You Can't Prove
George Washington
Was An Atheist!
[2chicken 2sign]

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism" <>
To: [2chicken 2sign]
Subject: Why Do Christians LIE About Our Web Site?
Date: May 25, 2002 12:12 PM

To demonstrate that he was not Christian is a relatively simple matter, as you can see in our Big List of Quotations. The big give-away is that Christ allegedly commanded Christians to admit to their religious beliefs, and Washington repeatedly refused to admit to his. And one would certainly expect a Christian during Washington's time, probably more than any other time since the Reformation, to admit his or her Christian faith, considering the popularity of the two books Pilgrim's Progress and Fox's Book of Martyrs, two fictional works extolling the virtues of Christian martyrdom -- that meaning, specifically, the act of admitting one's Christianity on pain of death.

Now, who said anything about George Washington being an atheist?

Please tell me!

What is it about you Christians who write here and act as if I've said something that I have not said? This is so common that I am considering opening up a Christian Anti-FAQ, consisting of entirely of posts from Christians making false statements about our web site. Then, all a reader would need to do is read through these letters from Christians and she or he would know what is not true about us!

Why is it that you people do this? I am truly baffled by the sheer frequency of this behavior, not to mention shocked, as I consider what you folks do to be tantamount to slander.

Hardly anybody was an atheist until at least a decade or two after Washington became President, because the Christians used to routinely put atheists to death for being atheists; thus, it didn't pay to admit you were an atheist even if you were one. So even if George Washington had been an atheist, we most certainly wouldn't know about it -- thanks to the obedience of the Christians of his day (John 15:6, etc.).

Once the United States Constitution kicked in and took hold of the human psyche, once the Era of Enlightenment trickled down from being exclusively elite and limited to the class which claimed Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Paine, Allen, and Franklin, once all this had taken place, then and only then did the Christians come to grips with the fact that it is contrary to the intrinsic sense of human morality for them to kill people for refusing to believe the religious lies of Christendom. Then and only then did the Christians begin to honor "the laws of Man" and stop killing us for our unbelief, that is, stop their literal obedience to "the laws of God" (Deuteronomy 13:6-10, etc.).

That still produced only a few bona fide atheists, because until Charles Darwin published Origin of Species, atheism was not an intellectually tenable position: the Argument from Design was just too formidable. So Deists arose among those you'd have thought should have been atheists (and in many case probably were). The Deists concocted these fabulous descriptions of Deity who created humanity but didn't give a rat about him once done with his creation. The god of Deism, however, was benevolent. This kept conflicting with the observations of biologists, zoologists, and other scientists who kept observing a Nature that is wasteful and brutal, certainly not what you'd expect from a benevolent intelligence.

Later, even after Darwin provided a naturalistic design alternative in natural selection, those you'd think should have become atheists instead called themselves "agnostics," probably due to the stigma behind the word atheist combined with the popular misnomer (popularized by the Roman Catholic Church) that an atheist was someone who "denied the existence of God." This implies that the atheist knows ("deep down inside") that God exists but is willfully denying this "fact." But the original agnostics were much more viciously anti-religion than even today's atheists are seen as being.

However, the British understanding of the term atheist was not that of anti-religion at all. The prefix "a" means "without," not "against." Thus, an atheist is without theism, somebody who is not a theist. A person who is against religion would be called an antitheist!

Still, to this day, hardly anybody who qualifies as an atheist under this traditional definition (about 14 percent of American adults) would dare to call themselves an atheist. Why? Again, it's those meddling Christians who have both changed the meaning of the word and (as if that wasn't enough) stigmatized atheism itself to the point where atheists have it much worse off in America than even homosexuals.

But these meddlers have gone on to commit the ultimate crime: Even if one were to give up and decide to go ahead and join the Christian church, these meddlers have turned her into a viciously dishonest and wildly bigoted institution that hardly anybody in their right mind would consider supporting, even if they thought her doctrines were philosophically true! So they don't want us to be atheists, but they won't let us be Christians, as there's no room for an honest man or woman in the Christian church! They have closed their own doors to folks such as myself and most of the atheists I have known.

And who ever said anything about atheism needing to prove anything?

First off, you cannot prove that the Christian religion is right, because it has so little going for it that to even try is a hopeless endeavor. But it's not atheism that has to prove anything, as atheism makes no claims. It is theism that makes the claims. Theism walks up, out of the blue, and says, "A god exists," and atheism replies, "Oh, really?" There is nothing for us to prove because until theism made this claim atheism was minding her own business. All atheism has is a reply: Oh, really? Tell me about this very strange thing that you've just told me: it does not square with any of my observations!

Now that torturing us is out of the no longer permitted, they have left only two chances of ever making a convert. They win huge numbers of us by indoctrinating their own children (and any of ours they can get their hands on) before those children are old enough to have developed the skills of discernment. They also retain some methods of winning us by force of violence, including legislation and economic sanction against the stigmatized class. Today the big move is to reward those who undergo the religious rite of marriage, a ritual that, according to the polls, a huge percentage of nonreligious people simply will not endure. Other methods include taking our minds hostage through such techniques of emotional blackmail as projecting doom and gloom "End Times" scenarios, such as the "Left Behind" series has done, though Tim LaHaye is only the latest in a long string of prognosticators who use the Bible as a crystal ball. Others include the more standard practice of painting a dire picture of hell-fire and brimstone, including descriptions of eternity along the lines of a bird flying by a steel ball the size of the Sun once every million years and brushing its wing against the ball as it flies by: so by the time the ball has been worn away from the bird having brushed its wing against the ball, eternity has just begun. Christians do this in their miserably manipulative quest to convince people to join them!

This shows how thoroughly vacant the Christian position is philosophically: they simply cannot make a case for themselves through demonstration or argumentation. For this reason, it is atheism that is very quickly winning large numbers of theists over to her side, both through persuasion of argument and by default: "Christianity sucks. Religion as a whole sucks, What else is there?" This is how atheism wins "converts" by default, atheism being the simple absence of religion and religion being so utterly repulsive to the modern mind that people are nowadays fleeing from it in droves.

But proof? No. The burden of proof does not allow us to even lift a finger in that respect. Atheism is not a position; rather, it is the default when theism shows itself to be philosophically vacant.

Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six-and-a-half years of service
    to people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <>
To: [unsigned]
Subject: Re: Why Do Christians LIE About Our Web Site?
Date: May 26, 2002 3:49 AM

Why would Christians dance around the fact of their Christianity?

What is it about my having correctly identified the form of exploitation to which you've fallen victim that appears to have so spooked you? or, rather, has at least rattled you to the point of engaging in this little dance of denial? What does it even matter considering that you refuse to even tell us what your name is!

Okay! Lay it on the line for the nice readers:

1. Do you believe Jesus is Christ, the Son of the Living God? or was he merely human (or entirely mythical)?

2. Again: Did we ever claim that George Washington was an atheist?
    2a. If so, where? what's the URL?
    2b. If not, why did you bring it up in a context which strongly suggests that we had made that claim?

[We will post any response below -- if we get one!]

Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six-and-a-half years of service
    to people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.