Conniving Christian Insists:
Prove That No Gods Exist!
Chad Baxter

Graphic Rule

 
Introduction:
 

I am not a Christian.

Doh!!  Ya foun' me out!

Yes, I guess I must admit that I am a Christian!

Furthermore, I have no valid case for my position (only rhetoric of the level of the eight-page Campus Crusaders For Christ booklet).

So what I'll do is I'll misrepresent your position and I'll then try to refute my misrepresentation of your position -- rather than even bother to find out what your position actually is!

Sound like fun?

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/huckster/thief/compulsive liar Gregory Auman, the writer calls me a liar for detecting that he is a Christian! (Ah, but we knew it all along! Peculiar styles of thinking are not easy to disguise!)

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.

 

Graphic Rule

 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
 

graphic rule

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

Graphic Rule

 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
 
 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
 

graphic rule

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

Graphic Rule

 Atheists are not making a god-claim, therefore we have no claims to prove.
     -- from God Loves You [Abusively] with Gregory Auman
 

graphic rule

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

Graphic Rule

 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
 

graphic rule

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

graphic rule

 

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,
"Have a nice life. As far as we can tell, it's the only one we get."

 

graphic rule

graphic rule

graphic rule

 

But alas, Yahoo was rather busy, so a few more came in before they finally took care of this pest.

 

graphic rule

 

 

"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"?

 

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.