Unto Us a Child is Born

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 26 comments

Two words: circular logic.

You believe that christianity is right because christianity is right and says it is right. Can't you see the flaw there? - Dec 08 2003
Unto Us a Child is Born

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 26 comments

Faith is not something you can just decide to have, neither is it something you can force on people. I might as well warn you to throw your live away in dedication to some non-existent god guy, but you wouldn't listen either.

I for one don't like both the art and the message of your wallpapers (as you may be aware of), and I voice my opinion. To answer a question you asked me earlier - yes, I do spend a lot of time around things I don't like, as these require more attention. Would you call me a fool for caring about three people sentenced to death without a fair trial for fraud in one case and false money in two others in Vietnam? Or for my caring about the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay? Or Cheibani Wague, who was recently killed by the police in Austria? I do not like these things, and that's why I spend time around them. I don't have any interest in changing things I like. - Dec 08 2003
Rememberance

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 51 comments

I know this is kind of off-topic, but I found a link that most atheists will find quite funny, while it will give christians something to think about. This is a sort of response to the atheist test Tim advertises in his signature. BTW, as coke cans are not known to reproduce by themselves, this 'atheist test' is kinda flawed. Here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/2347/kiss.html

Now the on-topic part. I do pity the christians that are imprisoned in China. Their treatment isn't fair for humans. I do, however, have to stress that not only christians are imprisoned on unfair grounds in China, and that this sort of thing doesn't only happen in China. Our amnesty international group focusses on Falun Gong at the moment, for example. The chinese government isn't known to honor the human rights very well. On the other hand, you may have heard about Guantanamo Bay, and may know that the death penalty is still common in a couple of dozen countries. This month, there was a call for action from amnesty where two women were sentenced to death because they (allegedly) spread false money in vietnam, which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. People get arrested for using the internet, writing letters, that sort of thing - most of the time because they disagree with their government's views. This sort of stuff happens, and it doesn't only happen to christians, so trying to make a point that christians were some oppressed minority is ridiculous as well. I'm not saying that this doesn't call for action - it does - but fairness requires to mention all of the others as well. So, if you do something, do it because those people are human, not only because they're christian. - Nov 27 2003
Rememberance

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 51 comments

Funny how people make a difference between living and dead things as the situation requires it. A pot does not live, which distinguishes it from your average human. I did take a look at that atheist test Tim Brown advertises in his signature, they made the same mistake. (In that case, asking for the evolution of the coke can. Until then, I fell for the illusion that coke cans do neither reproduce themselves, nor mutate, nor choose their sexual partners...)

Anyway, your pot metaphor strengthens my point that if a god exists, this is not a good thing. - Nov 26 2003
Double Trouble

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 27 comments

The equation of evolution is more like

something + change = something else.

What you are probably talking about is biogenesis, and even there your equation is wrong. This:

something + something = someone

describes it rather better. It is important to stress that 'someone' means something smaller than bacteria. There is another important equation is the generation of matter out of nothing, which is a known phenomenon in physics:

nothing = something + (- something)

meaning matter and anti-matter. Rather more complicated is the generation of energy, as we're only scratching the surface of that one. Evidence points to the existence of 'negative energy', but I have to admit I'm unable to explain that in detail, as physics is not my major. - Nov 20 2003
Fellowship of the Unashamed

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 83 comments

I was talking about the colonial time, when Africa was flooded with christian missionaries from all over Europe.

I marvel at your trust in christianity, but christians are humans as well, and humans do bad things from time to time. In this special case, forcing one's faith on others and killing those who don't comply (and some of those who do) has a lot of tradition. Try googling for witches, heretics, cathars etc. This got better during the last couple of centuries, agreed, but there were incidents even in the 80's (the massacre in Ruanda). I am not trying to say that christianity is the only society with blood on their hands, but I seriously doubt that christian ethics the way they were and are practiced are superior to all others. - Nov 20 2003
Fellowship of the Unashamed

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 83 comments

The nerve of citing an african pastor who didn't want a different faith forced on him after christian missionaries did the same, or even worse things to the native African people. Talk about hypocrisy.

Believe whatever you want to believe, I don't care. But this sort of stuff makes me want to puke. - Nov 19 2003
Double Trouble

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 8 comments

-homo sapiens has evolved from other species that do not live any more ... we do not have ancestors in the living species!!
-----------
'Species' is a word invented by man, biology itself only knows individuals. We tend to think in categories because it's easier to grasp, yet this is not accurate. Having said this, members of different species share some ancestors with us. These may be long deceased, but they existed. Members of some species share closer ancestors with us than others, for example your average human is (highly probably) more closely related to a random chimp than to a random crocodile. The random crocodile is, however, a very, very, very, very, extremely distant cousin of yours.

-some religions maybe claim there is no evolution, but also in science you do not have "evidence", you only have "indizien-beweise" (sorry, know only the german word)
--------------
The word 'Indizienbeweise' is an oxymoron. For native english speakers: 'Beweise' means 'proof', 'Indizien' derives from 'to indicate'. Roughly, an 'Indizienbeweis' is a piece of evidence that points to something, but doesn't relly prove it. What he means, I think, is 'evidence' as opposed to 'proof'.

As nothing can be actually proven beyond doubt, we enter a very academic discussion here, so I'd rather talk about what is reasonable to assume. And evolution is, taking the mathematical nature of evolution and the preconditions found in biology into account, pretty plausible. That, and the many, many fossils make evolution about as solid as gravity (which is a theory as well).

= only parts of a puzzle that we cannot see the whole picture, only parts of it ... remember "Lamarck" and "Darwin" wrote 2 different theories on the origin of species ... and now we say darwin was (particullary) right and lamarck not, but this is not 100% right, as also some parts of the evolution-theory of lamarck is (in my eyes) right ..-
-----------
Oh, there were a lot of theories on the topic. Darwin was the most prominent to propose an evolutionary model, which bought him a lot of trouble as most biologists of his time liked the idea of a well designed and easy system of species. However, Darwin's theory was flawed. Most theories are, in fact. It would be pretty dumb to claim that you have know the one whole truth (a token of my esteem for religion ;) ) in my opinion, but that is not what science is about. Science (in the most widely interpretation) is about developing a model for nature that works. Christianity as a political theory worked for a while, but began to show it's flaws pretty quickly once it was established. These flaws include, namely, that it can easily be exploited by ruthless people. In this respect, it's quite similar to communism. Theories in natural science, however, tend to evolve. Just take a look at how our model of the universe developed from flat earth centered to the relativity thing we have today. We observe, we learn, and develop models accordingly. However, all of these theories are workable to a certain degree. When you're measuring a piece of land, it's usually accurate enough to assume it was flat, although in reality this is not so. This does, as well, apply to the evolution theory. When you go shopping for meat, you don't care wheter beef and pork have some distant relation because it has a different taste. The species modle suffices, and it is easier to handle. However, the evolutionary model is more accurate. So, although I don't think the evolutionary model is the final truth, it works for todays biological applications. And, more importantly, future theories will probably not be completely different, but rather extend the evolution theory. The coevolution of genes and memes is an example of such an extension, just for instance.

... if you are religious, please read the whole book before citing out of it,
-----------
Oh, oh, oh, I got an URL on this: http://www.meninhats.com/d/20020906.html

Well, that's my 2¢ on the matter. - Nov 16 2003
Linux friends :)

Wallpaper Other by Gmp 6 comments

It's not my style of wallpaper, but it's definitely somewhere between good and great. For a first-timer, it's pretty damn amazing. Keep up the good work! - Nov 02 2003
Terminus360 K

Wallpaper Other by terminus 3 comments

I really like this, except for one thing - I hate having a copyright notice in the corner of my screen. I understand why people add it to their pictures, but I really think it spoils the art. - Nov 01 2003
Pleiades Bound, Orion Loosed

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 90 comments

Astronomy was a well known to most ancient cultures (I want to stress that the Greek were quite skillful in this area way before even the Roman Empire existed). It was used for navigation, calendars and lots of other stuff. Galileo was not the first to discover that Earth is neither flat nor the center of the universe. Erasthothenes, for example, calculated the Earth diameter way before your quote was written. They made maps from the sky, which was especially important for navigation on the sea, and they called certain constellation names - including the whole Orion saga, that is, the pleiades, orion, rabbit and dog. (I don't know whether this is accurate in English, but they're probably called something like this.) From this, I also deduce that Job was probably greek, or heavily influenced by the greek culture, as he refers to said constellations as Orion and Pleiades. In the jewish culture, the Orion constellation was called Nimrod - a great hunter as well - while in Egypt it was named Osiris. The rabbit was Osiris' boat.

I guess this answers your question. - Oct 29 2003
Islamic based wallpapers

Wallpaper Other by Doug 20 comments

I'm not too fond of religion myself, but what you wrote is absurdity incarnate. 'nuff said, actually. - Oct 26 2003
got purpose?

Wallpaper Other by uninet 26 comments

Actually, what I was trying to say was that the world is very well explainable without some god thingy, and that IF a god exists, I'm not happy with it - no matter what size or form or whatever it would be.

If you don't want to think about your beliefs, just say so. I won't force you to. But if that is the case, don't ever pull that blind person analogy on me again. - Oct 21 2003
got purpose?

Wallpaper Other by uninet 26 comments

The fact that GOd is omnicient is a very comforting thing to the believer.
------
Well, it isn't to me. And honestly, I don't understand how it can be to you.

No, you are presenting a false dilemma. Knowing everyting ahead of time doesn't necessitate determinism, just foreknowlege.
------
Foreknowledge requires determinism. Something that's not for sure yet cannot be known. So, if the future can be known, it is already determined.

Wrong on both counts. SECULAR historians have verified the fact that He lived...such as Josephus and Tertullian among others.
------
Actually, that's not exactly true. The earliest texts that name Jesus were written about 40 years after he allegedly died. I'm talking about the first gospel here. Josephus, who wrote the oldest non-religous text that names Jesus, was born about that time, so his texts were written even later. Until then, the legend of Jesus was only told from mouth to ear. We have a child game here, called "Stille Post". One thinks up a word, then whispers it to his neighbor, who whispers it to the next etc. In the end, the original word is compared to the word that reached the last one, and it NEVER is the same. Now imagine this going on for 70 years. Plus, Josephus is not very specific, he actually writes about the execution of Jakobus, the brother of Jesus, the so-called christ. There are other texts that were attributed to Josephus, in which he praises Jesus as the great Messiah and stuff, but as the oldest copies of these were made by christian monks in the 5th century and Josephus was jewish, not christian, it's rather improbable he wrote that himself.

Secondly, he was "set up" by the Jewish leaders of His day because he was a threat to their system. Even Herod said "I find no fault in this man."
------
According to the bible, that is. The gospel is trying to promote a religion. Now, I don't think a criminal would make a good Messiah. Make him innocent, say he was set up because he told the truth, and you've got great legend material. This may be just the same load of crap as a virgin bearing a child or this zombie stuff.

Well, in American courts, we allow the defense to speak on it's own behalf.
------
We're not in court, nobody is accused of a crime. If you talk about me doubting the innocence of Jesus - the evidence of the case is long lost. I am not saying Jesus was guilty (as I doubt his existence, that would be rather dumb of me, wouldn't it?), I only say that it might have been other than your set-up story.

Besides, the Bible has been demonstrated accurate....parts of it by the very people who sought to destroy it...Sir WIllam Ramsay became a believer while trying to destry the Gospel of Luke. He pronounced that Luke was "an historian of the first order" and that Luke is totally reliable. Read it.
------
This does not convince me as well. It takes a lot to convince me that someone can feed 5000 people with 7 breads and two fishes. Unless the fishes were whales, that is, but those are pretty uncommon in the area. Sir William Ramsay argues that Luke (I know that Luke's gospel was not written by an actual Luke, but for the sake of simplicity I'll just call him that) must be accurate in the gospel because he is accurate in another text, the book of Acts. This assumes several things, namely:
1. The book of Acts is accurate
2. The gospel and the book of acts were written by the same person.
3. Someone who is accurate in one text is accurate in all others he writes.
Let us assume 1 is true, although this can also be doubted. 2 may be half-true, as the oldest copies of the gospels were also made by middle age monks, and they are known to have tailored scripture to the needs of the church. 3, however, is definitely false. I myself have written accurate texts as well as complete gibberish.

No, it was your sin and mine that put Christ on the cross. I wish you understood and appreciated what that meant for you.
------
This is rich. I wasn't even born 2000 years ago, how could I have commited any sins by that time?

No, I'm referring to Darwin having a problem with the lack of fossils and other problems such as the absurdity (as he called it) of thinking the eye could have evolved.
------
Well, a lot of fossils have been found by now, the evolution of the eye and even more complex organs (such as the kidney and the ear) is known, so I don't see an actual problem there anymore.

Mutations? No, mutations lead to a LOSS of information, not an addition of information. We call these "informities".
------
Mutation is a change of information. It does not necessarily have to be a 'loss' (where 'loss' is yet to be defined in biological terms). Depending on the circumstances, the same thing may be a loss or a gain. Take for example sickle cell anemia. It is usually a bad thing, as the blood can transport less oxygen. However, it is an advantage in large areas of africa, as SCA also immunizes the body against malaria.

Be careful not to confuse the Catholic institution with biblical Christianity. Not the same. Christianity = a personal relationship with God through Christ. Roman Catholicism is a religion based on works salvation. That's not biblical Chrisianity.
------
OK, I'll be more careful at that. However, the churches are a pretty good example of how religion (or ideology, to be fair. Atheism is not immune to that as well) can become dangerous.

No offense, but I don't get offended when a blind person steps on my toes and this is the same kind of thing.
------
Just so you know: I do think the same thing about you. Only I'm not sure whether you're really blind or just don't want to see.

(...) in ways that cannot be explained by 'coincidence'. It's simply happened too many times.
------
People tend to see things they want to see. People also tend not to see things they don't want to see. I think that someone whacked out on religion will easily attribute anything good that happens to god while finding excuses for anything bad that happens. Sometimes I find myself doing the same thing - well, not attributing stuff to god, but to other things. That's when I try to get some distance and take a neutral (as neutral as possible, that is) view. Have you ever tried to find a different explantion than 'god did it' for this sort of stuff?

Praying for you...
------
Don't waste your time like that. Do something useful, like joining a human rights organisation or something. - Oct 21 2003
got purpose?

Wallpaper Other by uninet 26 comments

*** The chief end of man is to glorify God and (in turn) ENJOY HIM FOREVER".
---------
I don't enjoy the thought of some almighty i-know-what-you-will-do-next-summer big brother guy. I don't believe that a god exists, but if it does, that's not a good thing.

***God doesn't == determinism. You do have a choice. God says "I set before you life and death...choose life".
---------
Wait, wait, wait. That doesn't fit into christian mythology, does it? If I recall correctly, god is considered to be omniscient. So...if I can choose freely, how can god be omniscient? I mean, if god knows what I'll choose, I don't have an actual choice. If he doesn't, god isn't omniscient, which casts some serious doubt about his godliness.

(...) who recognized Him for who he was (is).
-------
Such as an executed criminal? Traitor to the Roman Empire, if I recall correctly. That is, in case he actually existed, as that's not proven either.

***God is HOLY. He is also Just. He would be perfectly in his rights to blow us all away and send us to Hell immediately.
--------
I already told you what I thought of that big brother guy.

There are many CHristian organizations that seek to feed those people in Africa. Have you done anything?
--------
I'm a member of amnesty international.

In any event, the real issue is not the here and now, but eternity.
--------
I've read Descartes, so I don't ask you for actual proof. But do you have some evidence (some that is not based on scripture of some kind) that an eternity actually exists? As experience teaches that nothing is eternal, your claims seem pretty...implausible...to me.

The question is, what will you do with Christ?
--------
<sarcasm>The Romans did a pretty good job, so I don't think I will have to bother.</sarcasm>

****The proverbs say that "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." And even Darwin recognized in his "origin of the species" that his ideas were full of problems.
---------
The problems you're talking about mainly were that his theory didn't fit into Darwins (christan) beliefs. There are, however, no inconsistencies in the theory itself that I am aware of. Evolution is, as a matter of fact, a pretty obvious mathematical necessity wherever mutation and election exist. Once you understand that the term 'fittest' doesn't equal strongest, but 'most likely to survive the election process for a long time', this becomes clearer. The survival usually implies spreading as widely as possible. The mutation is needed to introduce an element of innovation. This does not only apply to genes, but to a lot of other things as well. Ideas, for example. Fire was obviously a pretty 'fit' idea, as was religion, the wheel and suicide (which shows that a 'fit' idea does not have to be commonly considered 'good').

And by the way the earth is not a pancake!
*** I'm glad you found that out!
-----
The funny thing is, even the ancient Greek found that out, and it was the catholic church that 'undiscovered' it, because an earth-centered universe fitted their theory that we were the only reason the universe actually existed better. Talk about hypocrisy.

That's my 2¢ on the matter. If you find this offending - think about how offending I may find your postings once you write the next one. Thank you. - Oct 20 2003
got satan ?

Wallpaper Other by grep 13 comments

Amazing what you can find in scripture. Especially the "Whoever is not with me is against me" stuff, which has been repeated by some of the more infamous figures of the human history (try googling for the third reich, for example). This black and white thinking really gets on my nerves.

And about that righteousness thingy...have you ever read the old testament? Read the Moses saga for instance. All first-borns of egypt get killed because the pharaoh is so stubborn not to let his slaves go. <irony>Now that's what I call just.</irony> - Oct 08 2003
Intelligence

Wallpaper Other by dubian 7 comments

I like it, though I do already hear masses of people screaming like "no message whatsoever on any wallpaper should be allowed! Violation should be punishable by castration!". (the death penalty has gone a little of of fashion lately, so...)

One more thing - Maybe you can use a larger eclipse picture (that is, not where the actual sun is larger, but one with more surrounding background). The edges are pretty visible, which imo does not look too well. - Oct 01 2003
Babel Fish-Making a Point

Wallpaper Other by flamy 10 comments

I like this one much better. Although the quote is shortened to a point where the original meaning does not get quite clear. Here's the context:

'Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
'The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
'"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so tehrefore, by your own argument, you don't. QED."
'"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.' - Sep 14 2003
[ScorpiTech] Whirl Linuxless

Wallpaper Other by nick 2 comments

Nice work, I like the wallpaper.

But then, there's probably nothing I loathe more than having a copyright notice in the lower right corner of my monitor. Plus, as the wallpaper is GPLed, you're no longer holding the copyright. - Sep 13 2003
Dark Winter Wulf

Wallpaper Other by XJaPaN 2 comments

This one definitely got style. Do you think you could make a 1280x1024 version? - Aug 01 2003
Actually, I don't have a problem with you expressing your views. View all you want, and express all you want, but then I'll view and express all I want, too.

I for one think your views are inconsistent, and I also think that consistency is a major plus in views. I guess you can work out the rest of what I think of what you wrote from there. I'd like to say, no offense meant, but that would unfortunately be untrue.

And, just by the way, I did not tell anyone to shut up, which shows that you can't generalize the way you did - 'the Left' wanting to shut 'the Right' up. There may be some left wing guys who do so, but there are right-wingers too - think about those white power weirdos, for instance. As we're not talking about them, we're also not talking about the extreme Left; maybe you should take that into account and reconsider some of the stuff you wrote. - Apr 18 2003
So, basically you're asking that people should not criticise you for your views, yet about half a page later you tell all those who disagree with you to 'shut the fuck up', did I quote you right?

How hypocritical can you get? - Apr 17 2003
"At least we didn't do worse than that guy", eh?

I wish you were not so wise about the impact of this war. Think about it, there are the Shias, the Sunnis, two rivaling groups of Kurds and the Turkmens. Now, the Sunnis aren't liked by anyone much, the Kurds dislike the people from the other clan, hate the Turkmens and the Sunnis. The Turkmens fear the Kurds and the Sunnis, and thus seek support of the Turks, who are, of course, disliked by both clans of Kurds. Did I mention that the Shias hate the Sunnis badly? Try to install a democracy, and count the days until the country falls apart, most likely causing a gigantic load of bloodshed. Then, and no day earlier, we'll see how costly this war came, and what it achieved.

I guess you know the saying - "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity." You can't build a future on a pile of dead bodies. - Apr 15 2003