Profile

Cover photo
Chris Anderson
Works at Texas Heart Institute
431,060 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
MIT professor claims that science has proven the existence of the biblical God. Only a 5 minute video so I will let you see his reasoning for yourself.
1
1
jack ball's profile photoPaul Haesler's profile photoBitchspot Blog's profile photoHunter Richardson's profile photo
45 comments
 
+Paul Haesler That's not God according to any religion out there.  He's just pulling this straight out of his ass.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Videos  - 
 
I found this video of what the uploader aptly dubbed the world's worst creationist. In this video he condescendingly shows his ineptitude of understanding the science of evolution and natural history and then ends with an appeal to authority from a veterinarian and MD who have never taken a look at evolutionary theory past the introductory high school level. Real great examples....

Also what I found most amusing is that the only accurate part of this video is when he tears into the Christians who try and reconcile evolution and their creation myths. 
4
1
Benoît `BoD` Lubek's profile photoChris Anderson's profile photo72daystar's profile photoJeff Kunkel's profile photo
4 comments
 
+Chris Anderson Agreed, quite a few people benefit from meeting their first ideologically commited person with a doctoral degreee aka dumb ass doctor.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

Discussion  - 
 
Can you reconcile science with religion?

I was watching an episode of StarTalk where Neil hosted a discussion on religion and science. He had on a Jesuit priest to discuss this topic along with videos of an interview with Richard Dawkins to juxtapose the two views on different topics. Quite a few good points were raised and I highly recommend watching this episode.


The Jesuit finished with the first cause argument, while making the special pleading fallacy for God. He kept making these supposedly "profound" pleas for why atheist are content to not understand everything about the universe, yet Christians are not allowed to understand everything about God. When confronted with Dawkins answer to God, should he meet him in the hypothetical afterlife, about why would he make a universe so sure of his absence if we are supposed to believe in you and your teachings. The Jesuit's answer was God questioning why atheists needed to be so sure of something in order to believe in it. Here is where I think we get to the heart of the issue of religious scientists. They do not see there being a conflict of religion and science because all of scientific discovery is rationalized as just the how that was put forth by God. However, it does not fall in line with some of the philosophy from the dogma of their religion.

One thing that came up was the idea that senses of awe are God reaching out to us to show that he is real. This is already a huge leap to begin with, but the Jesuit was so adamant that those who do not see it as such are willfully turning away from God and have no reason to whine about him not presenting himself. It's full of suppositions pulled out of nowhere, but according to this priest, that is perfectly fine.

Going back to his point about God asking why these people are not content with blind faith, if God did in fact create us to be a certain way, then he would be responsible for putting that inclination to want proof within us. Our patterns of thought would be apart of his design. Sure, we still have free will to go against those inclinations within religiously guided viewpoints, but that still does not change the fact that the entirety of our lives is basically a cosmic trick by God at that point. I will make you a certain way, give you none of the evidence to satisfy the requirements of how I made you think, and punish you for all eternity if you don't come to the conclusion you were never inclined to make. It just is mind boggling to think of a supposedly all loving being doing such a thing. The priest was arguing that one should not think about all of the rules that come with religion when contemplating God or the validity of a religion. Just accept it as true and work out the details later, once you are in the fold.

It would seem like those who say science and religion work well together are not really integrating the two, but rather keep them compartmentalized as separate forms of knowledge that should never meet. That is what I got from this conversation at least.
3
Helen Read's profile photoFidem Turbāre's profile photoChris Anderson's profile photoGeorge Wolf's profile photo
9 comments
 
I think hypothesizing religion as an addiction is a great way of explaining why it persists. To get over being religious the average believer must face a fear of the finality of death, of being forsaken by spouse, family or community, of disobeying beloved parents or discovering that there are things nobody will really forgive. Many of us know about going through this directly. The religious don't realize that they'll come out feeling better.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
Does the concept of religious persecution have some merit? It's obvious that much of what some Christians say is either hyperbole or just plain lies. There is no government sanctioned persecution, however it may be argued that the general public is beginning to look at the religious in a different way. There are people who react with mild disgust when someone openly admits they are religious. I have been guilty of that myself on occasion. Being religious generally comes with certain baggage that causes some to become a bit judgemental right off the bat. Essentially I am asking 2 questions:

1.Do you think there is some religious persecution beginning to arise from the public of any intensity.

2. If so, do you think it is warranted?

1
The USVO's profile photoRichard Taylor's profile photoJason Bakey-Webb's profile photoJavier Maestre's profile photo
10 comments
 
If by persecution you mean starting to lose some exclusive privileges they thought they were entitled to, then yes... but then again that's not actually persecution, is it?
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Videos  - 
 
Another good video from EssenceOfThought on youtube for those who are not familiar. He does excellent videos responding to religious apologists and is a great proponent for atheism and humanism. His are some of the first videos I began to watch after coming to the conclusion of athesim and his videos are great for arguments against the various forms of abstract word games that theists love to play and I highly recommend subscribing to him.

This particular video is EssenceOfThought's response to a Christian apologist who attempts to argue that atheism has no logical basis. He argues this in two main points, either atheists need to be willfully blind to anything beyond what the realm of science can touch, or there is no reason to believe your conclusion of atheism because your brain was not designed to contemplate philosophy or theology. That last one is a bit confusing, and self contradicting, so I will explain it. He essentially asserts that pure naturalism, which follows evolutionary theory without any kind of divine intervention, asserts that our brains evolved under a system to select for traits to help us survive and reproduce only. (very simplistic/dry view of evolution) So our brains are not evolved to contemplate these things and we should therefore not trust our own conclusion of naturalism/atheism. The video responds to this, and other points rather well. I will let you all judge the rest of the video for yourselves and we can discuss the points raised here. Look forward to conversing with you all. 
3
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Religious Buffoonery  - 
 
Saw this on my Facebook news feed and just had to share this bit of ridiculousness with the good people of this community. Enjoy XD
24
2
Chris Anderson's profile photoMpho Ditshibane's profile photoChris Nochance's profile photoMoontanman's profile photo
31 comments
 
Not far off. The page basically mocks arguments christians make.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
I wanted to discuss the topic of gender roles as outlined by religions and how the atheist community here views such expectations. I will focus on Christianity specifically as that is the religion I am most familiar with, but I am sure there will be some overlap with other major religions of today. Note:THESE ARE NOT MY OPINIONS OR VIEWS.

-Men are expected to be the heads of the house while women are in supporting roles. The man makes the final decision and the woman must honor it.
--The man is supposed to know his woman's needs even better than she does. Which is why he has the right to tell her what to do, even if she protests. (This was told to me verbatim by an actual Catholic woman)

-Men should tend to their woman and make sure she has help with tasks she is too "dainty" for and essentially watch over her to make sure she stays out of trouble.

-Women should raise the family and let the man make the money
--Anyone remember the religious right making this argument to justify pay inequality between genders?

-Both the wife or husband need to have sex with the other when asked because they gave themselves entirely to one another in their vows. No matter what the other feels at the moment, the must comply or be in mortal sin.

-Men are tough, decisive and quick to action while women are more emotional and easily distraught. Women are more likely to be irrational because of this and it is the man's responsibility to soothe her and help her see things clearly.


Those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head that I have either noticed, or directly been told about how devout Christians view gender roles. Let me know how accurate you think they are, if you can think of some that I missed and just your general thoughts.
1
Mr. Kennedy's profile photoTyler Durdin's profile photoAdriana Collazo's profile photoJudy Weismonger's profile photo
21 comments
 
Women are now flying jets and in combat....who gives a shit about assigned gender roles anymore? Only some insecure dimwit.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

Discussion  - 
 
Is it possible to disprove religion?

Let me be clear by what I mean by this. I am not talking about the possibility of a diest God(s) existing in a hypothetical, immaterial realm that is outside of our ability to measure or observe, and does not give any inkling of his existence due to non-action.

My question is specifically concerning religions that have lore and make assertions about the nature of the material world and even the immaterial or spiritual one. The reason I think so is that these more tangible claims can be tested for accuracy and logical validity.

As an example of accuracy, any story that makes a claim about the natural world can be scrutinized. Various creation myths, the story of Babel that tries to explain how different languages came to be, ect.

When looking at the logical validity of different claims, we can look at the framework of what the religion teaches instead of individual stories. Using Christianity as an example again since I am most familiar with this religion, they postulate that the spiritual realm is beyond what can be observed or measured due to its immaterial nature. The basal assumption is that immaterial things cannot interact with material and therefore cannot be observed or measured, yet the soul is also considered to be immaterial and is supposedly the animating factor for living things. We know that the soul must be immaterial since it is able to cross over to the immaterial or spiritual world once it is released from the body. But the body is clearly material, so if the immaterial soul can interact with the material body, then the immaterial(spiritual) must be able to interact with the material world and therefore should be observable through this interaction. This would once again raise the question of why we have not found any evidence of the spiritual realm interacting with this one, especially if souls are supposedly crossing over and back all the time (people being born and dying)





5
2
Chris Anderson's profile photoMichael Slee (Josh)'s profile photoFidem Turbāre's profile photoRuben Faulkner (Uncle Rube)'s profile photo
6 comments
 
Specific religions can, and have been disproven. However, considering the number of available unfalsifiable claims, and a 'Holy book as a series of stories told by God through humanity' perspective, I don't think it's possible to disprove religion in general. Unless we can prove an exact method in which everything in the universe came to be, religion can always retreat to ignorance (or claim supernatural trickery).
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
Is it possible to disprove religion?

Let me be clear by what I mean by this. I am not talking about the possibility of a diest God(s) existing in a hypothetical, immaterial realm that is outside of our ability to measure or observe, and does not give any inkling of his existence due to non-action.

My question is specifically concerning religions that have lore and make assertions about the nature of the material world and even the immaterial or spiritual one. The reason I think so is that these more tangible claims can be tested for accuracy and logical validity.

As an example of accuracy, any story that makes a claim about the natural world can be scrutinized. Various creation myths, the story of Babel that tries to explain how different languages came to be, ect.

When looking at the logical validity of different claims, we can look at the framework of what the religion teaches instead of individual stories. Using Christianity as an example again since I am most familiar with this religion, they postulate that the spiritual realm is beyond what can be observed or measured due to its immaterial nature. The basal assumption is that immaterial things cannot interact with material and therefore cannot be observed or measured, yet the soul is also considered to be immaterial and is supposedly the animating factor for living things. We know that the soul must be immaterial since it is able to cross over to the immaterial or spiritual world once it is released from the body. But the body is clearly material, so if the immaterial soul can interact with the material body, then the immaterial(spiritual) must be able to interact with the material world and therefore should be observable through this interaction. This would once again raise the question of why we have not found any evidence of the spiritual realm interacting with this one, especially if souls are supposedly crossing over and back all the time (people being born and dying)





1
Bitchspot Blog's profile photoHellfire LWD's profile photo
18 comments
 
+Bitchspot Blog

Perceptions? Not realities?
Even if I only disproved their conception or perception of a God... Then I still disproved that one they have in mind.
Sorry but what is so real about gods then anyway?
There is only that way to argue the god, because he's not in reality.
Or else we could have just set up an experiment and experimentally prove or disprove him.
Anyways...
I never said I disprove the gods of the universe. The question was clearly about theistic gods. I never tried to debunk any other god then the one that was put forward. This god doesn't exist. I understand, it leaves room for every other god, But at least that one is a goner.
I have said it a lot. So it should have been clear to you.

NOT DEBUNKING ANY OTHER GOD THEN THE ONE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
If you say god is a guy that made us in the way the bible described, I can say he doesn't exist. I even have proof of that. Now when you change the assets of this god, we no longer talk about the same God
I don't see how hard it is.
There is proof that the god of the bible doesn't exist, that's true, there has to be something going on with him. He is lying and therefor not who he says he is. Or the whole things is not true to begin with...
Either way, he is not what he supppose to be. It is a different god.
Also.... God himself says things in the bible, I can disprove some of those things...., So again...
He is either lying and not who he says he is... Or the whole thing is fake.
Either way, this guy, how he describes the world in the Bible, in this form...

Doesn't exist.
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
I think this is a perfect parallel to what the religious do when they impose their "morality" on others
42
Wendy Wanton's profile photoproud to be atheist's profile photoBrendon Wright's profile photoJoe Feliciano Rivera's profile photo
6 comments
 
+Wendy Wanton​ actualy the fish was a symbol of the Goddess, she rules the sea. Just another symbol that christians appropiated. 
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
I saw this post from a former classmate on Facebook and it just made me feel disgusted. Just thought I would share to give you all a glimpse of the bull we had to deal with in that Catholic college. So glad to be done with that...even now it still shocks me with some of the shit coming out of their mouths.

 Edit: Just to be clear, the views expressed in her post are not her own. This is just what was taught in that particular moral Theology course. 
22
DM Naku (Isaac)'s profile photoJoshua Burton (Scientific Spartan)'s profile photoHugo A. G. V. Rosa (Sr. X)'s profile photoDaniel Voisin's profile photo
23 comments
 
What's really tragic is in holding this belief when the husband dies it suddenly becomes his fault for not believing. 
Add a comment...

Chris Anderson

» Discussion  - 
 
Compilations of the craziest, victim complexed religious people in the wake of marriage equality ruling. I still have a hard time believing people can just say shit like this and not see how ridiculous their arguments are..
 
The religious right's response to the recent SCOTUS ruling is predictably absurd...

"“Christians are being taken off the face of the earth,” End Times radio host Rick Wiles warned last week, citing a prophecy that President Barack Obama would begin a “martial law” campaign against religious freedom. (In a moment of epic talking-point singularity, one blog even wondered if Jade Helm, the military training exercise the right believes is a prelude to martial law, will be used to implement the Court’s decision.)

“We are in the Soviet Union now,” conservative radio host Michael Savage intoned on his show this week, referencing an Idaho chapel that incorrectly believed it would be forced to perform same-sex marriages. (A new law exempted it.)

But no sooner were we in Communist Russia than we were in Rome. “Gays will cheer,” he continued. “As they start throwing pastors in prison, you’ll see who’ll cheer them. Next we’ll get the arena and the lions, get the arena and the lions and bring them in from Tunisia.”"

#GOPFail   #LGBT   #MarriageEquality   #Vote2016  
The religious right's response to the recent SCOTUS ruling is predictably absurd.
6 comments on original post
9
1
George Saint's profile photoRichard Taylor's profile photoChris Anderson's profile photoGertrude Perkins's profile photo
9 comments
 
I really can't stand how they are citing the racial civil rights movement when discussing how to fight this. It is ironic on so many levels. One being conservatives were the ones staunchly against that civil rights movement as well as the obvious fact that they are pulling tactics from a civil rights movement to take away a different group's civil fucking rights!!

Ugh, the one thing that gets under my skin worse than anything is when American Christians get that victim complex in full effect. I know they are no strangers to delusion, but how fucking far gone does your mind have to be to think other people living their lives the way they want is an infringement on your damn rights? "Being a Christian is becoming frowned upon in America. I hate when people say we are horrible people. I mean, all we do is talk shit about how other people are going to hell and are just intrinsically horrible people!" Just, ugh!
Add a comment...
Collections Chris is following
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Work
Occupation
College Student
Employment
  • 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