Down and out in the spiritual limbo

I guess in the scheme of things, I was destined to find a place like this. It’s what’s known as a ‘character’ building, one that is old and unkempt but elegant. On my second night, there’s a pulse beating below me, and my office chair tends to roll towards the centre of the living room, but overall, I’m happy. This is where I want to be; the heart and soul of what little night life Winnipeg has to offer. It’s a strange adjustment – going from the suburbia to this, but as ever, I’m an adaptive personality. I just wish my chair would stop rolling downards.
For some reason, I lost the will to write over the last year. Maybe it was WoW. Maybe it was my infatuations. Whatever it was, the creative well has surged and I want to express myself again. It’s an odd sensation – for so long lethargy has dominated me. I’ve been so busy with this, that and whatever that I felt there was no reason to pay attention to this blog. I felt guilty over the months, but not guilty enough to provide any kind of insight.
A large part of the problem is I find myself constantly in these pseudo relationships where I want to be more than just friends, but can’t quite breach the boundary. It’s depressing. Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn’t want to read another blog where the author went all emo, but I can’t help it – I truly feel that a huge part of me has gone missing because I haven’t experienced ‘true love’. At this rate, that’s not going to happen but I persevere. Maybe I should stop falling in love with long time friends. Maybe I should find someone new, but I can’t shake the idea of someone that I’ve known and love, or think I love. I guess that’s where the confusions lies.
Enough of that bullshit.
If I had to name a hero of mine beside Hunter S. Thompson, I would name Richard Dawkins. Most of the time athiests are very concilatory – they allow religious folk to ‘worship’ as they want without any interuption. They allow for the idea of someone else believing in fairy tails so as not to upset the delicate balance that is personal salvation. My hero, Richard Dawkins, has had enough of this hand holding. Here’s a guy who’s basically laid it on the line, his perfect intolerance to religious tolerance, and without apology has defended every attack and debate. You cannot win a debate arguing for divine intervention. Logically, you’re going to lose. I admire to such a great degree someone who has had enough with the bullshit that it makes me feel like I should say something.
Today, I had a wonderful debate with a co-worker who is a knowledgeble person but doesn’t buy evolution. At the end of the day, he has a belief in some kind of higher power that it’s hard to sway him. He presented to me a solid argument. He asked: If, a million years now, humanity as far progressed as it should be, an individual created a kind of advanced intellectual ant farm, would they not be some form of God to the lifeforms he created? This stumped me – it’s as good an argument as any I’ve encountered. Think of it – if we become so far advanced that our powers of genetic manipulation allows us to create intelligence, or even a world that was previously unknown, would that make us God? Is that an argument for God?
I argued that was a kind of fallacy – an argument as whimsical as the one saying that there is a toaster orbitting between earth and mars, and please disproove it. But it’s shaky. It doesn’t nullify his argument. It only proposes that his scenario was too far advanced to know any kind of definitive answer. Is that an answer? I don’t think it is, anymore than his argument was proof positive for that of a divine salvation, but it still got me thinking. I’ve never had an argument with a person who believed in the statistics, figures and logic of science (for the creation of our world) but still doubted the validity of evolution. It was a bit of a mindfuck.