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

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.

So, Soccer......what's up with that?

So every nation north, south, east, and west of North America is blowing a vuvuzela right now. The game that everyone but us “New Worlds” calls football completely consumes this planet. And unlike Canadians' quad-annual interest in its impoverished biathletes, “the beautiful game” is the obsession of the globe’s 193 other nations every minute of every day of all three years between the incredible spectacle of World Cup. I have made the odd fleeting attempt to get into the game in the past but each time other interests stole my attention. However, I can’t say that it was because I didn’t enjoy the time I did spend watching soccer. It was just the wrong sport at the wrong time. But this time things will be different. I am going to “engage” in the frenzy - and I’m going to take you along for the ride. Because here’s the deal: I’m a self-proclaimed sports nut and how can a sports nut not know anything about the world's most "beautiful" sport? I can sit down and confidently carry my weight during any conversation about North America’s traditional sports. Basketball? Forget it, I’ll kick your ass. Hockey? I never played it but I listen to sports talk radio in Ottawa and let me just say they use the word “sports” in “sports talk” liberally. It's a hockey station – plain and simple. This includes 30 minutes of Pierre McGuire every morning from 8:00 – 8:30. Ironically my morning commute is 30 minutes starting at 8am. You get the point. Baseball? Got it covered. MMA? I don’t watch it regularly but I follow, and enjoy, the "sports opera" of it all. Football? I think the CFL is a joke and spend Monday nights at the local pub enjoying the theatre of the National Football (they don't even use their foot) League. Golf? It's simple: Tiger's a skank. NASCAR? Okay, I don't quite get this one but I don't believe in god and have attended university so cut me some slack.

Quite simply I love the field of competition and I think it's about time I include the world's most popular sport in my lexicon.

So what is my strategy to, at the age of 37, add footy to my ever growing list of sporting interests? Well, true to my nickname, "All or Nothing", I have taken a head-first plunge into all things soccer, ahem, football. Here goes:
1. Come Autumn, I have decided to identify Saturday mornings as my "daddy time" (defined as 3-4 hours where daddy gets to do whatever the hell he wants free of daddy-like commitments) when English Premier League starts. Yep, I will be sporting my team's colours (read on) and walking down to the local pub on Saturday mornings to meet some new friends and imerse myself in British football culture. I plan on going alone so as to be forced to strike up conversations with the fanatics that I see lined up there every Saturday morning wearing those tattered old soccer scarfs. Which leads me to....
2. I have chosen a team and bought the garb. Yep, my nickname is well deserved. Prior to watching a single match, I have decided that the Arsenal Gunners will be my team. What is this based on? Well, if I am to be honest, I have used a technique employed by women every March during NCAA March Madness office pools: I have chosen the team with the coolest name and "outfits" (referred to as "kits" for those of us who know anything about football). Yep, the Arsenal Gunners. Tell me that isn't the coolest name you have ever heard. And check out their logo:

A fucking canon. Love it. Oh, and by the way, the most visited Arsenal blog is called "Arse Blog" - come on - you love them too.

So, I went and bought a "kit" at the local soccer store. It is actually at the end of my street - this was meant to be. Then, in a bit of a drunken ebay impulse, I bid on a "Gunners" (Brits refer to Arsenal fans as "Gooners" - again, how could I resist?) scarf (for $0.99) and a brand new Gooners warm up jacket. Again, this is fate - I won them both. So come August 14, when my (and they are my team) Gunners take on the Liverpool Reds, I will be lined up at the Georgetown Pub wearing my kit, scarf, and jacket eager to meet some fellow "Gooners" and begin my journey to becoming a real footy fanatic.

Check in regularly for my outsider's (becoming insider) take on everything footy. If I can tell a bird by its song (refer to my last fleeting obsession: birdwatching) I can certainly figure out this offside business.

Goooooooaaaaaaaaalllllllllllll

From Coulter to Benedict

Okay, I've had it with this whole Coulter thing. You defend an asshole's right to speak and then get branded an asshole yourself. Listen sheep, if you develop the security to sit down and listen to someone with thoughts different than your own, give me a call.

I am a pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage atheist. I obviously think Ann Coulter's rhetoric is assenine. That is IF she actually believes the stuff she spews. However, a side of me wonders if she actually buys half of it herself and has just figured out a way to make $10000 every time she is scheduled to spout off. She reminds me of Howard Stern - I guarantee you off the air he is nothing like he is on it. Christ, Barbara Walters is one of his best friends (maybe she is a wild whore - who knows). Shock sells. I'll never know what goes through the mind of Coulter in private, but she has turned the radically right wing, offensive shit that comes out of her mouth into a nest egg, and for that I commend her. Simply put, defending free speech does not equate to agreeing with the contents of the speech.


Censorship is defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." For the head of a "respected" (and in the case of Ottawa U, I use that term loosely) university to write a letter to an invited speaker to inform her of what would be "tolerated" is, in fact, censorship. People are saying that because the government didn't stop her it isn't censorship. Censorship is not reserved for government use. The fact that her bodyguards made the decision to call it off may be true. However, had the provost of Ottawa U not sent the letter censoring her moronic speech, it would not have been made into such a big deal, and hence, there would likely not be a security threat. There were no issues at Western or Calgary. If you ask me, her subsequent comment that Ottawa U is "bush league" holds some merit. Once the head of university starts determining what speech will be tolerated in a bastion of "free thought", that university might as well close its doors.

As a person who enjoys to both read and (attempt to) write strong language, I will never agree with any form of censorship at any level. I have stated in writing many times my "hatred" for a variety of people, organizations, beliefs, and ideas. Once we start restricting this right in any way whatsoever we start a treck down a very slippery slope.

Thank you for your time and I hate the pope.