…and this is a 
I keep being told what I believe
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: November 15, 2006 11:31 AM, by PZ Myers
A lot of people don't know what atheists are, but they're sure certain about defining them, and somehow, we're always so BAD. Ophelia finds a doozy of a redefinition of atheism, but I can top it: Steve Cornell, a pastor at Millersville Bible Church, makes a long list of the sins of the atheist. In it, he nestles himself securely in the Christian tradition of babbling assertively about subjects in which he is completely and manifestly ignorant, but will sell well to his equally ignorant flock. It's the usual stuff about how it takes more faith to believe in the absence of god, atheists are amoral, they reject "historical proof" (i.e., the Bible), yadda yadda yadda.
Read it for the entertainment value, but I'm afraid I just can't get motivated to bother to rip it up.
(via Susan Cogan)
Comments
Ahh, the Christian Worldview Network. A bunch of complete loons.
But there is lots of entertainment value over there. Who could possible read an article by Coach Dave without laughing?
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=877
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | November 15, 2006 12:13 PM
As to living life without a "purpose", I prefer muddling along and setting my own goals to the common Christian notion that life is merely an audition where you may qualify for an eternity of singing hosannas to the bearded thunderer (or his other two manifestations).
Posted by: BJN | November 15, 2006 12:14 PM
I like the last one best, as it's the only one he gets close to correct. But we do seem to differ from other animals in that no other species seems to have produced anything half as foolish as his list.
Posted by: Evil Bender | November 15, 2006 12:14 PM
If by 'religion', he means a brain washing cult, then yes, us atheists do generally oppose to such things.
Posted by: Markus | November 15, 2006 12:15 PM
Oy. I'd love to leave "feedback" on the CWN article, but I don't even know where to start :P
Posted by: jan andrea | November 15, 2006 12:15 PM
The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design.
============================================================
If I find a book in the woods it is a sign from god? What an astonishing leap! In fairness he does say an encyclopedia, what would it mean if you were walking through the woods and stumbled across a copy of Mien Kampf.
Posted by: ckerst | November 15, 2006 12:15 PM
Odd claiming that atheism takes more faith. I thought faith was supposed to be a good thing.
Posted by: archgoon | November 15, 2006 12:16 PM
It is the atheist's anti-supernatural bias..
Yes, I admit I have that.
..that keeps him from allowing history to prove anything.
Like that history that tells us Caesar was killed by spectral beings using mental powers. Rather than, say, a big knife in the back by a fellow cohort.
Posted by: Markus | November 15, 2006 12:25 PM
If books could breed, and if learning truly were beautiful, then we would not need "intelligent design" to write an encyclopedia. Natural selection would build it for us.
Echoing Hume, we can also say if we found an encyclopedia in the woods, we might reasonably infer that it had to be written, but we could in fact deduce very little about the writer. Perhaps it was written entirely by Isaac Asimov on a dare: "Hey Isaac, I bet you couldn't write a whole encyclopedia over the Thanksgiving holiday!" Or, it could have been produced by the Encyclopaedia Britannica editorial board. Maybe it was cobbled together by a million Internet surfers with too much free time. If we know nothing beyond the bare fact that it is an encyclopedia, we cannot decide among such alternatives.
Ah, if books could only breed. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 15, 2006 12:27 PM
I love the bit about ignoring historical documents. Because historical documents would NEVER be forged and are ALWAYS 100% true. Just ask the Mor(m)ons.
Meanwhile, at least we adults have the freedom to choose our own heresies.
This poor kid didn't have a choice. Still laid the smackdown on the teacher, though.
Good for him.
Posted by: Mark | November 15, 2006 12:27 PM
From Cornell's bio:
Six schools and not one proper college among them. Did this guy even finish high school?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 15, 2006 12:27 PM
My irony meter blew up when I got to "Although he realizes that he does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God requires that he pretend such knowledge".
What a fucktard.
And good call, archgoon. Just like when creationists claim their beliefs are based on science in one sentence, then attack science the next.
Posted by: King Aardvark | November 15, 2006 12:28 PM
I tried posting this feedback... not sure it will take.
Re: It's not easy to be an atheist
Actually it's very easy.
One let's go of the god myth and POOF you're an atheist.
Just like when you let go of your belief of the tooth fairy or santa claus. That's all it takes. There's no belief required. NOT believing is required.
Then you go have lunch and the world isn't any different then before.
Sorry that's wrong. Now you have Sundays to sleep in.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 15, 2006 12:29 PM
"...his belief that religion ought to be eliminated, that the world would be radically better off without it. Atheism entails a certain narrative about historical progress: we can move to a new and better age once we have dispensed with superstition. The prospect of a future without religion is good news."
Well. I of course know that this is wrong and this is not the definition of atheism... but I gotta say, if it WERE, I'd be ok with that.
Posted by: craig | November 15, 2006 12:32 PM
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | November 15, 2006 12:35 PM
Whoops - mucked up the tags. Everytihng but the first line is my typing.
That'll teach me to use "preview".
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | November 15, 2006 12:36 PM
Apparently, encyclopedias are the new watches.
Seriously, how many schools did this guy go to to remain ignorant of how many times each and every one of his arguments have been refuted? He actually argues that because people *want to believe* they are immortal, that means they must actually be immortal!
Like PZ, I'm not going to spend all day listing, categorizing and classifying the mistakes in this. Although it might be an interesting exercise for a very low-level philosophy or logic course.
Posted by: Chris | November 15, 2006 12:38 PM
Those who want to cut debate with evangelicals short, just call them reckless, illiterate idolaters. They worship a book (in English, no less) rather than the God that supposedly inspired its creation.
So, when you see "atheists believe X and True Christians believe Y," just substitute "idolater" for Christian and fire it right back.
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 15, 2006 12:38 PM
Am I the only one, who upon finding a watch on the beach, or an encyclopedia in the woods, would think, "Gee, some dumbass left their valuables here. Hey kids, want a nice new ________?"
Now, to prove God you don't have to find a watch on the beach, you have to find a dead angel. Finding a watch on the beach is orders of magnitude more likely than finding a penguin in NY harbor. And both have natural explanations.
Posted by: 99 bottles | November 15, 2006 12:41 PM
I don't have time to do it myself, but this article cries out for a rebuttal with the title "It's not easy to be a fundamentalist Christian" and keeping almost all the same section titles intact:
"The fundamentalist must also live with the arrogance of his position"
"The fundamentalist must also deny the validity of historical proof"
and so on.
Almost too easy.
Posted by: tacitus | November 15, 2006 12:43 PM
"...his belief that religion ought to be eliminated, that the world would be radically better off without it. Atheism entails a certain narrative about historical progress: we can move to a new and better age once we have dispensed with superstition. The prospect of a future without religion is good news."
Wanna talk about historical proof? There certainly is a lot in history that suggests that is true!
At the very least, without religion, people would know that they are collecting tithes in order for the pastor to live well without actually having to work, rather than thinking that they are doing some sort of "god's work". Or they would know that they are crashing a plane into a building as part of a creative political campaing, not as part of a "struggle for the greater glory of God".
If they still want to do those things, well, at least they know why they're doing them.
Posted by: valhar2000 | November 15, 2006 12:45 PM
If you think "friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato" are "smaller meanings of life," that's your misfortune.
The attempt to claim logic for intelligent design is weak, pathetic, and empty, and no doubt completely satisfying to believers.
I remember believing in god as a teenager and feeling threatened by atheists. I'm sure I spent much more time thinking about them than I felt they deserved.
Posted by: junk science | November 15, 2006 12:47 PM
Was anyone else tempted to take the test to see whether your worldview is that of a Christian or a "modern-day liberal?"
Why do I have this funny feeling that almost anyone who took it would be diagnosed with unseemly liberal tendencies that require the purchase of multiple Worldview Week materials to root them out and replace them with True Christian beliefs?
Posted by: RedMolly | November 15, 2006 12:47 PM
He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design.
These dorks can't even argue their own "logic."
No one disputes that the encyclopedia was intentionally created (or "intelligently designed"). But the IDiots claim that therefore, the cells in the body of the person who finds the encyclopedia were intelligently designed. What does one have to do with the other? And if the cells in the encyclopedia's finder are designed, what about the forest itself? Is an ecosystem made up of creatures made up of "designed" cells somehow not designed, or what? And if the forest is designed, how can it be any kind of control for or contrast to the encyclopedia, since both are "designed"?
And BTW, how many people actually find still-ticking watches while sunbathing, or encyclopedias while hunting? Just wondering.
Posted by: Kristine | November 15, 2006 12:48 PM
Funny! Pastor Cornell was beaten to the punch a long time ago by a deluded young Christian at Fresno State, who wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown paper. The title was A look at atheism using logic (not exactly an accurate description). If you haven't seen it, you may be amused. (I've linked to it before.) It's here.
Posted by: Zeno | November 15, 2006 12:54 PM
Of course, the good pastor omits the fact that encyclopedias don't have sex or pass on genetic traits to their offspring.
Posted by: Gobear | November 15, 2006 12:56 PM
I used to be an atheist but this article has made me see the light. That whole encyclopedia story did it for me. I can finally see the light... It's so beautiful!
How do people like this actually tie their shoe laces in the morning? I suppose what this article once again points out is the enormous fear these people have of atheists and how scared they are about the whole "meaning of life" bit.
By the way, Kristine, I once found a watch on the beach. Proof if anything of intelligent design! It had a calculator...
Posted by: Mark Uk | November 15, 2006 12:56 PM
Kristine wrote:
A couple weeks ago, I found a set of bondage restraints under an overpass in Somerville, Massachusetts — but that's a different matter.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 15, 2006 12:58 PM
I'm with tacitus. Steve Cornell's article is projection incarnate.
Posted by: llewelly | November 15, 2006 12:59 PM
The word "atheist" has been used almost exclusively as a perjorative for 1500+ years, with each new generation of theologans and politicians coming up with new ways to poison it. Considering the sort of over-the-top religious society that we live in, I think it would be a miracle if people didn't attack this oh-so-traditional straw man.
I think this is part of the reason a lot of people choose to describe themselves as "agnostic", even though they have no more of a belief in SkyDaddy than the rest of us apostates. The atheist straw man is deeply engrained and very popular, and it's hard to shake off all that baggage. In Catholic parochial school, I was taught that atheists were people who were absolutely convinced that there is no God, and not even a possibility of God -- such a person sounds strange indeed. Until I was in my late twenties, I continued described myself as either "agnostic" or "non-religious". It was only in the last couple years that I've finally been confortable with saying "I'm an atheist".
Posted by: j.t.delaney | November 15, 2006 12:59 PM
The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position.
So when I am state a position that is opposed to the position of someone else it is arrogant. Is that solely due to me being an atheist or is something else involved here? Because it sure seems that the stated positions of most christians are opposed to those of other religions or different sects within christianity yet they don't somehow label themselves as arrogant.
Posted by: commissarjs | November 15, 2006 1:12 PM
This reminds me of my favourite scene from "The Messenger", when Joan of Arc (Milla Jovovic) has been captured by the English, and a black robed man representing her self-doubts (Dustin Hoffman) appears to her in her cell asking her why she thinks she was chosen by God.
"I found the sword in the field."
"You found a sword in a field. Of all the ways a sword could end up in a field," (about 3 rational ways are shown), "you chose this:" whereupon it cuts to a shot of the clouds parting and a sword coming down on a beam of golden light.
That scene made up for the watered-down Braveheart-esque scenes from the film's first half.
Posted by: False Prophet | November 15, 2006 1:13 PM
Zeno and Mark, the urls you intended to link to do not appear in your links.
Posted by: llewelly | November 15, 2006 1:18 PM
...
...
I tried to post a response over there. The site says they "review" feedback before posting it. I wonder if "review" means "freely censor."
Steve:
On vacation recently, I sat next to a lady who teaches (and serves as principal) at a Christian (Seventh Day Adventist) private school. Early in the conversation, I said "You know you're sitting next to an atheist?" And we had a great talk for about two hours, about evolution and all sorts of other stuff. We found that we agreed that Pat Robertson was a mean-spirited little man, the Republicans had betrayed the public's trust, and a lot of other things besides.
Turned out she'd never actually TALKED to a realio-trulio atheist. I was her first. We both laughed when I said "I'm a lot less evil than you'd expect, huh?"
Just out of curiosity, Steve, do you actually KNOW any atheists? Have you talked to one or more for any length of time, in an earnest, non-confrontational way? Or do you take your image of atheists solely from Christian sources?
Because, wow dude, you have some seriously, embarrassingly silly, ideas.
Your title, "It's Not Easy To Be An Atheist" is at times truer than you know. But not because it's somehow illogical or leaves us with deep existential angst.
It's because people like you - and the people you will help convince - smugly insist on whacking at straw men.
Problem is, the blows fall on real people.
I'm curious to see if my comment actually gets posted over there.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 15, 2006 1:21 PM
I once lost a watch on the beach. Does that constitute for some new strand of logic proving or disproving something.
If a watch falls out of your pocket while on the beach, it has violated the laws of gravity by moving up instead of down, ergo the laws of gravity are no longer laws only theories not supported by ACTUAL FACTS!!!!!
Posted by: Magnus | November 15, 2006 1:24 PM
Okay, I took the liberal worldview test that they had and it turns out that I am Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker. I never knew I was a communist! If you want to see how they score you go here http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/results.php?regid=e18c20e101c4bf1b026dc196cc6d00d6&testid=WORLDVIEW&takeid=4200ac80a0491975c193634def15f5c5
Posted by: Jeff | November 15, 2006 1:27 PM
It's not the content of atheism that these hucksters are shivering about: they have no intention of representing it accurately or any other way. It's the noise being made in favor of considering atheism. Now that Dawkins and PZ et al. rival in volume the unearthly howling from belief-based belief, peddlers of god recognise and are alarmed at the virtuosity displayed by rational thought. What's more, they can't match the humor.
Posted by: hal | November 15, 2006 1:28 PM
I like this bit at the end of his third point:
I don't mind agreeing: it is hard. Material explanations of the origins of the universe and of species are difficult to comprehend. They require us to think on much larger scales than we're accustomed. So naturally, many of us wimp out and decide to label them "miracles" and ascribe them to a simplified, personified "god."
What is the name of this fallacy? "I don't understand it, therefore it must not be true."
Posted by: Cris | November 15, 2006 1:28 PM
Actually Magnus, I think that it means that you *are* god. Well, maybe the messiah at least. ;^)
(now go out there and convince them to give you money like Steve Cornell et al!)
Posted by: Mena | November 15, 2006 1:33 PM
"... God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen ..." That there's my problem - the total inability to see the invisible qualities of God.
If Steve Cornell comes across an encyclopedia in the woods, does he refuse to believe it was left there by a human being?
Posted by: Efogoto | November 15, 2006 1:43 PM
hal- I agree with you completely, and Larry Moran has eloquently expressed the same point around here. Because of the taboo about atheism in the US, many, many people have never in their lives encountered a confident, matter-of-fact expression of atheism from an obviously ordinary, well-behaved person who doesn't have two heads. And that's exactly why breaking the taboo openly and forcefully (rather than pussyfooting around with declarations of "agnosticism" and suchlike rubbish) is so important. Encountering our point of view for the first time is likely to start some of the more intelligent among the believers thinking about just why they believe what they do, and who knows where that process may lead once it starts? It seems quite clear to me that that's exactly what the Steve Cornells of the world are so worried about.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 15, 2006 1:44 PM
Wow - that test is the first "rate yourself on something" test I've ever seen for which the authors proudly proclaim which are the correct answers. Not just that you don't agree with them, but you are incorrect if you don't. And you can get a neato certificate if you agree with them enough! Excuse me while I go wash my brain out now.
Posted by: Carlie | November 15, 2006 1:46 PM
I took the quiz and scored a minus 1. I have a "socialist/communist/Marxist/secular humanist worldview". Well of course I do, I'm an Episcopalian. We're the spawn of Satan!
Posted by: MReap | November 15, 2006 1:48 PM
Damn! I thought you were the spawn of Santa. I guess leaving those Christmas wish lists in St John's mailbox was a waste of time.
Posted by: MartinDH | November 15, 2006 1:56 PM
I scored Socialist Worldview Thinker, which makes no sense because I answered a soundly libertarian Strongly Disagree to every "The federal government should. . . "
I don't think they know what socialists actually believe.
Posted by: Gobear | November 15, 2006 1:57 PM
Job opening: Pastor.
Required: Willingness to waste the rest of your life spewing mindless claptrap at gullible parishioners who will swallow your b.s. unquestioningly.
Perks: You get to make it all up as you go along out of a book written a long time ago. How great is that! Plus: get your ya-yas out insulting atheists. What fun!
Apply today!
Posted by: George | November 15, 2006 2:02 PM
Having been raised in a fundy home, I know what the "correct" answers are. Thus of course I have you all beat in the negative scoring.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/results.php?regid=58a48ea551053ecb11f3a63465f00d3a&testid=WORLDVIEW&takeid=a3f25efdbd13bc7e5604e49477dcb80f
It's actually hard to answer some of these questions, since most of the nature-of-god-and-the-bible questions should be answered "Strongly Disagree" by an atheist. But in some cases, that's the correct answer! According to the re-Neducators at WorldviewWeekend, that is.
Posted by: jonno | November 15, 2006 2:03 PM
no, see, if you find a book in the woods it's only a sign from god IF there is also a white salamander present not being consumed by all those flames from the burning bush (also not being consumed). And it helps if it's not a "book" so much as some engraved tablets. Also not being consumed.
A watch on the beach? That was mine.
Bondage restraints under an overpass in Somerville MA? Which overpass?
Posted by: CCP | November 15, 2006 2:05 PM
I once lost a watch on the beach. Does that constitute for some new strand of logic proving or disproving something.
Yes. When one is on the beach, one loses a watch. You have indeed discovered a new law of nature, my friend. Naturally the atheists will try and suppress it though, so good luck. (They are very arrogant, you know.)
Posted by: 386sx | November 15, 2006 2:09 PM
That test sure is hard. Can someone tell me the correct answer for the first question. Well, first of all there is no question, and the alternatives are as follow (and you can only choose one):
I am taking this test before I read a worldview book
I am taking this test before I take a worldview class or conference
I am taking this test after I read a worldview book
I am taking this test after I take a worldview class or conference
I am simply taking the test
Oh, I see now, thats the background survey i have to take before the real test. Somehow I think I'll fail the real one.
Posted by: Magnus | November 15, 2006 2:10 PM
I took the test, I'm a communist as well. Who would have thought... Funny, they have a link to their global results yet there is no option to register by country, only by state.. Bit of a limited worldview. Or did god only create the united states?
Posted by: Mark UK | November 15, 2006 2:19 PM
And what is the correct answer to this question:
George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America.
Am I supposed to agree or disagree. strongly or weakly. I seem to recall him being elected for president, and I know what i think of him being president, but I did not know I should have an opinion on whether or not he actually is in office. Am I supposed to check the No Opinion alternative, since I'm not a US citizen, and therefore cannot vote in the States
Posted by: Magnus | November 15, 2006 2:20 PM
Wow, I scored -23 out of 170. It's interesting how tightly wound up their religion is with economic theory: it's not enough that we're secular humanists, they throw in Marxism, too. What a hoot!
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/results.php?regid=8ce32db0a250f4033e7a34b9a16af29c&testid=WORLDVIEW&takeid=1ab7e113831d54985da9d7d4581fd362
Posted by: j.t.delaney | November 15, 2006 2:23 PM
I'm with tacitus. Steve Cornell's article is projection incarnate.
indeed. one more datapoint in the endless stream of fundies who exhibit this symptom. Projection is as common to fundies as warm blood is to mammals.
I do wonder why there are so few articles that attempt to look at approaching the fundie condition as it really is: a psychological disorder.
an aproach based on a logical treatment of factual data won't convince a schizophrenic to seek treatment; you have to point out that they have a disease, first.
It's not the religion that causes the disease, it's merely the enabler.
much like those predisposed to alcoholism, the alcohol merely enables the underlying addictive personality. It's the personality disorder that needs treatment; decrying the evils of alcohol simply doesn't work.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 15, 2006 2:27 PM
Ok I took the 'test' and I am also apparently some form of marxist/humaist/moderate biblical person. That was simply a ridiculous exercise in futility. All that despite being a republican with libertarian leanings in the real world.
It's funny how the questions are asked, answered, and the point values given. Only nuts would put something like this out there.
Posted by: GH | November 15, 2006 2:27 PM
Okay, I took the liberal worldview test that they had and it turns out that I am Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker.
you actually registered?
no doubt when the next McCarthy commission gets formed, they will use this as evidence against you.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 15, 2006 2:33 PM
Well, I got -3. Oddly enough, I got a nearly perfect score on the social issues section, but for rather different reasons than they intended, I suspect.
Posted by: JakeB | November 15, 2006 2:42 PM
Yay, I got first response in. They took out the para breaks, though. It read more elegantly with paragraphs.
Posted by: Don | November 15, 2006 2:47 PM
Steve Cornell is correct here (except for the "merely having bad manners", most community based ethics systems consider murder extraordinarily bad manners).
Even Dawkins talks about "evil," and I think this is a mistake, evil (and good) as absolute references are part of the supersititous realm. "The rule of law" has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with community ethical standards (e.g. majority rule limited by minority rights).
Posted by: 601 | November 15, 2006 3:07 PM
From the test:
Oh yeah, please do that. Not only it is really easy to beat them, but we have great fun with fundamentalists', huh, "reasoning".
Posted by: Greco | November 15, 2006 3:13 PM
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious."
~ Sam Harris, An Atheist Manifest
The best definition I can find.
Posted by: Rienk | November 15, 2006 3:47 PM
CCP wrote:
I found the restraints under Route 28, between the Brickbottom artist community and a tow-truck company. About halfway between Union Square and Lechmere, if you want more globally relevant terms. (Google map of environs.)
Why, are they yours?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 15, 2006 3:52 PM
It's easy to poke fun at articles like this, but it might be more useful to read it as a handy guide to why people cling so strongly to their theism. If they believe that atheism implies a lack of ultimate purpose and pulls the rug out from under the only system of morality they know, it is almost rational to maintain your religion as the only available protection from the howling void.
There needs to be a guide, "how to be a moral and fulfilled atheist", that answers these objections in simple language.
Posted by: mtraven | November 15, 2006 3:52 PM
There is probably a better place to post this, but Chopra has a new post on atheism at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-god-delusion-part-1_b_34200.html
It's begging for a good rogering.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Posted by: jtdub | November 15, 2006 4:16 PM
Yes, ever since we let gay people marry, they have been flooding into the state. Prices on bondage equipment, lubricant and other recreational gear have dropped through the floor! Everybody wins!
Posted by: Anuminous | November 15, 2006 4:19 PM
That is even funnier -- I drive past there on my way to and from work every day. The bastards at that tow company towed my car while I was at the nearby courthouse doing my civic duty (no empanelling for me though)
Posted by: Anuminous | November 15, 2006 4:25 PM
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/results.php?regid=d05bb284d64aca4b6ac5a4f7bf5ac392&testid=WORLDVIEW&takeid=c7ef40ffca7e2185e175e74ed5ad8925
damn i was pretty happy with my -22 until i saw jonno's -94. BUT i reckon he was trying to bomb it.
It's just hard to even have an opinion about most of those stupid questions.
And I'm proud to be a Communist/Marxist/Eskimoist/Socialist/Satanist/Homosexualist/Bestialist/RockAndRollist/Linguist/Mexicanist/Misanthropist/Nihilist/Anti-Realist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker, where at least I know I'm Free! And I won't forget the men who died to do nothing to contribute to those rights for me! And I'll proudly Stand Up! next to you and turn my back today. because there ain't no doubt I love this land, Gawd Bless the You S.A.!!!
Lee Greenwood is a pussy. and i really resent having to hear that bullshit while I'm trying to eat a dolphin-killing-tuna sub at the Subway the other day. wish I had this test with me then.
Posted by: Erasmus | November 15, 2006 4:52 PM
Ha! Unlike most people round here I am a theist, so I had a handicap, yet I still scored -58!. I will be in, oh, a much deeper part of hell than all y'all. D00d i tot4lly pWn3d yuor athi3sTs!!!!!11!!
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | November 15, 2006 4:56 PM
Have you guys noticed the (possibly supernatural) phenomenon that once you're IN Somerville, it's almost impossible to get OUT?
I think it's because of all those streets that seem to be parallel but aren't, and the innumerable "squares" that are, without exception, either triangles or circles.
Conclusion: Satan is real!
Posted by: Kseniya | November 15, 2006 4:58 PM
Kseniya:
You did not used to hang around Gene and Amy's place in Teele square did you? I ask because I once saw a video made by some people who did which was about a man cursed by a gypsy to be unable to leave Somerville...
Posted by: Anuminous | November 15, 2006 5:02 PM
-25 I couldn't believe that I got some "right, i.e.
God used the process of biological evolution to create the world as we know it today.
God didn't do anything, what with not existing.
The Bible is a reflection of God's character and nature.
God is obviously a pychopath.
The Bible states that money is the root of all evil.
Love of money is the root of all evil). I got a few more biblical ones half-right. There are an awful lot of sayings that people think are in the Bible, but aren't quite. (And everyone gets the lyrics to Auld Lang Syne wrong too.)
Making as much money as you can is more important than whether you have a good reputation.
I'd rather be remembered as being a nice guy than a rich guy.
A Christian can develop a biblical worldview for every major area of life by studying the Bible from beginning to end in context.
If you're going to have a biblical worldview it helps to study the source. And I'd take a look at the Apocrypha too.
And of course George Wanker Bush is President of the US. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it isn't true.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | November 15, 2006 5:19 PM
Hmmm... I had a seagull drop a watch on me at the beach once. It wasn't a particularly nice watch, but apparently it was shiny enough to be worth picking it up and flying with it for a while. What are the theological ramifications? Anybody?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 15, 2006 5:22 PM
Abandon all hope ye who enter Somerville.
Does anyone here remember the Somerville Song?
"a sub shop graces every hill...
you might think you're dreaming
but maybe you're not
it's all a state of mind in Somerville"
Amazingly, this doesn't seem to be on the web anywhere.
Posted by: mtraven | November 15, 2006 5:25 PM
Sum-sum-summaville!
As an ex-Slummavillian, I salute you!
Posted by: George | November 15, 2006 5:34 PM
Anuminous:
No, I don't know "Gene" or "Amy" (if those are their real names) nor did I hang around their "place" (probably some Somerville cultist's dive bar) but I do know where Teele Square is (and that it's another one of those damned triangles - I swear, you could lose a battleship and a squadron of fighter planes in Somerville, which is amazing considering how small a "city" it is) but I'm sure the Gypsy story is REAL and I'd love to see the video and don't you hate silly people who type in run-on sentences full of parenthetical comments?
Somerville is dense. No, really. This is intuitively obvious, but it's also a fact. Somerville is at (or near) the top of the list in population density because of its small size. At yet, it's a nearly limitless labyrinthine maze from which there is little chance of escape. So. Either there are supernatural forces at work, or Somerville is in fact an extrusion into our STC of a much larger, four-dimensional place.
("And He Built A Crooked Town...")
Posted by: Kseniya | November 15, 2006 5:35 PM
How does the song go?
There Ball squ-a-ah, and Union Squ-a-ah, and Inman Squ-a-ah, and Davis Squ-a-ah.... Somerville, oh Somerville, I really think you're pissa!
Posted by: George | November 15, 2006 5:40 PM
Ah, well Kseniya. You missed a good time. Wierd people, good conversations, speed chess (the topical connection here is that Gene and Amy were neo-pagan/liberal/archeologist/ socialist/artists)
As for local songs, it is really about Cambridge/Boston, but I prefer Tom Lehrer's (now somewhat outdated) Ode to the Red Line:
H is for my Alma Mater, Harvard
C is Central the next stop down the line
K is for that cozy Kendall Station
C is Charles which overlooks the brine
P is for the posh and pompos Park Street
W's for Washington you see
Put them all together you get
HCKC - PW
That's what Boston really means to me!
The expectorating sound he made in the penultimate line was really something else.
Posted by: Anuminous | November 15, 2006 5:52 PM
Yeah, but Inman Squ-a-ah is in Cambridge (barely, but still).
You know, satellite photos taken directly over the only geometrically honest feature of Somerville, that is, Powder House Circle (next to Tufts, but still in Somerville) show the Circle to be the body and eye of a creature from which emanate six arms (disguised as "streets") that wind their way through every neighborhood of Somerville like... like tentacles...
Posted by: Kseniya | November 15, 2006 5:54 PM
I see Anuminous posted the Tom Lehrer subway song before I had the chance. Back in the early days of Napster, I snared an MP3 of Lehrer singing that, marked "very rare".
My mathematician friends describe Boston as a city in which no meaningful distance metric can be defined. The rules of Euclidean space stop working between Newton and the Atlantic. I made a wrong turn once heading from an apartment near Central Squa-ah to Somerville (foolish enough, I know, but I was coming out of a back lot and all mixed up) and ended up in downtown Boston and the Back Bay before I could get myself turned around.
My understanding of the city is made more torturous because I learned its geography starting with the nuclei right around the T stops. When the neighborhoods of familiarity threaten to overlap, all sorts of brain hurt ensue. Fuckin' A, Moishe, it's a wicked pissah retahded topology.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 15, 2006 6:02 PM
Yup, it sounds like I missed a good time with Gene and Amy... but if it was more than four or five years ago, I was too young to be in Somerville anyway. ;-)
HCKC - PW - LMAO!
Tom Lehrer was brilliant, even my younger brother (still only 15) loves him. Who needs F-bombs when you have wit like that?
I have one for you... from Lehrer's Heir (I just made that up, actually it's a guy named John Forster). Entering Marion. It's a jaunty little tune about... uh... well, I don't want to spoil it for you. It's better heard than just read, but I don't have the mp3...
Posted by: Kseniya | November 15, 2006 6:09 PM
You might say that Boston and the local area evolved with inadequate selection in force. This provides an appearance of complete randomness. It makes much more sense if you realize that not all the land which is there now was there before (some very expensive real estate around here is in fact on landfill put in place to get rid of the stinking tidal swamps). Sadly, I have never been able to figure it out, so I just get lost a lot. My wife is much better at navigating around here than I am.
Posted by: Anuminous | November 15, 2006 6:09 PM
An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose.
>An atheist FINDS himself in a life without ultimate purpose. That's just being honest.
>The "ultimate purpose" the Christian imagines for himself is not his purpose, it's God's. Purpose, to have any meaning, must be one's own. Otherwise we're talking about function, not purpose. Christians essentially imagine themselves bristles in God's backscratcher.
>What does "ultimate purpose" even mean? Does something have to be eternal to be ultimately purposeful? Because Jesus taught that marriage is not eternal--people are not married in heaven. Does that mean that marriage is without purpose? And if it doesn't mean that, doesn't that imply that some things are intrinsically meaningful, even if they are not ultimately purposeful--whatever that could mean?
If the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence -something bigger.
I think I'm pretty honest, and while I admit that there is something MUCH bigger than MY existence...that is, the rest of the cosmos (including thought and experience), I don't think there's anything more to my existence than the experiences, thoughts, and actions of my lifetime. I'm not a solipsist--I think the universe will go on without my presence. But I don't think my presence will go on without my material self.
The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic.
On the contrary, atheists I know consider logic paramount. If the DNA actually bore more than the most trivial likeness to an encyclopedia, perhaps the atheist's logic could be questioned. But far from appearing designed, genomes bear the unmistakable marks of jerry rigging, contingency, and Rube-Goldberg contraptionism. The LOGICAL conclusion is undirected evolution.
The atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God.
I believe that things that are statistically improbable occur, sure. I also believe things happen that I don't understand. Surely more has been meant by the word "miracle" than something that is either statistically improbable or not well-understood.
We don't actually know that whatever begins to exist is caused to exist--at the quantum level, some things seem to occur without a cause, and it is very difficult to imagine what the cause and effect dynamic might have been like prior to the existence of space-time. But even if we grant the truth of the idea that everything that begins to exist is caused to exist, what does this have to do, specifically, with God?
There are substantial issues, by the way, with a God outside of space and time deciding to create space and time...because the very acts of decision and creation imply that time already exists (and time does not exist without space). If time and space already exist, and God exists eternally, then time and space must exist eternally as well. A decision-making, acting God could not exist without time, but there is no logical contradiction in saying that time can exist without God.
An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality.
This is the most offensive, bigoted, and just plain wrong statement here. Of course I am able to declare some morals superior to others--I don't need a perfect, Platonic sphere to see that a rugby ball is more rounded than a football. Knowledge can be derived comparatively without recourse to a perfect absolute. We accept that idea with language, for example--that it is an i