Cover photo
Chris Anderson
Works at Texas Heart Institute


Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
Well, I'm studying for my damn history of the scriptures exam for tomorrow and I just cannot see how anyone would believe any of this crap. There have been so many instances already where the professor has given what I take to be evidence that the Bible was not anything special, let alone divine. This is coming straight from the horses mouth too. Wish there was a way for me to post them here (11pg gdoc) for anyone who wants some extra knowledge on why christianity is most likely bull shit. I'd love to do the same with my philosophy notes so we could all have a good laugh. 

Here's a little snippet though:
problems with the texts

one event that is narrated twice within same book or collection of books
The creation story of humanity. 
also falls under example of contradiction
The covenant with abraham
one emphasizes promise, other emphasizes rituals ect. (Right..because the superior monotheistic god would be pleased with sacrifices. So much better than Zeus eh?)
The expulsion of Agar
if wife is barren, it was thought to be a curse in ancient semitic culture. So he had to  find a new woman to copulate with. Before that, an angel came and helped them conceive 
The vocation of Moses
Ten commandments 
actually more commandments than 10
one in deuteronomy is more extended
Lack of fluidity in the narrative
narrative is abruptly interrupted by a unit containing a code of laws that is independent from the story that is narrated and then at the end is retaken in order to continue the interrupted story
writers wanted to insert their own code of conducts into the stories they wrote even if they were unrelated. Afterwards, they will repeat the information from the story and continue again from there
ex. Genesis
randomly throws in nonsense about clean vs. unclean animals, then repeats redundant information after that little exerpt
Giovanni E S's profile photoChris Anderson's profile photoGabriel Pettier's profile photoJonathan Tweet's profile photo
People can believe it because religion is more about group identity than about reason. 
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
So, just had a conversation with one of my classmates about our future plans and was surprised to learn that he is switching fields from theology to physics. (Mind you this is the same person who wanted to become an exorcist for the catholic church previously)

I thought it was interesting because I am in a similar situation switching from molecular biology to bioengineering. So we continued discussing our plans and his were specifically to become a theoretical physicist so he could "destroy some concepts" in contemporary physics. Although he did not elaborate, I assumed he set out to "disprove" theories in quantum mechanics that allow for credible hypotheses of a universe with no creator. (I.e spontaneous formation of space time pockets in empty space, breakdown of newtons second law and therefore refutation of the kalaam cosmological argument ect.)

He finished the conversation by stating he wanted to put back some if the philosophy that is lost on many modern physicists. I.e reconcile religion and physics.

I don't know how I feel about this because a scientists job is not to set out to disprove things that don't agree with their world view. That is just bad science. He is clearly not the first theist physicist, so I doubt he will find something the others have not. (Quite frankly, something I don't think us there. But hey, I' m no physicist). I just see his ambitions as hubris and possibly a hindrance to the progression of knowledge if voices like his start spinning the science to fit their religion.

Don't get me wrong. he is a nice guy, albeit with some fucked up views because of his religious dogma, but I just don't like the idea of people with those kinds of intentions going into the sciences. That just seems to me how we get messed up data.
Chris Anderson's profile photoFrank Lazar's profile photoGorillaGuerilla's profile photoDavid Yonge-Mallo's profile photo
I wouldn't worry too much about his damaging the field. Peer review tends to prevent people from making nonsensical claims while speaking in the name of science. (Even Francis Collins knows to keep his theism away from his published research.) I know theists who went into history with the intent to "prove" the standard evidence-based view of the history of the Middle East wrong, only to lose their religion when they saw how much evidence there was that their religion didn't begin the way they'd been told as a child. If he gets to a level of competence to be able to seriously comment on modern physics, he will first have to have learned and understood a lot of things that would seriously undermine his theology.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

Discussion  - 
Some history all of the Christians fighting against LBGT equality need to read
This may not be the best kept secret on the internet, but I despise Michele (“Let my Husband Cure your Gayness”) Bachmann. Despise is probably too genteel a descriptor for my true feelings. To put it in perspective let’s just...
AnEntropyFan's profile photoBarbara Gross's profile photoCalvin Phillips III's profile photoB-dub 7ER4IAY8's profile photo
Nice one!! +Barbara Gross​
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
So much truth behind this joke billboard
Erik Geis's profile photoScott Roberts's profile photonvrAU B's profile photoMathieu Laflamme's profile photo
Welcome to the community and thanks for your post. This community focuses on meaningful discussion and to that end we've decided to move memes and funny images to a separate community. So please consider reposting this into Atheism Humour & Memes:

The post will be removed from this community. You can read the specific rules on image posts here:
Our general posting rules are here:
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
Are reduction-ism and atheism synonymous? 

This was the question I thought of during my evolution class today. Quite often I hear the term reductionist thrown around by theists, specifically Catholics, when discussing atheist views on traditionally spiritual or metaphysical matters. (i.e love, thought, origins of life ect.)  During the class discussion, the professor commented on how we need to get away from reductionist Darwinian ideas for why organisms evolve the way that they do. I immediately felt my eyes roll as I thought I knew where the conversation was about to be taken, when it instead took a more pleasant path than "its unexplainable" (i.e spiritual intervention ect.). He instead began to tell us how new genes or phenotypes can see a huge and rapid emergence in a population without being directly selected for or against. The example we were given was the tail bone of humans. At some point, the entire human population lost that bone, or more accurately developed a genetic structure where the tail is degraded after production. We know that the gene is not gone, as approximately 1/10000 or so births still have the tail. The no tail phenotype is due to something other than reductionist "no tail has better fitness". He then explained how new genes arise and "piggy back" onto other genes to increase in frequency very rapidly even though the novel genes are neither selected for or against. Although the mechanisms of how this happens are not understood as of yet. 

Basically, all this is just to say that reductionism does not mean what most theist use it to mean. They try to depict any atoministic based causes for things normally delegated to the realm of the spiritual as reductionistic through a sort of oversimplification. "Love can't just be a chemical reaction in the brain" "the human person is to complex to just be matter in the void, subject to physical laws" ect. Honestly, if you read any of the scientific material where they form hypotheses on these kinds of subjects, they are anything but simplistic. Atoministic (and therefore atheistic) mechanisms that attempt to explain these things hardly dwindle down to a single cause and effect, but instead depict intricate interplay of very complex phenomena. I would honestly at this point have to question if atheistic views can even be associated with reductionist. 

As always, I am interested to hear the community's thoughts on the matter. 
Chris Anderson's profile photoJohn Jainschigg's profile photoAvi Goodman's profile photoLee Douglas's profile photo
+Avi Goodman Indeed.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
So I found this video in my feed and was enraged not only by this idiot trying to step on the rights of LBGT individuals while asserting moral righteousness like all Christians do, but the sheer stupidity of his arguments almost gave me an aneurysm. 

First off, he asserts that the very concept of human rights infers that a creator gave them to us. (Because the thought that we could come up with civil rules ourselves is just silly now isn't it) and then goes on with more idiocy in the same vain. You'll just have to watch it yourself to see what I mean...
Your ignorant blathering is making my brain bleed, moron.

Tommy's reference to a "creator" in one case and to "nature's god" in another are both, and only, found in the DOI - which is NOT a legal document framing our government.

Moreover, "marriage" is a legal CONTRACT, and "equal rights under the law" says that ANY 2 adults have the legal right to enter into ANY contract.

Just because marriage happens to be a joyous contract, doesn't mean your silly assed gods, ghosts and demons hold the copyright on it.

@"Furthermore, if America is now a secularist country we have no grounds upon which to expand or acknowledge civil rights."

Psst! Hey, FUCKWIT!!! Yeah, YOU  +Christian Talour , quit talking out of your fucking ass. The grounds on which we base ALL our fucking rights and privileges are two items you apparently have never looked at; they're called "The United States Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights". You should read them sometime. But be warned, you'll find no mention of your imaginary friends in them by ANY name.

Our rights are NOT based on any bibles, korans, kama sutras, tooth fairies, easter bunnies or any of your other imaginary friends.

Grow the fuck up kid.
View original post
Corey Whalen's profile photoLiam McCumber's profile photodyslexia jones's profile photoChris Anderson's profile photo
+Liam McCumber
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. What you describe, at least to me, represents choice and not freedom. Choice being a by product of us having individual minds that can process information and make decisions independent of one another. Freedom would be the ability to make and act in those choices without punishment from human forces. This part is dependent on the social contract (which is not always a government. It can be between people where the citizens and law enforcement are one and the same.)

You may believe governments are inherently bad/oppressive but law and order is necessary for society to function and prosper. Pure libertarianism does not allow for organized or coordinated goals within a society. However, that is not to say that law is synonymous with good/conducive to societal progress.

Also, I just wanted to note that your lack of belief was rather confusing considering you answered one of my questions with a quote that essentially boils down to "freedom is something God gave us"

At any rate, this is about as far as our conversation can go since we have very different definitions of what freedom means. I never said oppression should just be accepted. In fact we should and do fight for our freedom. But it is important to note rules do not inherently equal oppression. 
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

News & Blog Articles  - 
Looks like the Paris shooting was not an isolated incident...
Hostage-taking and shooting at Paris supermarket
At least one person was seriously wounded and several more were taken hostage after a gunman opened fire at a Kosher supermarket in Paris, police sources said Friday, in an attack with possible links to Wednesday’s massacre at Charlie Hebdo.
View original post
Bob Lai's profile photoAngelo Barbato's profile photoMoontanman's profile photoPratim SC's profile photo
The religion of peace is all but peace. 
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
I always wondered...
The TRUE answer is finally revealed.
View original post
Mark Bies's profile photoJessy Corrales's profile photoMoontanman's profile photoSamuel Muiruri's profile photo
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
Some history I wish all of these Christians would read when peddling their discrimination...
This may not be the best kept secret on the internet, but I despise Michele (“Let my Husband Cure your Gayness”) Bachmann. Despise is probably too genteel a descriptor for my true feelings. To put it in perspective let’s just...
Chris Anderson's profile photocecilia FXX's profile photoMark Efreet's profile photo
+cecilia FXX Awesome! NASA is another government institution that throws money and resources down a black hole. Hurray for space X!
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
Fundamentalists love to freak out about nothing. I mean...I'm no fan of EA, but damn
I mean yeah, I don't like EA just as much as the next guy, but that's just too much.
77 comments on original post
MattShizzle's profile photoKenneth Byrd's profile photoWesley Mahler's profile photoFathul Purnomo's profile photo
The lady in blue tripped and started to fall and Chicken Little ran away screaming "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

Theological Absurdity  - 
Funny spin on an egregious act of indoctrination I think we all are familiar with by now. I wonder if the christians are proud of moving from child rapist up to just regular child abusers. Progress lol 
Who the fuck IS this moron for the lord? Is he on youtube?

Better yet, what church is that in the video? I want to go there and push his buttons until he punches MY chest. 
View original post
kaus martin's profile photoFidem Turbāre's profile photo
I love   Richard   Dawkings    in german  language :   GOTTESWAHN   !!!      
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

Discussion  - I am in my last semester to earn
My B.S in biology from the catholic university I go to. The terminal biology course we must take is evolution. I had high hopes for this course after the first class when the professor tore apart creationists and intelligent design. Then in the second class, things took a bit of a left turn. We turned to a discussion of what things science does and does not have an opinion on. He brought up the question, does science have an opinion on love and let the class discuss. I brought up the point that mirror neurons of the inferior parietal cortex are suggested to be required for empathy which in turn is a requisite for loving someone. This of course is taking the view that love is a practical thing that causes people to tend to mate for life(although most of it is societal as some human cultures don't have monogamous marriage or marriage at all)

This of course was rejected by my religious classmates who simply asserted that love was not something physical...and that's evidence after that statement.

The professor didn't comment on the conversation, but just let it evolve before continuing the lecture. Which I enjoyed as I did not want my science course turning into another philosophy or theology one....then I received this email when I woke up this morning.

Just look at the readings he provided us to read. Looks like my hopes of a biology course not littered with theological assertions is just too much to ask for....
Mike N's profile photoMatt inLancaster's profile photoChris Anderson's profile photoBrandon Petaccio's profile photo
Thomas Nagel is an atheist.
Add a comment...
College Student
  • Texas Heart Institute
    Student Researcher, 2013 - present
    Researching efficacy of cellular therapies to treat cardiovascular diseases, and developing new organ production strategies for transplantation
  • Texas Children's Hospital
    Project intern, 2014 - present
    Using genetic techniques to analyze molecular mechanisms of vascular tumor progression
  • University of St. Thomas
    Student Researcher, 2012 - present
    Assessing the in vitro behavior of non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) DNA repair proteins. Determination of functional regions through site directed mutagenesis and protein fluorescence complementation.
  • Potbelly
    Loader, 2012 - 2013
    Cutting deli meats, sticking fridge, makin sammiches
  • Babies R Us
    Baby Gear Team Member, 2011 - 2012
    Product stocking and customer service
  • Auntie Anne's
    Team Member, 2007 - 2009
    Makin pretzels and whatnot
Basic Information