Tweet Tweet

his past month I have heard the word Twitter more times than my previous twenty-one years and six and a half months of existence [editor's note: I am actually 22 and a half, not 21. I don't know what to tell you]. I have never tweet (tweeted?), nor do I really understand the appeal. I’m not really sure if this is just a further foray into narcissism, or if this is another manifestation of decentralised mass communication that has evolved from the Internet. I do use facebook, but I’m not really sure if there’s a large difference between a facebook status update and a tweet. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. I was relatively late jumping on the facebook train, not really for any ideological reasons, but I just didn’t really see the appeal there either, although I now find it quite useful for keeping in touch and coordinating events. I do also appreciate the irony in an online blogger accusing Twitter of narcissism, especially without having ever used the service, however I like to think that my posts represent more than mundane self-absorption (and in more than 140 characters).

An article on cbc.ca today said that as of February of this year, Twitter had more than seven million unique visitors, although sixty percent of people using the site were not coming back within the next month. That is compared to a seventy percent return rate for facebook at the same stage in its growth. Numbers like that suggest that Twitter will become a passing fad, without enough substance or evolution to maintain a large base of people. I suppose there will always be some Twitterers (twits?) who will maintain the service, but perhaps its popularity will fade into the netherworld of Internet memes (remember ICQ?).

From a cultural standpoint, it is interesting to question what Twitter says about us. My sister, who is recently back on the facebook train, had explained to me that she long-ago deleted her first account, because she found it to be nothing more than an inane waste of time, with little real value. I guess that comes down to how you use it. I have noticed a trend with the most recent incarnation of facebook down that road, with more status-updates and fewer wall-posts, becoming more about ME! I do enjoy following my friends’ various travels and projects, however it is of less interest to me that ‘Sarah is boooooooored.’ (More irony: I will likely inform people of this blog via facebook-status-update. Maybe I should tweet about it too.)

It will be interesting to see where facebook goes, and how it is used by us in the future and by future generations. Will it continue to devolve into a mess of personal updates and applications, or will it maintain its usefulness as a networking site. I suppose that is really up to the people who use it, but that begs the further question about the politics of technology and what the driving force behind the changes really is. Are people adapting to the technology as it is presented to them? Or is the technology shifting to shape the demands of the people. The new facebook layout was met with large amounts of backlash, and yet people have gotten over that and begun to shift the direction of the site again. Perhaps it is suiting to end this post with a mention of youtube, but for a remarkably funny song about the perils of MySpace and the potential for your children to find your profile in twenty years, check out MyHope.

Russ

The Atheists vs The Believers - 2nd Period (Part 3 of 5)

After a short delay the 2nd period is ready to be played with part three of our five-part metaphysical hockey game blog series. This week the key players shift and the topics of discussion are markedly different, but the goal remains the same. Cementing once and for all the greatest question of all. Is there a God?

With the players back on the since re-frozen ice everything is set to go for the 2nd period of the metaphysical hockey game.

Referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice and drops the puck. We are underway. Off the draw the Atheists take the puck and dump it into the Believers zone and give chase furiously. They look like a team on a mission and the first one to the puck is Greek star Epicurus who grabs the puck in the corner and barges his way unstoppably to the front of the net. His argument is simple. He says “"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (from 2000 years of disbelief) He fires this quick shot and scores the first goal of the game, less than 1 minute into the period.

It is to be noted that Epicurus was originally reluctant to join the ranks of the Atheists because he himself is a deist, meaning his answer to this problem is that Gods, although they exist, do not involve themselves with the world and therefore allow evil to occur.
Epicurus joined the Atheists due to his allegiance to skepticism and the scientific method, something he felt was incompatible with the faithers on the other side.

With the ever troubling “Problem of Evil” on the table and the Believers already down by a goal, they look disorganized on the ice and Richard Dawkins seems very interested in sealing the deal by throwing several hard, but mis-guided shots on the Believers’ goal.

Yet there seems to be a bit of conflict growing amongst the Atheists. A team composed mostly of educated philosophers and thinkers, they see Dawkins as out of his league; a try-hard if you will. A few of the Atheists are fed up with him hogging to puck and missing shots that they would no doubt bury into the back of the net. This frustration comes to a head when Dawkins decides to try to go end-to-end with the argument that religion itself is the source of evil.

After stick-handling through a couple of checks with religious fundamentalism as his cause, he gets blindsided by an almost 1700 year old St. Augustine of Hippo. A figure almost completely cut out of The God Delusion, Dawkins is completely surprised by the surprisingly spry Augustine and is sent sprawling into the boards.

Augustine subsequently grabs the puck and shows great dexterity in maneuvering around the Atheist defense whose insistence that evil and God cannot co-exist was exposed by a quick suggestion from Augustine the evil itself does not exist. When pressed by the back-checking Dawkins to elaborate on this blasphemous claim Augustine puts it in scientific terms for the Oxonian. What is cold but lack of heat, he said, and with that, what is evil but lack of good? What Augustine is establishing is evil as a perversion of the good and a by-product of free will. With that he left Dawkins with this quote:

“For the almighty God…would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? …in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil.”

On that note Augustine fired the puck between the Atheists’ goaltender Karl Marx's legs. Game tied.
1-1. Augustine had effectively shown the Atheists the possibility of an omnipotent, all-benevolent God in a world with things that seem evil.

However the battle has just begun. The Atheists come back hard arguing that the world would be infinitely better without any “perversion of good” and that Augustine’s had his foot in the crease on the goal by effectively playing with words instead of presenting a valid argument goal. “Go upstairs” they all yelled in chorus.

Kant skates over to the penalty box area and takes hold of the phone receiver. He calls up to the official goal judge Henry Huxley. Known for his fair judgements Huxley is quick to make his decision. Although Augustine’s foot was in the crease, he says, the rule states he must interfere with the goalie to disallow the goal. Since his argument does provide a valid analogy of a world with both an all-powerful, all-benevolent God and evil, or however you want to phrase it, the goal stands. 1-1

With that the Believers’ bench shout out for joy as the Atheists look seething.

2 minutes to go in the period and they are indeed a chippy 2 minutes. Numerous high-sticks are seen as well as a couple of “charges” against Augustine by Atheists who were not at all pleased with the sneaky move on his goal.

Despite the jeers, the period ends with the score tied.

Headed to the dressing room is one cheery group of believers and one grouchy looking group of atheists (although it's hard to tell whether Dawkins is grouchy or if it is just his usual demenour.)

It looks like the 3rd period will be one for the ages. The Atheists are chomping at the bit to get back on the ice and throw their best arguments at the rather annoying Believers squad while the Believers are looking to ride the wave of their late goal to victory. With both teams motivated and anxious to get back out there, even the Atheist fans cannot doubt it will be an electrifying finish.

Please check back next week on Wednesday at 5pm EST for the 3rd period.

Will Grassby

Columbine: Looking for Answers

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre that left fifteen people dead and another twenty-three injured after two gunmen went on a rampage at their high school in Littleton, Colorado. Afterwards, questions abounded, and answers stockpiled as well.

Many of the purported ‘reasons’ for the killers’ actions reflected the notion that they were outcasts, goths, nerds, or played violent video games and listened to violent music. Fans of Marilyn Manson, much of the blame was placed at his feet for ‘influencing’ these young men to commit this heinous act. It seems somewhat ironic that a man whose stage name and persona is a play on the association between pop culture and mass murder is subsequently blamed for such an event.

Manson was interviewed by Michael Moore for Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine, in which he discussed gun control and American culture in the context of the Columbine massacre. Say what you will about Moore (or Manson), but the discussion they had covered a number of relevant topics. In the interview, Manson highlights a number of other factors that were much more likely contributors to the events than any simple answer of violent music. According to Moore, the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo that day than at any other time during the war. Manson also highlights a culture and cycle of fear and consumerism perpetuated by the media as more damaging than any rock-n-roll music. The final question of the interview is the one which has stuck with me the longest since first viewing the film, and it’s when Moore asks Manson what he would say to the kids involved and the people in the community, to which Manson replies: “I wouldn’t say a single word to them, I would listen to what they had to say, and that’s what no one did.”

And he’s right. Too often we are all too focused on what we would say and do, and speaking louder to ensure that we are heard, when instead we need to stop and listen to each other. When people become disenfranchised and feel they are wronged, they make sure they are heard in whatever way they can. When that is mixed with violence and adolescence, we find ourselves with tragedies such as Columbine. When it is mixed with radical nationalism and misplaced religious zealotry, we have events like September 11th. When it is met with peace and support, we have “Give Peace a Chance”.

In order to resolve any number of the conflicts facing the world today, we much approach them with this same resolve. We are all the same, and we all just want to be heard. What is right and just will inevitably triumph, and the way to see to this is by encouraging open communication amongst all parties.

Russ

Melting Ice Delays the Metaphysical Hockey Game

My apologies for the past two weeks, but a rash of things have come up over the last little while that has prevented me from keeping up with the blog and the ongoing metaphysical hockey game. Let's just blame it on the warm temperatures melting the playing surface (also known as my brain) and I assure all our readers that play will resume next Wednesday, 5:00pm EST with promises of a very informative and exciting 2nd period.

Thanks for your patience!

Will Grassby

Imagine

Imagine all the people, sharing all the world.

Today is Easter Monday. Last Wednesday marked the beginning of Passover. A week ago today was the fifteenth anniversary of the death of Juvénal Habyarimana, which was swiftly followed with the Rwandan Genocide. Ninety-two years ago yesterday, Canadian efforts culminated in victory at Vimy Ridge. Forty-one years and nine days ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. In the midst off this, I thought I’d share my reflections on the world.

As the world learned too late, over 100 days in 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were butchered at the hands of Hutus in Rwanda. However, the difference between the Tutsis and Hutus is difficult to pin down, and may be as simple as artificial divisions remaining from European colonial times dependant on the size of your nose, or possible your heard of cattle. And yet both ethnic groups have taken turns mercilessly slaughtering each other. In 2001, terrified school girls were subject to taunts and projectiles hurled at them by angry Loyalists in Belfast, because the Loyalists believed that the Bible is the only infallible authority on Christianity, while the children believed that the episcopacy is also a valid power. Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been mean to each other ever since their religion was twenty-two years old when a disagreement broke out about who the legitimate successor to the Prophet Muhammad was. These and all arbitrary differences are creating an ‘other’ to blame for our own deficiencies, and dividing humanity.

In many cases religious or ethnic differences are simply used as a smokescreen to hide other cultural challenges, but the fact is that divisions created sometimes thousands of years ago to suit the needs of a horny king or a discarded heir or a colonial power are continuing to drive a giant wedge between humans today. What we need now is a complete separation of church and state, and a greater global harmony going forward. While visiting in Turkey, Barack Obama recently boldly reinforced that the United States was not a Christian nation. Canada has, to a large degree, exemplified that notion quite well, and continues to be a beacon of multiculturalism and acceptance.

‘Cause tonight; we can be as one tonight.

I was listening to CBC radio a while back, and they were interviewing a Muslim scholar. I can’t remember who it was, or the context of the discussion, but what they were talking about was their notion that what their organization was striving for and envisioned was a world in which everybody was Muslim. This made me stop and think for a moment, because the concept of the entire world following the same religion, and the idea of organizations striving for this, was a concept that had never really occurred to me. Sure it makes sense that people would generally desire others to agree with them on such topics, but for an organization to actually foresee this as an eventuality, let alone a possibility, really struck me. Perhaps because the only way I can see that ever happening is as a secular world, rather than any one religion over all the others.

That’s because it seems somewhat presumptuous to me to assume that your religion, or race, or ethnicity, or group is solely correct and only your people will be chosen or saved (I'm afraid it was 'the Mormons.' Yes, 'the Mormons' was the correct answer). Since most religions are for the most part mutually exclusive, it follows that only one can be totally correct, or, quite possibly, that none are correct. Some may accuse me of taking too literal an approach to this matter, but I believe a literal approach is a valid way to consider such an issue, especially when one group involved can raise almost $40 million in California to see to it that homosexuals cannot be married, because over two-thousand years ago, Leviticus said: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Something that always gets me, and gives me hope, is the Christmas truce of 1914, in which enemy soldiers dug into trenches in the Great War joined each other in No Man’s Land to sing, exchange gifts, bury their dead, and play soccer. The war would last almost five more years, but on that day everybody was a human being.

Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too. Imagine all the people; living life in peace.

Russ

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, RETHINK

There have been recent ads featuring a man, perhaps Galen Weston, tossing an empty water bottle towards a recycling bin, only to have it bounce off the rim like Vince Carter’s 2001 Game Seven miss against Philadelphia. Much like the Toronto Raptors, the planet will never be the same.

(A basketball analogy and a contentious embellishment! What an intro!)

At the same time, the University of Winnipeg has become the first university in Canada to ban the sale of bottled water on campus (after the University of Washington did so in the United States), and is slowly phasing out the sale in time for the fall semester. To replace the loss of Aquafina et al. on campus, the school is installing more water fountains and providing each incoming student with a reusable bottle. Similar action is being taken by municipalities around the country, with Toronto and London leading the way, and more expected to follow suit. Any initiative that replaces environmental degradation and irresponsible capitalism with reusable products and communal resources at the expense of the bottom line is bound to be a good one.

We have all heard the arguments against bottled water, so I am not going to dwell on rehashing them too much, but the basic points are: they produce unnecessary waste; oil and other resources are used just to make the bottles; the product must be shipped from its bottling plant creating unnecessary carbon emissions; and they are not any healthier than tap water, and may actually lack teeth friendly additives such as fluoride. Proponents argue that recycling is a viable option, but a brief Internet search led me to figures varying between a twelve to twenty-three percent recycling rate for the bottles, with more sites closer to the twelve side. Of the remaining eighty-eight percent, the best case scenario is a landfill. It is easy to say that the bottles can be recycled, but this is clearly not happening, and it assumed that recycling is actually a positive force. There is also no reason to waste resources creating and shipping a product that already flows cheaply and easily to our homes. When in Italy last summer, we were delighted to find numerous ornate fountains in public squares that could also be used to fill our water bottles (lest we evaporate in the Italian heat).

Proponents of bottled water will argue that they are storing it in case of an emergency that renders tap water undrinkable. This is a reasonable argument in principle, but it is mostly a blatant lie, because nobody that concerned about water reserves would drink their emergency supply. If this were truly the case then people would buy large containers of bottled water to store for such an occasion, which perhaps isn’t a terrible idea. Another option would be a large office-esque ‘water cooler’ with reusable 20L jugs. Furthermore, any notion that bottled water is better for you than tap water is, in most parts of Canada anyways, a deliberate attempt by corporations to mislead consumers into fearfully buying their product. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it will not be the last.

Some argue that the ban by the University of Winnipeg is restricting students’ free will to drink the beverage of their choice. However, the university isn’t banning water, or limiting water available on campus. They are simply expressing their free choice to not sell bottled water, after a resolution was passed almost 3-1 by the students. Let’s hope this trend is extended to further Canada institutions.

We all know the Three Rs (reading TV guide, writing to TV guide, renewing TV guide), but do we really consider them in the proper hierarchy? Reduce is at the top for a reason, followed by reuse, and recycle. Recycling helps the planet much like hybrid cars. All they really are is ‘less-bad’ than the alternative, and yet allow us to guiltlessly continue our destructive lifestyles. By endorsing recycling, corporations are able to get us to continue to buy their (often unnecessary) products which may be doing different and greater harm to the planet than any single bottle in a landfill. The process of recycling uses many resources and produces waste, and while not as harmful as landfills, it is not an ultimate solution. I saw an ad recently that promoted buying a certain brand of diapers by suggesting they will donate a cost of a tetanus vaccine to an underprivileged child. This may seem hunky-dory, but the real question must be why is that child dying of tetanus, and the real solution won’t be found at the bottom of a bag of diapers (a discussion for another day, perhaps). And yet by buying diapers we are able to feel good about our consumption.

I am not suggesting that recycling is a bad thing. There must be a reasonable amount of waste that each person requires to live, especially in today’s Western world. A complete overhaul of our culture and ethic is not necessary; however it is necessary to continue to aggressively question our actions and be conscious of the consequences. Recycling and Green Bin programs must continue to be expanded, and every Monday night I am appalled by Ottawa’s poor recycling (and non-existent Green Bin) program when compared to Toronto and the GTA. These considerations and their results are beginning to be seen in Toronto and London, and the University of Winnipeg, and we need more people to be conscious of and take responsibility for their actions.

Russel MacDonald

Saving Our World for Tomorrow: A 21st Century Approach to Politics and Sustainable Development (Part 3 of 4)

Brent Densmore returns for Part 3 of his series on sustainable development in the 21st century. Today Brent discusses the relationship between the car and surburban living and the need to reverse urban sprawl

To supplement the implementation of renewable resources, Thomas Friedman argues that governments should increase the current gas tax. This would serve two purposes: Firstly, it would promote the use of energy-efficient vehicles and secondly, it would raise money that can be used to invest in renewable resources. Friedman states:

“There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes, which would attract more investment in battery technology to make electric cars, which would hugely help the expansion of the wind and solar industries — where the biggest drawback is the lack of batteries to store electrons when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. A higher gas tax would drive all these systemic benefits”(Friedman, Thomas http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28friedman.html)

While it is extremely difficult for any leader to raise taxes in his or her country, sometimes it needs to be done. David Miller, the Mayor of Toronto, recently raised home property taxes and added new fees for recreational activities in order to balance the budget (CBC.ca, “tax increase for Toronto”http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/02/10/tto-budget.html?ref=rss). This upset many Torontonian’s, as it should, but the public outcry wasn’t that bad. If people are willing to accept the above tax increases then I am sure they will eventually embrace a tax increase aimed at protecting the future of our planet.

In the early 1900s, Henry Ford introduced the first mainstream automobile called the Ford Model T. After years of improving the assembly line, Ford was able to produce automobiles quickly and cheaply, which enabled him to sell them at a reasonable price. As a result, many Americans could easily afford these automobiles which led to a major change in how one could live. It was no longer necessary to live within close proximity of your job; you could now live further away and still get to work without any difficulty. As demand for housing outside of the urban centre increased, the growth of suburban towns skyrocketed. This led to a massive investment in infrastructure; highways and bridges were built so that it would be easy to commute to and from the city.

The suburb was viewed as a great idea; they created thousands of new jobs and allowed people to live outside of the noisy city.

As the demand for suburban living increased as did car sales, which doubled between 1970 and 1995 (Rogers, Richard. Cities for a small planet. Boulder: Faber and Faber Limited, 1997 P. 36). As a result, our addiction to fossil fuels can be directly correlated to the rise in suburban living. In order to travel to and from your home in the suburbs, you have to drive your automobile. In the mid 1900s, oil prices were low and global warming wasn’t an issue. Today, oil prices and carbon dioxide emissions are higher then ever. It is no longer economical or environmentally friendly to drive everywhere. There must be greater use of public transit to offset high oil prices and reduce carbon emissions. Richard Rogers explains why it will be difficult to implement this when he states the following:

“The car has made viable the whole concept of dividing everyday activities into compartments, segregating offices, shops and homes. And the wider cities spread out, the more uneconomic it becomes to expand their public transit systems” (Rogers, 35).

Clearly it is time to move away from urban sprawl and focus on creating densely populated cities. Major urban centre’s will always be the most attractive for jobs and services, but if urban planners do a better job at designing small, densely populated cities, then we can decrease our dependency on them. If people are concentrated in fewer areas then it will be much easier to utilize public transportation. This would significantly cut down on the dependency for the automobile and therefore reduce our consumption of unsustainable energy.

Check back next week for the final part of Brent's four-part series where he will take a look at some real-world examples of successful and sustainable development and the need to act before it is too late. Part four will become available next Friday at 5pm EST.

The Atheists vs The Believers: 1st Period (Part 2 of 5)

This blog is a contiuation of a five-part series dealing with the argument between atheism and belief in God. Today we begin with the First Period of the metaphysical hockey game introduced last week in the "pre-game show."

The crowd has been anxiously filing into their seats and everyone is finally ready to go, so with no further ado: The opening face-off.

Lining up to take the draw are esteemed philosopher and Saint, Thomas Aquinas and renowned evolutionary biologist, and outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins. Aquinas is known for his attempts to reconcile faith and reason and is most known for his "Summa Theologica", a massive work that includes the well known "quinquae viae", or the "Five Ways." Dawkins is a prominant anti-creationist who in his book "The God Delusion" argues for the non-existence of God and points out religion as a major source of evil in the world. He discusses the "Five Ways" directly in "The God Delusion" and dismisses them saying: "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas don't proove anything...". Dawkins also argues that it is unimportant to study theology in order to disprove it in the same way "most of us disavow...the Flying spaghetti monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology..." With this in mind, it is clear that right from the opening face-off, this is truly going to be one hell of a match (figuratively speaking of course).

With the players ready to go referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice to drop the puck. The animosity in the air is palpable.

Dawkins looks ready, but Aquinas knows exactly what he wants to do. Years of research and philosophical training have prepared him for people like Dawkins who are willing to refute his arguments without even understanding them. Just as the puck is about to be dropped Aquinas looks out from under his helmet and says "If you don't believe theology is worth studying, why do you systematically try to refute the"quinquae viae" in your book?" With that said, and Dawkins slightly unsure how he should answer, the puck is dropped and Aquinas wins the draw back to McGrath. As he skates away Aquinas politely mentions that at no time did he ever call the "quinquae viae" proofs of God's existence but that it was rather people like Dawkins who gave it that appellation many years later.

Although there is no goal scoring yet, momentum seems to have shifted to the Believers after Dawkin's philosophical weakness being exposed early. As expected, the Believers have started out with a tight-checking style mainly stating their belief as they dump the puck in while waiting to pounce on a mistake by the Atheists.

The Atheists however play with scientific precision. Dawkins recovers from his early blunder, firing several well-aimed shots on goal, including the dangerous "flexibly definable God" argument. This shot implies that God can be seen as a "filler" in the increasingly few gaps in our knowledge left unexplained by science. With this promise of religion soon being rendered history by scientific progress, the Atheists gain new life. They are beginning to overwhelm to Believer's defence who are only able to try and deflect these shots wide of the target in the hope of making it to the end of the period unscathed.

Unfortunatly for the Believers, with a few minutes left on the clock, young Oxonian defenceman Alistair McGrath admits the validity of Dawkins refutation of the long-treasured Christian belief of "intelligent design", leaving him all alone on a break-away. At the last second McGrath reaches out and trips up Dawkins by saying intelligent design and William Paley's "The watchmaker" (which is a 19th century argument that argues that if one were to find a watch on a beach that would not assume it came to be on its own, but rather that there was a watchmaker who designed it; Paley goes on to infer that the world is the same and that it is too sophisticated and "intelligently designed" to occur on its own) is a 19th century argument that it is not representative of contemporary Christianity, but it is too late. The whistle blows and Immanuel Kant crosses his arms over his head. Penalty Shot!

The crowd is on their feet as Dawkins starts in. He skates out wide to the right side and cuts back in across the top of the circle, gaining speed and hoping to catch the Believers goaltender out of position with his favourite "there almost certainly is no God" manoeuver. It appears to work as the goaltender starts to follow Dawkins across exposing the bottom right-hand corner of the net. Dawkins fires and already has his arms in the air when out of nowhere a big, "Christian" goal stick slides along the ice and deflects the puck up over the net into the crowd. No goal!

Dawkins looks back, wondering how he missed a sure goal and sees Jesus standing in the crease, staring right at him as if to say: "you're going to have to do better than that."

Indeed it appears as if saying there almost certainly is no God proves nothing but the improbability of God, which Jesus defeated with an equally inprobable save.

After two more minutes or spirited (or perhaps "lively" would be a more appropriate term) but goal-less play the buzzer sounds and the first period is done.

0-0. A scoreless, but extremely entertaining period of metaphysical hockey leaves nothing resolved, but many interesting ideas to think about over the next week leading up to next Wednesday's 2nd period.

The Atheists hold a clear advantage in shots, outshooting the Believers 9-2 and were the stronger of the two teams over the 20 minutes. It looks like they may have to change their tactics a little bit to get through the tight checking of the believers and get their shots through to the net. Faith is proving a difficult defensive tool to get around and the experts are saying that if they want to break through with some goals they will have to stick to their strength of using fact based evidence instead of probabilities. In an interview with Athiest coach Jean-Paul Sartre, he suggested that perhaps the Atheists will be looking more towards their experience in the 2nd frame to try and get back to the "essence" of their ideology.

On the other side the Believers are not overly pleased or disappointed with the 1st period. They played to their strength and it didn't fail them, the score is still even. Believer coach Karol Józef Wojtyła commented that his team needs at some point to find some offence and emphasized the importance of the defence stepping up into the attack. Only time will tell if these coaches make good prophets or whether their words fall on deaf ears.

Either way, the 2nd period promises to be evilly exciting.

Check back next week for period 2 and the continuation of "The Atheists vs The Believers" at 5pm EST on Wednesday April 8th.