1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167071 by Christian on April 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm

it's just that "how did life come about", and "how did the diversity arise" are different questions.

Indeed. What many creationists don't understand is that to describe the dynamics of a system it is not necessary to know anything about its origin - its existence is wholly sufficient.

2. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158755 by Christian on April 11, 2008 at 2:31 am

Actually looking at the picture shows why the defence that "gott mit uns" (Translation: God With Us) predates the Nazis, doesn't hold a lot of water in "proving" that the Nazis were Atheists:

And this wasn't my intent. I just wanted to correct some common errors.

Keeping the motto "Gott mit uns" on the belt buckle may just have been a tradition thingy but if the Nazis were as atheist as many apologists claim they would have done away with such traditions just like the Bolsheviks in Russia.

All of these things make it rather obvious that the allegation that 'Nazism was an explicitly Atheist movement' is a bold faced lie.

Well, no disagreement from me here. As I said, I just wanted to correct some common mistakes. Even with the facts as they are, i.e. that the Nazis didn't come up with this motto and that the SS used an other motto, the appologist's claim that Nazism was officially atheist isn't supported.
So at least they can't accuse us of distorting the facts to support our case.

BTW, I'm an atheist. 'Christian' just happens to be my name.

Regards
Christian (in name only)

3. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158517 by Christian on April 10, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Follow-up to Christian post. Nazi belt buckle, WWII

http://starpathvisions.com/godmitus.jpg

Yes, that's the Wehrmacht belt buckle.

4. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158495 by Christian on April 10, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Doesn't sound like a godless atheist to me! (...and what was it the SS had on their belt buckles?).

Meine Ehre heisst Treue (my honor is loyalty).


I guess you meant the motto on the belt buckle of the Wehrmacht which predates the Nazi era.

Here is a belt buckle from WW1:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Gott_mit_uns_1WK.jpg/180px-Gott_mit_uns_1WK.jpg">

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149195 by Christian on March 25, 2008 at 8:51 am

You remember when you had to lick stamps in the past...what do you think us aphilatelists did to the stamps to make them taste so bad? You never thought of that did ya? BWHAHAHAHAHA! :)

Hell, no! I never licked them myself. I always found that to be gross. That's why I always made others lick them for me.
Being an amoral aphilatelist myself I have no problem with that and enjoying the distorted faces of the stamp lickers is simply priceless. YARR DEE HARR HARR *hack* *hack* ARrrr

Oy, this dirty laugh is killing me ;)

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149188 by Christian on March 25, 2008 at 8:40 am

There are churches in America that are big on the snake-handling. They have a high turnover in the congregation.

I think someone died recently thanks to a snake bite, and the family threatened to sue the church for allowing it to happen.

Apparently they forgot to keep the snakes in a cool-box so the poor beasties become lethargic ;)

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149178 by Christian on March 25, 2008 at 8:23 am

Dr. Benway said:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot did NOT collect stamps. Their non-stamp collecting lifestyle led them to kill millions.

Usually I keep two or three stamps in my wallet just in case I need them for absolutely mundane reasons.
However, this habit has also come in handy when dealing with stamp collectors. When they accuse me of being one of those evil non-stamp collectors I can alleviate their fears by showing them my wallet. And although they laugh at the few run-of-the-mill stamps in my possession and pity me for my meager collection, they at least don't think I am one of those despicable aphilatelists who are up to no good.

Ahhh, I'm such a weasel...

;^)

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149164 by Christian on March 25, 2008 at 8:00 am

bibanu said:

Ideas/theories have consequences.

Yes, and? What do you propose we do about this? Should we refrain from teaching the Theory of Evolution because of some real or perceived negative consequences even though it is a pretty accurate description of the development of life?
Or do you adhere to that school of thought which maintains that a theory that has negative consequences can't possibly be true?


bibanu said:

Are you sure that Darwin would NOT have agreed with many of the logical consequences of his theories (e.g. superiority of the white race etc)? I am not so sure, though I am afraid that some of you would be ready to die to defend EVERY aspect of Darwin's life (?) :)

Sigh. It seems you are still stuck in religion-mode and just can't get out because what you are attempting here just doesn't work in science.
When religionists try to discredit rival religions or denominations they usually try to tarnish the reputation of their important men (yes, it's mostly men) and the further back in time they lived the better, with the founders being the jackpot. If you can discredit them and show what despicable human beings they were you have practically won.
And this is the reason why many creationists attack Darwin with such verve: they hope that if they can show what a wretched human being Charles D. was, they will land a deadly blow against the hated Theory of Evolution and it will desintegrate like the Wicked Witch of the West.

In science, however, this is immaterial. Charles Darwin was merely the first one to propose a theory on the development of life on earth that got at least the core right (unlike Lamarck and others) with many details and additions being fleshed out later.
So today, Darwin's views are of historical interest only and whatever his personal opinions on the treatment of other races, molesting babies, canibalism or kicking puppies may have been is completely irrelevant to the truth of the ToE.
Scientific theories stand on their own and not on the character of their "founders".

And damnit, when will you get it into your heads that scientific theories are descriptive and not prescriptive.


Regards
Christian

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148857 by Christian on March 24, 2008 at 7:01 am

MPhil said:

The main inventor of national socialist "Rassenlehre" which was taught in every school, at every grade in Germany during the Nazi-reign, was Hans Friedrich Karl Günther, whose major 'works' included "Inheritance or Upbringing". The Rassenlehre stressed inheritance and descendence. The Arians were (according to Günther) descendents of the people of Atlantis. And yes they did believe that change occurred over time. So there is a connection to Darwinism as I said.

But this connection is the same one as to contemporary YECism. Nowadays, YECs accept "Microevolution" or as they call it "variation within kinds".
Now whatever these "kinds" may be, if we accept for the sake of the argument that there are fixed boundaries which cannot be crossed but whithin which change can happen (and quite considerable change, as they are forced to admit), we see that the accusations leveled at the Theory of Evolution (or "Darwinism" as they are fond of calling it) like "survival of the fittest", eugenics or this whole Rassenlehre-shebang, apply just as well to their scenario.

So their claim that "Darwinism leads to Nazism" is just one more bullet in their foot because if one really wants to derive an ought from an is and justify some crude Rassenlehre-codswallop, the parts of "Darwinism" which they do accept are wholly sufficient.

At least I don't see how it is necessary to accept common descent of all life on earth to become a Nazi.

Regards
Christian

10. Honour Killings

Comment #113699 by Christian on January 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

- I stopped reading at this point

Well, I read the whole thing and I as far as I'm concerned it's at least ten times worse than binge drinking.

[...]western education makes a man/woman stupid.

Muslim schools stand as shining beacons of light[...]

Yeah right, in bizarro world maybe. Somehow it has escaped him that the West with its stupid-spreading education has a much higher standard of living than most of the Islamic world with their "beacons of light".
And the state of science in almost all Muslim countries is even worse but I guess that science is just part of the "stupid" in our degenerate western education. "Beacons of light" are where you memorize the Quran while rocking back and forth and that day and night.

11. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96948 by Christian on December 11, 2007 at 6:29 am

In communist regimes, intellectuals were also the main target of the dictators and their parties.

And it shouldn't be forgotten that many of them were also atheists.

On the other hand, most theists were not killed but were allowed to practice their religion, although under certain restrictions (depending on the political conditions).
Also, in most cases these restrictions were less severe than the restrictions non-catholic denominations were subjected to in countries like France or Spain.

12. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96870 by Christian on December 11, 2007 at 3:09 am

Donohue concluded: "Let this be a lesson to militant atheists like Pullman: keep your hollow beliefs to yourself.

Well, 'hollow' is still several orders of magnitude better than 'full of shit'.

And ease up on demonizing Catholicism-no other religion has done more to promote human rights, science and goodwill." [/Orwell]

OK, now it makes more sense.

13. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96860 by Christian on December 11, 2007 at 2:49 am

In terms of evidence of benefit, male circumcision has been associated with a reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis. Robust research has also shown that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV.

I wonder that the fundies haven't seized upon these findings and use them to oppose male circumcision.
It seems they regard the vaccination of girls against HPV as the greater evil.

14. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87585 by Christian on November 12, 2007 at 2:25 pm

So, God is like a senator, you gotta get enough people behind a petition for him to take notice?

Yepp. At least that's the way most people seem to use prayer (and especially prayer requests).

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u232/revenant357/howprayerworksccy6.gif

;^)

15. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74791 by Christian on September 30, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Well, if the Buddhist monks are an example for religion being a force for good then the junta dickheads are the best example that the opposite is true as well.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,508231,00.html" target="_blank">"Burma's Dictators and the Fear of Purgatory"


Oh wait, it seems their religiosity isn't true religion but mere superstition. How conveeenient.

16. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62884 by Christian on August 12, 2007 at 7:47 am

Is he suggesting that we all should believe in something that does not exist because it is the only thing that bonds us all together?

No, I'm afraid not. That would at least be an honest position to take.
It rather seems he wants us to "play nice" and pretend that we believe, that we fake it - or better said, that we engage in some kind of high-minded hypocrisy for the sake of those who really need this belief to behave themselves.

17. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56350 by Christian on July 15, 2007 at 8:08 am

Well, I've always suspected that many religionists do not so much need their god as a supreme lawgiver but rather as a policeman or a parent.

Most of them will concede that certain rules from their holy books still make sense and it's a good idea to follow them even if their god didn't exist but they are afraid that if this deity really does not exist and they become aware of this fact, they won't follow these rules as consistently as before and make more exceptions, be it due to the lure of short-time gain, inertia or similar reasons.

For instance someone may really believe that stealing is wrong but in a situation where he is sure he won't get caught he gives in to the temptation and does it nonetheless. On the other hand he would not have become a thief if he still believed that at least his god is watching him.

An other example would be little Timmy and his mom who always tells him to brush his teeth before he goes to bed. Although Timmy knows what happens if he doesn't brush his teeth on a regular basis he wouldn't do so or at least not quite as often to be effective if not for the constant nagging of his mother. So in a way he needs this "higher authority" as an additional motivator to do something he already knows to be good, albeit inconvenient.

Regards
Christian (in name only ;-)

18. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56141 by Christian on July 14, 2007 at 2:11 am

I really thought Douglas Adams' light switch on a saturday joke was just a satirical exaggeration!

Or not picking your nose on the Sabbath because you may accidentally rip out some hair which is practically the same as cutting your hair and that is verboten on this day.

An other favorite of mine is the rule that married women have to cover their hair. This in and of itself isn't that remarkable since this practice exists in many other cultures/religions as well but orthodox women may do so with a shaitel (wig).
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Yahweh had in mind when he made up that rule.


But be that as it may, I think this is exactly why Judaism persisted for so long (even under persecution) i.e. extreme legalism coupled with an irascible deity with severe OCD.

19. Amazing Meeting 3, 2005

Comment #26103 by Christian on March 16, 2007 at 11:25 pm

christianjb: Christian is my name.

Oh, I see, an other "Christian in name only" ;^)

20. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7734 by Christian on November 19, 2006 at 8:05 am

There is really only one question that needs to be answered:

The reviwer wrote:
"He has no awareness of God as existing entirely outside the universe, whose existence is his essence, and to whose characteristics we can only refer through limited human understanding."

*How* does the reviewer know this? I would be very interested in hearing the answer.