Godless Medley

This is a medley of three songs I’ve written. The first, called “Little Atheist Me,” makes its debut in the medley. The second and third, titled “Songs About Jesus” and “The Fantastic Theory,” were previously recorded and released on my YouTube channel. Altogether, the video is just under ten minutes long. Two, if not all three, songs contain swear words. So put on those headphones.

“Little Atheist Me” is about nothing more than me and my worldview, which just happens to not include any gods. The song describes those things I do believe in, such as “love and hope and family,” as well as those things I’m afraid of, like “falling to my death or being stung by bees.” As the song says in the chorus, I’ve got “no time for Jesus.” I wrote this as a way to tell the religious community that atheists do have plenty of things they believe in or are afraid of; it’s just that none of those things include superstition.

“Songs About Jesus” is really just one song, and it’s only about Jesus insofar as the Christian belief that “Jesus is God” goes. So I suppose, really, it should have been called “A Song About God.” But there you have it. The song is also how a lot of Christians don’t seem very Christ-like, so I guess that’s the part about Jesus.

“The Fantastic Theory” is about Intelligent Design versus evolution, and the battle to censor science and/or teach ID in public schools. Mostly I cover evolution and sing about how life has no apparent design; and if it was created, it wasn’t done so very intelligently.

A few notes unrelated to the song(s)…

  • No, I will not take off that hat. I really like that hat.
  • No, I will not trim my guitar strings. No reason; I just can’t be bothered.
  • The silicone band on my right wrist is zebra-print and I got it at the Dallas Zoo. Incidentally, the Dallas Zoo is where my wife and I had our wedding ceremony.
  • The guitar is a Yamaha. I received it as a gift for my seventeenth birthday.
  • I bought my shirt through RichardDawkins.net

Also on my YouTube channel, you’ll find a few additional songs:

  • “Mary,” which is more or less about marijuana.
  • “Imagine,” which is a cover of John Lennon’s famous song.
  • “Rat-Zinger,” which is about the Catholic Pope and child-molesting priests.
  • “Fabulous,” which is about equal rights, especially for the LGBT community.

Humans are pretty dam* dumb.

The following is taken from the comments section of a particular Listverse list of “15 Unusual Prehistoric Creatures.” This is one of those cases where I don’t think a rebuttal is even necessary, but I’ll provide a very brief one after the quote. It’s entirely possible that this Captain Carrot is just a “Poe,” but I’ll treat this as though he’s being completely serious.

Captain Carrot / 27 May, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Oh, Lord. I’m tired of hearing the retarded sounding “creationists believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old” bullcrap. Who said that? Where is that fact?

Good Lord, nobody is saying that the earth is only 6000 yrs. old. That would be like saying that nothing existed, that there was this big explosion, or “bang” if you will, and then things started growing from out of nowhere. But we all know that, scientifically, it’s been proven something can’t just grow out of nothing, right? Um, right?

Plus the fact that animals were a totally different creature or species and they just “grew” what they needed later. Like how I read somewhere that dolphins were actually land animals (a cow, for instance) and all of a sudden “transformed” into something else entirely. The legs just miraculously “fused” together, it grew fins out of it’s sides, the blowhole developed, etc. etc.

For f*ck’s sake, and they say the religious crowd comes up with some unbelievable stories. Humans really are pretty dam* dumb.

Fortunately, whether or not they’re correct, most people at least recognize the existence of the Young Earth Creationists who do, in fact, claim the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. To deny these people exist (“nobody is saying that the earth is only 6000 yrs. old”) is nothing more or less than a blatant lie. Just because something is highly illogical does not mean nobody believes it to be true.

Secondly, please, for the sake of the religious right, stop attempting to use science to invalidate science. That would kind of be like saying “The Bible says it’s true, therefore the Bible is true.” Nobody ever says that! (that’s an example of me being facetious)

Third, and finally, please refrain from commenting on evolution until you actually understand evolution. Animals don’t just grow things they need. If that were to ever happen, I would be more likely to believe some supernatural force is the one guiding such transformations. It is clear you have zero understanding of evolution or the theory of natural selection.

In short, you’re right. Humans (at least some of them) really are “pretty dam* dumb.”

Dear Kirk Cameron

Photo taken at the 41st Emmy Awards 9/17/89

Image via Wikipedia

Dear Kirk Cameron,

Why do you joke about how scientists have not discovered a “crocoduck”? Do you really just not understand how evolution works? Do you understand, but are purposely being misleading and dishonest with the eight-or-so people who cling to your every word? Have you ever thought about the fact that a true chimera (half one animal, half another) would essentially disprove evolution and falsify the theory of natural selection?

I mean, really, have you ever actually heard a biologist say that one animal simply morphs into another, and that’s how we get a new species? Things don’t work that way, Seaver, and nobody who knows what they’re talking about has ever said they do. An animal that is half-one thing and half-another would pretty much be indicative of divine intervention. That is precisely why we don’t have crocoducks, kangaphants, or narwalruses. Although that last one would be pretty sweet. Really, instead of asking “why don’t we have crocoducks,” you should be asking “why don’t we have crocoducks?” Note where the emphasis lies.

In short, that smirk on your face when you say “why aren’t there any crocoducks” looks really bad on you.


PS: bad-mouthing Stephen Hawking doesn’t help your case, like, at all.

god, not God

Any time I debate somebody about the existence of the supernatural (which, admittedly, isn’t very often – I tend to keep my debates online only) they always seem to have reasons why they believe in a god and why I should too. Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument, obviously, but that’s not the point here. What I find amusing is that nobody has ever argued with me in favor of their god.

You can tell me all you want that evolution is a hoax and we were created. You might even give me “evidence” that we were created (you can’t – I’m just sayin’). But your “evidence” doesn’t support a theory of creation by your god. Just by a god. Not even necessarily by a god, but by some supernatural force. You’ve provided me with no argument whatsoever why the particular god you believe in must have been the one who created us.

To me, no religion makes sense. But deism makes far more sense than any organized religion. “There is something out there that started all this, but I won’t presume I know any more about it than that.”

There is no thought or reason behind believing in one god but disbelieving in all others, there is especially no reason behind choosing a particular god over others, and frankly I find the notion of choosing a god to believe in quite silly anyway.

Missing Link? What Do You Mean, ‘Missing’? (an excerpt)

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for E...

Image via Wikipedia

I have a couple posts I’m working on at the moment, but don’t feel either are quite ready for publication. That being the case, please enjoy this excerpt from Richard DawkinsThe Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution. This is the particular excerpt to which I was referring in yesterday’s post; the one which introduced me to the writing of Richard Dawkins and ultimately led to my “coming out” as an atheist, as well as to my particularly anti-religious viewpoint:

Creationists are deeply enamoured of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of ‘gaps’: ‘Show me your “intermediates”!’ They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these ‘gaps’ are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history – large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful ‘intermediates.’ I shall emphasize in Chapters 9 and 10 that we don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure, even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.

Let’s again make use of our analogy of the detective coming to the scene of a crime to which there were no eye witnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive all point towards the butler. It’s pretty much an open and shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler’s defence lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler’s pantry. He wags his finger, in that compelling way that lawyers have made their own. ‘There’s a gap in the video record! We don’t know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client.’

In vain the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage towards the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? Surely the case against the butler is now unassailable? But no. Triumphantly the defence lawyer plays his ace. ‘We don’t know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before.’

The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury were about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species (Chapter 10) and their geographical distribution (Chapter 9). We don’t need fossils – the case for evolution is watertight without them; so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are, as I say, lucky to have fossils at all.

–Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution

Life, the universe, and everything

As an opener I’d like to state that my worldview has absolutely nothing to do with my atheism. I like to think that were I a theist I would still hold life, the universe, and everything in exactly the same regards. This post is not intended to answer any questions about nor explain my view on theism. Correlation does not imply causation. That being said, let us proceed.

Where did we come from?
Four billion years ago or so, just the right combination of chemicals came together somewhere on this planet. Some phosphates, some sugar and nucleobase molecules, and a charge of electricity or radiation (lightning?) have been proven to be all it takes to create life. It’s hardly “something from nothing,” but as uncommon as it is, given a lot of chemicals and a lot of lightning and billions of years something’s bound to happen. Those are the layman’s terms, of course; I’m not a chemist, a biologist, or a physicist. But there’s proof, so there you go. It may not be the correct answer, but it’s the best one out there yet and it’s certainly more realistic and preferable than “God did it” (which would only raise more questions).

Of course the life created was the simplest it could possibly be. On a relatively new planet, however, given plenty of time and a fast-changing environment, this life began to change. It evolved, more cells began to work together, organisms formed, they grew fins, swam, poked their heads out of water and began breathing air, crawled onto land, grew legs, scales, feathers, wings, fur (not necessarily in that order) and, billions of years later, here we are. That was the condensed version. Be sure to research natural selection to learn more about how all that busy stuff actually happened.

Why are we here?
This is still up for interpretation. Taken to mean “what is our purpose,” one could say that as a species our only purpose is to continue to propagate the species. Man find woman. Man court woman. Woman bear child. Child grow up. Find mate. And so on, and so forth.

If you’re looking for a deeper purpose, I could only tell you my own as I believe every person finds his or her own purpose in life. Mine is to be happy and have a happy family (first) and try to keep everybody else happy to my best extent (second). This includes going to school, getting a job, telling jokes, writing songs, singing loudly, smiling a lot, dancing when the mood strikes me, wearing comfortable shoes, playing video games, keeping a blog, donating to charities I know will make the world a little easier to live in for some people less fortunate than I am. If you think my purpose is anything more or less than that, then I’m so very sorry for not living up to your standards. I apologize if my purpose seems a little superficial compared to yours. The fact of the matter is that I’m happy, my family is happy, and ain’t nothin’ gonna bring me down.

Where are we going?
This one’s easy. Eventually, as happens with all species, the human race will go extinct. It may or may not be replaced by another sentient race, more adaptable to change and more capable of surviving in whatever the conditions are at the time. I doubt very much that we will be the last animal to go extinct. In the end, nothing we say or do or accomplish as a race will matter. Not to us, at least; we’ll be dead. It very likely will matter to whatever species outlive us, since there is no doubt we will have changed our planet (whether it’s earth or some other planet we move on to in the future) in a manner that will affect the other animals around us. Knowing that, maybe we should try and keep things nice and tidy ’til we go.

In terms of where each one of us goes, or how we end up, being that I don’t believe in any afterlife (primarily because I have no reason to) we’ll just die. That’ll be it. Physically, our bodies will decay and nourish the land and life around them. Metaphysically, one must remember the human is a social animal. We tell tales, sing songs, and create art. Not that it’ll matter to me much after the fact (since I’ll be dead), but I like to think here and now that once I’ve died I’ll be remembered. Perhaps people will still listen to the music I’ve created or read the stories I’ve written. That line of thinking – that I’ll possibly be remembered in those ways – brings me comfort and makes me happy. See “Why are we here?” above if you’ve forgotten why I think that’s important.

Why is goodness good, and what are morals anyway?
Who am I to say what’s good and right versus what’s bad and wrong, you might be asking. I’m not a philosopher so you’ll have to forgive me if you disagree, but I prefer to take the utilitarian route and define goodness as whatever makes the greatest number of people happy and comfortable, and causes the least amount of discomfort, pain, or unhappiness. That answers, as far as I and my opinions are concerned, the question of why it is good to be good.

The less important question here is what are morals and where do they come from? I, the non-philosopher, prefer to ask who cares? Morals exist. Everybody has a different view, and some of them contrast with one another, but how we developed morality is completely irrelevant. It is, though, also completely answerable. I already mentioned humans are social animals, but I need to bring it up again here because it’s pretty important. At some point in our ancient history of evolution we discovered that is it more beneficial to work together to accomplish a particular task, as opposed to going it alone. As family groups became more common, we realized it would be detrimental to our well-being if we killed or hurt those around us. Anybody who did so became an outcast as they were seen to be harmful for the future of the family/clan/community. For (hopefully) a better understanding of how we may have developed morality and ethics, I will refer you to the parable of Grog and Zog - a silly name for a story about cavemen that teaches an important lesson.

Still have questions? Read it again.

The contents of this post are subject to change.

Quotes in Context (I)

The eye - irreducibly complex?

This is a new segment I’ve decided to call “Quotes in Context.” Here, we will post a quote out of context, explain how it can easily be used to deceive anybody unfamiliar with the quote or the topic it covers, and then proceed to round it all out by posting the quote in context.

Our first quote will be by Mr. Charles Darwin himself. Darwin, as we know, wrote a pretty famous book called On the Origin of Species, which sold out entirely during its first week of publication. His book was controversial at a time when people assumed science and gods could work hand in hand, but is now regarded as one of the most relevant and influential books in history.

The quote many creationists (those who believe their god snapped its fingers and created life on a whim) like to rely on is as follows:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

-Charles Darwin

This is a dangerous thing indeed for the father of evolutionary theory to have said. What Darwin is referring to in this quote, without saying the words creationists have since coined for the term, is irreducible complexity – the notion that something (like the human eye) is so complex that it could not have possibly evolved. They claim that were a single part of the eye removed, it would be made entirely useless. Clearly Darwin is saying the same thing in that quote, taken directly from On the Origin of Species.

Clearly, that is, until you read the line immediately following that one:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Layman’s terms: but if we were to prove the eye is not irreducibly complex, we would look for many other examples of less complex eyes in nature. We would also check and see if any slight modifications to the eye may make it more useful under any other conditions. First, examples of other, less complex eyes do exist in nature. Second, it is demonstrable that slight changes to the eye would benefit it under different circumstances. Therefore, what seems to be “absurd in the highest degree” is, in fact, quite simple to understand.

In other words, Darwin was raising the notion of irreducible complexity in the eye, only to then tear apart the popular creationist theory and prove that the eye is not, in fact, irreducibly complex. Creationists, however, love to ignore the second half of the quote and only talk about the first, claiming Darwin was actually on “their side,” and that he proved his own theory wrong.

Laryngeal Nerve of a Giraffe

Probably my absolute favorite evidence against creation/intelligent design is the giraffe‘s laryngeal nerve. Put simply, it is a nerve which, in a giraffe, travels several meters in order to reach a destination mere centimeters from its starting point. This is due to the fact that evolution works with what it’s got; it cannot go back and fix things. An intelligent designer would have had the laryngeal nerve travel directly from point A to point B, but in every single mammal it instead travels down the neck, around the aorta, and back up the neck to the voice box.

Here’s a video of Richard Dawkins explaining exactly how the laryngeal nerve works in a giraffe: