You referred this to me a long time ago, and then when I responded to it, I believe it was you who called it a “frustrated rant.” I think you’re right, the whole thing seems like an emotional, mostly irrational outburst against anything religious, but, if there’s something in it that you don’t think is a frustrated rant, please let me know.

I’m afraid you’re off the mark.

Perhaps it helps to know the history of the Griswoldian Catechism. The author known as Heathen Dawn (a guy) went from being an orthodox Jew to atheist to Wiccan. He spent a huge amount of time debating his personal understanding of polytheism on the Internet Infidels forum and the GC is the culmination of a couple of thousands of posts. Rather than being an irrational outburst, it closely resembles a condensed transcript of the actual debates. It is most definitely not directed against religion, but against philosophically materialistic atheism. In other words, he’s one of yours, not one of ours.

What the GC beautifully illustrates is the frustration of apologists running into a philosophically materialistic brick wall. I am perhaps being unkind calling it a rant, though. In any case, what was said in this thread about the supernatural will be echoed in the GC.

The author dropped off the Internet a couple of years ago and I haven’t made any recent attempts to see if he’s returned. It’s a pity he took down his site, because even if you didn’t agree with him, it made for interesting reading and I rarely say this for theist sites.

Well, I would say if the supernatural exists, then the implications for all of our lives are pretty significant.

It’s a big if. We view it as a vanishingly small probability, while you consider it as a strong possibility.

If this universe was created, then it was likely created for a purpose, and we, as intelligent and moral beings, probably have a role in that purpose.

If and likely and probably.

Let’s assume the universe was created. How do you know that it was intentional, that there is a sentient creator, and that the human species is not an impurity in a Petri dish?

You want there to be some deeper meaning. I’m content to exist and make the most of it.

Could nature really orchestrate such a bad and elaborate joke as creating beings that do nothing but look for meaning, when there is none to be found?

No, but human intelligence can orchestrate itself so as to believe that the great dance of the universe as outlined by physical laws has the same sort of monstrously large ego and regard for humanity than humans themselves do. The universe and nature don’t care about you. So if you want things to care about you then you better look to your fellow human beings and yourself, and do right by them, because that’s all there is. Or to follow:

If this universe was created, then it was likely created for a purpose, and we, as intelligent and moral beings, probably have a role in that purpose.

Again, it’s pure ego: What if the universe was created and it had no purpose? What if the universe was created for a purpose that had absolutely nothing to do with you, with humanity as a whole, with intelligent beings anywhere? What if if the universe were designed and we are completely irrelevant?

It’s geocentrism all over again. Christians dont insist that the Earth is physically the center the universe anymore (in public anyway), but they still believe the universe revolves around them.

Very well said, Julian.

WHAT?? The universe does not revolve around Xtians? Say it isn’t so!     

Stumbled over this Wikipedia entry:

methodological naturalism

Naturalism is the view that the scientific method (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat) is the only effective way to investigate reality. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. Some naturalists also insist that a legitimate distinction between supernatural entities and natural entities cannot be properly made (focusing on the conceptual distinction itself), and that when someone is talking or thinking about supernatural entities, they are actually referring to natural entities (though confusedly). Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Perhaps that clears up a few loose threads…

Kirk Cameron is plain terrifying, look at the evil glint in his culty eyes!!!