Refuting The Irrefutable
The sceptic that wishes to refute the claims of religious fundamentalism not unlike fundamentalism is guilty of objectifying those things that can't be verified, things that have to be taken on faith.
Therefore, the sceptic is taking those things that fall into the category of subjectivity and approaching them as if they were objective.
Nothing To Prove
By doing this, the sceptic is hindering the fundamentalist with an impossible problem, a burden of proof. Given the fact that the fundamentalist has no hopes of ever meeting the sceptic's demands, the sceptic denounces the objects of religion as nothing but rubbish.
While I want to concede, in the objective sense, objects of faith don't exist, I want to admit further objects of faith don't seem to be concrete objects but abstract ideas. In this sense, they do truly exist.
To denounce something as nonexistent, simply because it cannot be proven, is to say the very world of the imagination and accompanying the evolution of the mind is its imagination. The imagination has monumentally influenced the world.
A Force To Be Reckoned With
Fundamentalists allege that the object of their veneration really exists and provides commands that have to be obeyed. One cannot read that claim as mere faith because it intrudes into the realm of reality and causes people to take real actions. There's an enormous difference between a concept and something that affects the real, objective world.
Even though it does not exist among the realms of reality, it by no means doesn't exist; it's been since the start and will be until the end, a significant force by that we should reckon.
