Positive Atheism Dialogue
Graphic Rule
Atheism:
A Position of Convenience?
Mike Boston
Graphic Rule
Invisible Spacer

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:29 PM

No.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 12:34 PM

Did I say yes?

No. I said no. My answer is: No. You are wrong about this.

This is why I do not like entering into discussions with most theists: no means yes and yes means no.

It is not worth my time to decipher your question and provide for you an explanation. It is not my job to go to school for you and teach you how to think or how to hold a discussion.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 1:31 PM

This is not true at all. What you have done is propose what is known as a "false dilemma": Since we do not have "absolute knowledge of the universe" (whatever that is) in order to disprove the existence of gods through that means, therefore the proposition "A god exists" must be true. Christians often take this leap one step further: since we do not have absolute knowledge to disprove the existence of the Christian god(s), therefore the Christian god(s) exist(s).

Besides, you are using a false definition for atheism here. Atheism is the lack of a god-belief. An atheist does not necessarily assert that no gods exist. A handful of atheists do make this claim, but they are in the minority.

Here are the two problems: First, logic does not require the listener to disprove an existential claim (a claim for the existence of something). It is the responsibility of the one making the existential claim to prove that his or her claim is true. If all you have to say is "a god exists" then I have every reason to doubt your claim. If I tell you that "the tooth fairy exists" you would be most reasonable in doubting my claim and demanding that I back it up. You don't need "absolute knowledge of the universe" in order to be satisfied that no tooth fairy exists; my inability or refusal to prove my claim would be proof enough. The same holds true for any and all god-claims: since the existence of gods is not self-evident, you need to demonstrate your claim.

Secondly, you are right in saying that I cannot make the statement "There is no God" and be rational, because we have not defined the word God for this discussion. It would be unreasonable for me to deny that a "God" exsits when I don't even know what you are talking about. Explain to me what you mean by the word God and we will go from there. Without your definition for the word God we don't have a discussion. You need to describe the "God" you are talking about first, and then bring forth proofs for your claim (unless what you claim is self-evident and undisputed, like the existence of the sun is self-evident and undisputed).

These requirements are not made out of convenience for those who hold the atheistic position; rather, this is how logic works when dealing with existential claims. The theist makes the existential claim; therefore, the theist needs to back up the claim. The theist also uses a controversial word, God, when making the claim, thus it is the theist's responsibility to define the word.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:12:15 -0700

You told me about a man, Jesus Christ, who allegedly lived in Palestine and was allegedly crucified under Pontius Pilate. You have said nothing about what a "God" is. (Do you even know what a "God" is? or are you simply parroting dogma that you heard from somewhere else?)

There are no contemporary records claiming his existence and describing details of his life predating C.E. 80 to 90. All the early descriptions of him betray bias and show clear signs of having undergone extensive revisions. Luke corrects the mistakes of Matthew, who in turn corrects the errors of Mark. These documents are unreliable and untrustworthy, and cannot be used to make the case that the Jesus Christ described in them was a historical figure. It is very easy to explain the existence of the Christian religion without there having ever been a literal Jesus Christ as historical figure. The same holds true for Islam: Mohammed need never have existed for Islam to have become what it is; many scholars doubt the historicity of Mohammed.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:13:09 -0700

You have refused to describe what you mean by the word "God."

Nevertheless, I will honor your request. Here's a contradiction for you:

For example, the story of the scribe who asks which is the greatest commandment shows two mutually exclusive descriptions of the scribe's motives for approaching Jesus. The earliest, "Mark," says: "And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?" The later "Gospel of Matthew" changes this cordial, respectful exchange into one of malice: "Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words." and "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" Was this scribe respectful of Jesus, as implied in "Mark" or was he trying to lay a trap for him, as implied in "Matthew"?

Here's another one, that makes Jesus look monumentally stupid. In "Matthew" 21, it says: "Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away." Interesting. Jesus is hungry and seeks nourishment from a fig tree. Unfortunately, the Gospel of "Mark" 11 it says: "he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet." Now, why would anybody -- even a moron -- seek nourishment from a fig tree in the springtime? This story might make a little sense if it were set during the autumn, but in both accounts this story is set shortly before Passover. The fig tree accounts also contradict each other in that one has the tree withering the next day ("Mark" the earlier Gospel) and the other has it withering immediately ("Matthew" -- one of dozens of places where "Matthew" has revised "Mark's" accounts of Jesus's activities to make Jesus appear more powerful than "Mark" describes him.) And I will not comment on role models versus what most people usually think about a grown man who would throw a tantrum as described here.

Okay. I've spent fifteen minutes detailing two very serious problems in the New Testament -- problems that show evidence that the writers deliberately tampered with the story. Now it's your turn. (Actually, it was your turn several letters ago!) Please explain to me what you mean when you use the word "God."

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

 

This letter came as is, and we have chosen not to try to clean it up: we have instead used the HTML <PRE>Preformatted Text</PRE> codes to display it as it came to us.

 

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 1:58 AM

I am saying that if you tamper with a story, it is impossible to patch up the additional holes that inevitably result from that tampering. I am saying that it is best to follow truth. It is best to come clean when shown that you are in error.

Nice try!
 

You have not described to me what you mean when you use the word "God." Give me some characteristics, some character traits -- something! Otherwise, the word "God" is simply a three-letter word that has no meaning in this discussion. You can talk all you want, but I don't know what you are saying.
 

 

... [SNIP drivel about figs ripening more than two full months after the date alleged for this passage] ...

 

I don't have to know anything about figs: "Mark" said that it was not fig season. According to the narrative, a hungry Jesus was looking for figs when it was not fig season.

This is a very serious problem for those who hold the biblical inerrancy position.
 

First, "Mark" gives a clear description of the motives of the "scribe." For you to say that the motives of the "scribe" in "Mark" were actually something other than how "Mark" describes them is inference on your part. We are talking about my allegation that the two stories contradict: the account in "Mark" differs from the account in "Matthew," which itself differs from the account in "Luke."

Secondly, before you can rely on the notion that the Pharisees were always trying to catch Jesus, you will need to confront a few other accounts of the alleged actions of the Pharisees, such as that described in "Luke" 13:31: "The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee."

Also, the leader of the Pharisees, Gamaliel, is quoted as saying: "Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." This attitude is typical of the Pharisees described in Josephus and elsewhere, but completely contradicts that very biased portrayal of Pharisees and Jews throughout most the Gospel accounts.

(I will not here get into the stories of Nicodemus or Joseph of Aramathea or the Pharisee who invited Jesus to supper, but they likewise falsify your notion that Pharisees were always trying to catch Jesus.)

The main point, though, is that the scribe in "Mark" marvelled and the scribe in "Matthew" was trying to ensnare. Clearly the author of "Matthew" was dissatisfied with the portrayal of a cordial scribe in "Mark" and made the scribe in his account more devious than that of "Mark" -- to place it in further harmony with the general tenor of how Jews are portrayed in the Gospel stories.
 

You missed my point completely. If you told me, on Tuesday, that you had seen the Mayor on Monday, and I had reacted by saying, "Wow! Really? Tell me about it!" we wouldn't think anything of it. However, if you again told me on Wednesday that you had seen the Mayor on Monday, and I responded -- again -- by saying, "Wow! Really? Tell me about it!" we could reasonably suspect that something was awry.

In the one story, the disciples immediately noticed that it had died and they immediately marvel (the "Matthew" account, which was a revision of the "Mark" account). In the other, it was the following day when the disciples noticed that the tree had withered and it was then that they marvelled. Clearly, the author of "Matthew" was not satisfied with a fig tree that took a whole day to wither -- his "Jesus" was much more powerful than this -- and so "Matthew" has the fig tree wither immediately.
 

How could a book allegedly without contradictions even be confusing "on the surface," much less have the problems I have described here? Joseph Lewis wrote:

 "A precept claiming infallibility should certainly possess the universality of the law of gravitation and the perfection of the arithmetical table. If it fails to possess these undeviating qualities, its imperfection is self-evident and its value either greatly diminished or useless."
-- (From his 1946 book, The Ten Commandments, chapter 7, "The Seventh Commandment," page 457.)		 

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:56 PM

My name is Cliff. Cops and judges and the like are allowed to call me Clifton in polite company.
 

I am not asking for a material or scientific explanation (though either would buoy up your case considerably); I am asking for a valid philosophical justification for believing what you say is true.

Your first post to us was very accusatory in its tone, denouncing us for being self-referential, and stating that our motive is a quest for convenience: "Atheism is convenient isn't it? That way we don't have to answer anyone other than ourselves, which is easy, right?"

At this point, I would like to turn that accusation back upon yourself, and demonstrate that you practice the very "convenience" that you accused us of practicing.
 

How convenient it is for you to fall back on "faith" when you cannot make your case through other means. Just take a step of faith and believe a proposition for no reason other than that somebody tells you it is true. Then you will relax your critical judgement and will open yourself to seeing "evidence" for what you already think is true.

No. It is very hard work to use reason to examine existential claims (claims for the existence of something), and to reject comforting or enticing claims that cannot be demonstrated. Most people do not have the discipline or the luxury to learn even the basics when it comes to philosophical argument. Even fewer have the integrity to apply such discipline to their everyday lives, and only a handful are willing to examine their very world view and adjust it if they see a discrepancy.

Most people prefer to let somebody else tell them what to believe about the universe and about themselves. Such people seem to prefer to get on with the task of living.

This brings us to a serious problem: unprincipled con artists know that unlearned people will tend to believe an emotionally charged argument if it is cloaked in enough falsehood. Such hucksters have been known to take advantage of this human tendency and have exploited many in their quests for power or revenge. While Adolph Hitler would be the most extreme and destructive example of this in recent times, I am prepared to show the apostle Paul to have been an opportunist and a charlatan who built a fantastic pagan god-myth upon the memory of a Judaean nationalist who was executed under the Roman occupation for his irredentist sentiments and activities. Disappointed that he was rejected in his quest to join the prestigious Pharisee party, he proceeded to discredit the Pharisees to the point of claiming to Gentiles that he was himself a former Pharisee!

The real tough part is surviving within a society in which the majority of the people think a certain myth is actually true, and where many people will judge you and discriminate against you because you have examined the dominant myth and have discovered that it is easily shown to be falsehood.

Here is an extreme example that any Christian should understand: imagine what it would be like to live in Iran. Imagine what it would be like if you knew that scholars cannot verify that Mohammed even existed as a historical figure, and that the existence of Islam can be explained without there ever having been a historical Mohammed.

The United States would surely be the same way in a Christian sense had our forefathers not had the foresight to separate state from church. (Considering that Bush and Gore are the front-runners for the American presidency, this may change during my lifetime.) As it stands, we must endure rejection, attempts at humiliation, bigotry, discrimination, and the intrusions of the dominant religion upon our private lives and upon our pocketbooks -- even though we can demonstrate to you that the Christian religion is pure falsehood.
 

My final question to you is: Why would I want to believe and teach Christianity -- a body of doctrine which I find reprehensible -- unless I also could demonstrate that it was true?

Sometimes the truth is ugly. Since such things can be demonstrated, we are obligated to face the fact that they are true. This is an important reason why so many Americans reject evolution. Many people find the thought repulsive and think they can get around this by denying the fact.

However, there is no reason to believe a vile and disgusting claim unless it can be shown to be true. We certainly would not want to believe something objectionable simply upon "a step of faith." We must have more to go on.

Paul recognized this when he said: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile ... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

Yes. I pity the Christian because Christ was not raised; the arguments for the resurrection can be shown to be so flawed as to warrant disbelief. What is left has been at minimum a crippling dogma and at most a source of vast destruction to humankind over the past 2,000 years.

Recovering from this crippling outlook and discovering a healthy, truth-based replacement for it is no easy deal. It would take all the resources we have and more even if Christianity would vanish off the planet today. Bur Christianity will not go away, and many of us think a repeat of the Dark Ages looms for our offspring. I, for one, will die knowing I have fought the good fight.

Cliff Walker, Publisher
Positive Atheism Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 4:28 PM

C. Dennis McKinsey wrote The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy which is over 550 pages long. McKinsey got a lot of his material by reading the works of inerrency apologists and examining their arguments.

He makes a good case that biblical errancy is an important study and that it is important to get the word out, but I have discovered that many hard-nosed believers will knowingly lie if doing so would protect their cause: the reputation of the Christian religion. A case in point is that of Columbine High School "martyr" Cassie Bernall: investigators informed her parents just weeks after the incident that the story of her being asked if she believed in God was not verifiable and was, according to the testimony of several others who were there, not true. Her parents went ahead and published the book She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall which has gone into its second printing after 300,000 copies were sold to gullible Christians.

As for biblical errancy, I prefer to point out that many of the core values, in both the Old Testament and the New, are barbaric, and that the acts of the Bible's most vocal supporters are extremely dishonest when it comes to promoting the Bible (a used-car salesman could learn a lot from an evangelist). Contrary to the lies told about us by theists, we atheists usually place a high value on ethics.

As for your question, I only have a few lists of contradictions, and they are all in the Letters sections. One list from Genesis is in the "Fish with Legs" letter, and I gave you some of the others.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 7:39 PM

I have been tediously careful in giving you my position and explaining why I hold it. I have not skirted any issue here or elsewhere; I simply am not interested in Biblical errancy and choose not to do your research work for you.

You "skirted the issue" when you diverted from the theme of our dialogue (thus avoiding the direct challenges I had presented to you, that you still have yet to address). You "skirted" when you changed that subject and insisted that I lay out some bible contradictions. I did that, and you ignored the problems I raised in these verses (specifically, that "Mark" says it was not fig season: you never answered that one).

I think you owe me an apology for this remark.
 

Why does this matter? I'll tell you:

Christians are clearly and demonstrably lying here for the purpose of furthering the Christian faith.

The truth is that nobody at Columbine died for their faith. The testimony says just the opposite, that one young woman, Valeen Schnurr, was spared after saying "Yes" to the question of whether she believed in God. Cassie Bernall was never asked this question by either gunman. Cassie's parents have known this for a long time, and went ahead and published their book anyway.

Here is what the investigators are saying:

The investigators got one story from one kid, Joshua Lapp, that the alleged Bernall-Klebold dialogue occurred, but Lapp later admitted he never saw Bernall, but only thinks he recognized her voice. When asked to point out which table Bernall was under, he pointed out a table under which Valeen Schnurr, and not Cassie Bernall, had been hiding.

The story that Schnurr relates is that Klebold asked Schnurr if she believed in God and Schnurr said yes. At which point, Klebold spared Schnurr. Meanwhile, Emily Wyant, the gal who was under the same table with Bernall, says that Bernall was not asked if she believed in God, but was (understandably) cowering under the table saying, "Dear God. Dear God. Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Emily answered Cassie in a hushed voice, "I know. We all want to get out of here." Suddenly, Klebold slammed the top of their table, said "Peekaboo," and looked under the table at both girls. "Then he looked at her, and he shot her," Emily said.

(None of us would know any of this except for the fact that the Bernall family has sold 300,000 books, and that her tale is broadcast across America, even being recited on the floor of Congress for the purpose of passing pro-Christian, anti-everybody else legislation.)
 

I accuse you of bluffing and deliberately lying for the purpose of furthering the Christian faith.

Please dispute the investigators' reports that I have summarized above:

This information is all public record, published in the Rocky Mountain News, picked up by AP and Reuters who both confirmed the report, and independently related in a separate report in "Salon" magazine by a different investigative reporter.

I have done the best I can to relate what I see to be the truth, but I cannot hold a dialogue with you if you continue to lie to me. On top of that, your apparent love for falsehood has prompted me to completely lose respect for you.
 

What!? You call human slavery good? You call the Inquisition good? You call Imperialism good?

I think the Bible may have done some damage to your human sense of compassion if you think the Bible has done good.

Had the Bible actually done even some good for humanity, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people trying to shove it down our throats and with people lying to further the Biblical agenda.
 

I have shown you to be a liar, and it is my humble opinion that you are a fool -- a dangerous fool. That's all I have to say.

I will not respond to any more of your drivel unless you: (1) apologize for your "skirt the issue" remark and admit that it is you who has skirted every issue that I have raised; (2) either make the case that we should not believe the investigators and witnesses in the Cassie Bernall case, or admit that you (and Cassie's parents) have propagated falsehood for the purpose of furthering the Christian faith.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 12:57 PM

Are you now resorting to fictional humorous anecdotes to make your case?

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to: (1) apologize for your "skirt the issue" remark and admit that it is you who has skirted every issue that I have raised (including this one, by responding to it with humor); (2) either make the case that we should not believe the investigators and witnesses in the Cassie Bernall case, or admit that you (and Cassie's parents) have propagated falsehood for the purpose of furthering the Christian faith.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 10:10 PM

This is very convenient, isn't it? It appears as if you don't have to answer to anybody.

I am justified in concluding this because you are the one who insisted that the Cassie Bernall "martyrdom" story is true. On top of that, you did not mince words in denouncing me for thinking that this story is a hoax. You told me, "you don't have a leg to stand on." This is very powerful language.

I will not allow you to "skirt the issue" on this one: your response is required before we can change the subject. Otherwise, I have every reason to think you are bluffing.

I presented a clear synopsis of the current reports of the Columbine investigation, and I detailed for you why I think the story is a hoax. I made a very powerful argument that I am not pronouncing it a hoax simply because Christians are repeating it.

Now, it's your turn. You need either to back up your (very stern) claim that the investigators are wrong on this point, or to apologize both for telling me that the story is true and for your attitude toward me for thinking it is yet another Christian hoax.

Without this, I have good reason to believe that you don't care about truth, and that you have been bluffing the whole time -- ever since your initial claim that atheism is a "convenient" position because, "that way we don't have to answer anyone other than ourselves." I have every reason to think you were bluffing then, that you are bluffing now, and that you have been bluffing all along.

If the story is true, then I'm sure you can easily find arguments to shut down the position of the investigators. Any argument is better than total silence, which makes it appear that you are "skirting the issue" again.

On the other hand, if the investigators have shown us good reasons to doubt the case, then you have no business letting stand your previous insistence that the story is true (aggravated by your attitude toward me for saying it is a hoax).
 

You need to describe to me what you mean when you use the word God. (Pretend I don't know anything about gods and that I've never been to church. Start from scratch and tell me what a "God" is. Then, I will tell you what I think about what you described.)

I ignored, at first, your initial claim that atheism is a position of "convenience" in that we atheists "don't have to answer anyone other than ourselves." My initial suspicion came to pass more vividly than I could ever have predicted: During the course of this conversation, you have been the one who has repeatedly acted as if you have absolutely no standards guiding your behavior. You have played the hypocrite at every turn by refusing to follow the very standards you accuse atheists of not having.

I have been the one who has needed to insist -- again and again -- that you follow the fundamental concepts of truthfulness in this discussion.

After you tried to argue against the atheistic position by (1) using a false definition for atheism and (2) using the fallacy of the false dilemma, I insisted that you describe to me what you mean by the word God.

You first sent me some vague, controversial passages from the Bible -- but never a useful description. Then you "skirted the issue" by challenging me to show some Bible contradictions -- still never answering my request that you describe to me what you mean when you use the word God. (All the while, you accused me of "skirting the issue"!)

Indulging your departure, I gave you two examples of passages that I think are most problematic. Your responses betrayed the likelihood that you did not even understand the nature of the problem I posed. When I clarified the "fig tree" problem by reminding you that the narrator of "Mark" said that it was not fig season, you avoided that one by asking me to produce a list of Bible contradictions. I will not do this because (1) you are "skirting the issue" of my question of what you mean when you use the word God; (2) you are "skirting the issue" of the problem of "Mark" saying that Jesus was looking for figs when it was not fig season; (3) it is not my responsibility to do your homework for you (I have absolutely no respect for someone who cheats at school, and have felt this way since the first and last time I cheated in school -- in kindergarten); (4) others have very thoroughly documented the biblical discrepancies much more competently than I could; and (5) I personally don't care about biblical errancy, I think it is much more important to discuss the fruits of theism, particularly Christianity -- especially when it comes to some Christians' patently false claim that the Christian religion is effective at making people moral, and that atheists cannot be moral because we "don't have to answer to anybody."

Again I ask you: Describe to me what you mean when you use the word God. I cannot discuss atheism unless you give me a workable meaning of what you mean when you use this otherwise meaningless three-letter word.

If you cannot do this, then simply admit that you believe that a "God" exists but that you don't know what you mean by that word. This position dates back to the Upanishads, which denounce any attempts describe "not this, not this -- beyond all that is cognizable" and "from which, along with the mind, words turn back." In this sense, a believer would say, "I feel the presence of Something, which I am unable to comprehend and express. I have given the name God to it. I feel that I am inisolable from It. But I can say nothing more about It." (Adapted from An Atheist with Gandhi by Gora, "Introduction" by Shri K. G. Mashruwala.)

Remember, though, if you cannot describe to me what you mean when you use the word "God" then you have no business trying to convince somebody else (an atheist) that such a "God" exists. This is because you don't know what you are talking about, your "God" being incomprehensible. Along with this, you have no business holding anybody (including yourself) accountable to the "will" of this incomprehensible "God."

If the "will" of your "God" can be discerned, then your "God" is not incomprehensible and you need to describe to me what you mean when you use this word.

If you can give me a clear description of what you mean when you use this word, then we can continue our discussion. Until then, it is dishonest for me to assume that I know what you mean and then to argue against my own (possibly false) assumption.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 2:39 PM

You lie!

I have quoted witnesses and investigators. These are not my own words; this is the same information that is being reported widely in the mainstream press and on the major wire services. Attached is a copy of the story from the Rocky Mountain News.

The case against the Bernall family is very convincing; they are perpetrating a hoax for the purpose of bringing credibility to the Christian religion. The only kid who says he heard it, when asked by investigators to point out where Cassie was, pointed to a completely different part of the room from where Cassie was shot. Cassie was never asked if she believed in God. The Bernall family knew all this before they made plans to publish their book.

I don't make this kind of stuff up. If I did, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I will not place myself in that position because I am accountable to the truth. In addition to this, I will not tarnish my position (atheism) by spreading lies -- like so many Christians (including yourself) have done to further Christianity.
 

I say the investigators and the witness cast serious doubt on the story. I detailed to you what they have said and what the witnesses have said. I have shown why the story cannot be trusted.

You need to give reasons to believe these witnesses are lying and these investigators are wrong. You need to cough up witnesses who heard the conversation -- other than this one kid who pointed to a table that was nowhere near where Cassie died. You need to explain why the young woman who was with Cassie when she died tells a completely different story about what was said before she died.

I insist that you do this because of the attitude you displayed toward me after I'd expressed my doubts about the story.

Had you simply said, "Cliff you ... said it was not true ... I just disagree," we wouldn't be having this problem. But you went much further than this, denouncing me several different ways, and you continue your arrogant cocksureness in the face of publicly available evidence against your position.
 

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot jump up and down for two long paragraphs about how "you don't have a leg to stand on" and how "you ... peddle your pseudo-intellect ... to all your self proclaimed intellectual heavy-weights" and how "it doesn't compute in your logical world" -- suggesting that I, as an atheist, am an unfeeling automaton -- and then refuse even to challenge the details of my case against the Cassie Bernall hoax. What you are doing is patent dishonesty.

And you are doing this in the name of Christ.

No! I am as impassioned as anybody. This is not simply an innocuous but false story, this hoax is being used as an extremely effective weapon in a vicious culture war -- and the story is pure falsehood.

The Cassie Bernall lie is being used to convince people that the Christian religion is a religion of truth.

The Cassie Bernall hoax was repeated on the floor of the United States House of Representatives when passing a whole package of pro-Christian, anti-everybody else legislation.

The Cassie Bernall "martyrdom" falsehood is deliberately being used to portray atheists as capable of murdering Christians simply because they are Christians! (Remember how eager the Christians in Kentucky were to call Michael Carneal an atheist? This falsehood was so prevalent that Michael's pastor, Rev. Paul Donner, of the St. Paul Lutheran Church, Paducah, Kentucky, had to stage a press conference to announce, "I'm firmly convinced Michael Carneal is a Christian. He's a sinner, yes, but not an atheist." This did not stop the rumors then, and similar rumors are back again in full force with the Columbine situation with the notion that Kleiberg "hated Christians.")

What is happening -- as I write this -- is that it is becoming fashionable (again) to discriminate against atheists, and this fashion is being fueled by yet another Christian lie: the Cassie Bernall hoax.

You are contributing to all this by continuing to spread this story in the face of strong evidence against it. By contributing to it, you are responsible for this despicable trend that, when it happened in the past, resulted in atheists being burned at the stake and having our tongues torn out and hot lead poured into our ears and mouths and having our breasts and genitals cut off or crushed and having our estates confiscated. Every one of these tortures was instigated by a lie similar to the Cassie Bernall hoax -- a lie that any bigoted Christian would believe without further investigation.

You are "skirting the issue" here because you can't get around this one.

The Bernall family lied to us (the public) and published 300,000 copies of their book even after the investigators told them the story was in serious doubt. The Bernall family even apologized (although without recanting their lie), and even placed minor disclaimers in their book.

You are more dishonest than even the Bernall family in that you allow for no doubt whatsoever.

The moment you either confront or acknowledge this publicly available evidence against the Cassie Bernall "martyrdom" story, we can continue.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 7:32 PM

Show me where, in the previous letter, I quoted the Bible. Show me!
 

(Calling me "you atheist," eh? Is your use of this word supposed to be a derogatory smear of some kind?)

I rest my case about Christianity's hostility toward education, toward humankind's pursuit of truth. The "uneducated" people you describe are not savvy to the ways of hucksters, and get taken for a ride. They have not made the effort to learn how to discern a sound argument from a tricky one.

You also lie about our motives: we are not out to convince anybody of anything. Our goal is to be left alone, to live life the way we see fit. This is clearly stated all over our web page. It is lying Christians (like yourself) who want to force us to live the lying Christian way.

You told me that atheism is a position of convenience, because, you said, we don't have to answer to anyone. Your geocentric religion does not have to pass muster with a strict scientific review board, with the entire scientific community scrutinizing every claim you make. Uneducated people will not make you abandon your theory if it does not pass the test, because uneducated people are not even aware that a test exists.

This is why your totem religion does not even try to appeal to the educated, because it cannot pass the test of truthfulness except among the uneducated -- where no real test for philosophical truthfulness exists.

The problem is that while the uneducated may not think, they do vote. The Christian hucksters know this, and this is why they thrive on any falsehoods that will help them win votes. They don't have to worry about the uneducated masses even doubting their stories, so they go ahead and tell the biggest whoppers they can think of.

Since "truth," to Christians who think like you do, is not a matter of weighing the evidence but is a matter of tribal totem loyalty, the Christian hucksters can get away with hoax after hoax after hoax. Decades after the hucksters who created the Paluxy "man tracks" admitted they were fraudulent, the Christians who think like you do still insist that they are real. Long after David Barton of WallBuilders admitted that his "quotations" of Jefferson and Adams and Madison, etc., are not real (after Barton himself was forced to ask Christians to stop using them), the Christians who think like you do still submit these bogus "quotations" to the Letters to the Editor column and enter them as testimony into the Congressional Record.
 

Motive for what?

(Your desperation is showing.)

Explain to me why Emily Wyant, Cassie's close friend, would (according to your scenario) publicly deny that her friend said something (her final word, at that) if she had actually said it. Why would she lie in the face of the vicious community pressure to protect her friend's mother from shame, if all she needed to do to protect Cassie's mother was to tell the truth? Why would the girl who was with Cassie the whole time quote her as saying, "Dear God. Dear God. Why is this happening? I just want to go home"? And then, why would she quote herself as telling Cassie, "I know. We all want to get out of here"? And then why would she tell investigators that Klebold slammed the table and said, "Peekaboo" if what he actually did (according to you) was ask Cassie if she believed in God?

Your position has some serious problems that do not go away when you resort to the notion that extremely stressful situations are quickly forgotten (when in fact most people will remember many more details about stressful times than they ordinarily would).

Explain to me why Joshua Lapp (who started the rumor, and who is the only person who says he heard it, but who admits he didn't see Cassie), when asked by investigators where the conversation took place, pointed to a table that wasn't even near where Cassie was shot. Why did your side's only witness point investigators to a table that was across the room from where Cassie was hiding.

Explain to me why Valeen Schnurr, who was under the table where Joshua Lapp claims he heard the killer ask Cassie if she believes in God, describes a conversation with the killer that was similar to the one reported about Cassie, but was different in that the killer spared Valeen after she admitted to him she believed in God.
 

Testimonies in the Bible!? This I gotta hear! Tell me more, tell me more!

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

 

Mike here argues the case that the accounts attributed to the Twelve Apostles are to be trusted, simply because they are alleged to be witnesses:

 

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 4:19 PM

Are you now admitting that Emily Wyant, the young woman who was under the same table with Cassie when she died, is a more credible witness than Joshua Lapp, who was on the other side of the room from Cassie? Emily says that Cassie didn't say it, and Joshua, who originally made up the story, was nowhere near where Cassie's body was found.

Meanwhile, the rumors of Jesus's resurrection did not surface until long after the fact.
 

You still are "skirting the issue" on my request that you explain to me what you mean when you use the word God.

I will, however, indulge your "issue skirting" one more time. However, if your next letter does not contain even an attempted explanation of what you mean by this word, I will end this dialogue and will be justified in concluding that the Christian religion has callused one more conscience into speaking falsehood for the purpose of propagating the Christian religion, and into sacrificing truth for loyalty to the Christian religion.
 

This is a claim, a statement. You need to make a case.

The fact that the Bible not only gets historical events wrong but that even gets geographical locations wrong is enough to call its unverifiable claims to question. Paul, in Galatians, uses a mistranslation of an Old Testament passage ("Cursed is he who hangs on a tree") and then builds an entire argument on something the Old Testament doesn't even say. Paul makes many similar mistakes that call to question his claim that he was a former Pharisee. This would be like my mother setting a table for important guests and placing the forks on the wrong side of the plates. That a former Pharisee would make such mistakes is untenable; that Paul was lying when he told Gentiles he was a former Pharisee is much more likely.

It also portrays Pharisees as condemning Jesus for doing things that the Pharisees did not think were wrong (such as Sabbath healing). The New Testament shows a vicious and vitriolic bias against Jews in general and against Pharisees in particular. The Gospel "accounts" never portray a Roman in an unfavorable light, and you would never guess, from reading the Gospel "accounts," that Judaea was, at the time, under vicious Roman occupation.

All this makes sense, though, when we realize that the earliest Gospel "accounts" were not in circulation until at most 90 C.E., and at the earliest ("Mark"), 70 C.E. -- after Jerusalem had been wiped out by the Romans and after there were likely no original followers of Jesus left to dispute what they said.
 

Nobody thinks that the words we have of Socrates, that we only have because Plato quoted him, are entirely trustworthy. Nobody knows for sure what Socrates said, and every historian will admit this.

Nobody is trying to take the myth of the Cyclops, try to palm it off as literal history, and then make it part of our science or history classes. Nobody is going to teach, in biology or history classes, that there once exited a race of one-eyed giants.

Although we can take some of the words of Caesar and verify the likelihood of certain historical accounts, nobody thinks that Caesar was literally born of a virgin, literally sired by a god.

When historians refer to Homer or to Socrates, they examine first the merit of the ideas contained therein. They can, for example, verify that a certain idea that was attributed to Socrates dates at least to Plato's time.
 

What, then, is the science of Cosmology doing? How can that science be called a science? How can the science of cosmology speculate about the history of the Universe? It is because the science of physics deals with what can and cannot happen, and how certain particles act under various conditions.

If someone reads a "historical" manuscript that says that the sun did not set for an entire day, we have an account of an event that is so unlikely as to be preposterous. For this even to happen (even granting that its cause was supernatural) would leave indelible marks on the physical properties of Earth. We can also see if any other cultures (China, India, Egypt) remember such a monumental event (they don't). We are then left with a decision: Which is more likely, that the earth would stop rotating for a day, or that some ancient priest has a long imagination?

Given the fact that the same priests who tell us about the long day of Joshua also get many things wrong about geography (mistakes that we can easily verify), and also given the fact that the "Joshua" writer uses the geocentric model of the universe ("Sun, stand thou still"), it becomes very clear to me that an ancient, superstitious, politically biased priest wrote the tale of Joshua's long day.

No allegedly inspired writers said anything about the earth orbiting the sun; we had to discover that fact ourselves. Until then (and for long afterward: heliocentrism dates to 600 B.C.E.), the "inspired" writers told by their supernatural sources that the sun is pulled across the solid dome of the sky (the "firmament" -- a word deriving from the word firm).

If I wrote to you and told you that I have perfected the square circle, would you believe me? No. You don't even believe the written accounts of federal crime investigators, writing about something that happened earlier this year. Even you don't believe something just because someone said it's true.

You doubt the words of the Columbine investigators because you think it is in your interest to protect the credibility of the Christian religion. You are in a long line of good company. For its entire history, Christian leaders have perpetrated what are called "pious frauds"; there are enough pieces of wood from the "original cross of Jesus" to furnish a modest home. There are several complete headless skeletons alleging to be the body of John the Baptist. There are dozens of foreskins from the Baby Jesus out there -- they cannot all be real. It was only with the advent of the information age that we were able to compare notes and see that each community had its own "pious frauds" and that nobody in that community knew that the community on the other side of the mountain had the same prepuce of Jesus.

I argue that it would be in Christianity's best interest to denounce the Cassie Bernall story as falsehood. Christianity would do well to "come clean" on this one. The Roman Catholic Church has announced that during the year 2000 it will apologize to the world for many of the atrocities it has committed throughout its history.
  

Fact!? No. Speculative history, based on flawed accounts that do not square with other historical evidence. The "persecution" of the first century church is as mythical as the accounts of its founder's life.

You cannot even make a good case that Jesus ever existed, much less that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The existence of the Christian religion can be explained without there ever having been a historical Jesus, just as the existence of the Islamic religion can be explained without there ever having been a historical Mohammed and the existence of the Jewish religion can be explained without there ever having been a historical Moses.

The earliest detailed "accounts" (allegedly) of Jesus's life did not appear until, at the earliest, 70 C.E., and more likely not until 90 C.E. The accounts that did appear contradict one another in many, many important details. Meanwhile, what we can verify as being early Christian writings (James, parts of Romans, Galatians, parts of Corinthians) describe absolutely no details of the life of a human named Jesus, but rather contain vague descriptions of a god who became a man, sometime in the past, and was killed and resurrected (like so many of the other Roman gods who were popular at that time). The only Christian writings that describe a historical Jesus (Peter, the Pastorals) came out long after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.

I have shown that the Testimonium "account" in Josephus was inserted by Christians in the fourth century (pious frauds, again).

All you have are very flawed, extremely biased accounts that were written by people who had a clear political agenda, and written long after the incidents they allege to describe supposedly took place.

I am beginning to think that the Christian leadership has a policy of telling so many huge, huge lies so that at one point it begins to seem absurd to hear historians and other scholars saying, "That's a lie!" and "That's a lie, too!" and "That, also, is a lie!" and "That's another lie!" and "That's not true!" and "Let me show you how that cannot be true!" and "That one's a lie!" If our only response to Christian falsehoods is to point out that they are lies (because so many Christian "accounts" are easily shown to be deliberate falsehood), it eventually begins to reflect on us: we begin to sound like a broken record. I am beginning to wonder if the Christians have intended all along, by continuing to repeat their lies throughout history, to make us sound like parrots repeating the phrase, "That's a lie!"

Have you read my piece, based on a piece by C. Dennis McKinsey, on how the bible protects itself against criticism?
 

and

I will go further than that: One man had an agenda. His name was Paul, and the "history" was built up around his wild tales after he died. A group called the Ebionites claimed that he was a fraud; they claimed to have the true Gospel of Jesus which they propagated in Jerusalem, and that Paul spread a false story of Christ throughout the Roman world.

The Ebionites claimed ancestry going back to the original Jerusalem followers of Jesus, and their story fits more smoothly into a critical examination of the New Testament accounts than do the accounts of the New Testament. A study of Galatians and of Acts 15 reveals that there was, indeed, a rift between Paul and the alleged original followers of Christ. Galatians, the earlier account, shows Paul being very hostile to Peter, and Peter then appearing to concede to Paul but later showing that he did not really mean it. The Acts account shows every indication of having smoothed over this rift, portraying the players as being cordial. (This may have something to do with the large sum of money that Paul collected, some of which he probably gave to the Jerusalem church.) The Ebionite accounts portray Paul as an imposter and an opportunist, exploiting the fame of Jesus and teaching that Jesus was a supernatural being.

Meanwhile, the tales of the martyrdoms of the "Twelve Apostles" are extremely doubtful; this is admitted by most Bible scholars, even those in the fundamentalist camps. The so-called persecution of Christians in the first century cannot be established, and the accounts of these "persecutions" did not appear until long after the fact.
 

I'm saying that they probably did not die for believing in Jesus. In all likelihood, they died for being Jews when the Romans leveled their country in 66-70 C.E. Paul's followers were securely settled throughout the Roman Empire, and neither his followers nor his ideas suffered extinction (or even persecution) during those times. Paul's myth of a dying and resurrected god-man (Mythraism) was popular during those times and existed in various forms. Other forms had other god-men dying and resurrecting; Paul's god-man happened to be named Jesus, but none of the Mythraistic religions were known to be hostile to one another. There is nothing contained in Paul's Gospel of a dying and resurrected Christ that would have drawn persecution.

Paul have been first in saying that his his man-god (Jesus) is the only name under heaven by which men can be saved. The other religions weren't exclusivist like Paul's was. This idea of exclusivism is one that always leads those who hold it to do the persecuting. Paul was the first to blend the myth of the dying and resurrecting god-man with the Gnostic notion that the earth is inherently evil and that man is too corrupt even to see his plight. His followers (but probably not Paul) later hung this Gnostic-Mythraistic myth combination upon the history of a Jewish political messiah, who had sought to save his country from the Roman occupation, but who failed. It was only then, after Paul died, that the Gospel "accounts" of this figure's life were composed and distributed.

Meanwhile, lots of people have died for a lie. Lots of people have died for what they knew was a lie. Klebold died for what he knew was a lie. The older brothers of my high school buddies, who went to Viet Nam and never came back, died for what they knew was a lie. Joseph Smith, after having fabricated the Book of Mormon and other "revelations" now canonized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, willingly and proudly died defending his cause -- knowing all along that he had fabricated those "scriptures."

You are "Exhibit A" in making the case that truthfulness is not a high priority for some people. You have shown me that you would rather lie than concede even one inch in your zeal to portray the Christian religion in a favorable light. It is clear to me that the reputation of the Christian religion -- right or wrong -- means more to you than truth.

I'd bet that the reputation of the Christian religion -- right or wrong -- means more to you than does life itself.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Boston, Mike
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 10:31 PM

Well, you've told me that if I knew there wasn't any such thing as a god, that "you must have absolute knowlege of the entire universe which means that you yourself would be God." (My position has always been, tell me what a "God" is and I'll tell you what I think.) I suggested that I don't know what "absolute knowlege of the entire universe" means. From this I can infer that you say a "God" has "absolute knowlege of the entire universe" and I don't understand what this can mean: the phrase "absolute knowlege of the entire universe" can mean any number of things -- or it could be meaningless. If you could explain to me what "absolute knowlege of the entire universe" means, we would have a start.

You then recited what appears to be poetry (it certainly is poetic language, containing what appear to be metaphors and code words): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

What is "the Word"? What is a "God"? What does "the beginning" mean, "Once upon a time"? What does "in him was life" mean? What is "the light of men"?

This clearly is poetry, because it says that "the light shines in the darkness." Any kid who took physics in high school knows that where light literally shines, there is no longer literal darkness; photons are either present or absent. So, then, what does "the light shines in the darkness" mean, poetically? What is "darkness" in that it can be expected to "understand" something? Obviously, "light" and "darkness" are code words, but what are they codes for? What do they really mean?

You also said that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" which does not explain anything to me because many people have claimed that one or another is "Christ"; even the followers of Paul claimed that a man who may or may not have been crucified in Palestine during the reign of Pontius Pilate was a Christ. Some New Age types tell us that I am Christ, and so are you. To say "Christ" is not to explain the word God.

After I asked for further clarification, and explained that I don't find the bible to be a reliable source of knowledge, you "skirted the issue" by demanding that I list Bible contradictions for you. I listed two. After several exchanges, you refused to respond to the challenges I made about the fig tree enigma, particularly the part where the Gospel of "Mark" says it was not fig season.

You also said nothing after I pointed out several cases of the Gospels describing Pharisees as good people and as allies of the Jesus character. I had pointed this out to counter your claim that "in every account throughout the New Testament the Pharisees where always trying to catch Jesus in a lie or see if they could twist his words." This was your response to my objection that in "Matthew," the narrative says the scribe was "tempting him" and was trying to trip Jesus up, and that in "Mark," the narrative says that the scribe approached Jesus after "perceiving that he had answered them well." Had the scribe been quoted as saying something like, "I see that thou hast answered that question well ..." you could legitimately suggesting that they scribe may have been lying. But in this case, it is the narrative itself that makes the contradiction; the Gospels themselves attribute these two motives to the scribe.

You then said, "I told you the most material explanation I can give you is that of Jesus Christ." This tells me nothing about what you mean when you use the word God. Pythagoras's followers claimed divinity for him, that he was born of a virgin; people claimed divinity for the Caesars, that they were born of virgins. I don't know what they mean by this and I don't know what you mean when you claim that Jesus Christ was a god.

All I know about Jesus Christ is that the Gospel "accounts" of his life are very suspicious, and contain many, many errors in matters such as geography, physics, medicine, Pharisaic law, and the Roman occupation of Judaea. They were obviously written by people who thought the earth was flat (more poetic language?), and who attributed many now curable diseases to "demons" and "devils" (still more poetic language?).

In addition to this, there are many serious inconsistencies from one Gospel "account" to the other: I already gave you the example of the scribe "admiring" Jesus in one account and "tempting" him in a later account.

Since it is easy to show many, many problems and falsehoods (that we can verify) in the "accounts" of Jesus's life, I cannot claim to know anything about Jesus. I cannot trust those claims that are untestable if the accounts contains statements (such as whether a certain city was on the coast) that are easily refuted.

If the New Testament is wrong about verifiable things such as science and geography and the contemporary socio-political situations, I cannot use it to find out anything about the Jesus it describes.

This, you referring me to Jesus tells me nothing about what you mean when you use the word "God."
 

Huh?

Which is it? Person, place or thing? or all of the above or none of the above?

You have told me nothing.
 

First, if I was in court and wanted to impair the credibility of the witnesses against my client, I would certainly bring Dr. Loftus in to testify.

If I wanted to enhance the credibility of my own witnesses against a defendant, there are many other psychologists with equivalent credentials who would contradict Dr. Loftus: I think Dr. Loftus is in the minority on this one. She is one of the few experts who would make this case; many others would dispute it.

Secondly, you are dodging the several other points I have presented against the truthfulness of the Cassie Bernall "martyrdom" rumors. Perhaps one or two of the following points can be attributed to stress, but not all of them put together.

Here they are, again:

(I have previously said Joshua Lapp; I apologize for this error and stand corrected: it was Craig Scott, not Joshua Lapp, who started this whole thing.)

1. Craig Scott originally came up with the story of the alleged conversation between Kleberg and Cassie, and Scott is now the only one who still insists that he actually heard the version that Christians are broadcasting worldwide. Joshua Lapp and others do not say they actually heard the "conversation." The "martyrdom" story rests entirely upon Craig Scott. Let's see how credible his story is:

When asked if he saw Cassie praying under the table, or sa