Conniving Christian Insists:
Prove That No Gods Exist!
Chad Baxter
Sound familiar? This is not the only time such ruses have ever been used on this forum. Far from it! Even the trick of initially denying that they're Christian has been used before on our forum. A case in point is the very letter from which our current writer quotes! In that letter, "God Loves You [Abusively]" featuring Christian spammer/ We post this pathetic exchange only to show that the fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian positions naturally lend themselves to these kinds of desperate tactics from their apologists. It long ago reached the point where lying and falsehood and misrepresentation became the majority opinion among the fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians who write to the Positive Atheism forum. |
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 5:40 AM
Let me just preface the conversation by saying that I am not a Christian, so please don't make any quick assumptions about my beliefs. With that in mind, let me begin my questions.
Here is an excerpt from your website.
| This fellow responds to our response to a letter that simply said, "God loves you." We asked that person to substantiate the claim that there is a god and that this god loves us (me). The present writer misinterprets our convenient use of the term "false prophets" and then proceeds to twist logic to make it seem that by our use of this linguistic convenience, we presuppose the existence of true prophets. No. The phrase "true prophet" is, to us, an oxymoron. Our use of convenient language to discuss concepts (i.e., "God"; "prophet"; "Santa Claus") does not indicate that we endorse those concepts as describing what does or even can exist. -- from God Loves You [Abusively] with Gregory Auman |
Once you mention the word false, it immediately follows that there has to be a truth because without truth there can be no standard for falseness to be measured against. In other words, the term "false" is dependent on the word "truth". Or to put it more simply, false can not exist unless there is truth.
You go on to say that you do not endorse those concepts (specifically, the term false) as necessarily existing. Well, if false doesn't have meaning in your system, then what does your comment about "false prophets" prove? If you establish a system where falseness and truth do not exist, then any comment you make about truthness and falseness should not have any merit, including the one about "false prophets". Furthemore, I should disregard anything you say in a world where truth and false do not exist. I welcome your response.
Sincerely,
Chad Baxter
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "chad baxter"
Subject: Re:
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:59 PM
There is such thing as using someone else's own language to make a point (i.e., our use of the term false prophet). One need not be a creationist in order to raise questions, rhetorically, about the "intelligence" ("stupidity"?) of designing the urethra so that it wraps itself around the prostate gland.
In fact, this technique is not uncommon. We are sorry that you either failed to recognize or refuse to acknowledge this possible interpretation of our statement.
However, we will not abandon the use of legitimate rhetorical techniques simply because a few people misunderstand our point -- or worse, deliberately misrepresent it for the purpose of discrediting our position.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 3:24 AM
Let me let the cat out of the bag and let you know that I am a Christian. I need to disclose this in order to respond to some of your comments.
| So, the question remains, How does a Christian (or a Mormon or a Muslim) know that he or she is not following a false prophet? How can you tell? Instead of berating us for asking this question (instead of changing the subject, if you will, and introducing confusion into the conversation), we would like to hear you address the question. -- from God Loves You [Abusively] with Gregory Auman |
Let's get to the point here and stop fiddling around. How can a Christian know that he or she is not following a false prophet? Well, because we believe that all the evidence indicates that Jesus Christ was not a false prophet and was the son of God as he claimed. The life of Jesus, documented in the 4 gospels (which, by the way, is an extremely well documented historical text), explains that Jesus called himself the son of God (which is obviously on a divine level), performed miracles as partial evidence to this claim, and as the ultimate evidence of his divinity and claim, died and rose 3 days later (that's right, it's historically documented that Jesus was walking around 3 days after being crucified). If Jesus just said he was the son of God, and did nothing to back it up, we would not believe as we do. But he did plenty to back it up.
You are probably going to respond by citing that there are gross innaccuracies in the gospels (even though there are few innaccuracies, which are mere and inconsequential) and the fact that it is not a reliable historical text, and maybe come up with the theory that the earliest Christians (including Jesus) were liars, or perhaps lunatics.
Here's the definition of proof. 1 a : the cogency(which essentially means collection) of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
Essentially, proof is providing a collection of evidence which points to a truth or fact according to the principles of reasoning.
With this in mind, here's a summary of the argument.
1) The Gospels records the life of Jesus, including his miracles, death, the claim that he was the son of God, and his ultimate resurrection.
2) The Gospels are well documented, well-researched historical texts, written by reliable witnesses, and therefore, are reliable as history.
3) Therefore, Jesus is the son of God, and as such I believe everything he says.
Everything I argued here conforms to the principles of proof as stated in the dictionary. Although there isn't absolute certainty that this occurred, all evidence and reasoning points to the conclusion that Jesus is the son of God.
| Besides, we do not pride ourselves on having all the atheist answers. We are here to raise questions, not provide answers. -- from God Loves You [Abusively] with Gregory Auman |
Where do you get off saying that you don't have answers?. The belief that there is no God, the essential belief of atheism, is a direct statement about the nature of the universe. Somehow you believe that because you're an atheist, that excuses you from being included with other believers-including Christians, Jews, and Muslims. We all believe in something. You just happen to believe that there is no God. But it's still a belief. You are attempting to provide just as many answers as a believer in God.
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "chad baxter"
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 12:45 PM
You are welcome to think that the Gospels are truthful. I have studied them intensely, over a period of three decades now, and I think these works are among of the most destructive frauds ever perpetrated upon humankind.
As a man of truthfulness, I prefer to keep a maximum distance from such ruinous dishonesty as is the Christian religion. Thus, I wouldn't give credence to that religion even if doing so would eliminate all the bigotry that I endure on a daily basis.
You are also welcome to misrepresent atheism as you do, here, but this will get you nowhere with us: we have clearly stated that atheists do not necessarily assert that no gods exist, but, at minimum, simply lack a god belief. Thus, your misrepresentation of our position, followed by your attempts to refute your own misrepresentation of our position -- rather than taking the trouble to refute our actual position -- speaks volumes about your credibility.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 3:50 AM
| Atheists are not making a god-claim, therefore we have no claims to prove. -- from God Loves You [Abusively] with Gregory Auman |
The statement that there is no God is a claim just as much as the statement that there is a God. Why should you not have to prove there is no God? What makes you so special that you can make such a bold statement without any proof, especially when you expect the same from one who believes in God. This sounds like hypocrisy and irrational thinking to me.
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "chad baxter"
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 1:07 PM
My statement here is clear and unambiguous -- so much so that your attempts to twist its meaning into something else serves only to display your sheer desperation. How come you cannot simply make an honest and reasoned argument for your case that the Christian religion is telling the truth? Why must you bluff like this?
In other words, why don't you refute our actual position rather than your misrepresentation -- your fantasy -- of our position?
To state it a different way, why do feel you need to lie about us? Why do you put words into our mouths?
Could it be that the Christian religion cannot withstand the rigors of honest examination? And is this why you attempt to shoot down the atheistic position rather than making a positive case for the truthfulness of the Christian religion?
Meanwhile, you are welcome to try to find any example of me asserting that no gods exist. Good luck in your endeavor, though, because this is not my opinion, and is not the position of the vast majority of atheists. We lack a god belief. Theists make god claims; we do not make any claims. The person making the claim is responsible for backing up that claim. The person listening to the claims is not bound to disprove them: I dare you to prove that no leprechaun lives under my Chicago Cubs cap. I dare you to prove that Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot does not exist. You know what? you cannot do this short of either of us admitting that we are lying. That's how logic works. I'm sorry if the wishful thinking similar to your pipe-dream about Christianity prompts you to think that Logic works any differently from the way that it does.
When dealing in the privacy of your own mind (or while trying to pull the wool over the eyes of this or that fool), you are welcome to use a system of logic different from the system that the rest of us use. But, when engaged in serious philosophical discussion in a public forum, making up your own rules (constructing your own special reality, complete with Humpty Dumpty-esque definitions for words and concepts) will serve only to impair your credibility and to cast further doubt upon your claim that the Christian religion is truthful.
Thus, we insist that you retract your lies about us. If you are unwilling to do this, we ask that you stop writing to this domain. Time is a premium, here; I am physically impaired and endure much pain -- and I have only a few hours a day with which to get way too much work done.
It is neither my role nor my desire to straighten you out on such things as morals (specifically, truthfulness) and logic and history.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 4:09 AM
| In other words, if you make a claim for the existence of something, you must cough up the goods. You must provide us with a good reason to believe in the existence of something. Our job is merely to listen, to question, and to doubt when good reasons are not provided. -- from God Loves You [Abusively] with Gregory Auman |
It sounds like you are truly not an atheist. It seems that, at least from this statement, that at the moment you believe there is no God, however, if somebody comes along and gives you a reasonable argument then you might come to believe there is a God. This sounds more like agnosticism than anything. You're not sure what you believe. No wonder why you can't prove anything.....you're not even sure if you believe atheism.
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "chad baxter"
Cc: <abuse@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 1:22 PM
Mr. Baxter:
One last time, making up your own rules and your own definitions impairs your credibility. Doing so with the intent to "bear false witness" against someone shows your true colors as a person bent on misrepresenting your opponents position.
This is the most efficient method for wearing out your welcome on our forum.
THUS, WE HAVE ASKED AND NOW INSIST THAT YOU PLEASE STOP WRITING TO OUR DOMAIN!
Our stated target audience consists of those people who already lack a god belief. Our stated mission is not to defend the atheistic position but to reduce or eliminate the bigotry and misrepresentation that we endure constantly.
Theists are welcome to visit, and are even welcome to try to make their case for theism. But when theists cannot abide by even the minimal etiquitte that anyone would expect of guests, we must ask (and are again asking) that you stop writing to our domain.
I have been very patient with you and will take swift action if we hear from you again. At this point, not even an apology or a retraction is in order. Please stop writing to our domain. This is the last you will hear from us directly regarding this matter.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
|
As we have already stated to Mr. Baxter, our role is not to try to talk some poor bloke out of his imbecilities; neither is it to straighten him out on either logic, philosophy, or historical method. We have no more to say about Josh McDowell's oversimplified Christian apologetics. We won't even clue him in as to the fact that Dictionaries are written by humans and that sometimes the prevalent prejudice (unfortunately) seeps its way into even our reference books. Finally, we are not here to teach Mr. Baxter about manners or morality. Our purpose is not as much to propagate the atheistic position to theists as it is to end the bigotry and misrepresentation atheists. We think this goal will be accomplished through the efforts of atheists, not by dialoguing with spite-filled theists. We will engage in honest discussion and debate, attempting to defend those statements that we have made. But we refuse, at this point, to indulge with someone who chooses to misrepresent our position, a position which is clearly stated and ably defended on our website. In other words, we will not respond to accusations that we believe something when the preponderance of our website states that we believe otherwise. Thus, we forwarded the following two responses to the Yahoo abuse team, requesting that a filter be placed on his account so that no more e-mail from his account will reach our domain. If this is not Gregory Auman himself using yet another phony name in order to skirt our filters, then at least it is, most certainly, a man cut from the same cloth. To Mr. Baxter, we have only this to say, |
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 4:01 PM
How come you cannot simply make an honest and reasoned argument for your case that the Christian religion is telling the truth? Why must you bluff like this?
That's exactly what I did in my other e-mail, and you dismissed the reliability of the gospels, citing that after years of "research" you concluded it was false, without, of course, going into any detail as to the validity of your argument. I am supposed to just accept that you deny a historical text without any reason? You can't simply dismiss a historical text as well-documented as the gospels as you do.
Could it be that the Christian religion cannot withstand the rigors of honest examination? And is this why you attempt to shoot down the atheistic position rather than making a positive case for the truthfulness of the Christian religion?
Once again, I made a positive case for the truthfulness of the Christian religion by proving the reliability of the gospels and hence, the reliability of Jesus Christ. In fact, I explained my argument in clear, logical form, outlining each step along the way. What more do you want? I think I was honest, rational, and to the point. If anything, you are the one that is fudging the argument and refusing to address the valid points that were presented.
And by the way, I wasn't necessarily shooting down your position as an atheist, but rather the manner in which you argued for it. You demanded proof from me (which I promptly provided), yet you are somehow excused from defending your position (claiming that your belief doesn't demand any proof).
But, when engaged in serious philosophical discussion in a public forum, making up your own rules (constructing your own special reality, complete with Humpty Dumpty-esque definitions for words and concepts) will serve only to impair your credibility and to cast further doubt upon your claim that the Christian religion is truthful.
Read my other e-mail and you will realize that I am engaging in serious philosophical discussion. What's this special reality you keep referring to? I used the historical method to prove the validity of the gospels. How is this Humpty Dumpty-esque? It seems pretty straight-forward to me.
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 4:10 PM
I have studied them intensely, over a period of three decades, now, and I think these works are among of the most destructive frauds perpetrated upon humankind. As a man of truthfulness, I prefer to keep a maximum distance from such ruinous dishonesty as is the Christian religion.
How did you come to the conclusion that the 4 gospels are "among the most destructive frauds perpetrated upon humankind." Please address the argument rather than changing the subject and going off on some tangent about humpty-dumpty. We're dealing with rational, philosophical thinking here.
Atheists do not necessarily assert that no gods exist, but simply lack a god belief.
The dictionary clearly states that an atheist is "one who denies the existence of God." What exactly do you mean by lacking a god belief?
But alas, Yahoo was rather busy, so a few more came in before they finally took care of this pest. |
From: "chad baxter"
To: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 3:04 AM
Hello Cliff:
Once again, I would appreciate if you would respond to this e-mail I sent earlier. You earlier response was, "You are welcome to think that the Gospels are truthful. I have studied them intelsely, over a period of three decades, now, and I think these works are among of the most destructive frauds perpetrated upon humankind."
Let me make a few points. Studying the gospel for 3 decades (which might not be the case anyway) alone does not, in any way, enhance your argument against the validity of the gospels. You could study them for 100 years for all I care. There is absolutely no evidence or reason behind that statement. That's equivalent to my saying, "After decades of intense research, I've concluded that the Roman Empire never existed", without giving any reason for it. Maybe you don't have to prove your position as an atheist, but you definitely have to back up the statement about the fraud of the gospels.
From: "chad baxter"
To: <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 4:53 AM
Here's a quote from your website.
"This is stupid. You assume there are only two choices here. Either the God of (your particular brand of) Christianity exists or he does not. We are not asked whether a god exists or not, we are asked to determine which god-claims are false. We are asked to discern which alleged prophets are false and which (if any) are true. So, then, based on this bet, what if the Jehovah's Witnesses are right? You have still lost out. What if Mohammed (assuming he actually existed) was right? You are out big-time! What if it was Quetzalcoatl? Do you know anyone who still believes in Quetzalcoatl? What if Quetzalcoatl was The One True God, but nobody believed the obvious, "slapping them in the face"? |
Let me address the first paragaph. I think it's pretty obvious that either Jesus is the son of God, and therefore divine, or he isn't. What other choice could there be? How can you talk about logic when you can't even concede on this?
As for the second paragraph, just because there are many religions out there with many beliefs, that doesn't presuppose that there can't be one truth, or one right belief system out there. Yes, it's true and maybe even hard to stomach that if Christianity is true, then all the other religions are false. But there is no intellectual merit to the argument that just because there are many religions out there, there can't be one true religion.
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.