Atheia - An Atheist Pub

A Proposition: Religion is a quick path to security

2011-11-04T07:28:00.000-07:00

I am in the middle of something really cool right now. I have an old friend (we're going to call him Sam) who turned to faith several years back when life threw him its typical curve ball. He recently declared that he doesn't know what to believe any more and appears to have become disillusioned with his chosen church and, on a deeper level, is questioning his faith in God. I saw this as an opportunity to provide Sam with solicited information on atheism and its foundation in logic, reality, science, and free thought. To my delight, Sam has asked that I provide him with resources to understand what I, and all other atheists, "view" to be the truth about the origin of the cosmos, the earth, life etc. I put "view" in quotations because, believers like Sam see a non-believer's knowledge of things like evolution, astronomy, and natural science as beliefs. And while I guess we as atheists do believe in what we know, I find labeling this knowledge as a "belief" or "view" somewhat demeaning. Anyway, I digress.

As I continue to embark on this attempt to enlighten Sam, I will be posting what I am learning about my atheism, science, and the complexity of "deconverting" a believer.

Here is a sample from today's discussion. Sam is really wanting me to provide him with "the truth" I keep referring to when I speak of the origin of the earth and everything on it. He wants the "quick and dirty" on big bang theory, cell mutation, evolution, etc etc. In an attempt to start with foundational information, I have been presenting him with videos on how scientists have determined the age of stars, other galaxies and so on.Sam's response has been, "yeah, that's nice but how do you prove God didn't create that"; and "I want to know how earth formed - from star dust?"; and "Did humans just come from monkeys?" My response to Sam has been that, unlike religion, which just provides a finite story of how it all began, asking you only to believe it "just because", science requires far more exploration into obtaining proofs of what it hypothesizes. Furthermore, scientists (and atheists) are comfortable with accepting unknowns without the need to contrive and then believe in myths all for the purpose of creating security where unknowns exist.

So may I propose the following for discussion: Religion is simply instant gratification for impatient people that just want quick security from that which we haven't yet discovered or that which requires a higher level of cerebral exertion?

Oh, and if you know of any good resources for people wanting to learn more about the true origins of, well, everything, please feel free to post them below. I will add them to my new tab, "Resources for Doubters."

On Effort and Laziness

2011-10-24T07:26:00.000-07:00

The challenge for Atheism lies in the fact that for a believer to enlighten themselves to the truth and logic of non-belief requires them to educate themselves on some pretty lofty scientific truths. It requires, at the very least, quasi-academic study and thinking because atheists don't just throw their trust into whatever makes them feel good. On the other hand those who have been indoctrinated into faith or are in the process of establishing their path, being wooed by religion, need not worry about such scrutiny. For to be a "good believer" requires only unabashed trust in what you are told. Quite easy and may I say, lazy.

So we are left asking people to take the route that requires effort while religion requests that you let them do the thinking for you.

Sometimes human nature sucks.

This is worth a post

2011-10-20T05:24:00.000-07:00

In the last twenty four hours I have had one person tell me he appreciates the words I spread; one man tell me he has decided to turn his back on religion; and one man tell me he is frustrated with belief and wants to talk about "other options."

I think I have mentioned, snow balls require snow flakes. It's a good day!

God Is Pro Choice - A Deductive Argument

2011-09-28T03:31:00.000-07:00

Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e. the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge. An example of a deductive argument:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

-Wikipedia

So let me practice:

1. God is all-powerful and the architect of everything that occurs on Earth. (In the eyes of a believer true or untrue?)
2. Miscarriage is a spontaneous, non-medical, naturally occurring abortion (True or untrue?)
3. One who believes that abortions should occur is considered "pro-choice." (true or untrue?)
4. God is pro-choice (true or untrue?)

I know the arguments that believers will use to attack this very logical and accurate representation of their chosen god. They are the same arguments employed by believers whenever holes in their fairy tale are revealed. They certainly aren't deductive arguments.

Anti-Choice Hypocrisy

2011-09-26T07:49:00.000-07:00

I was enjoying a pleasant Autumn walk home from the pub after watching my beloved Arsenal put the final touches on a convincing Premier League victory. The sun was shining, it was unseasonably warm, the leaves were half-way between Summer-green and Fall-color, and my afternoon was going to consist of enjoying the company of my wonderful wife and daughter. It really was a moment of nirvana. Then, shockingly, I was forced to look at the ghastly image of an aborted fetus. You may have seen it, the one where the head and legs are disconnected from the torso. Lots of blood. It was on one of those placards being held by an Anti-Choice activist.

My instinct was to berate the arsehole for exploiting the very being that he claimed to be protecting. However, I decided to respect a citizen's right to protest and stood at a distance far enough away to clearly dissociate myself from the Anti-Choice cause. It was an uncomfortable wait for the light to turn green. It got more uncomfortable when the subject arsehole asked me if I wanted a pamphlet.

I decided at this point he had opened himself up to hearing my own protest, not to his cause, but rather the medium he had chosen to promulgate his cause. Using an image of an aborted fetus to gain followers is blatantly disrespectful to that fetus and a complete contradiction to the Anti-Choice movement. If you seriously view that fetus as a life why do you feel it respectful to take a photo of it, blow it up to 3'x4', and stand on a busy street corner flashing it in strangers' faces?

Listen, I recognize that people can have different opinions regarding the exact point where life begins. It is a highly emotional and personal debate with ostensibly no "right" answer. My personal view of life's genesis is obviously far different than this protester's but I respect that he feels life begins when a tadpole meets an egg. In terms of abortion, there are several scenarios where I don't feel it should be legal however there are many instances where I feel it should be available as a choice for women. But that debate is not what this blog post is about.

I will end with two scenarios that I hope will make my point or at least generate some meaningful debate. I apologize for the harsh mental imagery they may cause but feel my generic descriptions, involving fictional people, will make an important point. So here goes:

As an obvious Pro-Choice advocate I decide to head down to the local corner with an explicit 3'x4' image of a 16-year-old girl involved in sexual intercourse with a 45-year-old man. The sign reads: "This girl is being raped by her father. He has AIDS."

As a pro-euthanasia advocate I start a web page to promote the cause. The background image is of a 95-year-old woman connected to various machines; some performing respiratory functions while others ensure she is nourished. She is wearing a diaper however it appears to have failed to contain her last bowel movement adequately. The sign reads: "Is this dignity?"

Do my causes really matter?

"With God's help..."

2011-09-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

Photo: Reuters

So, I was thinking that Netanyahu's speech to the UN was poised, tempered, and somewhat un-religious until he stated that "with God's help" Israel and the Palestinians would find peace. I have a better idea: stop believing in God, the cause of this utter clusterfuck, and start really working on peace. Am I the only person who sees the absolute ridiculousness of this god business?

Imagine....

2011-09-12T10:16:00.001-07:00

9/11/2001 with no religion. Would we be talking about that day's tragedy today? Me thinks no. A good day to listen to Mr.Lennon's anthem of reality.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A thought for Earth Day...whenever that is.

2011-09-04T07:53:00.000-07:00

Atheist Word Association

2011-06-24T07:25:00.000-07:00

To assist me in writing a far more poignant piece than this one (to be posted at a later date), I asked my "friends" on Facebook to play a little word association. Simple: when I say Atheist, what comes to mind? Now, it is not my intention to judge those who responded because I truly do appreciate them helping me out on this. Plus, as anyone who has played word association knows, the first word that comes to mind is not necessarily your actual definition or belief regarding the subject with completely unrelated jibberish a frequent result - hence the fun of the game over a few beer. Nonetheless, here are some of the responses and my thoughts on them. Like I said, this post is not the ultimate product of this little experiement but rather some Friday fun.

Societal Outcast
Love this one because it is ironically true. Those who would rather have fairy tales proven before believing them are considered socially deviant in our current society. Happy to be part of this group of misfits.

Common Sense
Aside from the obvious, my favourite aspect of this response was the follow up: ("which I suppose isn't so common"). Amen.

Modern, moderate, rational
Nice to think we are thought of as modern. I suspect this is because Atheism is "trending" in social circles right now. While, superficially I will take this as a compliment for the movement, I certainly hope we become more than just today's leg warmers. I love hearing "moderate" and "rational" (even though I know this person thinks I am anything but). These are two descriptors that are welcoming and will, over time, allow closeted sceptics to comfortably walk through the doors of logic sans fear.

Religion
This one bugs me even though I recognize the point and admit my aggravation is one of silly semantics. While I understand that anyone can subscribe to anything for which they have strong passion for as a religion (i.e. hockey in Canada; public breast feeding in Ottawa) I pettily default to Merriam Webster's first definition of the word and hate being associated with a faith in the supernatural. But c'est la vie.

Lost Little Boy
This is either a classic response with absolutely no relevance to the subject or someone who needs to spend some time with me or another male atheist in their locale. We aren't lost nor are we dwarfs.

Snarky
As humans, yes we are, at times, snarky. Not sure what we would call the god of the old testmament then.

Neutral
Nice reponse especially when we think about what Atheists really are. Simply people who choose to believe based on their logic and reason. Quite a benign and mundane lot really.

Sceptical but not without compassion
Love this one. Hits on exactly what my greater purpose is for this project. Will leave it at that and ask you to come back when I finally finish it.

Argumentative
I suspect this is what came to mind when this person thought of me, and if the case, an accurate first impression. However, she may also think of Atheists this way in a general sense. We have to be argumentative when we have women covering their bodies in the name of religion; school boards discriminating against gay students; governments listening to Christian lobbyists in an effort to thwart equality; and mythology being taught in science class.

Closed Minded
While I love this person very much and will always defend people's right to religion as much as I fight for my protection from religion, this is definately my favourite. Two general, but not inaccrate comments:
Atheists: people who choose to believe only what has been objectively proven to date or that which has strong probability based on scientific trends, with the willingess to be proven wrong by future discoveries - including the true proof of the supernatural.
Theists: people who believe in something with no objective proof, generally unwilling to admit they could be wrong and that their belief is based on blind faith alone. Fought to have the phrase "There probably is no god. Be good for goodness sake" removed from a bus.
You decide.

You don't believe everything you are told
Can't think of a better compliment

Lost, radical, and sad
A real trend towards being lost...interesting and worth a post on its own. Atheists get lost like anyone else. Oh, and sad too. But it's not our sense of logic's fault.
Radical: One guy believes in a ghost. The other doesn't. Let's play "Who's radical?" In all seriousness, this is one concept I genuinely find fascinating and illusrates the incredible marketing job religion has done over the centuries. I can accept someone chosing faith over atheism. But to call atheism the radical of the two choices makes absolutely no sense to me. Call me, ah, radical I guess.

Evolved
Whitty response. Biting my tongue.

Lonely
I can understand if a person that has a perceived relationship with a god equivalent to a real person, depending on him for clarity, purpose, and guidance views an atheist as lonely. Speaking for myself, I have a great wife, hilarious daughter, a solid family, and top notch friends. All is good with me. I am sure there are lonely atheists.....the ones with none of these things.

Brave
Interesting and in many ways true. This response speaks to the general intolerance of society. To think that you have to be brave to state that you only believe in proven things in the year 2011 is a sad commentary on society. This is why I write this blog and drive people nuts on Facebook!

Empty
We're not.

As more responses come in I will add them and eventually make this a seperate page link, as I think they are at the heart of the misunderstanding of Atheism. Like I said, I will also be using this information to discuss a more pragmatic topic: the need for Atheist charity and community-building.

Considering the centuries of social persecution of Atheists at the hands of organized religion, misconceptions are logical. To those of you reading this who contributed, I genuinely appreciate your time and respect your opinions and beliefs.

Enjoy your days!

Atheists doing good things. Time to make it a first impression.

2011-06-22T10:04:00.000-07:00

Check out and contribute to the great new charity listed here on the left: Foundation Beyond Belief. It's time for people's first impression of Atheists to be that of compassionate community builders. This is a great place for us all to start. Thanks FBB!

Dumb Chicks Talking About Smart Stuff

2011-06-21T04:58:00.000-07:00

I was about to call this disturbing but then I came to my senses and thought about the collective IQ of these bimbos and their lack of relevance in the world. But seriously, aren't beauty pageants a great example of a less evolved element of human existence? The good news? The winner actually believed unequivocally that only evolution should be taught in schools. Natural selection begins!

End of Week Thoughts on The Potential of Science and What It Means to Atheists

2011-06-10T06:06:00.000-07:00

Everyday I use the time spent walking home from dropping my daughter off at daycare to reflect on things. Sometimes about work. Sometimes about family. Sometimes about my non-belief. This often results in me generating hypothetical conversations with imaginary believers or just trying to find the perfect phrase to capture an element of my belief system. This shouldn't be confused with a quest for the perfect debate clincher - although at times it does take this tone in my all-to-busy mind.

Today I was thinking about atheism, science, belief, and knowledge. The following statement came to mind:

Atheists aren't Atheists because they believe science has found all the answers. Atheists are Atheists because they believe that science CAN find all the answers.

An obvious statement to some. Maybe not so much to others.

Either way, I found it to be a nice thought to end a great week. Enjoy your weekend everyone.

Inspiring Words from a Christian Convert

2011-06-09T06:50:00.000-07:00

I read this article written by Ms. Paula Kirby in the Hibernia Times. It is an incredibly articulate and intimate description of a former believer's path from faith to reason. Thoughtful. Respectful yet pointed. Inspiring to any Atheist, skeptic, or troubled believer. My favourite passages:

"Knowing what kind of god someone believes in tells us a great deal about that person – but nothing whatsoever about the truth or otherwise of the existence of any god at all."

"An atheist life, well lived, leads to the only kind of afterlife there is any evidence for whatsoever: the immortality of living on in the fond memories of those who loved us."

This is a great piece for someone trying to come to terms with the reality that their faith is faltering and the fear of not knowing what exists after the leap of logic.

Thank you Ms. Kirby

Human Rights Are Not Religious Rights

2011-06-07T06:36:00.000-07:00

It will be short and sweet today. I am reading Maryam Namazie's keynote address to the World Atheist Conference in Dublin last week (I wish I could have been there). Her talk was entitled The Islamic Inquisition. While I find her entire speech compelling, the following passage in particular intricately captures society's growing, and dangerous, desire to defend Muslims' collective "right" to Sharia law as an individual's right to freedom:

"As a result of such politics, concepts such as rights, equality, respect and tolerance, which were initially raised vis-à-vis the individual, are now more and more applicable to culture and religion and often take precedence over real live human beings. Moreover, the social inclusion of people into society has come to solely mean the inclusion of their beliefs, sensibilities, concerns and agendas (read Islamism’s beliefs, sensibilities, concerns and agendas) and nothing more. The distinction between humans and their beliefs and regressive political movements is of crucial significance here. It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs. It is the human being who is worthy of the highest respect and rights not his or her beliefs or those imputed on them."

Thank you Ms. Namazie for so accurately presenting one of the myriad theistic threats facing our society today. Of course, to get the full context of her concerns head to her blog: http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/06/islamic-inquisition.html?spref=tw.

A Believer's "Coming Out"

2011-06-01T07:40:00.000-07:00

Photo courtesy of http://www.mamamia.com/

I have had a few conversations with believers lately that have brought the concept of blind faith to the fore. I am proud to say that I don't believe in a god. Sure, at times it can be a bit awkward to say when I know I am in the presence of believers whose relationship with me I value. But I am always very proud to declare my non-belief. It is a core element of who I am on par with my gender identity, nationality, sexual orientation, and being a fan of Arsenal FC.

While believers and I will likely never see eye to eye on anything to do with our chosen paths of belief, I would assume we both share one thing in common: a pride in the belief system we have chosen. I have to assume that the sense of identification I have in stating "I cannot believe in a god because I don't believe in blind faith" is mirrored by a believer stating "I have blind faith in God because I think some things are 'bigger' than science." In fact, I will even say that I "get" the latter statement. While I know I could never accept blind faith personally, I do respect that many people feel it.

So where am I going here? Well my aforementioned conversations have revealed several believers who appear to be "in the closet" with their blind faith. While they clearly declare their belief in "God" they become hesitant to base this belief on faith. When I say, "I respect your decision to believe in god I just can't have blind faith in something," they respond with a statement indicating that their belief in "God" is based on something more empirical than faith. It's at this point that my "New Atheist" side is revealed.

I don't claim to know for sure that there is no god. I claim that, based on all of the objective, measurable, falsifiable information available to me, I believe there is a near absolute improbability that a god exists. My lack of belief is based on my need for objective proof and I am proud to say it. When a believer states that: a. They are certain of god's existence and b. That their belief is based on the existence of proof......proof in the form of miracles, I lose my cool.

I'll end this with some semantics. "Faith" refers to the concept of hope and belief in something and it is a word with a broad range of utility. For example, I have faith that my wife and I will do our best to raise our daughter to be a responsible and considerate adult. I have no internal conflict when I make a statement like this. This "faith" is based on observable and reproducible behaviours that my wife and I plan to use in our parenting. What I cannot control are my daughter's genes, what may happen to her parent's health, what happens to the earth during her lifetime etc. I have no faith in those things because they are beyond any one's control and my psychological make up just does not allow me to have faith in these types of things. This is how I would characterize religious faith or "blind faith." It is a trust in the truth of of an unproven deity, the questionable history of a messiah, the future return of this messiah, and the existence of an afterlife. None of which has any objective, reproducible evidence or tangible probability of happening based on trends to date. As such, any one believing this is putting faith in something far different than putting faith in a sports team, family member, or friend. This is what I, and I will confidently predict most people, mean when they use the phrase "blind faith." While I don't have the ability to have blind faith I certainly appreciate its attraction and would fight for people's right to it. I just wish those whose belief depends on blind faith were as proud of it as I am of not having any.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Who's More Crazy? A Post (non) Rapture Reflection.

2011-05-23T07:03:00.000-07:00


Photo courtesy of www.finkorswim.com

I know we are all sick of hearing about Harold Camping's rapture predictions. So I will attempt to make my point in as few words as possible.

Here is the question that the rapture media frenzy has left me with: What makes Mr. Camping all that more crazy than all the "normal" believers out there? Over the past three weeks I have observed so many believers, primarily those that we would call "moderate Christians", exclaiming their opinion that Camping is a nut-job; that predicting the date and time of the rapture and posting it on billboards across the continent gives all Christians a bad name.

It's as if we have all forgotten about the subject of Mr. Camping's prediction and the one thing that his fellow Christian naysayers generally have no problem with: the return of a dead man, said to be the son of God and a virgin ,sent to bring all of his followers into heaven while leaving us non-believers to suffer and die in his created earthquakes followed by an eternity of suffering in hell. Sure Christians of varying sects and degrees of belief may have variations on this story but the essence is the same: that Jesus will return from the dead, rapture his believers, leaving the non-believers to struggle in hell with Satan.

But what element of Mr. Camping's proclamation do believers feel most tarnishes their own Christian beliefs? May 21, 2011. 6pm. A date. A time.

I don't know, call me crazy, I have a harder time with the rapture part.

A pre May 21 Question

2011-05-17T12:26:00.000-07:00

Okay, so let's play make-believe and say the predictions of the May 21 rapture are true. How many of you think that Jesus will accept into his eternal kingdom, atheists who have treated their fellow man and planet with deserved respect?

And before you proclaim that I am worried, I leave you with this: send me to hell if you must Jesus, because I still don't believe in your heavenly father.

Come on people, leave some comments on this one. It's not very often you are faced with a rapture.

Keeping It Simple on a Day of Extravagance.

2011-04-29T06:25:00.000-07:00

While Will and Kate push this day over the top, I figured it would be a nice foil to go back to basics. This is what being Atheist means to me.

I don't believe there are any supernatural gods. I don't know that there aren't any supernatural gods but my commitment to applying logic to what I believe leads me to a conclusion that there is a much stronger probability of the inexistence of gods than the existence of gods. I am not afraid of being wrong and hence don't feel compelled to close my mind to the possibility (albeit incredibly unlikely) that a god exists. What makes me, and I suggest all non-theists, different than believers is that the foundation of my non-belief is based on that which is objectively probable, while their belief is based on a faith with no objective probability. This is not a judgement statement, just an indisputable observation.

Simple as that. My deeper value set and how I choose to treat the world and its creatures doesn't come from my lack of theism just like a theist's approach to life doesn't stem from his or her non-belief in the thousands of gods outside of their chosen faith. How shallow would that be? My chosen life approach comes from an innate desire to treat my world with deserved respect. An inherent feeling that it is just "right" to do good. Call it humanism if you must label it.

That's it. If this sounds like you, embrace it openly.

Enjoy the wedding and congrats William and Kate. You seem lovely.

When 2+2=5

2011-04-10T05:50:00.000-07:00

Newt Gingrich

(Credit: Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Likely Republican Presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich (he of two failed marriages and extramarital affairs, self-attributed to "passion for his country") recently prophesied that America is at risk of becoming a secular atheist country ruled by radical Islam. Here are his exact asenine comments taken from Politico, "I have two grandchildren -- Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Okay Newt, I am going to send you on a scavenger hunt. I want you to find me some black white people; a couple of German Mexicans; and a dead living person. Having trouble? Well, so too will it be to have a secular atheist nation dominated by radical Islamists. If you think your current flock of Jesus-lovers have a tough time with Atheists, ask your "elite" opposition to explain what radical Muslims think of non-believers. It isn't pretty.

There's a reason people like Newt fear "elites" and academia, who he claims aren't brave enough to defend America's Christian values: they provide the truth that derails fear campaigns. Oh and Newt, be careful not to ostracize the people that made that cue card for you.

Sometimes a simple quote is all a new post requires....

2011-03-29T05:29:00.000-07:00

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

– Robert Pirsig

Intelligence scares dumb people.

2011-03-24T04:26:00.000-07:00

The Arrogance of Belief

2011-03-16T04:44:00.000-07:00

A great quote borrowed from www.unreasonablefaith.com.

But one question: could the earth have evolved all so that I could exist? My self-absorbed side likes this theory.

A Man with an Annoying Voice and an Imporant Message

2011-03-03T06:40:00.000-08:00

I know it is lazy to just insert other people's work into your blog. I just don't care. What are you going to do? Send me to hell?

CNN Plays Pretend

2011-02-28T12:26:00.000-08:00

I have (i.e. had) a habit of checking CNN's website for my up-to-the-nanosecond fix of news. However, after today I may not make the network a frequent cyber-stop. Why you ask? Because this is one of their current "news" stories:

"How would Jesus cut the budget?"

I'm more interested in knowing how Bugs Bunny would oust Gadhafi from Libya.

Ridiculous.

Are Rational Religious People All That Rare?

2011-02-15T05:09:00.001-08:00

This is my response to an article written in the Huffington Post today. See the link below for the article.

If you claim to "have no idea what happens to you after you die" are you really a believer? While I respect your liberal approach to religion, it appears to be so progressive as to represent agnotistic rather than theistic principles. Is it possible that you are confusing "rational religion" with agnosticism? I ask this because the approach to religion that you have described appears to very much depend on doubt and logic. You see, religion is not religion if you remove the "Santa Claus" element. In order for any religion to exist its followers must believe in a supernatural deity: a santa claus. They must demonstrate faith in its existence. Remove this and you no longer have religion. You may have a movement with a fulfilling approach to life but you, by definition, no longer have religion. I think what you are describing as "rational religion" is the gradual transition from blind faith to atheism.

In short, there is nothing rational about believing in the supernatural. As long as this belief is part of the definition of religion the two concepts will remain mutually exclusive.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sorry Mr. President, I Still Don't Believe You....But Thanks For The Plug.

2011-02-03T10:30:00.000-08:00

President Obama gave a speech today at The National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. For past-presidents this would certainly not rank very high on the press' "sexy" list but with President Obama it certainly does. Many Americans (and at least one Canadian I should add) question his faith. I would be ecstatic to hear that President Obama is, at the very least, doubting. Most Americans on the otherhand view such skepticism in the supernatural in the same light as "sins" like theft, adultery, and rape (oh the possibilities for a Pope joke here).

While President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to Christianity during his speech to believers today, I still hold that he is far more a wise man than a Christian one. He knows his approval ratings would nose dive at a rate similar to Piers Morgan's viewership if he were to even hint at questioning his beliefs. Not to mention the fact that he is in his first term with a pack of bible-thumping, gun wielding, tea-baggers cocked, loaded, and awaiting election season. If he decided to be the first modern era President to publicly question his faith he would at least wait until the farewell tour of his second term.

So after reading his speech from this morning I am certainly not any less ardent in my theory (see hope) that President Obama is an atheist. I am, however, happy to have read a portion of his speech where he discusses his parents and upbringing. He describes his father as a "non-believer" and his mother as "growing up with a certain skepticism" (this is his way of saying she was atheist without giving America a collective heart attack). It's what he says he learned from his mother that brought a smile to my face and, I feel, was a subtle message to atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. He said that his mother "was somebody who was instinctively guided by the golden rule and who nagged me constantly about the homespun values of her Kansas upbringing, values like honesty and hard work, and kindness and fair play. And it's because of her that I came to understand the equal worth of all men and all women, and the imperatives of an ethical life, and the necessity to act on your beliefs."

Get ready to soil your gitch America. You have a president that learned his "Christian values" from an atheist. Values on which many believers feel they hold a monopoly. How many times have we atheists heard the argument that without a belief in God one is unable to live a life of morality? Right-wing believers may hate his politics but look me in the eye (just click on "About Your Bartender") and tell me the guy is amoral. Then again, you can look me in the eye and tell me you believe the story of Noah so forget it.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I really think Obama is speaking to the skeptical population when his speeches contain these subtle passages. I think he wants us to know that he has doubts, respects skepticism, and knows we're good people even if we don't believe.

A Monday Morning Funny - Thanks God

2011-01-31T02:28:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of atheistcartoons.com check them out!

The Semantics of Miracles

2011-01-30T04:38:00.000-08:00

Have any of you noticed the frequent references to "miracles" in our media? An example: I was shocked to hear Dr. Michael Lemole, congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford's neurosurgeon, state that it would be "wise to believe in miracles" when explaining Mrs. Giffords' remarkable rate of recovery. Are you serious? A man of science crediting divine intervention over his own intelligence, the skills of his team, the rapid response to the shooting, and at the very least, yet to be discovered scientific rationale. I mean, I can't say it was surprising to hear Oprah suggest that it was a miracle that her newly discovered half-sister bears the same name as her deceased sister (it was Patrica by the way). I equate that to another believer confusing miracle with coincidence. But for an esteemed member of the medical community to even consider including "god" as part of his medical team shocks me. I guess he could be playing to his geographic constituents (and by geographic I am referring to his entire country). It was evident to me while watching the ra-ra-sis-boom-ba "memorial service" that it is wise for any public figure speaking to the masses affected by this tragedy to include some god-references. Even Obama (who I still hold is a closeted Atheist) quoted scripture. I really hope this is what was behind Dr. Lemole's "miracle" statement.

Okay, so I wrote the previous paragraph about three weeks ago and then saved it as a draft with plans of revisiting it for a witty closing illustrating my frustration with people who liken the unexplained to divine intervention. However I thought it would be wise to visit Merriam Webster.com and check out the definition of "miracle". To my delight, I discovered that the second definition is terrestrial, stating "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." So why is this a significant finding worthy of your discretionary time? Well, this means that believers don't have a monopoly over such a weighty word. While I don't think that disseminating the semantic details of the word "miracle" is the best use of the atheist movement's time, it certainly wouldn't hurt to stake some claim over it during our efforts to take over the world. Think of it as synonymous to the word "marriage" - another word that believers have to learn to share.

It also means that when asked "do you believe in miracles" I can respond "are you referring to definition one or two?"

Hedonistic Priests and the Case For "Normal"

2011-01-12T06:19:00.000-08:00

So Benedict says that the pedophilic behaviour of his priests must be seen in a broader social context where the world now views child pornography as "normal" and where drug use and sexual tourism are on the rise. Okay, so tell me pope, how many of your paedophile priests took hedonist cruises or were regular drug users prior to their sins? And can you go find me a non-paedophile who views child pornography as "normal"? The only remotely "normal" thing about the behaviour of these priests is that their behaviour is likely somewhat "normal" for someone who has been indoctrinated into the sexually repressive regime of the priesthood. You are a criminal Ratzinger. You are no better than the "dirty old man" on the local news. If you weren't the world's most prolific shepherd with an elephantine herd of dazed and confused disciples, you would actually be held accountable for your disgusting behaviour. There are very few times where I hope I am wrong about the non-existent afterlife. This is one of them because I know where you would land you pig.

Belief or Illness.....or both?

2011-01-11T04:14:00.000-08:00

I have to admit...I find myself wishing bad things on these people.

Of Atom Bombs, Pin Pricks, and Doing Good

2011-01-09T09:06:00.000-08:00

It's good to be back. I apologize to anyone who has shown up to the pub over the last month only to find it "closed". I also thank you for making a return visit. Where have I been? To be honest, I have spent the last month in the haze of an anxiety attack. Yep, anxiety is my chronic condition and the last month has been a nightmare. The good news is that 2011 appears to have ushered in a renewed state of reality and calm (at least some more prolonged periods) and I am energized to get back to contributing to the cause of reason, logic, and rational thought (oddly enough, three concepts that I lost sight of personally over the last month).

So what does this all have to do with today's post? Well, I last left you with a hint towards my next rambling: should the atheist movement take an atom bomb or pin prick approach to spreading its word? What's the difference? The atom bomb approach is akin to "The New Atheism" and is an all-out war on all religion aimed at disproving and eliminating all theistic and supernatural belief. A great example of this approach is Richard Dawkins' film, The Root of All Evil . When I say "pin prick" I am referring to an approach that is not any more tolerant of theistic beliefs but much gentler in its approach to opening the eyes of those believers who are ignoring their own skepticism and disbelief. My first use of the phrase "atom bombs versus pin pricks" was in response to a post by "Godless Girl" (http://www.godlessgirl.com/2010/11/atheism-isnt-a-big-deal/). Her argument was that atheism is just not a big deal. It simply means that you believe in one less deity than a religious person. I commented that there is place for both the "atom bombs" and "pin pricks": atom bombs on a macro level, fighting the systemic permeation of religion into our social and political institutions by making atheism a "big deal"; and pin pricks, on a micro level like Godless Girl's blog, spreading the uneventful, normalness of atheism.

So what does this have to do with my recent journey through the abyss of anxiety? Well at some of my lowest points I thought of people who are faced with personal struggles, whether it be poor health, loss, or poverty and how it is natural to look for something positive to grasp onto. I was feeling it at several points. I could see how, when presented with the support of organized religion and the concept of "god", people in the darkest of low points feel compelled to believe and be a part of a greater existence. The concept of community and supernatural saviour that comes with committing to religion is understandably attractive to someone looking to be propelled out of any type of suffering.

The atheist community has an opportunity to reach out to those who are looking to be lifted out of a personal mire. While we cannot offer a supernatural fix I believe we can offer something better. A fix based on the power of the collective human good. A fix that explores the capabilities of our own mind and personal strength. A practical fix that relies on that which already exists within a person rather than that which hypothetically exists "somewhere out there". All of this with the same sense of community that organized religion has perfected.

For too long atheism has carried a negative connotation, and while the noble (and necessary) efforts of Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchens, and the like will surely continue to be misinterpreted by those afraid of the possibility of their truth, local atheist organizations have an opportunity to create positive "pin prick" communities, reaching out to those in need while spreading the message of logic, rational thought, and reason. For every bus sign declaring there is no god we should post another sign advertising our local soup kitchen. For every humanist meeting aimed at debating morality without god there should be another proving that morality through charitable activities. For atheism to lay the roots we so desperately need it to, it must begin to focus equally on what does exist in this world: atheists who care about their communities.

I hate him so much.

2010-12-07T13:06:00.000-08:00

Photo courtesy of atheistcartoons.com

Defining Facts and Truth

2010-12-07T04:01:00.000-08:00

I don't have as much time to blog this week as I would like (damn "real" job) but I found this great photo on the "Godless Girl" blog (really should check it out - great site: www.godlessgirl.com) via rejectfairytales (www.rejectfairytales.com).

Next up: Does the Atheist movement need to drop atom bombs or are a million little pin pricks a better approach? Should be up by Thursday. Come back.

Again, check out Godless Girl - love her site.

Thank You Atheist Blogroll

2010-12-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

The Atheist Pub has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

A Thought on Children and Belief.....

2010-12-05T06:09:00.000-08:00

"It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so"
- Ernestine Rose

I couldn't agree more with Ms. Rose, the great American atheist, feminist, abolotionist, and suffragist. If children aren't born able to feed themselves, the most primitive of acts, there is no way they have any inate concept of gods (now that's purity). This is why it so imperative that our children are brought up atheist, regardless of the chosen faiths of their parents, to the age where they have the maturity to decide for themselves what they believe. Does this mean that I won't let my daughter attend a religious ceremony with a friend if she asks? Not in the least. In fact, I think exposing children to the range of religious doctrines in the world gives them the opportunity to ask questions and form their mature belief system. The problem arises when the answers to these questions are woven in dogma. My daughter will obviously be exposed to atheist parents but our answers will not be disrespectful of the other faiths. They will however be accurate: "We don't believe in gods because there is no evidence of them and mommy and daddy base their beliefs on logic and reason. The gods you just heard of are not based on these things and require blind faith - you will have to decide what works for you." What are the chances of believers following a similar path with their children?

If I could design my daughter's future....

2010-12-03T11:59:00.000-08:00

Literal belief in anything supernatural, including the Abrahamic faiths, occupying but the irrelevant fringes of society. People would continue to be free to believe but these believers would exist as an insignificant pocket of society similar to today's readers of palms and tea leaves.
Today's "super-religions" evolving to become "mythology clubs" with no literal belief. People getting together in churches, temples, and mosques to enjoy the artistic elements of holy books and once-believed myths with open debate on their historical veracity and metaphorical nuances. Similar to a book club but with greater fulfillment, as the members can reminisce over wine about the days where they (and later their ancestors) believed fiction to be non-fiction. "Remember when we thought this was the blood of Christ? hahahahahaha!"
A society of skeptics. Not in a "don't trust anyone" sense but rather in an intellectually stimulating one. People believing that which has significant sums of measurable evidence; debating and challenging that which does not; and open to being proven wrong.
A general understanding of the meaning of the word "proven."
God, Allah, and Mohamed sharing relevance with Zeus, Big Bird, and James Bond.
A world where wars are not fought because of or behind the guise of religion (because there would be none). Why not a world with no wars? Because I am an atheist not an idiot. As long as the world has humans it will have wars.
Schools where science is taught in science class and mythology taught in mythology class.
Social policy being created by intelligent, democratically elected men and women and shaped by the collective wishes of the skeptical public not by messages from the leader's imaginary friends.
Men marrying women. Women marrying women. Men marrying men. Men not marrying anyone. Women not marrying anyone. No one really caring about any of these scenarios.
Mr. Ratzinger and every molester he protected dying in prison.
The eradication of diseases whose cure or prevention is currently being stifled by dogma.
People taking control of their lives because they know that only they can control it; understanding that they are being nice to one another out of pure genetic human volition not because god has given them the morality to do so. Behaviour based on the "pay-it-forward" power of humanity not the fear of divine consequences.

I've got us started. Post a comment to spread the word of a what a truly secular and free thinking world could look like. Snowballs require snow flakes.

Belief, Tradition, Myth and the Insecure Atheist

2010-11-30T05:30:00.000-08:00

I think a lot of people maintain a "belief" in god because they fear the apparent void of not believing. The label "atheist", and to a lesser degree "agnostic", suggests a very cold, dark, and unfulfilled existence. To many, the concept of atheism conveys an illusion (and it is an illusion) of immoral living; of a person wandering selfishly amongst the believers doing as he or she pleases because he or she believes he or she can without any consequences, neither present nor in an afterlife. I am atheist. My life has never felt more meaningful, full of purpose, and replete with morality. I enjoy my life because I know I am good to the earth and the creatures on it for the right reason: because both deserve it. Not because I am afraid of hell. Not because a voice other than my own has told me to. Nope, I am a good person because I control my life and it is the right choice for me to make. I don't think being a believer is the only path to moral living. In fact, since I have found my place in the Humanist approach to life, I feel a greater need to approach each day by the "Golden Rule." And before you tell me that the "Golden Rule" is a Christian creation do your research....it's not. I could get into all of the scientific evidence out there suggesting that charitable, moral living is a genetic trait with all kinds of evolutionary foundations but this is not the time nor place (although a future post will be). Instead, I'd like to talk about Christmas. Not seeing the connection? You shouldn't......yet.

I love Christmas. Everything about it, I love. It is the one period of winter that I enjoy. The snow is fresh and white and the temperature here in Ottawa is generally humane. I love the cheesy music, even that which celebrates Jesus. I love getting gifts - admit it, you do too. I love giving gifts (in fact, I bought my wife's the other day and ended up giving it to her within an hour - I hate waiting). I love Christmas parties. I love all the food and booze. I love the "free pass" everyone seems to get. Free to eat a lot. Free to drink a lot. Free to spend too much money. Free to tell people how much you appreciate them. Free to visit friends on "school nights". Free to put a tree in your home. There is just an intrinsic sense of good cheer that makes the holiday season a wonderful time. So how does an atheist justify being a Christmas junkie? If you are Christian, especially an argumentative one, I am sure you wish you were sitting in front of me right now ready to pounce on this crock of hypocrisy. Not so fast.

Let me start my "defense" with one simple historical fact: "Christmas" as we know it (late December celebration of the birth of Christ) was, and I say this respectfully without dramatic intent , hijacked by Christianity. I'm not upset by this. I have no problem with, and in fact quite enjoy, nativity scenes and songs about the birth of Christ. I even miss going to Church on Christmas Eve - one of the best memories of my childhood (maybe I will go this year). In fact, I think Christianity has done some great work with a celebration of the winter solstice that existed long before Christ was thrust into fame. The difference between how I celebrate Christmas and how believers celebrate Christmas is that I approach it as a celebration of a fictional myth whereas the believer celebrates a literal historical event of supernatural quality. I love the story of Christ in spite of the fact that I don't believe anything more than the idea that he was born to a woman named Mary and that he spent his time on earth spreading a message of love, charity, and good will. The concept of him using the "vehicle" of divinity to spread this message speaks to the fact that he was probably delusional, mentally ill, and alive during a time of limited explanation for mundane, worldly phenomenon. I also consider the idea that maybe he knew exactly what he was doing; not believing in God at all, but knowing that such an outrageous claim would be the perfect spectacle to bring attention to his noble message. In the end who really knows and, I would argue, care what the truth on Jesus is? The important point here is that I feel comfortable celebrating Christmas because I celebrate the fun, romantic, mythical element of it without believing in it literally. It does not bother me as an atheist to celebrate the fictionally divine birth of a man named Jesus who spread messages of morality even though I know some believe the story literally. I even enjoy the story of him being considered the son of God. I, of course, don't believe this but think it is a great piece of the story revealing how far science has come bringing us to a point where we no longer need this belief to explain so many elements of our existence. In other words, I enjoy the divine element of the Christmas story much like I enjoy a good Grisham. It's a nice way to escape reality without ceasing my belief in reality.

My comfort level with Christmas is illustrated in my "conservative" thoughts on how politically correct Canada has become during the Christmas season, often at the hands of insecure Atheists. While I certainly welcome and enjoy displays of other celebrations such as Hanukkah and Kwanza, I find it absolutely ridiculous when people suggest Christmas trees should be referred to as "Holiday Trees" or schools should cancel Christmas parties to avoid insulting non-Christians. The fact is that Canada was founded by believers in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Our history is based on this and we will (and should) always have traditions based on these once-held beliefs. I am secure enough in my non-belief to support the maintenance of national heritage through the celebration of traditions, like Christmas, that originated from that which I don't believe. I challenge other Atheists to quit the insecure attack on the Christmas season and allow this great celebration of tradition, myth, and heritage enhance their already liberating atheist living.

Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"

2010-11-23T02:51:00.000-08:00

"What if you're wrong?" implies that we should just throw evidence-based probability out the window any time we are faced with deciding whether to believe any tenet that is not conclusively proven. The magnitude of evidence against creation, deities, and the supernatural does not eliminate the fact that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Essentially, it will always be impossible to claim with 100% certainty that god does not exist. But because we cannot conclusively prove that god does not exist we should avoid making the claim in fear of being wrong regardless of the growing mountain of evidence against such an existence? The fact is this, both theists and atheists might be wrong. However after I review the arguments in favor of both and the total sum of evidence collected by each camp, I have chosen the only option that has any evidence. I'm quite comfortable with my choice and not too worried about being "wrong".

Was thinking last night.....

2010-11-20T08:11:00.000-08:00

I can accept others wanting to believe in "something" although I don't want to believe in that "something" myself. It's when these people claim to know what their "something" wants for the rest of the world that we get intolerance, hatred, and ........religion.

Atheism and Why I’m Talking About It – Part Two

2010-11-14T18:08:00.001-08:00

IF YOU HAVEN'T READ PART ONE YOU SHOULD.
So, have you thought about it? Have you determined exactly where you reside on the theistic/gnostic axis? It can be complicated, I know – especially if you have been raised to believe. Or maybe you found it simple and just needed to be prodded into being honest (and this applies to those who find themselves to be true believers as well). I will say that after finding my own theistic address my day-to-day has become a much simpler place; almost as if I have finally washed a dirty pair of eye glasses. A fully transparent lens so to speak. Never in my past have I felt so naturally connected with this world and the people in it. Never in my past have I felt so at peace with my future. Never in my past have I so enjoyed my present. Okay, enough sap.

So how do I classify myself? I have diagnosed myself as an agnostic atheist with "Gnostic tendencies". Essentially, I don't believe in any gods or the supernatural but don't claim to have conclusive proof that they don't exist. My "Gnostic tendencies" stem from the fact that, although I can't claim that I am conclusively certain that no god(s) exists, if I had the luxury of being a career scientist (a la Richard Dawkins) I have little doubt I would declare that I have seen enough conclusive evidence to state that I know this non-existence to be true. I would undoubtedly fall into the Gnostic realm of atheism. For the sanity of all my friends and family (and those who actually choose to read my blog without really knowing me – all two of you) it's a good thing that I am not a scientist. An interesting point I will touch on later is the fact that most atheists thrive on the idea of being proven wrong, as this is the foundation of good science. This is also the root of my unwillingness to state that I am absolutely certain of the nonexistence of the supernatural. Can the same be said of believers? I know, I know – that's fate. I think fate is dangerous but again, more on that later.

Before I begin to explain why I believe (or not believe) what I do, let me share a recent change of heart. If you are reading this you likely know that I generally like to take an irreverent approach to challenging that which I don't believe, like, or respect. However, this topic is too important to me to address it with a "shock" slant. There are enough non-believers out there taking the atom bomb approach to atheist conversion (If you are interested in this approach please do watch The Root of All Evil – Dawkins is brilliant). Don't get me wrong, I hope this post persuades doubting, skeptical, liberal, believers to declare their innate disbelief. However, I also want to acknowledge that I do not wish to disrespect those who are willing to truly open their minds to the possibility of there not being a god only to find that their innate response is to believe. I respect your right to religion and appreciate your dedication to faith. I'll be frank: my targets are those "believers" who are lying to themselves; misinformed; apathetic; pretending; hypocritical; unsure; or scared. I have a particular ire for those who "cherry pick" the elements of their chosen religion that they like while declaring the more outlandish, improbable (i.e. impossible), and often offensive claims to be mere elements of the faith that are meant to be allegorical or ignored.

So, here's my personal rationale for being atheist, which I have a sneaking suspicion will be the rationale of a significant number of people who open their minds, look at the facts, allow their doubts to be investigated, and transform their instinctual beliefs to overt expression. My rationale is far from complex in any way because the scientific, historical, and logical evidence presented to me makes it uncomplicated. Simply put I just do not believe in myths in the literal sense. At the risk of sounding arrogant (which I will talk about later), my intelligence, level of education, and I suppose personality, just do not allow me to believe nonsensical (yet I admit romantic and enjoyable) stories of impossible feats and events. I cannot believe that there are any imaginary figures overseeing our lives and well being. The idea that this figure is also monitoring, policing, and taking note of the quality of my behavior for future postmortem consequences is farcical to me, especially when I review some of the downright offensive and immoral messages he allegedly "spoke" to the authors of his holy books. Let yourself think about that with honesty and then ask yourself if that is something you are willing to believe without evidence.

Okay, here are some myths I want you to think about:

1. Icarus: The Greek dude (son of Daedalus) who attempted to escape from Crete using wings his dad constructed out of wax and feathers. Poor bugger flew too close to the sun and his wings melted. Bye bye Icarus.

2. Poseiden: Created the horse (bet "god" has something to say about that) to impress a chick. His weapon, the trident, is capable of shaking the entire Earth.

3. Zeus: Throws lightening at people.

4. Apollo: Roman guy who holds the daily tasks of harnessing his chariot with four horses and literally driving the sun across the sky.

5. Izanagi: Japanese god who got undressed one day and each piece of clothing that hit the ground transformed into another god.

Most people who claim to belong to any of the Abrahamic religions (the "Big Three": Christianity; Islam; Judaism), and those who are pretending to belong to these religions will tell you that they don't believe these myths to be true. This means that YOU don't believe them. Why? Because they just couldn't happen.

Okay, so consider:

Noah: An old man (and I mean old, over 900 years) gathers two of every animal, flea, and gnat onto an arc he built of wood. It is a "love boat", as his purpose is to ensure his "passengers" all have sex.
Mary: Had a kid without having sex (it is that simple).
Jesus: Said kid. Walked on water. Came back from the dead. Turned water into wine (I so want to believe this one and, if I am wrong about all this, hope he will forgive me over a glass of water on his return visit).
Jonah: Got swallowed by a whale where he "hung out" safe and sound for three days and nights (similar to Marlin and Dory in Finding Nemo).
Moses: Raised his hands and parted a sea. Just like that.

Now tell me, what makes these any more believable? Do you really believe any of this? If so, why? There is no rational reason to believe that these things happened. There is no proof. Suggesting that the proof lies in the bible itself means that we have to hold as fact any historical fictional literature that someone claims to be true. Research the history of the Abrahamic religions and you will learn that they were all well "marketed" at a time when the masses needed something to believe in. In other words the "proof" of these fallacies lies in the sheer magnitude of people who have been indoctrinated into these faiths over thousands of years. "If so many people believe it, it must be true." It is self fulfilling but certainly not valid. In the words of Dan Gardner, "Truth is not attained by vote."

I'll be back with more reasons to free your mind and conscience, but I figured I'd use the simplest element of my own disbelief as the foundation for my persuasive journey with you: there is just no reason (neither testable evidence nor just plain common sense) to believe that this stuff happened. I wish there was a more eloquent way to put it but the impossibility of these myths occurring in a literal sense is too primitive to paint in an erudite manner. Is it coincidence that these "truths" only occurred during a time when science had not yet explained the many mysteries of the world (which we continue to strive for)? Why aren't people now splitting oceans, walking on water, being born to virgins, and living in the abdomens of animals? Because they can't. They couldn't then and they can't now. My request of you is this: When your intelligence and sense of logic whisper in your ear that these myths are just that, mythical, pay yourself the credit you deserve and stop believing them. At the very least, doubt them and dig deeper.

See you soon. I want to chat about my love of Jesus Christ. Honest.

Atheism And Why I'm Talking About It - Part One

2010-10-23T15:14:00.001-07:00

I sit here not even knowing where to start. How about "I'm atheist." Seems a logical genesis to this post (and yes the pun is intended). Yep, I'm an atheist but please don't mistake this declaration as a "coming out." Hell no (yes, another well intended pun). Coming out refers to a painful, risky, and brave announcement that you are not "normal." In spite of the fact that a societal majority (many friends and family included) live under the watchful eye of the "infinitely merciful father" it is neither painful, risky, nor brave to declare my commitment to reason and free thought. Society currently sits historically at a point where "coming out" is real estate deservedly owned by our gay, lesbian, and otherwise sexually alternative cohabitants. What atheists do share with queers (calm down, "queer" is PC now) is the "abnormal" label. This is fine by me. Most "normal" people are only "normal" because they don't admit what makes them abnormal - but I digress. In my review of all things atheism (yep, "All or Nothing" has reared his ugly head once again) I too often come across declarations of oppression and rights violation by atheists who feel the theistic majority is preventing them from living a normal life. To these cry baby atheists (an actual sect within my cult) I say shut your pie-holes. The plight of the atheist in 2010 is quite comfortable. Exciting in fact. Which leads to the purpose of this post.

I hate evangelism. I really do. I live my life my way. If I am interested in your way you'll surely hear from me. Otherwise, get off my step, stop calling, and stick your pamphlet up your ass. Yet, there has never been a cause that I feel so compelled to proliferate than the message of atheism. I am aware of the level of hypocrisy that is about to occur - fuck it. Seeing that I am only human (humanist in fact) and there is no hell I feel quite comfortable being a hypocrite. Unlike the true believer (more on that later) I don't have to worry about an eternal afterlife in a sea of flames. All I have to worry about is some of you calling me hypocrite. I can call each of you as bad or worse so who cares? I also donated 600 beer and wine bottles to a local minor hockey bottle drive this morning so I ain't all that bad. A tad alcoholic but certainly not immoral.

So, where was I. Oh yeah, why you all need to come to the bright side. How arrogant. But seriously, it's time for people to stop, put down their chosen sliver of technology, go to their room, close the door, and ask some questions. "Do I believe in god?" "Do I just say I do because everyone around me does?" "Do I believe the bible is a true story or do I think it is a fictional book of fables that tells us how to best lead a good life?" "Do I really believe that Mary had Jesus without having sex?" "Do I really think that Noah was over 900 years old and was able to gather two of every organism onto one boat to have sex?" I could go on but the purpose of this post is not to mock the bible - although I do find it fun and if you come to enjoy the same I can point you in the direction of some great websites that illustrate the countless contradictions and blatant hypocrisy.

Here's my point (sometimes it takes a while). It's time for everyone to determine where they stand on the theistic continuum. Are you a true believer - a gnostic theist? Or maybe an agnostic theist? Yes, you can believe in god but be agnostic. I bet most people didn't know this - I didn't. Let's review the possibilities shall we?

Theism: What a person believes to be true.
Theism refers to what a person believes to be true in terms of the existence of a god or deity. A theist will state that she believes in god while an atheist will state that she does not believe there is a god.

Gnosticism: What a person knows to be true.
Gnosticism refers to what a person knows to be true in terms of their belief. When speaking about the knowledge of an existence of a god, a gnostic claims to have a knowledge of what they believe to be true. This continuum has nothing to do with what either person actually believes but rather whether or not they claim that they know their belief to be true.

I am assuming that most of you are starting to see that this can be a bit complicated when we tinker with the possibilities:

The gnostic theist is the person who states that they believe in god and have proof that he/she/it exists.
The agnostic theist is the person who believes in god but accepts that there is no proof behind this belief.

The gnostic atheist is the person who does not believe in gods and claims to know that this non-existence is true.
The agnostic atheist is the person who does not believe in gods but does not claim to know for certain that they don't exist.

The key is to remember that the gnostic part applies to the specific belief of the person. For example, an agnostic atheist is not a person that doesn't believe in god because there is no proof of one. He is a non-believer who openly admits that there is no conclusive evidence that no god exists (although it may be the wealth of evidence - albeit inconclusive - against the existence of god that leads him to not believe) . Essentially, the agnostic will always claim that there is no conclusive proof of what he or she believes but they choose to believe anyway. The gnostic is more likely to be the evangelist: the person who has a belief and claims to have the evidence of it. The funny thing is, in my opinion, you can't prove either however the burden of proof should always be on the existence of something not the non-existence of something. But again, more on that later.

So, I will leave you with this morsel. Take some time to figure out where you stand. I am not going to lie, future posts on this topic will take a persuasive tone. However I must state two important points:

1. If you are reading this and choose to read "Part Two" I am not the moron who knocks on your door, calls you at 5pm, or leaves pamphlets in your mailbox.
2. Atheism is based on skepticism and we are always willing to explore the inexplicable and admit where our beliefs have weaknesses. I hope you can do the same, regardless of your gnostic and theistic slant.

Chat soon.

There Is No God So Just Ride the Damn Bus

2009-02-20T04:12:00.001-08:00

I can't believe the Ottawa Transit Committee has voted to prevent the Freethought Association of Canada from posting a paid advertisement on the city's buses (actually I can believe it – this city has a dearth of leadership and testicles). The ad would have stated, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." My only problem with the ad is its lack of decisiveness. There is no god.

Once again, the loyalty to an invisible man prevents logic and free speech. Once again those who believe in the black book of fables have gotten their way and those of us with the ability to reason, deduce, and speak intelligently have been asked to just quiet down. I, as usual, fail to understand how a group of people who are able to throw so much blind faith into unproven stories of impossible acts can be so thrown out of kilter by a bus ad that claims their beliefs are "probably" false. Does it make any sense to you that those who see it logical to pray for outcomes rather than act for outcomes would be so offended by a statement from those who do not share their views? Surely such strength in conviction would give you the confidence and security that a claim of probable non-existence of your deity would be inconsequential to society. Plus, couldn't they just pray that those who read it will dismiss it? Hmm, maybe they prayed that the Ottawa Transit Committee would ban the sign outright. That's it – makes sense to me now.

You know, I come across public displays of religion all the time. I usually think they are dumb but they certainly don't insult me (although, I am insulted when they show up at my door in the form of a human placard asking me to "sign up"). Even if they did insult me, is that any reason to make it illegal for them to exist? Why can't the rigidly religious just "drop a set" and stop acting so insecure? Why do they fear that the sight of a mere bus sign will result in the annihilation of their faith? Maybe because deep in their hearts they know they are throwing their faith at a pile of crap but are afraid of the off chance that claiming such would result in eternal occupancy in the "hotlands." That's what I think. Most people who claim to be religious really aren't at all. They just don't have the courage to act and think freely and chalk their "sins" up to human nature.

This brings us back to the bus sign. I'm going to end this post as an insulting virtual religious salesman at your front door. If you're on the "bubble" of free thought and need a hand to guide you off the precipice to logical living - take mine. You'll love the freedom of knowing that you're a good person just because you are. Not because you're afraid not to be.

The HPV Vaccine: Promoting Promiscuity at a School Near You

2008-10-23T09:42:00.001-07:00

Okay little one, get on out there and spread those legs! Can you imagine saying that to your pre-pubescent daughter? Unthinkable. Not surprisingly, this is the message that the rigidly religious feel would be portrayed to our daughters if we choose to have them vaccinated with Gardasil or Cervarix, the recently approved HPV vaccines. How ridiculous. Once again, the belief in an invisible man prevents humankind from making sound decisions for the betterment of society.

HPV, or Human Papilloma Virus, is a sexually transmitted disease that is believed to cause most cancer of the cervix. The really scary thing about HPV is that it goes relatively undetected and most studies indicate that greater than half of the sexually active population, both men and women, has it. So, after considering these facts it is easy for any rational, intelligent individual to see that a safe vaccine against HPV is a revolutionary discovery. The problem lies in the lack of intelligence and rational thought that is generated in the minds of those that hold literal, unyielding religious beliefs.

Now listen, my issue here is not with informed people who question the efficacy of the vaccine. I understand that vaccines in general are a hot topic amongst parents and the efficacy studies on the HPV vaccine are, to my understanding, somewhat limited at this point. If I had a daughter right now, I wouldn't be lining her up to be vaccinated until studies become more conclusive on its efficacy and side effects. But this would be a result of my concerns regarding the vaccine's biological effects on my daughter, not a fear that she would suddenly become hornier than a three-peckered-billygoat. For the love of all things hypothetically holy, if this vaccine is found to be perfectly safe and as widely effective as current studies conclude, why would anyone choose to prevent their child from avoiding the wrath of cancer? Because having your daughter vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease promotes the sex that spreads the disease? Please! If you ask me, any 10-year -old girl who is told, "this needle will prevent you from getting sick from a bug that enters your body when you eventually have sex," is going to chalk that bug up as another reason to wait a while. If your daughter ends up having sex shortly after getting her HPV vaccine, it's more likely the result of the inherent challenges of monitoring her behaviour or a failure to educate her about the realities and risks of sexual activity than it could ever be the result of a life-saving vaccine. I have never seen a study on this, but in my experience, many teenage pregnancies occur to the daughters of strictly religious parents. There is no scientific validity to my observation. It's purely anecdotal and I could be wrong. But I would not be shocked to see such a study reveal that there is a scientifically significant correlation between the two.

This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not HPV vaccination should be legislated as mandatory or publically funded. As I said, it also has nothing to do with the recurring debate of whether or not vaccines are too readily administered without a true understanding of their efficacy and side effects. No, this debate is not even close to as complex as that. I just cannot understand how the reaction of a group of people who literally believe that a 900-year-old man built a boat, collected two of EVERY animal, insect, and flea on the planet, corralled them all onto that boat, and made them all have sex, carries any weight in the discussion of whether or not a life saving vaccine should be administered to our daughters. Call me irrational I guess.

It’s Just a Building for Christ’s Sake

2008-10-16T05:03:00.000-07:00

So some wack-job wrote a letter to the editor today complaining that his polling station was a Catholic School. Apparently he wasn't Catholic. He whines that Elections Canada should be "a little more sensitive to the diversity of our faiths." He also says that he was distracted by the crucifix on the wall. This, I get. It's a half naked dude, dying, nailed to a wooden cross. I've always found the whole image over the top, and quite frankly, terrifying. Its presence distracts me wherever I happen to find it. So the fact that this guy had a hard time making an "x" while being watched by Jesus is understandable to me. But that's where any agreement with this freak ends.

As far as I see it, a church, or in this case Catholic school, is essentially a building that only has theological meaning to those of the faith under which it was built. I am an atheist who was required to vote in a United church. To me it was a polling station that just happened to be a church. I had no problem with the statue of Jesus that greeted me at the door (he was alive and well with his arms outstretched – quite welcoming actually). In fact, I would like to thank the congregation of that church for volunteering their place of worship to democracy's greatest process. They could worship tuna fish and peanut butter on Wednesday afternoons and I really couldn't give a rat's ass. Actually, I love both Tuna and peanut butter and I know they both exist. This is a religion I might just be attracted to. Hmmm. Oops. Tangent.

A move towards ensuring "neutral sites" for polling stations would represent more time and energy unnecessarily allocated to the plague of political correctness in this country. Listen, I don't believe in God. I think Jesus was a really great guy who spread an important message but I am also quite sure Mary and Joseph enjoyed creating him. I could go on. However, I recognize that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. This isn't going to change. So I can tolerate, in fact celebrate, this history while still recognizing that our progress as a civilization has disproved the biblical myths behind these values. You could throw me in a mosque, temple, synagogue, or chapel to vote and I will take in the beauty of the architecture (unless it is one of those new age "airport style" churches – why are they doing this?) and then meet my civic responsibility to choose a candidate.

Mr. Whiner's concerns appear to be one more example of organized religion's growing tide of intolerance and unreasonableness towards one another. The dogma associated with every religion, whether you like it or not, teaches its followers that their faith is the "correct" faith and those that follow others will be punished come judgment day. It's a fact. I learned it in Sunday school when we would do those Bible scripture races. Remember those? I never won a single race. This girl in my class practiced all week and kicked our ass every Sunday. Maybe this is where my disdain originates. Again...tangent.

Anyway, I would like to thank Rideau Park United Church. You have a beautiful polling station, I mean, church.