1. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13129 by c6c6dog on December 15, 2006 at 5:52 pm

I'm afraid this 'challenge' may have the opposite effect of its intended purpose: to make people think critically of a holy trinity. I surmize that the individuals in the video made their assertions after much consideration and thought. I'm glad they took a carthotic step in publicly renouncing what they found to be true--the emperor is indeed not wearing any clothes.

However, and this a very key objection, some of the renunciations were from mere adolesants. I know there are some people, who's comments I cherish dearly on this forum, that champion youth's rights. But a main contention against the indocrination of children in religious superstition is that some--perhaps many--children lack the mental prowess to treat the subject critically.

Perhaps the adolesants responding are of the more questioning manner and not just expressing teen-age rebellion tendencies. But to those infected with true religious fervor, this contest appears nothing more than a cheap gimmick to dupe the more easily swayed sheep from the flock. Hence, it will be villified before ever being contemplated by those it seeks to reach.

2. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #10921 by c6c6dog on December 1, 2006 at 1:59 pm

What an astounding forum, and I'm glad to have stumbled upon it. I have read as much as I quickly could regarding Phil's comments and the rest of the panel's rebukes. I didn't have time to read all comments before responding; however, so forgive me if I offend anyone by rehashing any old and dead arguments.

First, let me come to Phil's defense on a key issue: The immediate dismissal of a Intelligent Design based soley on the logical syllogism that if God truly created, well for lack of a better term, everything; then, who ,for the sake of argument, created him/her. Unfortunately, such a non sequitor argument is too carelessly brandished about to dismiss this important subject. Unfortunately, this simple cogent is too dismissive and therefore, I find, thelogians immediately put on a darker shade of rose glasses and are a little less likely to listen to any other rational arguments. It has the direct opposite effect of it's intended purpose, which is to present well thought rational cogents to the light of scrutiny.

One of Phil's main points: (paraphrased I'm afraid) What can explane Nothingness developing into Existence as we know it? This is a valid question, the heart of the matter really. So let's not answer it with a simple syllogism, please.

Now that I got that out of the way, I do wish to point out that Phil does keep on pointing to several laws of constants in our universe that keep us from hurling away into oblivion. One, he does seem fond of hanging his celestial hat on is gravity. As if this law is somehow a perfect example of a grand plan. It is not a law of matter per say, but a consequence of matter. This attraction of one mass to another mass is more accurately displayed with the following thought experiment: Suppose you took an ordinary bed sheet and you and a partner held it taunt to form a fixed plain which will represent in our little laboratory space/time. Now immagine two objects: a bowling ball and a marble. Let's say that the bowling ball here represents earth, and the marble represents you (not drawn to scale I hope!). Now if we place the bowling ball and the marble on the sheet they will immediately seek each other out.

Does this occurance happen because a supernatural being deemed it so? Too me that seems to be a bit intellectually lazy.

Furthermore, Phil, seems to be enamoured by the complexities of the 90 or so regularly occuring elements in our universe. (Even more so when he starts naming some of—I can only assume—his favorite compounds formed from these elements.) You should probably throw this one out Phil, and fast. The very fact that all of these can be simplified down to the same principle particles, with the help of the cosmos's space and time pressure cooker, only weakens your position. I would be exponentially more inclined to consider your reasoning if these elements were irreducibly complex.

In summary, you're personal evidence of a god lays rooted in our collective gap in complete scientific understanding (or misunderstandings from some of what I have read). Alas, I don't think we'll ever have complete understanding of our universe, but one can strive to discover these mysteries regardless of any consideration for the foundation of your philosophy. In fact, it would only benefit the human race if your belief system has less and less ground to stand on.