image and likeness of humans... imagine that!
    Anyway, there is no possible connection between mythical anthropomorphic magical beings in cultures, and anthropomorphic magical beings in religions, because is a "false equivalence fallacy" with no possible connection... because you said so, +Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs

    Sacerdotus replies:
    There is no record (to my knowledge) of a "Supernatural Leprechaun." According to the facts and evidence, this creature exists in the natural world and has its origin in human authorship. Your argument fails because it involves special pleading. In order for your argument to be credible, your claim to the supernatural origin of Leprechauns must be supported using evidence. Moreover, I have already stated that the concept of God is universal and that there are variations regarding how this concept is defined. The connection between God and Leprechauns was made by online atheists, not me. See the Tweets above as evidence. Lastly, you claim religions possess "antropomorphic magical beings" but fail to provide evidence for this. You are appealing to ignorance in doing so which invalidates your argument. In a word, what you have presented is in fact "cheap philosophy" that has no basis in logic or reason.

    Hornet (Google +)
    the leprechaun argument is more than valid, there is as much proof of them as god and you can not disprove them, so why don't you worship them?.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    Are you serious or trolling? There cannot be any evidence for a character in a story other than the words describing the aforementioned in said story.

  5. Samuel Ferraz-Leite (Google +)
    May I cite from the article: "A False Equivalence fallacy is when a comparison of two or more subjects is made, attempting to make a logical connection when there is none (Phillips & Bostian, 2014). - See more at: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2015/03/atheist-nonsense-introduction-part-i.html#sthash.XktQCtTV.dpuf"

    That definition is correct. However, you are only addressing a straw-man (also a logical fallacy). The argument does not equate god with leprachauns. What it does is evaluate whether the disability to prove a negative is in any way meaningful to estabilsh the counter-part positive. In a more elaborate version, it goes somehow like this:

    To demand from someone to disprove god is pointless. Here is why: Let's assume that you want to apply logically

    A: I cannot prove that god does not exist.
    B: God must exist (or in a softened version: it is plausible that god exists).

    The abtract version of this is
    A: I cannot prove object exists
    B: object must exist

    This is not an equivalence, it is an analogy. And that is a usual way of checking whether a logical argument is valid. One example you can give is: object = leprachaun. Certainly, statement A is true for leprachaunes. If I accept conclusion B with object = god, I must (logically) also accept B for object = leprachaun.

    Fact is, most people don't accept the logical argument for leprachauns, unicorns, or anything else - besides maybe god. And to accept a logical argument only for one given object but not all, is a common logical fallacy called "special pleading".

    So, I would say: The logical educated will easily understand how the leprachaun is used (in a mocking way) to expose the following:
    From the disability to prove the non-existence of an object, one cannot conclude anything about it's existence - at least not if you want to stick to logically valid arguments. Which means, the burden of proof (logically) is with the person who wants to establish (logically or otherwise) the existence of god (or leprachauns).

    Final conclusion: If a believer argues that I cannot disprove god, that is a meaningless statement that exposes lack of understanding of valid logical arguments to establish existence of positives.

    Sacerdotus replies:
    Actually the strawman is found in your argument, not my post. The arguments made in the above tweets clearly equate God with Leprechauns. The premise in its raw form is:

    A Leprechauns cannot be proven and are myth
    b God cannot be proven
    C Therefore God is a myth just like Leprechauns.

    Your confusion regarding equivalence and analogy clearly demonstrate how you fell into a strawman. Both are similar, but they are not the same. In a false analogy fallacy, two subjects or two events are presented as similar. A conclusion is based on that similarity. However, in a false equivalence fallacy, an equivalence is presented, not similarity.

    Demanding that someone disprove God when that someone claims God is a myth or does not exist is, in fact, valid. All claims made must be supported by evidence. This is why logical arguments for leprechauns, unicorns and the like do not work. If you can trace these to an origin in human authorship, then you have established their non-existence in the natural world.

    As demonstrated in the post, I showed how Leprechauns clearly do not exist as they find their origin in human authorship. Your argument is based on what is called shifting the burden. This proves problematic for atheists who want to present atheism as a valid and rational position to adhere to.

  6. The imaginary god is your myth, your bogus silliness, your fairy tale, so its up to you to prove your fairy tale is real. We know you cannot do it.

    At least people who are using Leprechauns as a joke in comparison to your imaginary god...just laugh at the entire idea of both Leprechauns and gods.

    Bertrand Russell says there is a tea pot circling Saturn too, and then of course there is the Flying Sphaghetti Monster who has a bunch of worshiping Pastafarians...so, you can pick anyone of these "gods" ...and Ill bet you none of them have websites demanding you believe in them. Only you and the silly xians demand belief in unbelievable and imaginary gods.

    What do you think happens to us if we don't believe in your gods?

    1. You make so many claims here and do not back them up. How do you know God is imaginary? Until you back this claim up, then you cannot use it. It is based on your ignorant observation. We are hardwired to believe in God. Think about this. Why would we evolve to believe in something that is not part of the natural world and is "imaginary" as you claim? Russell's teapot thought experiment is fallacious because he is making an assumption that human culinary technology is out there in outer space. Logically speaking, there cannot be any teapot out in the universe unless we sent it into orbit. These structures do not form naturally. If anyone knows of God and refuses to enter into His love, then he or she has condemned him/herself.


Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (790) God (410) Jesus (351) Atheism (344) Bible (323) Jesus Christ (289) Pope Francis (237) Atheist (229) Liturgy of the Word (198) Science (157) LGBT (147) Christianity (139) Gay (82) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (76) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (56) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Vatican (51) Christian (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (47) Christmas (43) New York City (43) Psychology (43) Holy Eucharist (38) Women (35) Politics (34) Biology (32) Baseball (31) Supreme Court (31) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Health (23) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Theology (21) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Apologetics (19) Death (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Evangelization (18) Child Abuse (17) Donald Trump (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Cognitive Psychology (9) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Hispanics (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)