Guest Post On Crossexamined.org

Hey hey, long time no see! I've been working hard on the new T3 album, as well as trying to get some college funding stuff squared away, so I've been a bit too busy to update regularly (or at all)....but I promise I haven't forgotten!

Anyway, the reason I dropped by here today was to leave a link to my guest post on Crossexamined.org, where I offer a rudimentary defense of evolutionary theory (what they call "macroevolution"....I explain the "difference" in my post there).

I actually have no idea how long it will be there, or if it will draw any attention or discussion at all....but regardless, you should drop over there and take a quick read. I tried to keep it short (it's around 2900 words). I know I didn't get anywhere near close enough to covering everything that needs to be said about this topic, so if you have any comments, questions or criticisms you'd like to offer up, please leave a comment or email or something!

--Tim

A Musical "Status Quo?"

Sorry it's been so long :o I've been busy with college and band-related endeavors. But more on that later. For now, I feel there's an issue within the new atheist movement that needs to be discussed.

Now first thing's first, don't get me wrong --- I absolutely love Hemant Mehta and I'm very fond of his work at Friendly Atheist. And when I read this article on his blog, I understood the point he was trying to make, and to an extent I even agree with it. However, I wanted to point something out. The article is about an event in Liberty, Missouri that was sponsored by the Parks & Recreation Department, in which --- GASP! --- a CHRISTIAN band was allowed to perform! From the article:

The event cost the city $9,500. It was “heavily promoted on Christian radio stations Calvary 88.5 and K-Love 97.3.” And a non-perishable food collection was taken up for a local ministry

...

I don’t mind the voluntary collection for a food bank, but why are public officials using tax money to bring in a decidedly Christian group to perform?

...


If I lived in Liberty, though, I would be pretty pissed off that my city officials paid for a Christian band to come to town to spread their gospel. Let the churches spend the money, not the local government.
Potential lawsuits aside, if you live there and you’re upset about how some of your tax money is being used, let the city council and Parks & Rec department know how you feel. Otherwise, nothing’s going to change.

Maybe it’s just because I’m in a band myself (albeit an “atheist” band), I’m gonna have to take the “not a big deal” side of this one. You can argue about whether the band's music is shit or not, but the fact remains that bands write songs about what they know/like/believe; bands are generally hired for being bands and providing music, not for providing ideology. You find a band that plays stuff that’s safe or appropriate for the venue (i.e. a punk band at a downtown club, or a country band at a redneck bar, a safe pop/rock/etc. band for a family event). That’s what seems to be the case here. And even if it wasn’t, frankly I don’t care, as long as there’s no blatant discrimination against “non-Christian” acts and equal opportunity is provided.

The thing to keep in mind is, what would be considered objectionable under normal conditions in society is not necessarily objectionable in musical form — that’s why The Offspring can release a song called “Kill The President” and not be tried for treason, just like a Christian band can get on stage and preach during an event when normal proselytizing is considered unconstitutional. Music is expression and art, which is protected by the first amendment.

Some people might say, “But the Christians KNOW that, and they’re just TAKING ADVANTAGE of the first amendment to spread their message!” To which I say, “So fucking what?” That’s what it’s there for. If you have something better to say, meet them on the same terms — use your own free speech to respond to them. Don’t try to silence theirs just because you don’t like what they have to say. Freedom of speech doesn't suddenly stop applying just because you disagree with the message.

Another thing that’s begun to bother me in recent months is how “Status Quo” this whole atheist movement is starting to seem. People raise a fuss because there are “more Christian bands than secular bands” at a given event, or that a Christian band got hired to do a gig instead of a "secular" band. I always hated the implications of this sort of fuss-raising — that if there aren’t exactly the same number of religious and secular bands at an event, that means there’s something amiss. As champions of science and reason, we atheists should know better — simple probability says that it’s very unlikely that there will be the *exact same* number of Christian vs. secular bands chosen for a given event. If there’s one more Christian band than secular, does that mean there’s discrimination? What about two more? When does it go from being “we just thought that more of the Christian bands met our standards than the secular bands” to “we’re discriminating against atheists?” Shit, people --- music and shows are supposed to create a sense of community and entertainment, they're supposed to bring people together. If we start splitting hairs because the religious "status quo" for a given event isn't fulfilled, what we're gonna wind up with is shitty events and bad bands --- we'll start seeing events that arbitrarily hire the exact same number of bands from the exact same number of religions (or nonreligions) just to avoid being sued. Instead of two good secular bands, we'll have a good "secular" band and a mediocre Christan band. Instead of two good Christian/spiritual bands, we'll have one good one and one not-so-great Jewish band. Instead of two good Jewish bands, we'll have one good one and a mediocre "secular" band. Please don't do that to the music scene, atheists. It's fragmented enough as is.

I mean, keep in mind, this is the same kind of shit Christians pull — we both know that if there’s a gig open for a single band, it’s either gonna be one kind of band or another kind. If it’s a Christian band, does that automatically mean discrimination against atheists? If it’s a secular band, does that automatically mean discrimination against Christians and other religions? What about a Jewish band? Where do we draw the line, here? It doesn’t have to be “discrimination” just because one guy got the job when another didn’t. It can just be that there was only one job, several qualified applicants, and one slightly more qualified applicant.
I guess I just think we run the risk of cheapening the whole movement if we keep overreacting to little things like this. Keep this up and it’ll become an internet meme like the Dave Silverman thing, just in the opposite direction.

T3's "Draw Mohammed Day/Rapture Weekend 2011" EP is here!

It's here, and even better: it's free!

You can download the new EP, which is being released unofficially, here. It contains the following tracks:

1. Autumn {2:32}
2. Jesus Is A Friend of Mine (Sonseed cover) {3:36}
3. So You Say (The Religion of Peace) {1:36}

Enjoy (or don't)!

Some Older T3 Songs

These are some of the singles from earlier T3 albums that were released before 2011:

Song: Alabamatheist
Album: Alabamatheist (Nov. 2010)


Song: The Noble Lie
Album: Alabamatheist (Nov. 2010)


Song: Christie Ann
Album: Cognitive Dissonance (Oct. 2009)


I'll be uploading more here as time goes by....these lyric videos only take like 10 minutes to make :)

If anybody out there actually reads this, and likes any of this stuff, or has a particular album you want to hear more of, leave a comment and I'll try to upload some more specific material :D

White People Problems RELEASED, and a Funny Story About "Mandy"

Alright, folks --- the new EP is out and about and ready to go; you can download it here right now :D

Here are the details again:

White People Problems {28:31}

Track listing:

1. Sociohypochondriac {1:31}
2. Mandy {2:09}
3. I'm Too Sexy (Right Said Fred cover) {2:34}
4. Unforgivable/Interlude {3:28}
5. Proximity Love {3:47}
6. White People Problems {3:50}
7. Miss McIntyre {3:04}
8. The White People Convention {4:04}
*bonus track just for lols*
9. Dry Ice - acoustic - (Green Day cover) {4:04}

Lyrics and cover art are in the rar file. If there are any problems with the download, let me know and I'll re-upload it somewhere else (I tried megaupload this time, but it kept telling me "an error occurred, try again later," so I went with sendspace again). It'll be up for free on sendspace for 30 days; after that, you can contact me personally and I'll send it to you, still free :D

For those concerned, the operative genre here is "folk/party rock."

If you're still concerned about whether or not you want to waste the time to download it, you can check out my earlier post, where I have a link to the song "Mandy" on youtube, so you can get a short preview of what kind of material we're dealing with. Or, you could check out this song, "The White People Convention," with drums played by a REAL white guy!



Oh, and that reminds me; I passed out some demo copies before the EP was finished (just had the first 5 or 6 songs on it) to some of my "real life" friends, just to get some opinions (I was kinda uncertain about it while I was working on it), and so several of the people I work with asked me for one. So I passed out a couple at work.

So in the song "Mandy," there's a line where I say, "Those killer tats/I want her bad," as a reference to this girl's back tattoo. Well, I gave a copy of the unfinished EP (with "Mandy" on it) to this other girl I work with in the evenings (she usually comes in right as I'm leaving), and she happened to be friends with my manager who was on shift that day, so they both listened to it that night. The next day they came in and told me they really liked the song "Mandy" (which was cool, cuz I originally wasn't gonna put it on there, it was more of an afterthought; I just liked it too much to throw it out so I threw it on there). I was all confident and happy about that; even though nobody seemed to care for the rest of it (I got some mixed reviews, to say the least), there was at least one song that everybody seemed to like, and that was good enough for me~

I even sent a copy to the lady about whom I'd originally written the song --- not for the obvious reasons, but rather because I felt like it was sort of unfair to write a song about her and not give her a copy of it, ya know? That's the kind of thing I'd want to know, if someone wrote a song about me. We used to work together, anyway, so I figured if I didn't send it to her, then she'd eventually find out from someone else through the grapevine eventually, anyway.

So just the other day (this all happened like a week ago), as I'm finishing up my duties and getting ready to leave, this girl I work with says to me, "yeah, do I know this 'Mandy?'" And I was kind of a little embarrassed so I jokingly said, "Um, shut up!" But it was really obvious that it was the same Mandy. So she says, "I like the lyrics, though." And I'm like, "aw sweet! That's cool, thanks!" At about this time my GM is coming around the corner, followed by like three other people I work with, all of whom personally know the Mandy in question. So then this girl says, "Like where you're singing about her...um...'assets?'" And all of a sudden, everyone in the room turns to look at me. And I'm just like, "Whaaaa?!"

I mean, it's not that far-out or anything, but I know for a fact that I didn't write anything about her "assets," so I'm kind of confused. And also, everyone else is looking at me like, "Oh, so THAT's why he always liked her so much," etc. etc. Because frankly, this chick has fairly huge boobs.....huge, delicious boobs....but um, anyway, yeah, it fit with the assumption.

But I said, "Huh? There's nothing like that in there...." And she sang me back the line, "Those killer tits I wanna bang?" And it immediately hit me: She'd misheard my line, "Those killer tats, I want her bad." But it was too late; everyone in the room had already heard what she'd said, and there was no time to correct it.

Long story short, I had to go around to everyone one at a time, explaining (wherever so prompted) that, while I cannot confirm the truth or falsehood of the notion that I would be content to bang Mandy's titties, that was *not* the intention behind the lyrics I wrote.

Nobody really cared except for me, but I was kinda trying to go with the "good, clean love song" vibe, so you may understand why it struck me as odd. I explained that I wouldn't write that about someone and then pass it around publicly --- if I was gonna write something explicit like that, I'd keep the names off of it and make it more vague and poetic, so that only the person I wrote it for would recognize it.

All in all it was pretty funny; I got a free chance to pimp my music (most people I work with didn't even know that I wrote music until this little mishap got around), and I also got a free chance (that I would not normally have gotten) to openly profess my feelings for this lady :D

Now, if only she hadn't already rejected me like six months ago, shortly after the song was originally written....:o But yeah. It all worked out great after all, cuz now I have a funny story to include on the next album jacket (or something)!

--Tim

White People Problems

Alright, guys, this blog is about to get 2000 percent more awesome.

Among my efforts towards counter-religious-apologetics, science, and that sort of thing, I will also now be advertising for my rock/folk band, tentatively titled "The Tim Tations" (officially T3, but the inside joke is that T3 stands for "The Tim Tations"). Our new EP (called "White People Problems") is coming out very, very soon, and in preparation for it, we've released the first single, "Mandy," which you can view for free right here!



Enjoy (or don't)!

We actually have over 200 songs written and recorded (slightly less, not counting covers), but I'll mostly be uploading new material here (for promotion's sake). Most of our EPs are priced very low or free (this one will be free), so you don't have to worry about your wallet, you can just dig the tunes~

With this new material to cover, I will also be updating much more frequently. Check back every week or so and keep your eye out for new material!

--Tim D.

"Darwinism"

It really bugs me when people use the term "Darwinism" to attack the theory of natural selection --- and let's be straight, when people attack "Darwinism," they're specifically attacking the idea of human artificial selection. Not evolution as a whole, and not natural selection, just human artificial selection --- like what we do with cats and dogs, but with people. These people may think they're attacking evolution as a whole, that just goes to show that they don't understand what "Darwinism" means.

"Darwinism" is generally used as a stand-in for "evolution." But there's a reason that it is referred to as "Darwinian evolution;" it is "evolution via natural selection." But when people attack "social darwinism," for example, they're attacking some Hitleresque utopian ideal where we artificially select who will live and who will die based on some genetic criteria or other. They're not attacking the idea that such a process would actually cause a change in the allele frequency of the human population at large (even though that actually would constitute an attack on evolution, which is the idea that the allele frequency of a population changes over time due to a combination of genetic drift and natural or artificial selection) --- which is to say, they're not attacking the idea that selection actually works to cause change in genetic frequency. Rather, they're attacking the idea that we should artificially select for such change, and specifically, against the idea that we should do so at the cost of human life or happiness. The idea is that even if natural selection does cause a change in genetic frequency, then it's still wrong to select for such change artificially in a way that forcibly hinders people's lives or rights. Which is of course true, even though natural selection does happen, and evolution does occur (and would occur in some Hitleresque utopian society where only the blonde-haired and blue-eyes were allowed to breed).

So keep this in mind: when someone attacks "Darwinism," or "social Darwinism," a couple of things are likely to be true:

1) They think they're attacking the credibility of evolution (they're not);
2) They think they're attacking the credibility of natural selection (they're not);
3) They think they're attacking the morality of artificial selection among humans (they are, and rightly so).

The important thing to remember here is that the morality of artificially enforcing such a policy in a human society has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the evidence that such a process would actually do what it set out to do; whether evolution and natural selection happen or do not happen, this has no effect on the moral aspect of doing so artificially, because the moral argument is against hindering people's lives or rights, regardless of the reason.

I can sum up the entire point of this post as follows:

1) Hitlerian artificial selection is morally reprehensible for reasons that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether or not such selection would actually produce genetic change. It has to do with the value placed on human life, which can be argued regardless of the truth or falsehood of evolution.

2) To put it in context; saying that evolution doesn't happen because enforced human artificial selection is wrong is like saying, "shotguns aren't real and don't actually work because shooting innocent people in the face is bad."

If you still don't understand (or would just like further, more elegant extrapolation on the subject), I would recommend this segment of an interview with Richard Dawkins, from Penn Jillette's radio show, in which Dawkins explains this relationship in a straightforward and interesting fashion (starting at about the 3:00 mark):

"That whole thing became very, very unfashionable, I think, partly because of Hitler. Because Hitler, of course, was the arch-eugenecist, and Hitler was completely, as we know, screwy...I mean, Hitler has given all kinds of eugenics a bad name. I agree with you, I think it would be a very unpleasant thing if there were to be a sort of government-organized breeding program, to say, 'let's encourage the smart people to breed and encourage the dull people not to,' I think that would be a horrible thing. That's different, however, from saying that it wouldn't work. And I hear a lot of people who just go around saying, 'it just wouldn't work,' and I fear that they're just saying that because, for ideological reasons, they don't want it to work."

And that is exactly what is going on here, when people attack the credibility of "Darwinism" for moral reasons.