Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by sidfaiwu


51. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #98749 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 7:35 am

How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?


I have no idea. But ignorance in no excuse for assuming God did it.

52. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #98747 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 7:31 am

How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?


I generally don't. I leave that up to the professionals.

53. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #98746 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 7:26 am

This is an important question. I think many atheists underestimate just how much most people value a sense of community. In the States, churches are the primary community-building institutions.

As Rational_G "Atheists are loners". Well, many of them are. This attitude may unwittingly be excluding much of the population from giving up their religion. We need to offer some kind of ready community to replace their churches.

For me, that is a Unitarian Universalist church. It's a dogma-free 'religion'.

54. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #97086 by sidfaiwu on December 11, 2007 at 11:37 am

"Some US States still do. Here's one: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm "

Those laws are unconstitutional, and if challenged would be overturned in short order. The Constitution's Establishment Clause forbids laws against blasphemy.


Agreed. I was only commenting on their existence in America.

55. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97083 by sidfaiwu on December 11, 2007 at 11:28 am

Hello HumanisticJones! I haven't seen you around in quite a while. Great comment, by the way.

56. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97046 by sidfaiwu on December 11, 2007 at 10:39 am

The idea of progress in society - of humanity advancing throughout history to higher levels of life - was unknown. This idea of progress is a post-Christian myth.


How can any cosmology that begins with Eden and ends with Armageddon be considered progressive?

57. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96288 by sidfaiwu on December 10, 2007 at 9:56 am

Thanks Ducklike! It's amazing how often religionists get away with that particular equivocation. I can't imagine this sort of reaction being considered normal in other arena of human thought...

"'Vote against Proposition 8' is an attack against me, as any supporter of Proposition 8 should take it as an attack against them."

58. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96235 by sidfaiwu on December 10, 2007 at 7:59 am

"Imagine no religion is an attack against me, as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them," Houser said.


Here we have the typical equivocation of belief and believers that the religious try to use to insulate their faith from criticism. Houser is trying to perpetuate the fallacy that the belief and the believer are equivalent. This is a dangerous mistake.

Calling the critique an 'attack' gives implicit moral permission to retaliate. Worse yet, since Houser considers it an attack on her person, not her beliefs, she would believe herself to be justified in actually attacking a person in retaliation.

In other words, she's saying it's okay to harm a thinking, feeling being if that being 'harms' a non-thinking, non-feeling belief. One might as well equivocate the chopping down of a tree to chopping off of a human head. Such a belief system is morally reprehensible, and should be criticized.

59. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #95038 by sidfaiwu on December 7, 2007 at 7:59 am

[Intelligent Design is] not science; it's philosophy.


Music to my ears! I'm glad some in the religious community recognize ID for what it is. I've always told ID proponents that if they want to be part of the high school curriculum, they certainly can... in a philosophy course. Of course they'd object to just about everything else taught in the course. Just think of it as 'teaching the controversy'.

60. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94648 by sidfaiwu on December 6, 2007 at 6:44 am

You know, as backwards as the U.S. can be in regard to church and state issues - WE DON"T HAVE LAWS AGAINST BLASPHEMY!!!


Some US States still do. Here's one: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm

61. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92440 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Great point, technogogo.

It's easy to forget that not every country has such reliable access to information as we do.

62. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92400 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 12:38 pm

When I just read the headline, " Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher", I thought that it was good. Some Sudanese realize how insane her imprisonment is and are demonstrating. Then I read the first line... "Crowds of people have marched in Sudan's capital Khartoum to call for a tougher sentence for a British teacher imprisoned for insulting religion."

They want a tougher sentence? Tougher?!?! Are they insane? My faith in humanity just took a major blow.

[cry]

63. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92364 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 10:56 am

Hello steve99,

will simply say that I have had some very interesting and effective debates with theists.


I've had many interesting debates with theists, but I can't say any have been effective. In what way were yours effective? I am curious.

64. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92350 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 10:28 am

If you do not like what you saw in the Republican Primary then please help us all by voting in the Republican primary and make sure that the "sky fairy lovers" do not make it through.


Sorry, I live in a State where registered Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary.

Incidentally, this is part of why US politics are so loopy. Since only Republicans vote (and only the hard-core ones in general) in their primaries, they select the most conservative one. That's one reason why all the candidates are trying to out-conservatize one another with all this God-talk.

65. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92337 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 10:10 am

Damn, this guy is funny. The day I saw his first video about a month ago, I watched all of them that day.

66. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92314 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 9:16 am

"On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."


What I'd like to know is what percentage of these believe that the Theory of Evolution is the devil?

67. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90799 by sidfaiwu on November 26, 2007 at 11:54 am

I weep that anyone thinks murder is moral.

68. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90793 by sidfaiwu on November 26, 2007 at 11:35 am

Hello All,

I'm a free thinker living in the Bible Belt of the US. I think onlysky and others are correct. Many freethinkers tend to be such individualists that they fail to recognize the importance and value of community. I'm not sure how it is in other parts of the world, but in America, Churches are pretty much the only institutions around which communities are built, especially for time-strapped parents.

This is the dilemma faced by many freethinkers in this country. Either go to church, or forgo a sustained community. I'd like to see more of these humanitarian community institutions and would probably frequent one myself, if they were available in NC.

Currently, I have to compromise and attend a Unitarian Universalist church. If you can get over some of the religious trappings of the UU church, most congregations are fully accepting of atheists (or the odd deist-agnostic such as myself) among their ranks. They mostly focus on humanitarian ethics anyway, so morally, it's a good fit. Even if you have too roll your eyes or suppress a laugh with the occasional mention of 'faith' and 'spirit', an accepting community can be well worth the effort.

Many of them also offer 'religious education' classes for children and teens. It tends to be of the 'all religions have something of value to offer' variety, at least they teach that no one religion is any better than another. Unfortunately, your kids will have to get their critical thinking skills from elsewhere.

UU church can be a nice stop-gap measure until (and if) these humanitarian communities are more widely available.

69. The joining of church and state

Comment #88932 by sidfaiwu on November 19, 2007 at 7:34 am

Hello hungarianelephant,

I agree with your first point. The test for office is public support, not religious beliefs. The public chooses the criteria, not the Constitution.

I strongly disagree with your second point. Deism definitely had a strong influence on America's founding documents. The best evidence is the wording of the Declaration of Independence, as mentioned in the article. Also, the writing so Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin express very deistic views.

This is not to suggest that Christianity had no influence, because clearly it did. But that influence was not felt in the three founding documents, The Declaration of Independence (3 mentions of God, all using deistic wording), The Articles of Confederation (only mentions religion as a potential cause of conflict), and The Constitution of the United States (mentions religion only in negative terms). The founding fathers who were Christian where wise enough to recognize that the best protection for their religion was a Constitutional protection of all religions, in the form of the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

What Darwin did was to conclusively demonstrate that the appearance of design, even the appearance of complex design, can come about naturally and thus require no designer. At the very least, evolution shows that we must now be weary about concluding a designer from the appearance of design.

70. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86544 by sidfaiwu on November 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm

And people still continue to say we should be gentle with the creationist f**kwits. I say, in their face!


I feel your frustration. Unfortunately, simply getting angry and calling creationists names (that they often deserve to be called) has proven to be counter-productive. It only makes us look spiteful. This is one of those cases where there's a major difference between being right and being effective. Evolutionists need to learn some PR skills if they are going to have any impact on the public's perception.

But as long as we are among nearly exclusively evolutionists...

Stupid, ignorant, creationist, dimwits! It takes heroic efforts of selective blindness to think there is more evidence against evolution than for it! And what the hell is suppressing information supposed to accomplish? They are pretty much saying, "We're ignorant, and we want to make sure you are too!". F--ktards.

There, that felt better.

71. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86459 by sidfaiwu on November 9, 2007 at 9:39 am

The blog post was very interesting. But I wonder how that sort of critique can be translated into something with more wide-spread appeal. Sa Smith's rebuttal may be dead on, but it was well above my head, and the above the heads of many others as well, I'm sure.

I've said it many times before, there is often a difference between being right and being effective. I finally saw a documentary that does a good job of illustrating the pitfalls of only focusing on being right. Check out Flock of Dodos if you're interested.

72. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #84478 by sidfaiwu on November 2, 2007 at 6:08 am

Small correction. Hitler was a vegetarian, in fact a vegan.


That works out since Hitler believed in God. Thanks for the correction, though. I had no idea that a vegan diet leads to Nazism. I'll be sure to eat meat byproducts! ;)

73. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #84134 by sidfaiwu on November 1, 2007 at 9:00 am

I just thought of another response to "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!"

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were also non-vegetarians. Using your (implied) logic, non-vegetarianism is responsible for the worst atrocities of the 20th century. Obviously one cannot be moral as a meat eater.

Since atheism is simply non-theists, you can substitute many, many things for, such as non-homosexual, non-smokers (if, indeed, that's true), non-flat-earthists, etc. I think the real key is that they were non-moral.

74. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83787 by sidfaiwu on October 31, 2007 at 9:34 am

Hello fides_et_ratio,


What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here.


What I find interesting is the much demonstrated obsession with sex, boys, and pedophilia. When talking about NAMBLA it's all that seems to get a mention.

When a group does great harm in the world, it is natural and appropriate to focus on that harm in a effort to reduce or eliminate it. The Catholic Church does great harm in its stance on homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. Thus those topics get the attention.

You already knew that, of course. What you were really trying to do is equate atheism with those controversial topics. It's a pretty weak attempt at equivocation if you ask me.

Not to mention of course the athiest obsession with God.


I think they are simply amazed and despondent that so many otherwise rational people are so thoroughly deluded.

P.S. You may want to edit your spelling of the word 'atheist'. You have the 'i' and the 'e' reversed.

75. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83758 by sidfaiwu on October 31, 2007 at 6:34 am

The Pope told an international conference on Monday that pharmacists should be guaranteed the right to conscientious objection in cases where medicines they distribute can block pregnancy, provoke abortion or assist euthanasia.


I agree with Pope Evil CCLXVII, pharmacists should have the right to object. Similarly, pharmacies should have the right to fire pharmacists that fail to perform the duties of the job and/or turn away paying customers. If you find aspects of a job immoral don't do that job! That's how they should unconscientiously object.

76. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83208 by sidfaiwu on October 29, 2007 at 9:17 am

"What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?"

I don't really know. But not knowing does NOT guarantee that God did it. If evolutionary psychology is incorrect, there could be another natural explanation that we have yet to discover.

Side Note:

I've never done much reading on evolutionary psychology, but it seems to me to be a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, if you'll pardon the American phrase. We know we evolved and we know we have an intuitive moral sense, but have we demonstrated causality? Or are moral psychologists just making up stories that seem to reasonably fit the way we came to be? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks

77. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #81955 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 12:51 pm

And if all were moderates and didn't hurt anybody, then I wouldn't have a problem with religion. But a sizable minority are harmful extremists that vote and shape harmful policies.

78. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #81954 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm

In a sense, it does. Religion was our species' earliest attempts at explaining the unknown. It just happens to be an incredibly bad way of explaining most things. Eventually, we found a much better way to explain things: the scientific method. So even if the roots are religious doesn't mean the roots are better, as kurtdenke points out.

79. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #81950 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 12:46 pm

I've already written an extensive response to this. If you are interested, you can read it here: http://religiousfreaks.com/truth-for-youth/the-christian-states-of-america/

80. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #81949 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 12:43 pm

I'm with Shermer on this one. Religion is both beneficial and harmful, it depends on the which aspects and which interpretation of the sub-sub-sub denomination is being practiced.

On balance, I think religion is bad as commonly practiced in modern times. Debates on this topics tend to consist of both sides marshaling as many anecdotes as possible that support their side. I just don't like the anti-intellectual and authoritarian tendencies of religious belief.

81. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81938 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I've heard that response before, zoltix. I usually just point to the large number of moral atheists in Japan that didn't grow up in a Christian society.

82. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81910 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:33 am

"(Atheism <> Atrocities) & (Religion <> Atrocities)"

Thank you, marshall1. That was the point I was trying to get across in my previous comment.

83. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #81905 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:30 am

Sure it does, CambrianExplosion. As jimbob points out, the catholic church changed its mind about the center of the universe.

84. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #81903 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:27 am

"The Transcendental Argument for God" or "how can rational beings be the result of non-rational forces".

Just as orange can be made from non-orange light, or that a liquid, water, can be made from non-liquid components, hydrogen and oxygen.

85. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81899 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:24 am

"If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold"

As anyone who actually knows me would state that you are obviously wrong.

86. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #81898 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:22 am

"Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions"

Why do planets orbit the sun? Science answered with gravity. QED.

87. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81896 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:20 am

"You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God"

I don't expect a proof for God, but one can collect evidence of love through observation of behavior.

88. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81894 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:16 am

Pascal's Wager cuts all ways. Christians are risking Hell by not declaring, "there is not God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger." just as Muslims are risking Hell by not accepting Jesus as their personal saviors.

There's also the whole, you-can't-force-belief problem.

Also, I love Quine's observation.

89. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #81874 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:31 am

"Arguments Against Evolution"

Let's compare these arguments to the available evidence, shall we?

90. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81872 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:28 am

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"

I would first respond with Voltaire's "A witty saying proves nothing." I would then refer them to my response to "Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims" and compare the number of faith claims of atheism and religion.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1785,Science-and-Religion-BOTH-make-faith-claims,RichardDawkinsnet#81869

91. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #81869 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:22 am

"Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims"

Yep, but let's compare the number of faith-claims made by each:

Science:
1. Inductive reasoning is valid. That is, the past is a good predictor of the future.

Religion:
1. There is a God
2. God is omnipotent
3. God is omniscient
4. God is omnibenevolent
5. God in omnific
6. God cares about Its creation
7. Humans are of particular interest to God
8. In addition to all that we can observe, God created Heaven and Hell
9. God has a list of rules that must be followed
10. That God had one major earthly representative
11. God wrote a book
...
...and on and on and on.

The difference is that Religion is made up almost entirely of faith claims whereas science seeks to reduce the number of faith-claims (we call them 'assumptions' in science) it incorporates and at root, there is only one.

92. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81867 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:12 am

" Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists"

Again, define for me what a religion is and we can go from there. My guess is that any definition that is wide enough to encompass both atheism and, say, Buddhism would be too wide and include things which all would agree are not religions. But let's find out. How do you define religion?

93. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #81861 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:06 am

" Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'"

There are definitely claims of some religions that are in conflict with scientific claims. The age of the earth is an obvious example.

Can they be made compatible? Of course, but in their current states, science and religion are sometimes incompatible.

94. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81859 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:03 am

"You can't be moral without God!"

Yes I can, watch... In other words, I let my actions speak for themselves.

Also, even if this were a legitimate reason to believe in God, it is not a reason to believe in any particular God or religion.

95. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81854 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 9:55 am

" Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!"

Answer what? That wasn't a question. Oh rebut the implication that atheism causes evil. No, people cause evil. This is really the "You can't be moral without God!" argument in disguise.

Now suppose this is an adequate reason for not being an atheists. From this instance, we can formulate a general rule: Hold none of the beliefs that are held by murderous tyrants. Now have their ever been murderous tyrants who where also Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc? There were? Then one should not be religious either. Oh, they weren't true Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.? Then Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc. were not true atheists either.

96. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #81813 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 8:26 am

Science allows the changing of one's mind on the basis of evidence. Does religion offer the same? Honestly, yes, but it takes a long, long time and it is usually a follower, not a leader. Plus it takes generations, usually. In the meantime, it serves as a retardant for real progress.

97. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #81287 by sidfaiwu on October 24, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Then define for me what you mean by 'God'. I can then go on to critique their definition. If they attempt to use this excuse again, I will remind them that we are using their definition of 'God'.

98. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73306 by sidfaiwu on September 24, 2007 at 4:55 pm

@#73214: Good point, drive1. I was quick to judge and slow to think. I do not want to be like my advisories. Thanks for the reminder.

99. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73202 by sidfaiwu on September 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Why would he want to work back there? He should work elsewhere even if they offer to allow him to return.


Even though it may be a bit of a hostile environment for him, he might want to stay on principle. He may desire that the students are not taught dogma by his creationist replacement.

100. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70191 by sidfaiwu on September 14, 2007 at 9:42 am

Hello Dianelos Georgoudis,

I know that "new atheism" books are all bestsellers but I wonder what that says about their quality. McDonalds sells a lot of food too.


As of yet, I have read only one new atheist book, RD's The God Delusion (End of Faith is next on my list). The book is excellently written and a joy to read. I do a lot of non-fiction reading and those qualities are a rare treat. As to the actual content, I think RD did an excellent job at demonstrating that any Ultimate Cause or what have you need not be complex. Unfortunately, he fails to further prove that It must be simple.

The rest of the book isn't exactly 'new' to atheist literature. I'm in the middle of reading Why I Am Not a Christian, a collection of essays by Bertrand Russel and I am surprised how many of the same arguments and reasoning is used in both books.

Those things considered, I'd have to say that the quality of TGD is excellent when it comes to writing style and very good when it comes to content.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next