Archive for Charles Darwin

My hangout|WITH @DIDGYA

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2014 by Anton A. Hill

My big regret with this one is that at one point, I say something really compelling (of course), Didgya attempts to get a word in, but I don’t hear him so I go on and on and on and you can clearly see him just give the fuck up on that one point because he probably knows he won’t be able to insert it. And I have no clue the entire time.


Seriously, though, this was, partly thanks to the fidelity of the connection, one of the more conversational hangouts I’ve had so far. Kudos to Didgya on that.

My conversation with stevenuggen on 12/11/11

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 11, 2011 by Anton A. Hill

This latest conversation took me for-fucking-ever to get to and to finish. Unfortunately, you’ll find many redundancies and repetitions. Because it’s taken so long and I’m frankly so tired of it, I’ve provided no commentary at the end. My text is in italics. Steve’s is in bold.

Hi Steve,

I understand you may choose not to respond. I’ve answered all of your questions, including the one on whether I’d like to interview acquaintances of yours who also witnessed God.

>something cannot come from nothing Anton. if you are a scientist you understand basic causation.

I’m a linguist, which is a kind of scientist. And yes, I understand causation, but just because we don’t know the cause of something 1. doesn’t mean there wasn’t one and 2 doesn’t mean it was what we assume it to be. My understanding of current cosmology is that time began with the universe, thus, there was no “before” the universe. Thus, no “cause” in the traditional sense.

>where did the soup of organic chemicals come from?

As far as I’ve heard, some from the atmosphere, some from the ground, some maybe even from space. I’m not entirely sure. Sagan might say that it all came from star material. My understanding of current cosmology is that it all ultimately came from a highly dense singularity. But don’t quote me on that. 🙂

>you always face the problem of causation. nothing we have observed empirically works that way. the only logical explanation is an uncaused cause.

That may seem attractive, sure, but it still requires explanation. Where did the “uncaused” cause come from, how did it get there, why did it do what it did, etc.? If current cosmology is correct and time began with the universe, there is no need for an “uncaused” cause. If the universe is infinite, there is still no need for an “uncaused” cause. Why is it theists find the notion of an infinite god so acceptable, but the notion of an infinite universe so unacceptable? They’re the same notion, merely with different names.

>an intelligent designer. the deeper science goes in understanding the radical complexity and intricisy of the Universe the more they see intelligent design as the only viable explanation.

Can you name a single legitimate, peer-reviewed, non-creationist-funded scientist who has proved, not asserted, but proved that there was, in fact, an intelligent designer? Are you saying that the appearance of patterns and complexity means that such observances were designed? The issue I see is even if we were to accept the ID idea, it still needs to be proved.

Moreover, everything I’ve heard from legitimate, peer-reviewed scientists such as Hawking is that the laws that we’ve already observed, such as gravity, explain the complexity we see. Continue reading

Thank you, #somethingdiffereable, for your de-conversion story!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 7, 2011 by Anton A. Hill

My sincerest apologies to somethingdiffereable, who sent me this a long time ago, but I never got around to posting it. His story’s below and under De-Conversion Stories.

“Well, like most people I was systematically brainwashed into religion at an early age! I never believed in santa claus (ever) and found the god-thing suspect right from the get-go! I was raised roman catholic and when my folks sent me to church on sundays, I skipped along with my little band of deciples. I spent the money on candy and whatnot.

“By the time I got to Jr. Highschool I began to examine the religious mumbo-jumbo a little more critically after discovering Darwin. I never really cared for Marx but I thought he was on to something with the religion being the opiate of the masses statement. I was at that time an agnostic.

“By the time I hit high school and discovered girls, drugs, liquor and all that fun stuff. I felt religion of any kind was not consistant with enjoyment and became a full fledged Atheist.

“Early into adulthood I was introduced to our wonderful legal system due to liquor and drug usage and was subsequently forced to attend AA. This didn’t last long however because I discovered seperation of church and state was in the first amendment and told the judge where to put it. That’s when I was fully converted to militant Atheism and have been ever since. I was saved! That’s what I tell all the fundies. I am saved from a life of religious enslavement!”


Thank you,, for your awesome video!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 19, 2011 by Anton A. Hill

My friend showed this to me:

Change of pace

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on October 23, 2009 by Anton A. Hill

Since the last few posts were entirely devoted to Steven (and yes, there’s more coming), I thought I’d show a bit of this as it totally grabbed me and made me wnat to vomit all over her.

As with my previous post on the Miss America bullshit, my ultimate concern is not that Wendy feels she has a right to affect public policy, abortion rights, education, etc., it’s that she keeps saying over and over that we should teach children and we should act in a way that reflects that we were created.

(She also spews a bunch of other bullshit about the evidence not being there for evolution, Darwin’s theories leading to inhumane actions, consorship fo dissention, the implication that atheistic philosophy doesn’t respect human value, and, let’s face it, that fucking condescneding, holier-than-thou smile is in desperate need of getting smacked off her gob, but I’m attempting to keep this on atheist issues.)

My issue with this is the same as my issues so far with Steven and that crazy lady, Maria. Think what you want. Believe what you want. I don’t care about that. But if you are going to think such a thing and if you’re going to attempt to affect others’ lives with those beliefs, you have got to have evidence.

Much of what Wendy says is logical fallacy. I don’t remember which 1. Essentially she says that since we are all genetic individuals and since we don’t have all gaps filled in the data, the answer must be God.

Enjoy the above video. It’s 1 of about 7.

%d bloggers like this: