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.

There Is No God So Just Ride the Damn Bus

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

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

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.