• Browse: About; New; Previous; Next
• Return to Letters Index;  Dialogues Index
• Home to Positive Atheism

From: Timothy Herrman
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 3:59 PM
Subject: via What is Positive Atheism?

Dear Sir,

I have read your mission statement regarding Postive Atheism. Since you have asked for responses, I would like to suggest that it be revised. As it stands, the statement is nothing more than an extended ad hominem argument. Since the ad hominen argument is the weakest form of argumentation it makes the author and the organization look ridiculous. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings but this statement sounds as if its author is still an adolescent.

For example, the author states:
"When a believer does not meet the standards of a religion, other believers tend to think he somehow does not really believe. After all, 'ye shall know them by their fruits.' So a defiant believer is called a very derogatory name: 'atheist.' This tendency to purify theism by defining its undesirables and problem children into the atheistic camp betrays the knotty problems resulting from the surrender to an impossible dogma that cannot be altered. The redefinition technique is as old as the Bible and is still in wide use today."

I gather from this statement that you are frustrated and tired of the hypocrisy of those religions who advance a standard of behavior that is supposedly normative for all and then fail themselves to live up to that standard. If this is correct, then I would agree with you. This failure on the part of religious is frustrating. However, one should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. It the standard is good and worthy of being followed then we should not criticize the standard nor even those who profess it, but rather those who fail to follow it.

Furthermore, failure to adhere to a system of laws does not make one an atheist. It does put one in the uncomfortable position of having broken a law and needing to make amends. If it is a doctrine that has been denied, it may put one in the uncomfortable position of having to correct one's thinking. But neither the lawbreaker nor the heretic qualifies as an atheist.

Also, one's failure to adhere to a just law does not mean that the law is unjust. Rather, it means that either our understanding of that law is still immature or our ability to follow that law lacks the proper discipline. If, on the other hand, the "law" is unjust like that promulgated by a tyrant, then it is right not to follow it. But you did not demonstrate that the law theists follow is unjust nor did you show that it is the act of a tyrant. So once again, your argument looks ridiculous.

Then again, an atheist is not an atheist because some one has called him an atheist but because he calls himself an atheist. An atheist, by definition, explicitly denies the existence of a Supreme Being and likewise that the existence, intelligibility and goodness of this world was established by this Being.

In the same vein, calling theism a false system does not make it a false system any more than calling theism a false system make atheism a true system. You remarked: "Positive Atheism, simply by calling theism a false system, posits atheism as truth." This is nothing more than the silly "logic" of name-calling.

Finally, the statement declares: "A person practicing Positive Atheism does not merely profess atheism, but also acts as if atheism is true. This pulls atheism down from the dusty shelves of philosophy and metaphysics, and plants it squarely into the real world of everyday life."

What exactly is "this"? And what does the following statement really mean? "A person practicing Positive Atheism ... acts as if atheism is true." Isn't this redundant? What is "true" about Positive Atheism that is worthy of being followed?

Given the above reasons, that are by no account minor, I recommend that you revise your mission statement.

Sincerely,
Tim Herrman

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Timothy Herrman
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?
Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 4:31 PM
 

I gather from this statement that you are frustrated and tired of the hypocrisy of those religions who advance a standard of behavior that is supposedly normative for all and then fail themselves to live up to that standard.

The statement describes a common practice of religious people, and has nothing to do with what you say here. When someone who claims to be religious acts wickedly, religious people tend to claim that that person wasn't really religious after all. The have tended to call him an atheist. Nobody wants to be in any way associated with a wicked person, and people tend to divorce themselves in any way they can. One of our own could not have possibly done this. To do this, however, is to compromise the truth.

We saw this when the student shot fellow students engaged in open prayer. The press and the clergy were hot to call him an atheist, but his pastor went on television and admitted he is a Christian. Hooray for that pastor.

We saw it again when the Washington Post called the racist World Church of the Creator an "atheist group." The atheist boards lit up with every rationalization in the book: The press must be wrong. These people are secretly religious. Atheist groups advance atheism, not racism. I wrote a piece about this for American Atheists. The truth is that WCOTC uses the same arguments against theism that I do.

Although you may not have encountered this phenomenon (or may not remember having encountered it), is crucial to a discussion of the nature of atheism, considering that some theists call inappropriately wicked theists "atheists." If any revision happens to this piece, it will be to make this point more clear, and to include the examples of atheists doing the same thing.
 
 

An atheist, by definition, explicitly denies the existence of a Supreme Being and likewise that the existence, intelligibility and goodness of this world was established by this Being.

Wrong. This definition was written by a theist. It presupposes the existence of said supreme being and then says that we deny this existence. It's like saying that there is a tree outside my bedroom window, and that I deny the fact that this tree exists. It leaves no room for me never having noticed the tree before, or me being blind, etc.

This definition also opens itself to the error discussed previously. If an atheist is one who denies God and the goodness established by Him, then is not a wicked person denying God and His goodness through his wickedness? This is precisely the thinking that Roman Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain used to argue that wicked theists are rightly called atheists. He first defined atheist as you do here, the denial of an existing god (and everything associated with that god), and then argued that wicked behavior is a valid form of the denial of that god. The atheists' definitions for "atheism" avoid these and other pitfalls.

An atheist lacks theism, lacks a god-belief. The atheist may or may not have thought about the issue (or even have ever heard a theistic claim). Some atheists have examined the claims of various theists and reject those claims. Other atheists have examined the notion of a supernatural deity and found it to be logically impossible. Still other atheists make a good case that some if not all god-talk is nonsense in that it makes no statements that can be understood. Many atheists have not thought on any of these topics, and would do a double-take if you called them an atheist. They are, nevertheless, atheists because they lack a god belief.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Timothy Herrman
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?

Mr. Walker,

Thank you for responding to my letter and for responding so quickly. I would like to return the favor and address several of the points that you made in your letter to me. Forgive me for the length, but clarification and understanding are never easy to accomplish in a few words unless one is exceptionally gifted, but I am not that gifted.

The first point regards the right relation between the part and the whole; a person's behavior and a system of belief. A person who explicitly accepts a theistic system of belief and then acts contrary to one or more of the doctrines or laws of that system does not thereby explicitly deny the system or its principles. On the contrary, the person that has acted against the doctrine or law has committed a crime, an offense or a "sin" according to the teachings of the system and is, therefore, called a criminal, an offender or a sinner not necessarily an atheist. Although atheism is a sin, it is a sin against the whole while most sins even some grevious sins are sins against some part of the whole. In most cases, sins are not an explicit denial of the system as a whole but only a part of a system while atheism is an offense against the whole of a theistic system insofar as it entails an explicit denial of its prinicple which is God.

In addition, I have studied religion for a number of years and I can think of no religious system where an act contrary to the doctrine or law entails an explicit denial of the entire system. I know that in some, the punishment for an offense may cost one his life, but no theistic system labels the sinner an atheist before they take that life (unless, of course, the nature of his sin involves an explicit denial of God). They might call him an blasphemer, a murderer, or an adulterer, but not an atheist. Therefore, a judgment regarding wicked religious and non-wicked religious and what they call each other should be based on some objective standard like the doctrine to which both parties adhere rather than by what people "think" of the religious or non-religious or on hear-say.

Secondly, it comes as no surprise that when a religious person acts wickedly, others would claim that that person wasn't religious after all and would wish to disassociate with him. While perhaps inappropriate, this name-calling and abandonment is not unusual. At the root of every offense against a system of belief there is an explicit denial of the implicit order of that system. Given such a denial it is not unusual that people of the same system would want to disassociate themselves from the sinner. (Sometimes this disassociation is expressed in name-calling.) Apart from any "judgment" of the sinner, it is only natural to protect oneself or one's family from adverse influences or potentially adverse effects. For example, if a confirmed but reformed child molester moved into a neighborhood it is only natural for the neighborhood to be on their guard or even to react strongly out of concern for the safety of their children. Some people go so far as to make a judgment of this reformed offender's character, but unless they have evidence for their judgment it would be unfair. Yet, of all the names fairly or unfairly directed at reformed or unreformed criminals, I have never heard any call the criminal an atheist. So too, I have never heard anyone call a sinner an atheist. I don't mean to boast but I have actively practiced religion for over forty years and professionally studied religion for twenty of those years. In all that time, while I have heard some call an atheist a sinner, I have never heard of anyone call a sinner an atheist although I can imagine it being done for the reasons I mentioned above and below.

I should also point out that if an offence is an offence against God, then it entails an implicit denial of the sovereignty and providence of God. The reaction of good people to the wicked action of another often reflects this implicit denial. So while it is conceivable for someone to call a sinner an atheist, it is hardly proper and never sanctioned because of the complex nature of sin. Most authorities (like the pastor that you cited) recognize that the implicit denial of God in sin rarely reaches the surface of conscious behavior and becomes expressed by people doing wicked acts. Most often, people sin because the good that they want at the moment outweighs the good they know they ought to pursue or the good they know ought to maintain. So, while in one sense it is not false to affirm that a wicked person is an atheist, it is not proper to call him an atheist because sin depends not only on the act and its circumstances but most importantly it depends upon a specific intention and most sinners do not intend to deny God. Regrettably, most do not even know what this would mean.

Similarly, if a criminal commits a most heinous crime like rape, we are quick to call that person an animal. That we call the rapist an animal betrays the fact that he acts or acted in a way that does not reflect who he is as a human being. It is abundantly evident that to force oneself upon another for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is to act without reason, and to be, quite literally, driven by passion like an animal. But, what we call the rapist may affirm the way he behaves but, since it does not relfect what he is, it is not proper to call him an animal. Furthermore, what one calls another does not change or determine what the other is. Though we call the rapist an animal and even treat him like an animal in some cases, he is still a human being and no one would deny this. If caught, in fact, he will be prosecuted and punished like the kind of being that ought to act with reason and be responsible for his activity, i.e., like a human being and not like an animal. So, given the above reasons, it is unfortunate that some wicked religious people are called by others some name even "atheist" or abandoned by other religious people, but this point seems rather specious and hardly worth mentioning.

Finally, my definition of an atheist is not wrong and your declarations in support of this contention are silly and quite frankly, your own which puts you in a ridiculously small camp. The definition that atheism explicitly denies "the existence of a Supreme Being" and likewise denies "that the existence, intelligibility and goodness of this world was established by this Being" finds support in almost every commonly accepted authority. Either they are all wrong or I am right. The "American Heritage Dictionary," for example, defines atheism as "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God." I have no way of knowing whether the author of this dictionary was a theist or not, but it does not matter. It is an accepted fact--based on the very nature of the word itself--that an atheist is one who denies the existence of God.

Now, if a person does not consciously deny the existence of God, then he is not an atheist regardless of what people say or think (neither is he a theist, for that matter, for a theist would consciously have to accept the existence of God). If a person wishes to cruise through life without raising the question of God's existence, he is free to do just that (in fact, even some so-called "religious" people do that). He cannot rightly be called a theist or an atheist if the question concerning the existence of God never comes up or if it comes up but is never given a second thought. A theist or an atheist, on the other hand, must consciously raise the question, consider the matter at hand and arrive at a judgment regarding God, or accept the judgment of others who have raised the question and mounted reasonable arguments for or against the existence of God. If a person wishes to be called an atheist, then he should accept the commonly understood meaning of the term. If he does not want to accept the meaning of the term, then he should call himself a Green Bay Packer fan or, God forbid, a "humanist." If, on the other hand, a person has considered the arguments, weighed the evidence and cannot accept the conclusions regarding the existence or non-existence of God yet he allows for the possibility of both (since he cannot demonstrate either) then he would be an agnostic. That is, he would 'not know' whether to accept or deny God's existence. At least, the true agnostic is a more courageous for having taken up the question at the root of his very being than many so-called "atheists" and "humanists" today who have neither the wit nor the will to consider the question.

Furthermore, to define atheism as a denial of the existence of God is not the same as simply declaring that a tree exists outside your window, and then claiming that your failure to acknowledge it entails a denial of its existence. If I claim that a tree exists outside your window because I know it to exist outside your window, and you fail to recognize this, then the most I can say is that a tree exists outside your window and you fail to recognize it. If it exists but you do not recognize it, then my claim that it exists is true and my claim that you do not recongize it is true. I have no ground for affirming that you deny its existence unless, of course, you claim that no tree exists outside your window. On the other hand, if I claim that a tree exists outside your window when I know for a fact that it doesn't or when I have no knowledge of its existence or non-existence, and then I am guilty of lying about the tree and guilty for giving false witness to you or to others about you regardless of whether you affirm its existence or non-existence. Everyone knows that it is childish and wrong to claim that another has denied something without express knowledge of the fact. So too, it would be wrong of a theist to call another person an atheist without good reasons for thinking that God exists and that the atheist has publicly denied these reasons for the existence of God.

On this same point, while there is no small number of people who would claim about anything of themselves and of others without giving the matter a second thought, the true theist does not simply claim that God exists independent of some knowledge of his existence. Nor does the theist simply presuppose that God exists and therefore claims his existence to be the case. Nor does he believe that God exists and therefore claims that God exists. The theist claims that God exists because he can argue for the existence of God using sound reasons or knows of others who have done so. Therefore, it would behoove the atheist to base his arguments on equally sound reasons. Otherwise, his ranting and raving makes him look like a frustrated child. Doesn't it seem rather childish to you, Mr. Walker, for atheists to call themselves atheists knowing that the term means the express denial of God, and then rebel when others call them atheists and say that they deny the existence of God? It seems that way to me. Thank you for listening.

Sincerely, Tim Herrman

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Timothy Herrman
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 5:26 PM

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Roman Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain popularized the notion that one is de facto a non-Christian (an atheist, in his language) if one's actions are sinful enough. Maritain insisted that this is true -- that they are atheists -- regardless of what the person in question thinks about gods. The Roman Catholic Church has a list of sins that, if committed, result in one's excommunication (and, presumably, exclusion from Heaven) but this is beside the point. The topic is Maritain (and his ilk) calling wayward believers "atheists."

This notion, though incorrect, is popular; the thinking behind it is not limited to Maritain or his followers. I have seen, with my own two eyes, correspondence from atheists who deny the possibility that the racist World Church of the Creator could be atheistic.

1. This thinking exists: some people explain sinful theists by calling them "atheists."

2. This thinking is erroneous: an atheist lacks a god-belief; a theist has a god-belief.

3. We point this out in our Mission file and will address it more thoroughly in our FAQ section which is in progress.
 
 

Finally, my definition of an atheist is not wrong and your declarations in support of this contention are silly and quite frankly, your own which puts you in a ridiculously small camp. The definition that atheism explicitly denies "the existence of a Supreme Being" and likewise denies "that the existence, intelligibility and goodness of this world was established by this Being" finds support in almost every commonly accepted authority.

My definitions for "atheism" and "atheist" are in line with the majority opinion among atheistic writers throughout history.

Although my definition is inconsistent with the presupposition that a god exists, it is entirely consistent when the topic for discussion is whether a god exists. In other words, if we are arguing whether a god exists, we do not presuppose the existence of the god in our discussion. This also holds true for our definitions. To say that an atheist "explicitly denies 'the existence of a Supreme Being' and likewise denies 'that the existence, intelligibility and goodness of this world was established by this Being'" is to say that an atheist is a fool. You are saying that this being exists, but we deny that "fact." (It is not unlike saying that someone denies the existence of the sun.)

Crucial to a discussion of the definition of an atheist is the fact that an atheist does not accept the god-claims as fact. To presuppose the god-claim when describing someone who does not accept it is patently unfair. This is just one of the multitude of ways we atheists get smeared and denounced in public life, and the correction of these travesties is one of the goals of "Positive Atheism."

I don't think you would want Madalyn Murray-O'Hair to write the article on "Christian" in the dictionary, or you might look it up and read: "a person who actually has the audacity to believe silly myths." Likewise, we do not appreciate the fact that people who presuppose the existence of a deity form the language defining "atheist" that winds up "in almost every commonly accepted authority." That these reference books have missed a crucial point when defining "atheist," and have retained an inaccurate and demeaning bias in their definitions, is an issue that we have brought up with more than one reference book publishing company. A thorough discussion of this issue, and the issue of just how hard it is to define the word "atheist" is "Defining Atheism" by George H. Smith. I highly suggest you read it.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Timothy Herrman
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?

Mr. Walker,

Thank you again for taking the time and energy to respond. I imagine that this site and other things keep you very busy, and so I appreciate your willingness to help me understand this thing you call "positive atheism." I wish respond to the remarks that you made in your last letter and I will try to be more brief this time. I also promise to take a look at the article that you mentioned in your last letter.

 
 
Roman Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain popularized the notion that one is de facto a non-Christian (an atheist, in his language) if one's actions are sinful enough. Maritain insisted that this is true -- that they are atheists -- regardless of what the person in question thinks about gods.

I am no stranger to philosophy or religion and Maritain happens to be one of my favorite authors, but I have never come across this "popular" notion of Maritain's that if one's actions are sinful enough that one is de facto an atheist. Do you happen to remember where he says this?

Regardless, though I don't know why he made this connection, I can imagine why. If one understands (notice I didn't say claim, presuppose or believe!) the foundations of human being and action as rooted in the activity of a Supreme Being (and this is what arguments for the existence of God attempt to demonstrate), then it is true that certain sinful behavior entials an implicit and perhaps even an explicit denial of the sovereignty and providence of God. In such a case, it is not wrong to call a sinner an atheist. However, I would contend that one should not call a sinful person an atheist unless he knows that person has explicitly denied the existence of God. The term "atheism" means the explicit denial of the existence of God. Furthermore, I can imagine any number of people (even Maritain, were he still alive) agreeing with me on this.

 
 
The Roman Catholic Church has a list of sins that, if committed, result in one's excommunication (and, presumably, exclusion from Heaven) but this is beside the point.

This is true regarding the Catholic Church. Some sinful behavior, like murder, is so grave that it entails an implicit rejection of God. If a Christian behaves in this way it entails an explicit rejection not only of God but also of the truth that God reveals in His Son. Therefore, the Catholic Church excommunicates the sinner. Excommunication, however, is not so much an action of the Church as an action of the sinner. Excommunication is the way the Catholic Church officially recognizes and ratifies the judgment already implicit in the behavior and explicit in the mind of the sinner. However, excommunication does not entail a loss of heaven unless, of course, the sinner remained unrepentant. While this example seems to confirm the connection made by Maritain, you are correct say that this is beside the point.

 
 
The topic is Maritain (and his ilk) calling wayward believers "atheists."

This notion, though incorrect, is popular; the thinking behind it is not limited to Maritain or his followers. I have seen, with my own two eyes, correspondence from atheists who deny the possibility that the racist World Church of the Creator could be atheistic.

1. This thinking exists: some people explain sinful theists by calling them "atheists."

2. This thinking is erroneous: an atheist lacks a god-belief; a theist has a god-belief.

3. We point this out in our Mission file and will address it more thoroughly in our FAQ section which is in progress.

You have yet to demonstrate that this name-calling is popular and that it is erroneous. Perhaps, this article that you suggested will do that.

 
 
My definitions for "atheism" and "atheist" are in line with the majority opinion among atheistic writers throughout history.

If this is the case then why is it so hard to substantiate your claims and why is this "history" so difficult to find? On the other hand, one can easily find the definition I proposed in any dictionary or encyclopedia. It would be silly to say that this definition is common simply because the people that wrote those books were theists. Yet, even if that is one's opinion, one could still cite people like the (non-theist) rationalist father of logical positivism, A. J. Ayer for support of this common definition. For example, in his "Language, Truth and Logic" (p. 115), Ayer remarks that "it is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least probable that no god exists." Notice that he says the atheist "holds." I take that to mean accepts or affirms that no god exists. (By the way, Ayer may be a good source to consider for your use of the word "positive." He held that the only things one knows for certain are those things that are empirically verifiable [hence, "positive"; this proposition excepted]. Therefore, he concluded that, since "God" cannot be empirically verified, the term "God" and propositions for the existence of God are meaningless and cannot be affirmed or denied.)

 
 
Although my definition is inconsistent with the presupposition that a god exists, it is entirely consistent when the topic for discussion is whether a god exists. In other words, if we are arguing whether a god exists, we do not presuppose the existence of the god in our discussion. This also holds true for our definitions.

I am not sure that I follow you here. We agree that an argument for the existence of God does not "presuppose" that God exists. I know that some people have suggested this (e.g., John Hick, "The Existence of God," p. 7) but I know of no example of such a presupposition or implied premise in a demonstration for the existence of God (even Hick fails to give an example). On the contrary, one finds just the opposite. I can think of several demonstrations where the name God does not even enter the argument until the very end. Thomas Aquinas, for example, does not use the term God until the very end of the argument and then only to say "this is what we call God." That is hardly a presuppostion or a premise of the argument.

Furthermore, the question "whether God exists" and its demonstration must anticipate the conclusion "that God exists" or "that God does not exist." However, the argument "whether God exists" does not presuppose the existence of God. It is, as you indicated, a merely a hypothesis to be proven.

But what exactly do you mean when you say "this hold true for definitions"? Are you saying that in defining a certain activity we don't know the nature of that activity or the meaning of the term that we apply to that activity? Or are you saying that just as demonstration should not presuppose its object, so too definition should not presuppose its object? Doesn't a definition depends upon demonstration and take demonstration for granted. Doesn't definition mean to discover the intelligible limits of a thing. How could one do this without demonstration? To call a thing amorphous presupposes one knows (through prior observation and demonstration) what 'amorphous' (and 'morphous') is and (can demonstrate) that this thing fits that definition. So, in a sense, definition presupposes demonstration. Similarly, to call a person a theist presupposes that one has an understanding of the term and that the term applies to this person. The same is true of the term atheist, isn't it?

 
 
To say that an atheist "explicitly denies 'the existence of a Supreme Being' and likewise denies 'that the existence, intelligibility and goodness of this world was established by this Being'" is to say that an atheist is a fool. You are saying that this being exists, but we deny that "fact." (It is not unlike saying that someone denies the existence of the sun.)

If someone has rationally demonstrated the existence of God and some other person simply chooses not to accept that demonstration, then that person is a fool. In a similar fashion, if I were to demonstrate the proposition "to play in the street is potentially harmful," and the someone else simply chooses not to accept that demonstration and acts accordingly, then that person would be a fool. If, on the other hand, that person could offer reasons why "to play in the street is always safe" then that person would not be a fool. But 'the proof is in the pudding,' i.e., in the reasons, and not in a shere movement of the will.

 
 
Crucial to a discussion of the definition of an atheist is the fact that an atheist does not accept the god-claims as fact. To presuppose the god-claim when describing someone who does not accept it is patently unfair. This is just one of the multitude of ways we atheists get smeared and denounced in public life, and the correction of these travesties is one of the goals of "Positive Atheism."

First, what exactly is the difference between saying the atheist "does not accept the god-claims as fact," and the atheist denies the existence of God? If the "god-claim" that a theist claims as "fact" is the conclusion of a rational demonstration, then not to accept the "god-claim" as "fact" means to deny the demonstration. It seems to me that if a person refuses to accept the conclusion of a rational demonstration for no reason, then that person is a fool. Similarly, if a person knowingly refuses to accept the "god-claim" for no other reason than that it is a "god-claim," then that person is a fool.

Secondly, if a person calls himself an atheist and as yet has made no decision regarding the "god-claim" then that person is being irrational. In any other field, he would be disbarred. Can you imagine a man who knows nothing of plumbing calling himself a plumber? Of course not. Thirdly, if a person knows nothing of plumbing yet wishes others to call him a plumber, then he cannot fault others for calling him a plumber and presupposing by that term that he knows plumbing. If he does not know plumbing, then he should not call himself a plumber or have others call him a plumber. If he does not know plumbing and yet insists on calling himself a plumber and insists that others call him a plumber, he is deliberately deceiving himself and others. And that is both foolish and wrong.

 
 
I don't think you would want Madalyn Murray-O'Hair to write the article on "Christian" in the dictionary, or you might look it up and read: "a person who actually has the audacity to believe silly myths." Likewise, we do not appreciate the fact that people who presuppose the existence of a deity form the language defining "atheist" that winds up "in almost every commonly accepted authority." That these reference books have missed a crucial point when defining "atheist," and have retained an inaccurate and demeaning bias in their definitions, is an issue that we have brought up with more than one reference book publishing company. A thorough discussion of this issue, and the issue of just how hard it is to define the word "atheist" lives at:

Again it seems that your reasoning is faulty. You imagine that theists "presuppose" the existence of a deity. They no more "presuppose" the existence of a deity than atheists "presuppose" the non-existence of a deity. Furthermore, theists did no more to "form the language defining 'atheist'" than 'morphous' beings formed the language for 'amorphous' beings. Using this logic one would have to conclude that theists were responsible for our understanding of 'polytheism' as well.

In addition, it is neither "inaccurate" or "demeaning" to define an atheist as 'one who denies the existence of God.' It is simply the meaning of the word. If you wish to apply this word to yourself or your organization, then it seems appropriate to accept the understood meaning of the word. But this is what you don't want to do. Rather, you seem to want others to call you an "atheist" but you don't want them to understand by atheism what the term actually means. Wouldn't it be easier to call yourselves naturalists, humanists, secularists, rationalists, or even relativists (since this term would be the most accurate description of those who fail to accept or wish to do away with any common ground of intelligibility). If you used any of these terms you would not have to waste your time and energy on definitions that presuppose the existence of God or what people might think a word means. Any of these other terms would allow you to have the things you wish without all the concern about God. In fact, I am curious why you insist on using the term atheism in the first place. Is it that you really do want to live your life without god-claims and god-talk? Do you, perhaps, consider these claims as meaningless, superfluous or even harmful?

Thank you once again for listening.

Sincerely,
Tim Herrman

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Timothy Herrman
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?
Date: Friday, August 13, 1999 12:48 AM

I surely enjoy discussions such as this one more than most of the ones posted in our Letters section. I am trying to finish up the Introduction to our FAQ section, but will take some time out for this discussion. (Please be aware that due to medical problems, I cannot spend much time per day at the terminal, and must be sure I can keep my schedule. When I figure out how to do this in the recliner [I'm saving up for a solid-state monitor and one of those swinging arms like they have in a dental office], my body will allow me to spend more time. As it stands now, my legs and feet swell up when I spend too much time in the vertical position and especially in the seated position.)
 
 

I am no stranger to philosophy or religion and Maritain happens to be one of my favorite authors, but I have never come across this "popular" notion of Maritain's that if one's actions are sinful enough that one is de facto an atheist. Do you happen to remember where he says this?

I got it from George H. Smith "Atheism: The Case Against God"; Chapter 1, "The Scope of Atheism"; Section V., "Jacques Maritain and the Slander of Atheism."

It starts out:

This portrayal of atheists is so popular and so long-standing that it has even worked its way into the "Merriam-Webster's" dictionary. MW has, as a synonym for "atheism," the word "wickedness." They call it "archaic" but I challenge that notion, too. In the mind of the common theist, atheism is seen as wickedness, and wickedness is seen as atheism. The two are seen as going together. Remember Psalm 14:1: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (At least the psalmist does not make the error of using language that presupposes the theist's side of the discussion when discussing the atheist. It's one thing to call us "fools"; it's quite another to introduce language which answers the very issue under discussion.)
 
 

Regardless, though I don't know why he made this connection, I can imagine why. If one understands (notice I didn't say claim, presuppose or believe!) the foundations of human being and action as rooted in the activity of a Supreme Being (and this is what arguments for the existence of God attempt to demonstrate), then it is true that certain sinful behavior entails an implicit and perhaps even an explicit denial of the sovereignty and providence of God.

It is precisely this presupposition of the existence of a god that we atheists want removed from the definitions for "atheism." According to Smith, atheistic philosophers have been working on this for a few hundred years, and some of the splinter groups from Madalyn Murray-O'Hair's organization are sponsoring discussions on this matter as we speak. To "understand" is to presuppose, to believe; the very existence of atheists keeps this discussion from being settled in the manner portrayed by your language.
 
 

This is true regarding the Catholic Church. Some sinful behavior, like murder, is so grave that it entails an implicit rejection of God. If a Christian behaves in this way it entails an explicit rejection not only of God but also of the truth that God reveals in His Son.

In other words, "wickedness equals atheism." The Church has defined it that way in the mind of the common man, and we atheists, who have done nothing wrong except to reject the claims of the Church, suffer for it. We have to leave the Boy Scouts (unless we're willing to lie); we get beat up in grade school; we are written off by meddling neighbors to the point where other neighbors follow suit; we get passed over for promotions or even let go in a pinch. Theists, mistaken for atheists through the "wickedness equals atheism" doctrine, suffer for it, too.
 
 

Excommunication, however, is not so much an action of the Church as an action of the sinner. Excommunication is the way the Catholic Church officially recognizes and ratifies the judgment already implicit in the behavior and explicit in the mind of the sinner.

The Church even absolves itself, I see, by defining excommunication as something the sinner does, not something the Church does.
 
 

You have yet to demonstrate that this name-calling is popular and that it is erroneous. Perhaps, this article that you suggested will do that.

I will never convince you that it is erroneous, me being a "wicked" atheist, you know! How could I convince you that for you to presuppose your side of the discussion in the very act of making your case is begging the question?

However, I think I have shown (and you appear to have concurred) that the thinking is popular among theists, particularly among Catholics. If nothing else, the existence of the synonym "wickedness" in MW makes the case quite soundly. The prevalence of definitions along the lines of "denies the existence of God" makes this case also. I will agree with MW and the others that "denies the existence of God" is the popular definition for "atheist"; where I disagree is upon its accuracy and its fairness. This definition is both inaccurate and unfair for the same reason: it begs the question.
 
 

We agree that an argument for the existence of God does not "presuppose" that God exists.

But the language of your definition for "atheist" does just that.
 
 

I know that some people have suggested this (e.g., John Hick, "The Existence of God," p. 7) but I know of no example of such a presupposition or implied premise in a demonstration for the existence of God (even Hick fails to give an example).

In an existential argument (where one party claims the existence of something) it seems best to me (and to others) that the burden of proof fall upon the one making the existential claim. In lieu of strong arguments in favor of the existence of something, the presumption would then be toward doubt. This is the case that Antony Flew makes in his famous essay, "The Presumption of Atheism."

I don't see Flew's position as any kind of "cop out." On the contrary, I think it is a good working position for arguments of this type. Otherwise, we observers would be obligated to remain neutral on arguments ranging from claims of the paranormal to claims that the Holocaust occurred to the theory of evolution. No. Evolution, if accepted, would have turned our understanding of reality on its ear. The public and the scientific community rightly demanded extraordinary proof. In the case of evolution, that proof came forth and evolution is now accepted as reality. Ditto for the Holocaust. As shocking (as devastating) as that event was to the collective human mindset, we had to fact the facts as they came forth. Some still deny, but the presumption no longer falls on their side, because of the outstanding arguments made by their opponents in this discussion.
 
 

I can think of several demonstrations where the name God does not even enter the argument until the very end. Thomas Aquinas, for example, does not use the term God until the very end of the argument and then only to say "this is what we call God." That is hardly a presupposition or a premise of the argument.

This is precisely what makes Aquinas' arguments so formidable. This is one of many reasons why Aquinas is rightly called the most brilliant philosopher of theology that is ever known to have lived. (I would question calling a philosopher "brilliant" who did not take this burden of proof seriously.) Aquinas understood why the burden of proof falls on one making the existential claim. Arguments that take this into consideration -- up front -- are the ones that are most formidable.
 
 

Furthermore, the question "whether God exists" and its demonstration must anticipate the conclusion "that God exists" or "that God does not exist."

Other possibilities: We cannot adequately verify the god-claim, thus rendering the matter inconclusive (with the burden of proof falling upon the one making the claim, and making doubt [one form of the lack of belief] a reasonable position in lieu if that proof); We cannot agree as to the definition for "God" (the main problem with all interfaith discussions); The one making the god-claim cannot make the nature of the claim understandable to the listener (making noncognitivism [another form of the lack of belief] a reasonable position).
 
 

Doesn't a definition depends upon demonstration and take demonstration for granted. Doesn't definition mean to discover the intelligible limits of a thing.

Yes. The existence of atheists means that the question of whether a god exists is unsettled. Therefore, to use language to define "atheist" that presupposes one side or the other of the question is beyond the intelligible limits of the fact that we are dealing with a question -- an argument -- that for the purposes of our discussion -- the meaning of the word "atheist" -- has not been settled.

In other words, the words "theist" and "atheist" have, tightly bound into their meaning, the fact that there is an argument going on. To define one or the other with language that presupposes one or the other position is patently biased against the contrary position. To define these words with language that admits that this argument is not settled is within the intelligible limits of the fact that we are dealing with a question.
 
 

To call a thing amorphous presupposes one knows (through prior observation and demonstration) what 'amorphous' (and 'morphous') is and (can demonstrate) that this thing fits that definition. So, in a sense, definition presupposes demonstration. Similarly, to call a person a theist presupposes that one has an understanding of the term and that the term applies to this person. The same is true of the term atheist, isn't it?

No. My cat has no understanding of the term "cat" yet it is proper for me to call her a cat nonetheless. I was a libertarian [small="l", as opposed to a member of the Libertarian political party] for years before I understood that there was a term for what I was. Ditto for atheism: I was pleased to discover that there is a term for what I have been most of my life.

Terms are very useful. I floundered my way around the chessboard until I learned that the various situations in a chess game have names. I was already good at the "fork" but now can think in shorthand using the terms for the situations I hope to accomplish, and no longer have to think move-by-move for the entire game. I could still play a mean game of chess before I learned this, though.

Now that I know that I am an atheist, I no longer flounder and blush when an evangelist approaches me. I know that atheism is a respectful (if not valid) way to think, and I know its name, and I now have a concrete picture of my lifelong reaction to the evangelist. I not only know the name but the issues involved in most discussions of this sort. I also know the history of how theists have treated atheists (which history concurs with the way I was treated as a child and a young adult and beyond).

Until the 1990s, we did not have the term "sexual harassment." Until then, women put into this position had to "wing it" -- if you will. Now, we have concretized this situation with a term and have developed appropriate and effective responses to men who put women (and, occasionally, vice versa) into such situations.
 
 

If someone has rationally demonstrated the existence of God and some other person simply chooses not to accept that demonstration, then that person is a fool. In a similar fashion, if I were to demonstrate the proposition "to play in the street is potentially harmful," and the someone else simply chooses not to accept that demonstration and acts accordingly, then that person would be a fool.

You will agree that to "demonstrate the existence" (if you will) of an invisible and undetectable being whose attributes (omnipotence; omniscience; omnibenevolence) contradict some of our observations, is much harder to do than to demonstrate the correlation between playing in traffic and the likelihood of injury. This would be tougher even if we were to rely solely on abstractions for either argument.
 
 

If, on the other hand, that person could offer reasons why "to play in the street is always safe" then that person would not be a fool. But 'the proof is in the pudding,' i.e., in the reasons, and not in a sheer movement of the will.

If you can demonstrate to me the existence of the god of Christianity with the same degree of assurance that I have toward the correlation between playing in traffic and the incidence of injury, I will admit that I was a fool. Some things are self-evident to the point where I have yet to meet a person, aged eight or above, who is not demonstrably retarded or crazy in respects other than this, who disagrees with me over the correlation between playing in traffic and the incidence of injury. I think you will agree with me that the existence of the Christian deity is not as self-evident as this. The god-claim needs either more meat to it, or it needs to be instilled from childhood. You will not walk up to many people and convince them based solely on your argument, simply because the object of your claim is not self-evident.
 
 

First, what exactly is the difference between saying the atheist "does not accept the god-claims as fact," and the atheist denies the existence of God?

Again: The language of the latter presupposes one side of the argument; the language former merely describes an aspect of the argument without siding with one or the other party. In this, the former is more honest and thus more accurate. It does not go any further than is the case: an argument ensues; one denies the claims of the other.
 
 

Again it seems that your reasoning is faulty. You imagine that theists "presuppose" the existence of a deity.

In your definition for the word "atheist" you presuppose the existence of a deity. Further, you presuppose that what you see as a "rational demonstration" is clear to all. If this was the case, then we wouldn't have discussions such as this. Obviously, this is not the case. Therefore, your definition for "atheist" is both biased and inaccurate. All we can say when describing the unsettled argument is that one group makes a claim and the other does not accept that claim as truth. This falls short of siding with one or the other. To go further is to engage in the argument itself. We are not talking about which side of the argument is true or false; we are trying to find a proper and fair and accurate way to define one party involved in the argument.
 
 

In addition, it is neither "inaccurate" or "demeaning" to define an atheist as 'one who denies the existence of God.' It is simply the meaning of the word.

It is the meaning of the word if and only if everyone involved sides with the theistic viewpoint. However, there is one party involved who disagrees with the theistic viewpoint: the atheist. The very subject of this discussion is being slandered by the given definition of the word describing him. This is happening because the language "one who denies the existence of God" presupposes that "God" exists, and then says that someone denies this "truth." The atheist more accurately sees this as a matter of one party making a claim and the other party disagreeing with that claim.

Theism is, in fact, all about claims. "Faith comes by hearing."
 
 

If you used any of these terms you would not have to waste your time and energy on definitions that presuppose the existence of God or what people might think a word means.

But I am not a naturalist. I am not a humanist. I am a secularist (among other things) in my politics, but refuse to deny a religious person their right to -- and the dignity of -- their religion, I am not a relativist (and to suggest such, in the context that you did, by the definition that you use, is rightly seen by me as slander).

At this point you are simply making statements. You have said, over and over, that theism can be "rationally demonstrated." I have yet to see a demonstration of theism from you, and am beginning to question whether there is a demonstration or rationality here. You have simply stated that the theistic position has been rationally demonstrated. You have made no effort at rationally demonstrating your position.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: Timothy Herrman
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?

Mr. Walker,

I have read the article that you mentioned and have the following remarks.

1. On several occasions Smith or the people that Smith quotes (McCabe, Cohen, et al.) remark that the word atheism literally means "without God" and by this we are to understand (negatively) "the absence of a belief in God" or (positively) "the outright denial of theism." If atheism means (negatively) the absence of a belief in God and one understands this absense to be the absence of an expressed belief in God then even infants would be atheists which is ridiculous. While it is true to say that an infant lacks belief in God because it can no more express a belief in God than a non-belief in God, it is false to conclude from this that it is an atheist. In the absence of any expressed belief (which presupposes speech, the free exercise of reason and will and an awareness of the question) one could no more say the infant is an atheist than a theist, a Republican than a Democrat, a fighter pilot than a ballet dancer. For the same reason, it is false to say "every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God" if one understands "does not believe" to mean a want of knowledge (Flint). In the absense of any knowledge one could no more say of himself or another that he is a theist than an atheist. Therefore, the term atheism cannot refer to the mere absence of a belief in god and must refer (positively) either to those who "deny theism" or consciously affirm some system opposed to theism, that is to those who make a deliberate decision against a theistic system or for an opposed system. Despite the opinion of Smith, Flew and others, atheism entails a denial of theism or an conscious acceptance of some non-theistic system. Most commonly, however, it entails a denial. Hence the prefix "a". The prefix "a" negates not simply the term but the full meaning of the term which is "a belief in God." Thus atheism is the denial of a belief in God.

2. The sources that Smith cites for this "long history" of atheistic thought are all relatively recent. Not one is before the seventeenth century and nearly all are from the twentieth century. In the field of philosophy or religion this length is rather brief.

3. Smith claims that "most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism." He makes this universal claim ("totally unfamiliar") but does not offer a shred of evidence. This sounds rather dogmatic, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that, since most philosophers are well read, they are familiar with negative atheism and that, since most philosophers spend their time exercising their minds, most see the logical fallacies behind negative atheism and so refuse to entertain negative atheism seriously?

And his are not the only ridiculous, universal and dogmatic statements that are voiced. Smith quotes Ms. Besant saying "Never yet has a God been defined in terms which were not palpably self-contraditory and absurd; never yet has a God been described so that a concept of Him was made possible to human thought." On the face of it, this statement ridicules the countless hours and careful attention that serious thinkers have paid to the question concerning the existence of God. However, since that tradition she ridicules is so highly respected for its logic and wisdom by so many great and virtuous men and women, it makes this remark by Ms. Besant appear all the more ridiculous except to those (perhaps like her) who don't know any better.

4. Smith ackowledges the similarity between non-cognitivism and the negative atheism, insofar as both assert that the proposition "God exists" is a meaningless proposition and therefore is not a matter of belief. In fact, he acknowledges this definition of atheism "to have a better pedigree." Regrettably, like Ayer, Smith fails to offers any reason why we should accept the meaninglessness of this proposition. Actually, Ayer does offer a reason insofar as he excludes any thing that is not empirically verifiable from his cache of propositions. "God" is not empirically verifiable, therefore the proposition "God exists" is meaningless. But then, the term "reason" is not empirically verifiable; neither is the term "truth" nor "proposition." Yet Ayer saw no difficulty in using these terms as if they applied to some reality. Clearly, the non-cognitivistic arguments were not as logical as they first appear (and as Wittegenstein pointed out). Thererfore, it would be better for Smith to find some more logical support for his opinions.

5. Smith cites Michael Scriven's argument regarding the burden of proof for the existence of God and claims that this burden is not the same for the atheist as it is for the theist. Scriven maintains, states Smith, that "supernatural claims are without precedence in our experience." And since this claim is without precedence it is the responsibility of the theist to demonstrate the existence of God.

First, theists have done precisely this. An atheist is one who explicitly denies the arguments and conclusions reached by the theist and if he does not then he is not an atheist (unless of course he conscious adopts a system that is opposed to theism). Furthermore, if Scriven or any other thinker would have read some of these arguments they would see how ridiculous their own positions are and stop making such silly comparisons as between God and Santa Claus. Santa Claus is an invention and cannot be demonstrated to exist; God is not and can be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, it is ridiculous to treat these two things as if they were the same simply because people believe both. People believe a lot of things. Some of the things people believe are true and some are not. Of those that are true, some are empirically verifiable and some are not. To conclude that only those things that are empirically verifiable are to be believed overlooks a great number of things that exist, are proven to exist and are believed to exist but are not empirically verifiable. Secondly, to say that "supernatural claims are without precedence in our experience" is true insofar as experience is limited to sensible experience. It is false insofar as experience entails what one can know by reason. Regardless, this statement reflects a commonly voiced criticism of atheists. Theists do not claim, presuppose or believe in the existence of God prior to a demonstration of his existence unless, of course, the theist is basing his claim, presupposition or belief on the demonstration of another. Simply to claim, presuppose or even believe that God exists does not constitute the ground of theism.

6. Finally, I fail to understand Smith's conclusion. He concludes by saying that a definition should identify the fundamental or essential attribute of the concept being defined (this, by the way, is a conceptualist understanding defintions which is part of the problem) and then to say that the absence of theistic belief is more fundamental that the denial of theism simply makes no sense. Since when is a privation more fundamental than an action. That's like saying blindness (which is the privation of sight) is more fundamental than sight. Looked at differently, to what does the absence of something refer? If I had a friend who has never given the existence of God much thought and so has never affirmed or denied the proposition "that God exists", I could hardly call him an atheist. And, yet, this is what Smith seems to be saying. Smith seems to say that if a peson has not considered the proposition regarding theism, then he can be called an atheist. Using the same logic, if a person has not considered "--", then he can be called an "a---". Does this make sense to you, Walker? If a person has never considered the proposition, "it is wrong to lie" can I say that he affirms the proposition, "it is right to tell the truth"? Perhaps, you see some way out of the quagmire. I don't.

Sincerely,
Tim Herrman

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: Timothy Herrman
Subject: Re: via What is Positive Atheism?
Date: Friday, August 13, 1999 12:46 AM
 
 

An atheist is one who explicitly denies the arguments and conclusions reached by the theist and if he does not then he is not an atheist (unless of course he conscious adopts a system that is opposed to theism).

Now we're talking! An atheist denies the claims -- and disagrees with the arguments and conclusions -- of the theist. This definition does not presuppose the truth of theism, but merely states facts upon which we can both agree: Theist make claims and puts forth arguments and reaches conclusions; atheists disagree with the theist regarding those claims and conclusions. To go further than this is to beg the question.
 
 

The sources that Smith cites for this "long history" of atheistic thought are all relatively recent. Not one is before the seventeenth century and nearly all are from the twentieth century. In the field of philosophy or religion this length is rather brief.

Name an atheistic philosopher from before the eighteenth century who wasn't executed for his beliefs. Name one who lived long enough to have the luxury of discussing this issue, whose writings have survived. Name a society before the eighteenth century where an atheist was paid by the community to think (like priests are paid by the Church to have the luxury of pondering such issues).
 
 

Smith claims that "most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism." He makes this universal claim ("totally unfamiliar") but does not offer a shred of evidence. This sounds rather dogmatic, doesn't it?

Yup.
 
 

Smith acknowledges the similarity between non-cognitivism and the negative atheism, insofar as both assert that the proposition "God exists" is a meaningless proposition and therefore is not a matter of belief. In fact, he acknowledges this definition of atheism "to have a better pedigree." Regrettably, like Ayer, Smith fails to offers any reason why we should accept the meaninglessness of this proposition.

I don't accept it. Rather, I think (like Drange) that noncognitivism is a product of the god-claim [not dependent upon the atheist, but the claim]. Drange gives an example that I think is an excellent test whether a god-claim qualifies for the response of noncognitivism: Can the story be cast into a film (such as "The Ten Commandments")? If so, the claim has some semblance of understandability and qualifies for discussion. If the claim cannot be made into a film that the majority of unlearned viewers can conceptualize (excluding, of course, fans of the ultra-abstract), then it qualifies for the noncognitive response.

One example I like to use is the "Not this. Not this" of the Upanishads, discussed in the Introduction to Gora's "An Atheist with Gandhi." Before I became familiar with the noncognitive element of atheistic philosophy, I read this piece. I found it very formidable because it made claims that were not up for discussion, because its claims transcend comprehension (and thus do away with the notion of discussion).
 
 

Smith cites Michael Scriven's argument regarding the burden of proof for the existence of God and claims that this burden is not the same for the atheist as it is for the theist. Scriven maintains, states Smith, that "supernatural claims are without precedence in our experience." And since this claim is without precedence it is the responsibility of the theist to demonstrate the existence of God.

I go further than this in my criticism of Scriven's position: He is dead wrong. [When have we ever] not had claims of the supernatural? I think Scriven intended to say (and I agree with this) is that independently verifiable supernatural events are without precedence in our experience.
 
 

Santa Claus is an invention and cannot be demonstrated to exist; God is not and can be demonstrated to exist.

The difference between Santa and God, in regards to an existential claim, is that the Santa claimants admit that the claim is fiction.

Meanwhile, every claim is an abstraction. The task is to demonstrate that that abstraction is an accurate description of reality. The menu is not the meal, but we can (usually) use the menu to accurately anticipate what kind of meal we are getting. The map is not the city, but we can use a map to navigate our way through the city. Most architects will make very similar floor plans of a given building, although those floor plans are abstractions and do not represent any view of the building that we can actually observe.

This is why I do not accept a theist's use of the word "God" at face value. There is no face value when everybody has a different understanding of the meaning of that word. I almost always insist on a description for the word. It is the description (an abstract yet very useful description) that we can discuss.
 
 

Finally, I fail to understand Smith's conclusion.

I fail to understand your objection, please recast it.

Also, if "atheism" means one who lacks a god-belief, then your friend fits squarely within that definition. With this definition, one has either learned and accepted a god-claim, or one has not. Smith is challenging the notion of a middle ground, a third category somewhere between theism and the lack of theism. The method used by theists (and some atheists) to establish this middle ground is to insist that an atheist has heard the god claim, [and understood it,] and considered it, and denies it. I have not studied Zoroastrianism. I am still a non-Zoroastrian even though I have not considered the doctrines of Zoroastrianism. I do not hold the Zoroastrian beliefs (as far as I know).

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

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.