Image 01
profile-image

0xdeadbeef

. .
Offerings (Galatians 6:14)

KDE 3.x Splash Screens by GeeZee 20 comments

First of all, you are right in that I talk about organized religion/christianity. Believe it or not, I have some christian friends, so I'm well aware that the crimes of the church can not be held against an individual christian.

As for Jesus (should he ever have existed), I do not know him personally, so I can only talk about the stories people wrote down about him.

As for the stories, some of them are downright ugly. I don't know how well you like horror stories, but when someone steps out of his grave, visits some old friends and sticks his friend's hand into his own sliced-open side, I for one am off to the lavatory.

The teachings itself (which I guess is what you meant) are somewhat arrogant and naive - which is quite hard to do simultaneously. What bothers me most is the "make everyone a follower" stuff, which is also the greates design error in christianity. "Love your next as you love yourself" is, like communism, not a bad idea in itself, but it only works when everybody does it. Given the egoistic nature of man, this is not possible, so the whole thing cannot work. And, as history showed, it didn't. - Jun 26 2004
Offerings (Galatians 6:14)

KDE 3.x Splash Screens by GeeZee 20 comments

The nazis were not the first to suppress and kill jews, and most of ther perverted ideas were in fact based on old church laws. For example, the fourth lateran council ruled that jews had to wear special clothes so that erring could not be used as an apology when a christian mated with a jew, which is pretty much the same thing the nurnberg laws stated. Thomas of Acquin stated that the church owned everything a jew had because jews were slaves of the church. Martin Luther...well, I guess you'd better read that for yourself, I can't summarize the horror appropriately. Let's just say he made very graphic descriptions of what one should do with jews. And what's more - the catholic church was very ok with the nazis. After the nazis occupied Czechoslovakia, pope Pius XII said he loved germany even more, and expressed his wish that Hitler would win the war.

There's lots more, and I haven't even started on witches and cathars and heretics and turks and *insert group here*. The church is directly responsible for an approximated 35 million dead people. That's about 70000 years of global terrorism, only that the church had less sophisticated technology, more cruel manners and didn't need that much time. - Jun 25 2004
Offerings (Galatians 6:14)

KDE 3.x Splash Screens by GeeZee 20 comments

Have you ever wondered about what offends people, and how to find out? If borderline porn is ok with most people but christianity is not, this should give you something to think about.

And - face it - christianity is offending in nature. All these zombie stories about jesus are quite revolting in my opinion, as is the history of the christian church. Offending people itself is not a bad thing, but burning them definitely crosses the line. What would you do if some nazi came around, spreading his ideology like the third Reich had never killed 6 million jews? If you kept your mouth shut, I pity you. - Jun 24 2004
Offerings (Psalms 23:1 & 4)

KDE 3.x Splash Screens by GeeZee 4 comments

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but even if I was a horse, I wouldn't drink water out of a sewer.

Let me lead you to the water I drink - it has no fantastic stories in it, so you won't need to swallow stuff like a guy surviving a week inside a whale's stomach, water->wine transformation and at least one zombie. - Jun 23 2004
Hackers film like gui

Karamba & Superkaramba by Shift88it 9 comments

Not the thing that I would use, but it's definitely way cool. Weird yet cool movie, btw. - Feb 08 2004
Jeremiah 27:5

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 23 comments

He made us, therefore he has ownership rights to our lives and what we do.

Does that mean AMD owns my processor and every program it runs? - Feb 07 2004
Don't Hide the Light! (Matt. 5:14,15)

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 21 comments

Exactly what I'm trying to say over and over again. Thank you. - Jan 28 2004
Don't Hide the Light! (Matt. 5:14,15)

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 21 comments

Be careful. Last time I said this, someone called me - quote - "one of the most jackass I've come across". Besides, you don't expect him to listen, do you? I mean, evolution of the coke can? *hint, hint* - Jan 28 2004
Sons of God (Romans 8:14)

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 31 comments

I quote myself:

I thank the admins of this site to not censor any stuff, although this allows for religious spam as well as borderline porn as well as political propaganda. Those are negative side effects that come with freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it has negative side effects just like everything else. Take a look at the Ku-Klux-Clan for example - if that's not a negative side effect, then I don't know what is. - Jan 23 2004
Sons of God (Romans 8:14)

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 31 comments

This site is called kde-look, not gimp-look. As far as I know, the gimp has no relation to KDE whatsoever. So, making pictures with the gimp is neither necessary nor does it make pictures appropriate for this site.

As for KDE - Tim Brown has not made any pictures related to KDE until now. There are two that feature Tux, but they are obviously not meant to promote Linux, either. What he tries to propagate is his faith, nothing more.

This is besides the point, however. I thank the admins of this site to not censor any stuff, although this allows for religious spam as well as borderline porn as well as political propaganda. Those are negative side effects that come with freedom of speech. However, the voting system - as I understand it, again - is there so users of this site can decide what they want to see. At this moment, only one of Tim Browns wallpapers is at 50%, most of the others are under the 40% treshold, a great many of them even below 30%. Can't you take a hint? - Jan 22 2004
Sons of God (Romans 8:14)

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 31 comments

I would not rely on download statistics. Previews are often too small to allow judgement on the picture, so people may just download the picture although they afterwards decide they don't like it, - Jan 22 2004
God So Loved

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 34 comments

I asked him simply if he's an admin for the site; he had been acting as if he were the "submission police".

Of course, the complicated part is because an honest answer will reveal he is just another user like you or me...and he'd have less "weight" to throw around.
-----
The problem was that you demanded 'simply' yes or no as an answer, trying to prevent me from explaining myself. The part that apparently was too complicated for you to see was that it does not really matter whether I am or am not a kde-look admin, just as it doesn't matter whether you own the church when someone runs in and sacrifices a virgin in front of your nose.

Basing the reliability of the scriptures on archaeology is not circular reasoning.
-----
You have not presented archeological evidence that the bible was true. Parts of it, admitted, but not the important ones. I am ready to accept that Luke's gospels names some cities and kings accurately. But so does 'eye of the needle', which is still a fictious novel. Maybe you'd got this if you'd read what I wrote. To put it accurately: In a set of logical expressions a_0, ..., a_n where a_1, ..., a_m | m < n are true, it does not follow that a_(m+1), ..., a_n are true as well. The 'circular logics' comment were in other contexts.

Also, your "oral history" argument doesn't make it...40 years certainly allows for eyewitnesses to be alive...
-----
After 40 years, Mark's gospel was written. Luke's was about 50-60 years after Jesus allegedly died. Now calculate - Assuming Mark was an eye-witness (an apostle, if he is to tell the whole story accurately) and met Jesus at the age of, say, 20. They run around for three years, Mark travels around for 40 years telling the story, answering questions, making up answers for little enerving kids that nowadays would tell the Santa at the mall he wasn't real and so on. After that, he is 63 years old. That is a very respectable age for anyone in that age, especially when you've led a life on the road. Let us assume he still lived and was able to write, and suffered no illnesses, then 40 years is still a very long time, especially when you spent them telling the story in a way that was meant to convince people that Jesus was the son of god. Take Luke now - he would have been well in his seventies, if not eighties - ages that were rarely reached in those times, especially when you take that life-on-the-road thing into account. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I dare call it improbable.
As for second hand-witnesses, that makes the reader a third-hand witness. Let there be a misunderstanding. The eye-witness reports 'Yeah, we were about 4000 people, and Jesus was feeding these guys with 7 breads and 2 fishes, if I recall correctly' and Luke understands 'Jesus fed 4000 people with 7 breads and 2 fishes'. Also, an eye-witness would have been pretty young when the actual event occured and pretty old when it was written down. I don't have unlimited confidence that he would remember correctly. And then there is always the possibility that Jesus was a fraud who tricked the people around him.

besides, you are presuming that *nothing was written*.
-----
By whom? The apostles are the only ones who knew the whole story, and most of them were fishermen. Not everybody could read back then, let alone write.

So, what's your excuse now? Why'd ya click on this one???
-----
Do I need an excuse? I was bored, mainly. And then, when I read your genuinely stupid comments, I couldn't hold my horses. Maybe I should know better than to fight fire with fire. Call it human weakness. - Jan 21 2004
God So Loved

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 34 comments

I'll just answer all three of your posts here. I will not answer the 'you slippery bastard' accusations, however, since that would amount to nothing. If you call me 'slippery' because I won't give simple answers to complicated questions, then so be it. And no, I still will not give simple answers to complicated questions. I hope that settles that.

1 in 10 followed by 19 zeroes. Pretty slim to start with. and that is only for 10 of the 300.
Where did you get that number, and how was it calculated? One of the funny things about probability is that you can't put an exact figure on it. Probability depends on the preconditions one is willing to accept.
Anyway, this is a minor matter. I agree that this resurrection thingy is very improbable. My point of view is that it did not happen, not that it was probable.

You are making a truth claim about the "innaccuracy" of scripture. Prove it.
There is a difference between inaccuracy and unreliability. Anyway, in a discussion about whether the bible is accurate, it is futile to assume that it is. Circular logic proves nothing. That is why in this discussion we cannot rely on the bible.
As for my general claim, you have to prove the reliability, not the other way around. The concept of reliability dictates that - otherwise I could make some wild claims about invisible aliens infiltrating the UN and hold my claims reliable until they have been disproven. As for the inaccuracy - well, you asked for it. The bible contradicts itself on general occasions. There are two genesises, for example, with a slightly different schedule. Depending on which gospel you read, Jesus was born either in Bethlehem or in Nazareth, and similar stuff.

THe pharisees sought to kill Jesus at least in part for that reason...he was touching their bubble!
(...)
What's your point?
My point is that the pharisees trying to kill Jesus does not prove he was the son of god. The whole crucification thing proves precisely nothing.

And of course, you ignore the secular historical records of those who wrote of Christ...
Josephus Flavius reports the execution of 'Jacobus, brother of Jesus who was called "Christus"' in the Testimonium Flavonium, that is the one secular source I know that is partially held to be reliable. This particular paragraph is also believed to be unaltered by most historians. Keep in mind that history books were frequently censored, copied and...completed...by christian monks during the middle ages - other parts of the TF as we know it are held to be obvious forgeries. Ask a historian about it, if you don't believe me. As Josephus Flavius was born years after Jesus allegedly died, his testimony does not prove anything, though.
There are also some other things that throw doubt on jesus. For example - why did he never write anything himself? Surely the son of god would know how to write?

Don't get me wrong. I cannot disprove that Jesus existed, and I even think there probably was a troublesome wandering priest who got himself in deep trouble, but that's about it. It is important to keep in mind that there are serious doubts about even that.

As far as 'christians' abandoning their faith, the Scriptures are plain that that true converts do not do so.
And you have the nerve to call me slippery? I might as well say that someone who converts from atheism to christianity never really was an atheist, because he always latently believed that there was something.

30 years of research is giving up 'very easily'?
Settling for names of places, kings and the like is 'giving up very easily'. If that took him thirty years, it's either a demonstration of thoroughness or incompetence, neither of which has anything to do with the accuracy of Luke's gospel.

True science involves repeated testing and observation...the scientific method per Francis Bacon (who, by the way, was a follower of Jesus Christ).
That is one method of science. It is also called 'experimental physics'. It is not the only kind of science. Understanding, for example, is a far more important part of it. Science is ultimately founded on mathematics.

Ironic. You will allow someone to do all these things for no useful purpose...at their own ultimate loss...but you won't allow it to be an indicator that Jesus was Who He said He was!
Sigh. Again, you don't understand. Even if Jesus fulfilled all your precious prophecies according to the bible (I remember one that took a lot of tweaking to make Jesus fit in - the messiah was meant to free the jewish people, and I guess there is more of them), that does not mean it really happened. The bible says that the bible is true, true. But that does not prove the bible true. Circular logic - you should get a grip on that one. Let us, for a moment, assume Jesus existed and died in 33 AD. The first gospel was not to be written for another 40 years. Forty years of oral history. Do you have any idea of what this can do to a story? Back when I was 17, there was an occasion when it took rumors two days to evolve from me and a girl kissing to me having a threesome with two girls. Now, imagine how a story can change in forty years. - Jan 20 2004
God So Loved

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 34 comments

Oh, come on. First of all, the probability that one given person fulfills those prophecies may be very little, but as there are a whole lot of persons, the chance that someone will fulfill them is a lot greater. Second of all, I dare you to name 300 prophecies Jesus allegedly fulfilled. Third of all, the bible is not a reliable source for historic information.

As for the religious leaders trying to kill Jesus - assuming that the story is true - assassination was a common way to get rid of unpleasant competitors in those times. It may as well (even better, because this approach doesn't need miracles) be that Jesus was a preacher who got too much attention, thus endangering the political influence of the priests. You didn't have to be god's son in order to get killed. In fact, this shows that even in those times no proof existed that Jesus was the son of god - who would have dared to kill him if there was? And, as always, the only remotely contemporary source of this story is the bible, which casts a big shadow of doubt on the whole thing.

Last and least, Sir Ramsay. Apart from an atheist converting to christianity proving near nothing (There are christians who abandoned their faith as well), Sir Ramsay gave up on science very easily. He converted because he found that Luke's gospel contained names of governors, countries, cities and the like that were accurate and not known Ramsay's times. In Luke's days, however, these names were contemporary and thus should have been easy to find out. I can name a number of novels that name places accurately. Yet you won't believe that "Eye of the needle" is an accurate record of history. - Jan 17 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

I count 14 entries of yours that are based on other peoples work in an obvious way, and around 5 that seem to be mostly copied, but that I'm not sure about. Then there's a whole bunch of more than 20 entries that are gradient-and-clip-art (which is, because the clip art is the only complicated part of it, also based on other peoples work) cut&paste jobs. Art? I don't think so. And I don't buy that you didn't know you based it on other peoples work. I mean - you used the pictures, so you were bound to know they existed.

You're not the only one who makes trivial updates and double posts, but the only one who reposts his stuff when the rating drops, and most trivial updates I see are yours. Double posts is a different matter (and yes, I have commented the Aqua penguin posting frenzy). I didn't mention the number of posts.

As for the rest, you don't seem to want to get my point. The crowbar thing was not important from the start. It only cancels your argument that ignoring stuff is easy. Imagine someone hanging a playboy poster in your workplace. Could you ignore it? Just think about it, I don't expect an answer anymore.

And now this discussion is over. A discussion is over when somebody starts quoting himself out of context. What you said was:

'Ok. You can quantify it. Then Do it. Let's see your proof.'

As proof is not needed for quantification (merely a nice add-on), so this doesn't make any sense. Later, you quote yourself like this:

'Then Do it. Let's see your proof'

You never asked if I could prove it, yet you try to twist your own words as if you had. You have a habit of seeing simplicity where there is none. This is getting way too orwellesque for me, so I'm out. Believe whatever you want to believe, think what you want to think, forget the peace offer - I don't care anymore. - Jan 06 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

Yeah, I'm sure you'd appreciate more "squirm factor". But I think we both know you are dodging.
-------
What the...? What I know is that when somebody demands yes/no choices, he's usually asking suggestive questions. The universe just doesn't work in black and white. Your questions may seem simple the first time you look at it, but the context makes them complicated. There is such a thing as 'implications'. Take the first question for example. I am not a kde-look admin, no. But that is of no importance. Thus, the question cannot be answered by just 'no' - the very least is a 'No, but...'.

So, no, I can not, I want not and I will not give simple answers when the matter at hand is complicated. But that is not dodging anything. - Jan 05 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

Ok. You can quantify it. Then Do it. Let's see your proof.
-------
40 wallpapers that are basically the same three-minute-gimp jobs based on other people's wallpapers or a gradient, trivial updates, reposts and the like are a pretty good indicator, don't you think? I cannot prove it, of course, but I don't think that is necessary. You asked for quantification, not proof.

You say you *can't ignore the message till you know what's there".
-----------
Your point was that I could safely ignore your submissions because you labeled them as 'only for christians'. Problem is - I have to open the submission and read the comment to find the label that tells me I should never have opened it in the first place. Open the box with the crowbar you will find inside. I do think this answer works.

My point is...can't you just decide to turn away from it?
------------
I could. But do I want to? I might end up without a place to look at. Take a look at history - a lot of stuff went wrong because people decided to look away. And take a look at the present - wars are fought over religion again. No, I don't want to look away. - Jan 05 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

Oh, well. Here we go again:

1. Yes and no. I'm not an official member of the kde-look crew, but I am a consumer, so I care about what it becomes. This is about the same way a car driver cares about whether the streets get repaired although he is not a member of the city council.

2. I think so, yes. Your 'artwork' as well as your behavior make that very clear indeed.

3. No. As I have explained above, until I open the package, I do not know what is inside.

I hope this is clear enough. You can't ask for exact answers when all you want to hear is 'yes' or 'no', so this will have to do. - Jan 05 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

If it weren't for religious spam, I wouldn't express my world view here. The labeling is a weak argument, because in order to see that it's made 'only for christians', you have to open it.

If you care to remember, there was a time when a lot of borderline to pornography content was submitted here on kde-look. This stuff got about the same comments your stuff gets right now, and after a time, vanished. There was no written rule against it, either - still, it wasn't appropriate - in very much the same way yours isn't.

I think this should answer your questions. By the way - I also hate it when somebody demands 'yes or no'-answers from me. Especially when the answers aren't as simple as yes or no. - Jan 05 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

Just that there isn't a written rule against something doesn't mean it's appropriate. There is no contradiction. - Jan 05 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

So, essentially you are just saying "go away". Wow. Tremendous difference...

<sarcasm>So, I'll just go to the next church, cry 'Hail Satan' or something like that for half an hour, maybe sacrifice a virgin, and when the priest tells me to go away, I'll just say 'No! You're violating my freedom of speech and religion and so on!'</sarcasm>

The word "spam" is uncalled for.

Or is it? I don't think you're doing this for the artistic value, but for 'spreading the word'. That's advertising in an internet forum - spam.

So, some worldviews can be expressed here but not those who believe certain things?

Now you're talking double standards. As long as you advertise links like this one:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html

I will throw how I think god, should he exist, is a despot in your face.

To my knowledge, I never mentioned any submission guidelines, so I'll ignore that paragraph. - Jan 05 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

If I remember correctly, I am constantly telling that kde-look is not the right place for religious spam. There is a difference between 'Shut up' and 'Go somewhere else'. - Jan 04 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

Whee. This is getting more complicated every day.

OK, the way I see things, we got two opposing influences in this debate. One being freedom of speech, which is basically saying whatever you want. The other is trying not to offend people. I'm definitely not going to shut up because some people don't like what I say. On the other hand, I sometimes get way carried away. Unfortunately, in internet forums, this is exactly when I write something - if I'm calm, I just don't care. I probably wouldn't have cared about this one, under normal circumstances.

You rightly ask what about the circumstances isn't normal. Well, lately this site has been flooded with pseudo-artistic christian content by someone who featured patently stupid (in my eyes) and insulting (consult the jargon file for a definition of 'flame') opinions and links. There was this atheist test where he tried to ridicule science by asking for the evolution of the coke can, there was all this 'only one way to heaven', 'science proved that the earth was created in six days about 10000 years ago' and similar stuff that just didn't acknowledge the possibility that somebody else may have a consistent view of the universe that differed from his own. I guess some of my comments came from a certain 'eye for an eye' attitude I try to get rid of, which is not easy. I mean - this sort of stuff is about as offending to me as my god/schizophrenic, god/big brother, god/despot comments probably were to you. I won't say I didn't intend to offend anyone - when I wrote it, I did - but I'm sorry I wrote it. I'm also sorry that I offended you, as I am not aware of any really offending comments you made. I am especially sorry that I posted offending comments on your stuff.

I make mistakes, I'm aware of it, but sometimes I just can't hold myself, so stopping isn't all that easy. Plus, when I can hold myself, I don't write a comment. Maybe you should sometimes not take my comments seriously, and I will try to calm down and think a little more before I press the 'send' button. can't promise how well this works, though... (I know. I'm a bad person) - Jan 04 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

About the schizophrenic god stuff - ok, the first comment was written in a kinda flamish style. I'm sorry for that. I get like that when something sets me up, even if it's (as it was in that case) completely unrelated to what I say/write. I know that's not a good thing, but I'm only human, too. So, I should have asked my question differently, and more clearly.

What I wanted to ask was not whether god is actually schizophrenic (I'm an atheist. That question wouldn't make sense to me), but how your definition of trinity differs from schizophrenia. I still don't really know what you meant by 'mental personalities' as opposed to 'actual personalities'.

And, one more thing about this - please keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker. I don't always know whether a phrase I use is considered rude or not.

Now back to the actual topic - 'please don't flame me for biblical content' is something that just begs to be flamed at. The problem is not what it says, but what it implies. One gets the impression that, while 'god sucks'-comments are forbidden, a 'yeah, that'll show that non-believing scum!' is OK, and that the author is under the general impression that anti-christian comments are flaming. And that is a thing that gets me mad indeed. - Jan 04 2004
Love2

Wallpaper Other by alethia 9 comments

Well, no. - Jan 03 2004
Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other by alethia 31 comments

Please no flaming me for the biblical text.

I loathe biblical texts, thus I loathe this wallpaper. Does that count as 'flaming'? Get a grip, dude. Believe whatever you want, but I can't stand this 'If you don't agree with me, shut up!' sort of crap. If I got you wrong, I'm honestly sorry, but this kind of remark sounds to me like anyone who writes anything that opposes your beliefs is a flamer in your eyes. - Jan 03 2004
Lost Tux

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 8 comments

Well, you probably know what I think about the message. Morover, in this case, the wallpaper itself does not communicate the message. Taken the wallpaper alone, I would reply 'Well, I can get to California by other means than Jesus'. The message only becomes clear when one reads your 'only one way to heaven'-comment, which is only found on kde-look (and possibly some other websites you posted this wallpaper to). The problem I have with this is that it seems like you didn't put this wallpaper here in order to upload a wallpaper, but to spread your belief - and I don't think kde-look is meant that way. - Jan 02 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

I'm not an expert, but I'm reasonably sure that there is a form of schizophrenia where a body hosts two or more personalities simultaneously. It doesn't really matter what name you call it, though. Three minds in one person qualifies as 'weird' in my book.

Whatever. As I understood the term 'trinity', it could be paraphrased as 'unity of three', so it's in its nature that it is one as well as three. It is obvious that logics don't have a place here, so any discussion about it will ultimately end in vain. - Jan 01 2004
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

I was under the impression that the term 'personality' included a mind. Thus, the term 'mental personality' strikes me as redundant. If there is an actual difference between what you mean by 'actual personality' and 'mental personality', explain.

Anyway, a being sharing three personalities is commonly called 'schizophrenic'. - Dec 31 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

So...god is schizophrenic? - Dec 30 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

Oh, and you might want to change your signature. This stupid 'atheist test' is about as offending as it is weird. Whoever wrote it has not grasped the concepts he criticizes. - Dec 29 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

I only hope you take this as a hint for the future. I have no problem with people expressing their faith, but you had a way of trying to ridicule scientific theories without presenting any facts (or even evidence) that got me really mad.

I suppose because of this some of my comments were a little more rude than necessary. I still believe what I wrote, but I might have phrased some of it differently. Eye for an eye, huh? ;-)

Well, let's make a deal. You think about how what you write/submit will offend other people before you write/submit it, and I will do the same. - Dec 29 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

Nah, I daresay you get that impression because by now two out of three of his wallpapers have dropped under the 30% treshold... - Dec 28 2003
Embrace the Son

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 29 comments

This one is better than the other wallpapers you made. I won't use it, but it's definitely more original than your gradient-and-scripture-quote stuff. It's less in-your-face-you-atheistic-moron, too.

I still don't really think it belongs here, but I can live with this sort of faith expression. - Dec 28 2003
nwn

Wallpaper Other by kmilo 4 comments

I would probably have written "(c) Bioware Inc.", but it's ok that way. People will know what you mean, and that's the important part. - Dec 28 2003
nwn

Wallpaper Other by kmilo 4 comments

http://nwdownloads.bioware.com/neverwinternights/desktops/ad1_1280.jpg

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you can GPL this wallpaper. - Dec 28 2003
Black_Earth

Wallpaper Other by MagiNathan 7 comments

It would look good without the text. - Dec 27 2003
Life is a Dash...

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 42 comments

Oh, come on. Even if I believed what you said, there is no connection to justice. God makes the laws, plays both judge and jury and enforces the sentence - that's called despotism.

If what you say is true, god has about the same love for humankind as your average dictator has for his people. And you even fall for it. - Dec 20 2003
Life is a Dash...

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 42 comments

Taking the history of christianity into account, you don't have to wonder about it. Christianity has a long history of "Hey, wanna join me? No? Burn, heretic!". You say that Jesus loves me, but he will tear my balls off if I don't follow him. It's hard to see any love there. - Dec 18 2003
Life is a Dash...

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 42 comments

The inquisition killed 10 million people, 22 million died in the crusades. That makes 32 million, and I haven't even started counting witches, cathars, heretics, jews and all the others.

Before you condemn those as unchristian - well, at least the catholic church disagrees. Pope Pius IV made grand inquisitor Pedro Arbuen a saint. - Dec 18 2003
...I Know better than you (II)...

Wallpaper Other by tihkal 26 comments

Seems like the 'voting down' stuff won't get this wallpaper below 30 per cent by the time it drops of the front page...looks like you superceeded Kenny Brown in this respect ;) - Dec 15 2003
The Heavens Declare...

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 48 comments

This doesn't make any sense. - Dec 11 2003
The Heavens Declare...

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 48 comments

I believe neither of them exist, so I can follow neither. Does that mean I don't exist? - Dec 10 2003
"Fearfully Made"

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 49 comments

It's not as amazing as you think, I think. I'd bash any satanistic or pagan wallpapers as well, but the only other quasi-religious wallpapers I've seen here were a parody of these, so I consider it satire, not pushing belief. And even there, I for one usually remark that they're crappy.

I don't feel too strong about christian wallpapers. It's more the combination of the crappy art, the crappy message and the attitude of the author (Take a look at his signature and the dumb and insulting 'test' it links to) that makes me crazy. And if he's allowed to say that science is a joke and only fools would believe that humans behave other than coke cans, then I claim the right to say what I think about his stuff. - Dec 10 2003
"Fearfully Made"

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 49 comments

I think he meant the people behind the website. - Dec 10 2003
unity

Wallpaper Other by force 7 comments

I like it. One thing, though - could you make a version where the cube thingy in the lower right part makes up the whole background? - Dec 10 2003
Pascal's Glory

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 13 comments

You didn't care to answer the last time, so I'll just ask it again. You homepage is some weird atheist test that is so dumb I cannot leave it uncommented. I'll ask you three questions:

Number 1: Coke cans

There is a difference between humans (and other living things) and coke cans - living things live, and reproduce. I for one have never seen a coke can having children, and this is a necessity for evolution. Plus, as coke cans don't usually reproduce, there is no mutation or selection in the non-existent reproductions process of coke cans. Thus, your point is not valid.

Number 2: The eye

The eye didn't just pop up by coincidence, it evolved. The nature of evolution (as opposed to revolution) is that something doesn't just pop up, but develops from something simpler. Snakes for example see through something that modern science considers a simple prototype of the eye. In fact, the evolution of the eye is pretty well known by now, so I consider this point invalid as well.

Number 3: Oranges

When I take 50 oranges and throw them up into the air, I don't expect them to come down in 10 rows, 5 oranges each. There are two flaws in this argument, however. First of all, evolution only requires this sort of coincidence in the very beginning. Once you have proteins, the rest is a cakewalk. Second of all, evolution didn't only have one try to form proteins. The process took about 2 billion years, and amino acids react a lot quicker than thrown oranges do. Plus, there were quite a lot of them. Well, if I threw oranges in the air for 2 billion years, I'd be quite disappointed it they didn't fall in 5x10 a couple of thousand times. And I'd be even more disappointed if said amino acids didn't react a couple of trillion times in the same time period. As amino acids are found in comets, this should explain biogenesis pretty well, I think.

The rest of this test basically states that one cannot prove the non-existence of god. This is true, but can easily be reverted into "neither can you prove it exists", so it doesn't really make a point for religion. - Dec 10 2003
unknown_infection

Wallpaper Other by barbequedjesus 5 comments

I like it. You said it's from a tutorial, so I assume it's a first timer. If so, this rocks pretty hard - keep up the good work. - Dec 08 2003
Unto Us a Child is Born

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 10 comments

Please forgive me, but I have to make a point against this "you say something I don't like, I censor you" shit.

God sucks.

So you've got your flame war. Are you going to ridicule yourself in deleting and re-posting? This may be a good trick to give your wallpapers some downtime... - Dec 08 2003
Less Viruses - More Fun!!

Wallpaper Other by peekaboo71 6 comments

Actually, virii isn't English, but Latin.

The 'i' is pronounced like the two es in free (to the best of my knowledge - I didn't live in ancient Rome...), so this goes something like veeree-ee. - Dec 08 2003