Heaving Dead Cats

Evolution Before Darwin

Neece — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:42:24 +0000

Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin Of Species" target="_blank">The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin’s time the idea of evolution – called “descent with modification” – was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation.

Evolution in Greece

While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as “evolution”, they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common concept was the idea that all things descended from one central, guiding principle.

Thales ( 624 – 546 BCE): asserted that all things originated from water.
Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE): With his assertion that physical forces, rather than supernatural means, create order in the universe, Anaximander can be considered the first scientist. He is known to have conducted the earliest recorded scientific experiment. He suggested that living beings gradually developed from moisture with warmth. He also thought that the first humans were born, fully formed, from the wombs of fish, since they needed care for a long time.
Anaximenes (585 – 528 BCE): Thought air was the principle of all things, and regarded the process as a thinning or thickening.
Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE): Thought that the first creatures were not fully formed but consisted of unconnected limbs. He established the concept of everything in the universe being made up of four elements: fire, air, water and earth, which was the standard for the next two thousand years.
Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE): The Great Chain of Being: He thought there was a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorized that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher, finally becoming the divine.
Lucretius (99 – 55 BCE): He was the first to suggest extinctions and that the survivors survived by “cunning or speed”.

Medieval Theories

During medieval times, the idea of evolution was quite out of fashion, since the time was dominated by the christian theory of special creation. This idea, which argued that all living things came into existence in unchanging forms due to divine will, was notably in opposition to the concept of evolution.

Medieval thinking was also, oddly enough, confused by the idea of spontaneous generation, which stated that living things can appear fully formed from inorganic matter. In this view, maggots came from rotting meat, frogs came from slime, etc. This sort of a concept prevented both genetic thinking and speculation about evolution or descent with modification. Nevertheless, a few philosophers theorized about some sort of teleological principle by which species might derive from a divine form.

James Ussher – 1581-1656

The traditional Judeo-Christian version of creationism was strongly reinforced by James Ussher, a 17th century Anglican archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland. By counting the generations of the Bible and adding them to modern history, he fixed the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C. During Ussher’s lifetime, debate focused only on the details of his calculations rather than on the approach. Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Cambridge University in England had the last word. He proclaimed that the time of creation was 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C.

This belief that the earth and life on it are only about 6000 years old fit neatly with the then prevalent theory of the “Great Chain of Being.” This held that God created an infinite and continuous series of life forms, each one grading into the next, from simplest to most complex, and that all organisms, including humans, were created in their present form relatively recently and that they have remained unchanged since then. Given these strongly held beliefs, it is not surprising that 17th and 18th century European biology consisted mainly of the description of plants and animals as they are with virtually no attempt to explain how they got to be that way.

Immanuel Kant – 1724-1804

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a concept of descent that is relatively close to modern thinking; he did in a way anticipate Darwinian thinking. Based on similarities between organisms, Kant speculated that they may have come from a single ancestral source. In a thoroughly modern speculation, he mused that “an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture”.

Biological Conceptions of Evolution

The preceding discussion has focused on the philosophical components of evolutionary theory, but precursors exist for its biological aspects as well. Indeed, as mentioned above, by Darwin’s time the concept of descent with modification was hardly controversial – it was only the mechanism, the rate of modification, and the ultimate origin of life that were being debated. Darwin’s major breakthrough consisted in providing a plausible mechanism to drive change in organisms.

Carolus Linnaeus – 1707-1778

Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné, is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God’s plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600’s by John Ray, 1627-1705, an English naturalist and ordained minister. However, it was Linnaeus who used this system to name us Homo sapiens (literally, “wise men”). He also placed us in the order Primates (a larger, more inclusive category than our genus) along with all of the apes, monkeys, and prosimians. This was very controversial at the time since it implied that people were part of nature, along with other animals and plants. In addition, it meant that we were biologically closer to the other primates than to all other animals.

Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are not fixed. The French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, actually said that living things do change through time. He speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance. He believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years. In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth must be at least 75,000 years old. He also suggested that humans and apes are related. Buffon was careful to hide his radical views in a limited edition 44 volume natural history book series called Histoire Naturelle (1749-1804). By doing this, he avoided broad public criticism.

Buffon was an early advocate of the Linnaean classification system. He was also a quiet pioneer in asserting that species can change over generations. However, he publicly rejected the idea that species could evolve into other species. One of his most significant contributions to the biological sciences was his insistence that natural phenomena must be explained by natural laws rather than theological doctrine.

Erasmus Darwin – 1731-1802

Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin was also a distinguished naturalist with his own intriguing ideas about evolution. While he never thought of natural selection, he did argue that all life could a have a single common ancestor, though he struggled with the concepts of a mechanism for this descent. He also discussed the effects of competition and sexual selection on possible changes in species. Like Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin subscribed to a theory stating that the use or disuse of parts could in itself make them grow or shrink, and that unconscious striving by the organism was responsible for adaptation.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck – 1744-1829

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s theory of evolution was a good try for his time, but has now been discredited by experimental evidence and the much more plausible mechanism of modification proposed by Darwin. Lamarck saw species as not being fixed and immutable, but rather in a constantly changing state. He presented a multitude of different theories that he believed combined to explain descent with modification of these changing species.

Lamarck subscribed to a number of what we now know to be false beliefs about inheritance. First, like Erasmus Darwin, he argued for strong effects of the use and disuse of parts, which he thought would make the relevant parts change size or shape in accordance with their use. Second, Lamarck believed that all organisms fundamentally wanted to adapt themselves to their environment, and so they strove to become better adapted. The belief most commonly associated with Lamarck today is his idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This theory stated that an organism could pass on to its offspring any characteristics it had acquired in its lifetime. For example, if a man exercised and thus developed strong muscles, his offspring would then have strong muscles at birth.

George Cuvier - 1769-1832

Lamarck did not invent the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics but stated it clearly and publicly in an 1809 publication entitled Philosophie Zoologique. It was relatively easy for the French scientist, George Cuvier, and other critics of Lamarck to discredit his theory. If it was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well. That, of course, does not occur. Likewise, the children of professional weight lifters are not born with enlarged muscles.

While Lamarck’s explanation of evolution was incorrect, it is unfair to label him a bad scientist. In fact, he was at the cutting edge of biological research for his time. He and George Cuvier were largely responsible for making biology a distinct branch of science.

Despite his criticism of Lamarck, Cuvier did not reject the idea that there had been earlier life forms. In fact, he was the first scientist to document extinctions of ancient animals and was an internationally respected expert on dinosaurs. However, he rejected the idea that their existence implied that evolution had occurred — he dogmatically maintained the “fixity” of species.

Cuvier advocated the theory of catastrophism, as did most other leading scientists of his day. This held that there have been violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains. Plants and animals living in those parts of the world where such events occurred were often killed off according to Cuvier. Then new life forms moved in from other areas. As a result, the fossil record for a region shows abrupt changes in species. Cuvier’s explanation relied solely on scientific evidence rather than biblical interpretation.

A careful examination of European geological deposits in the early 19th century led the English lawyer and geologist, Charles Lyell, 1797-1875, to conclude that Cuvier’s catastrophism theory was wrong. He believed that there primarily have been slower, progressive changes. In his three volume Principles of Geology (1830-1833), Lyell documented the fact that the earth must be very old and that it has been subject to the same sort of natural processes in the past that operate today in shaping the land. These forces include erosion, earthquakes, glacial movements, volcanoes, and even the decomposition of plants and animals.

Lyell provided conclusive evidence for the theory of uniformitarianism, which had been developed originally by the late 18th century Scottish geologist, James Hutton - 1726-1797. This held that the natural forces now changing the shape of the earth’s surface have been operating in the past much the same way. In other words, the present is the key to understanding the past.

This revolutionary idea was instrumental in leading Charles Darwin to his understanding of biological evolution in the 1830’s. However, it was not until the late 19th century that most educated people in the Western world finally rejected the theory of catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism.

Today, we know that our planet has been shaped by occasional catastrophic events, such as bombardment of large meteors, in addition to the comparatively slower natural processes suggested by uniformitarianism. All of these events have potentially affected the rate and direction of biological evolution.

Thomas Malthus – 1766-1834

Thomas Malthus’ theory of population growth was in the end what inspired Darwin to develop the theory of natural selection. According to Malthus, populations produce many more offspring than can possibly survive on the limited resources generally available. According to Malthus, poverty, famine, and disease were natural outcomes that resulted from overpopulation. However, Malthus believed that divine forces were ultimately responsible for such outcomes, which, though natural, were designed by God.

Robert Grant – 1793-1874

He wrote Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. It argued not only for biological evolution, but chemical and cosmological as well. It was largely scorned and was more of a philosophical work than a scientific one. But it was still very influential on Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both independently developed the idea of the mechanism of natural selection after reading Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). However, Darwin had been turning the problem over in his mind for some twenty years before he first published The Origin of Species. Moreover, Darwin was much more willing to explore the implications of natural selection, particularly in relation to humans, than Wallace was. In addition, Wallace was a champion of rather radical social causes and later openly embraced spiritualism – all elements that resulted in the downplay of his role in the discovery of natural selection.

While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution. However, neither man accepted a traditional biblical account of creation and a young earth. Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin’s proof of evolution, but Lyell did. He came to accept this proof in the early 1860’s along with most leading scientists of that time. Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s Early Ideas

Darwin proposed a few ideas before he came up with natural selection. One was called the Pangenetic hypothesis. It attempted to explain how acquired characteristics worked. This hypothesis proposed that cells produce small particles called pangenes or gemmules which end up in sex cells. When passed on to the offspring, the pangenes are able to exactly reproduce the organ in which they originated.

Another hypothesis by Darwin was the evolution of monads. This hypothesis stated that species adapt and old species are replaced by new ones, so the overall number of species remains the same. Monads arose by spontaneous generation and would evolve to become an ancestral species.

A modification of the monad hypothesis was that if a monad stopped producing new species it would die out.

Sources:

Some Books:

The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin
Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
Darwiniana – Essays by Thomas Huxley
An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction by David Quammen

Websites:

Timeline of Modern Evolutionary Thought
A History of Evolutionary Thought
The Victorian Web: Evolution
The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online

Your Two Cents About the Faith Based Initiative Program

Neece — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:20:46 +0000

The Secular Coalition of America sent me a request a few minutes ago, asking me to write a letter to Obama about the Faith Based Initiative Program. I pretty much keep my nose out of politics, but I thought I’d pass this along because I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State as my God Given Right!

Seriously, this country was founded on the incredibly important idea of religion and politics being separate. If you want to see a country where there is no separation, just go to Iran. I’m pretty sure they are a theocracy. Don’t hold me to that, though. My world politics skills have never been very sharp.

Anyway, I think letter writing campaigns work best when the people or organization targeted gets absolutely inundated from all over the place with the same request. Here is what the Secular Coalition for America says:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised to abide by “a few basic principles” that would protect the constitutional separation of church and state in his plan for an expanded faith based initiative program. He was specific: “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

On February 5, 2009 President Obama issued his Executive Order establishing his Faith Based Intiative program. Twelve months later at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama claimed that his administration had “turned the faith-based initiative around” from its misuse during the Bush administration. But it appears the only thing President Obama has changed about how millions of federal dollars are spent is that the office guiding the direct funding of houses of worship is now called the “White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” rather than the “Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.” Twelve months, Two words. That’s not a turn around, it’s a re-branding.

Go Here to Send a Letter to Obama through the Secular Coalition of America. Hey, maybe if enough of us say something it might just make a difference.The Secular Coalition for America has called for reform and oversight of the Office and the agencies that it oversees for years. Government reports and hearings have documented the constitutional problems and gross abuses rampant in this program, but a year later all Americans continue to have their federal dollars used for government-condoned religious discrimination, while reforms to prohibit proselytizing in these purportedly secular social service programs have still not been enacted.

No law is required to fix this – simply the stroke of a Presidential pen.

America’s Founding Fathers strongly believed in a clear separation between church and state. They gave us a Constitution that forbids government to support or oppose any religion, leaving Americans free to follow their own consciences when it comes to matters of faith. In the words of the First Amendment, government shall make “no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Churches and other houses of worship are free to spread their beliefs. But they are expected to raise their own funds through the voluntary contributions of the faithful. Taxation to support religion and religious endeavors was forbidden under the Founders’ constitutional framework. No American should be compelled through taxation to subsidize any religion. Twelve months, Two words.

I will resist the urge to climb up on my tallest soapbox and rail against the machine and leave you with another lolcat lolbear.

A Wild Ride With Robert Sapolsky

Neece — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:50:18 +0000

My friend Brent sent me a link to a page on the web. It’s a conversation with Robert Sapolsky, a quiet, funny, apparently brilliant professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and of neurology at Stanford’s School of Medicine. Professor Sapolsky has written several books such as:

The link Brent sent me was called TOXO and he suggested it to me because our book club is reading The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture, by Daniel W Ray. Now the video on that page was Robert Sapolsky talking about a most interesting parasite called Toxoplasma. This is what pregnant women need to worry about, and why they avoid cats and cat feces. It can wreak havoc on their unborn baby’s nervous system.

If you read The God Virus, which talks about parasites and viruses as an analogy for religion, I highly recommend watching this video. If you aren’t going to read the book I still recommend the video. The transcript is underneath it too, which will make it even more accessible for you. But the video is longer than the transcript. So take 25 minutes and enjoy it. Here’s another link to the video. I’m telling you, it’s fascinating. As I mentioned, the video is longer than the transcript. He goes into telemeres and molecular age, which I heard a study about recently confirming what he is explaining.

What he’s talking about touches on evolution, common ancestors, parasites and how they go about getting where they need to be, motorcyclists and speed freaks, and schizophrenics, as well as the government’s interest in this parasite. A wild ride indeed!

Of course, as a skeptic, I thought I’d just look around a bit and see who this Sapolsky guy is, since I’d never heard of him. I found his books (linked to above), his Wikipedia page, and a very cool speech he gave to Stanford students about to graduate. It’s about the uniqueness of humans. Here is the Stanford speech:

TED likes him too. Here’s his bio page .

“If a rat is a good model for your emotional life, you’re in big trouble.” Robert Sapolsky

I guess it’s no surprise that he’s an “unbudgeable atheist“. Did I mention he was awarded a MacArthur Genius Grant? But if you watch the videos, you’ll find that he’s fairly easy to understand, so he’s able to teach what he knows, which is awesome.

Oh, and the connection between toxoplasma and schizophrenia? Science Daily has a few studies that I could find:

Cross-posted from Morgantown Atheists

What Makes Us Uniquely Human?

Neece — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:59:45 +0000

The other day, I watched a 3 part special about what makes us uniquely human from the rest of the animals on the planet, namely chimps. It was very interesting and I wanted to share it with you. I’m linking to each full length video and then below I will link to Science Talk’s interviews with Alda about the show and other interesting things.

Here’s some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – is – the Human Spark.

What is the nature of human uniqueness? Where did the Human Spark ignite, and when? And perhaps most tantalizingly, why?

In a three-part series broadcast on PBS in January 2010, Alan Alda takes these questions personally, visiting with dozens of scientists on three continents, and participating directly in many experiments – including the detailed examination of his own brain.

Program One: Becoming Us (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda confronts the puzzle of why our ancestors in Africa got the Spark and evolved into us, while the first humans to leave Africa for Europe–the Neanderthals–never did. Why did we flourish, while they changed very little for thousands of generations before eventually dying out?

Program Two: So Human, So Chimp (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda joins researchers studying human children and chimpanzees to discover why we share some skills with our closest living relatives, but have far surpassed them in our most uniquely human capabilities. Though we both descend from a common ancestor and are genetically so similar, why are we worlds apart in our behaviors and abilities?

Program Three: Brain Matters (link goes to full video)
Peer into Alan Alda’s head to find out which parts of our brain are responsible for our most human characteristics. Where do tool use and language reside? And how do our brains allow us to understand symbolism, figure out what others are thinking, and even travel in time? Are insight and imagination what really make humans unique?

Steve Mirsky interviews Alan Alda in two parts for Science Talk, the podcast for Scientific American. You can download or listen to them here. This is how I found out about the series and realized that Alan Alda isn’t just an actor. I had no idea he was into science so much.

Alan Alda’s Human Spark, Interview 1: Alan Alda, star of stage, screen and science, talks with podcast host Steve Mirsky about his new PBS science series The Human Spark as well as his strong interest in science and long association with Scientific American.

Interview Part 2: Alan Alda, host of the new PBS science series The Human Spark, talks to podcast host Steve Mirsky about his experiences as a fictional physican, a real patient and an amateur scientist.

Better Late Than Never

Neece — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:47:13 +0000

Just a couple of Mr. Deity videos to brighten your day, just in case you live under a bigger rock than me and haven’t seen them yet.

Mr. Deity Funbits: Conan (1:26)

Mr. Deity and the Promised Land (4:54)

A Rational Chain E-mail

Neece — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:43:17 +0000

My friend Charles composed the following email as a response to a ridiculous christian forward he got call “Untimely Deaths”. He thought I might like to share it with you. So here it is, including the angry christian email reply he already got and his reply to that at the end. His version had the classical large fonts, underlines and bold text that inflammatory emails often have, but for the web, I had to strip most of the formatting. If you decide to send this on to your christian friends, feel free to make them more at ease by using insanely large font sizes, underlines, unreadable colors, etc.

Do you have the COURAGE to Read this whole E-Mail?????

The TRUTH about UNTIMELY DEATHS!

John Lennon (Singer):
Some years before, during an interview with an American Magazine, he said:
“Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple. Today we are
more famous than Him” (1966).
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Is god lazy? Lennon said he was bigger than Jesus in 1966. Mark Chapman shot him in 1980.
Fourteen years later! Was god too busy all those years assassinating other sinners? Is he a procrastinator?
“Oh yeah, that one blasphemous beatle. I really should smite him.”
The next day:
“Crap! I forgot! again!”

And so on, for the next fourteen years!

MARILYN MONROE:
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He is a preacher and Evangelist and the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.
After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: “I don’t need your Jesus”
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.

Of course, the fact that Marilyn Monroe was Jewish is inconsequential!

Now consider:

Saloth Sar, better known as Pol Pot, was the leader of the Cambodian communist movement known as the Khmer Rouge
During his time in power, Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of “restarting civilization” in a “Year Zero”.
The combined effects of slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people, approximately 21% of the Cambodian population.

Also, he was not a Christian. Also, he lived to be 70.

Aleister Crowley, born Edward Alexander Crowley, was an English occultist, writer, mountaineer, poet, playwright, yogi, and possible spy He was an influential member of occult organizations, including the Golden Dawn, the A∴A∴, and Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), and is known today for his magical writings, especially The Book of the Law, the central sacred text of Thelma. He gained notoriety during his lifetime, and was denounced in the popular press of the day as “The wickedest man in the world.”

And yet lived to be 72.

Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade, was a French aristocrat and writer famous for his libertine sexuality and lifestyle. His works include novels, short stories, plays, and political tracts; in his lifetime some were published under his own name, while others appeared anonymously and Sade denied being their author. He is best known for his erotic novels, which combined philosophical discourse with pornography, depicting bizarre sexual fantasies with an emphasis on violence, criminality, and blasphemy against the Catholic Church. He was a proponent of extreme freedom (or at least licentiousness), unrestrained by morality, religion or law.
The term “sadism” is derived from his name.

Lived to be 74.

Idi Amin Dada, The military dictator and President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979.
Amin’s rule was characterised by human rights abuses, political repression, ethnic persecution, extrajudicial killings, nepotism, corruption and gross economic mismanagement. The number of people killed as a result of his regime is estimated by international observers and human rights groups to range from 100,000 to 500,000.
A polygamist, Idi Amin married at least six women, three of whom he divorced. He married his first and second wives, Malyamu and Kay, in 1966. The next year, he married Nora and then Nalongo Madina in 1972. On 26 March 1974, he announced on Radio Uganda that he had divorced Malyamu, Nora and Kay.
Kay died on 13 August 1974, Her body was found dismembered.

Lived to the ripe old age of 78.

Finally, the REAL TRUTH comes out!

UNTIMELY DEATHS?

Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes–one child every five seconds.
In the time it takes you to read one E-mail full of “little lies for Jesus” at least 200 people will have died of starvation.
Over 4 million will die this year.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh EVIL?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

Use Your Brains.

Charles already got an angry response and replied:

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM, (unnamed Christian) wrote:

Man is where evil dwells not God. Don’t blame MAN’S shortcomings, cruelty, greed, racism, etc,,, on God!. Man has a choice….all of us have a choice. What we do with that choice is up to us. Our hand is not being forced by any being including God….use you brains!!!!!!!!!!

Charles’ reply:

An intelligent man would never blame god for any of those things, because he understands that god is but a creation of man.
Don’t devalue all humanity by blaming all the world’s injustice on them. You do not only the world, but yourself a disservice.
It is ludicrous to claim that the people who died in the earthquake in Haiti choose that to happen. As ridiculous as claiming that children choose to die of starvation.
Saying that “all of us have a choice” is the biggest “blame the victim” pile of steaming… well you get the idea, that religion ever propagated.

If you believe in god then you already believe in a place god created that is without suffering and yet all the people there still have free will, it is called heaven.
There is no reason an all powerful god couldn’t have made earth the same way. Unless he is just a dick?

But again, that would be silly to blame the world’s problems on an imaginary being. As silly as blaming people for things that they have no control over.

Things just happen, good and bad. It is a result of living on an imperfect natural world we have by chance evolved to live on.

Maybe someday you can see reality without the “Jesus glasses”. Good luck with that.

25 Blasphemous Quotes From Atheist Ireland

Neece — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:09:51 +0000

From Michael Nugent in Ireland, I found the following and thought I’d spread the blasphemy around and share it with you. Here’s to hoping Ireland gets a bit of sense and repeals this dangerous and ridiculous law. It’s a giant step backwards for human progress, as is the UN blasphemy movement that’s been going on for awhile now. I’ve added some nice religious imagery for eye candy.

From January 1, 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law became operational, and those in Atheist Ireland began their campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

Heaving Dead Cats

Evolution Before Darwin

Related posts

Your Two Cents About the Faith Based Initiative Program

Related posts

A Wild Ride With Robert Sapolsky

Related posts

What Makes Us Uniquely Human?

Related posts

Better Late Than Never

Related posts

A Rational Chain E-mail

Related posts

25 Blasphemous Quotes From Atheist Ireland

Related posts