How to Beat Up an "Atheist"

What you’ll read here is, a set of questions & statements I emailed to the website “Positive Atheism”, & the responses I received in return.

Pay attention to the clever attempts he makes, to re-direct the topics when he writes. I’ll highlight MY WORDS in red and leave Cliff's Notes (pun DEFINITELY inended) in Grey----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I laughed out loud when I saw your "rules / requests" to exclude Lee Strobel (among others) especially! I wondered, "Why would they NOT want to debate Lee's information?" Truth be known, I bet it's because he shines so much light on the subject, & has valid evidence for his argument / stance. You here at "positive atheism" know your opponents well. You've done your homework & figured out who can make atheists look silly. Good job on your part, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence (based on Scientific FACTS) DOES point to a "Creator". (AKA - GOD) Your entire website & organization's message is a total contradiction to itself. If you're truly "POSITIVE atheists" you would have NO qualms whatsoever about debating ANYONE, or ANYTHING that differs from the atheist viewpoint. What I'm saying is this; It takes a LOT more faith to believe in Atheism, than it does Christianity. (just think about it....you might figure out what I'm talking about if you honestly look at both sides) I guess I don't understand where Atheists get their beliefs from. Maybe that's where I could use some help, because, at the moment, it makes no sense to me. I've personally NEVER heard an argument, or debate with enough credibility on the atheist's side, to cause me to doubt the existence of GOD. And I mean NEVER! So, if anyone here can offer some valid reasons why I should doubt MY beliefs, I'm willing to listen. BUT..... Be forewarned. I have heard EVERYTHING that the "usual" atheist would use. The standard, same-old, re-hashed, opinions that are rampant on the Internet don't hold up. If YOU (as a "Positive Atheist") can (in your OWN words & reasons) give some sort of credible EVIDENCE that there is NO GOD, please do so!!! But....... "THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK" to respond to ME! Because all the stuff on the main page of your website is just "statements". There's no reasons, or evidence to support your ideas. ANYONE can use words, phrases, & generalizations to come up with a NON-Comittal response... such is the case on the "positiveatheism" website. You do a GREAT job of slamming the Christian view.... but make no substantial case for you own beliefs. THAT is the reason I don't have enough faith to believe in atheism. So, I'm asking, again..... Can you give PERSONAL, VALID reasons why I should give any credibility to this outlook?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Side Note- I was a little harsh in my initial email due to the challenges & comments on their main page, which is why I mentioned "Think before you click......" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Here is Cliff’s response to my first email. Again, my original words highlighted in red.)

I have no interest in changing somebody who is happy as anEvangelical Christian, even though I can think of very few lifestyles[1]

that could possibly be more miserable.

My role at Positive Atheismincludes making my experience and learning available to those who suspect or who have discovered that they've been lied to -- by their own parents, the people who are charged with the responsibility ofguarding their children *against* the very cultic religiosity theyhave, through ignorance and sheer laziness, foisted upon their own children.

This is a very sobering responsibility. Do you see why I have very little patience for God's side-show barkers?- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note 1. By "lifestyles" I intend to convey the element of voluntary involvement:

there are numerous situations that are pretty miserable, situations that people do not and would not choose: having to purchase a wheelchair for oneself, for one, or losing much of the use of one's fingers. I am not talking about situations like that. And I know alittle something about the misery of being placed into a wheelchair. Iknow what it's like to try coping as an artisan, skilled in several fields, whose fingers lost most of their dexterity during life's prime.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> It takes a LOT more faith to believe in Atheism

Faith!? Atheism is a LACK of faith. Atheism is not a belief in itself. As an atheist I lack a god-belief. I do not believe in the supernatural (or, I lack a belief in the supernatural). I do not necessarily BELIEVE that there is no god. In fact, for me to think that way is to acknowledge that I know what y'all are eventalking about when you say "god." But I am, quite frankly, entirely clueless as to what you mean when you write those three letters or utter that sound. God? Whazzat!?

Keep in mind that I didn't find out that people actually worship Jesus H Christ as a supernatural deity until I was in the 10th grade. I had no idea that people thought that he wrought miracles or rose from the dead or was born of a virgin (like all the other deities of those times: you weren't shee-it if you weren't born of a virgin, they say).

> If you're truly "POSITIVE atheists"

Do you even know what a "positive atheist" is? I don't. The concept of "positive atheists" is nowhere discussed or described on the Positive Atheism web site.

-Umm, send me the URL to a good web site about sin-free Christians, that is, Christians who live lives without sin.

> Why would they NOT want to debate Lee's information?

1. Uhh, why hasn't Lee written to us and let us ask HIM about ourobjections to what he's saying and doing? Why does he let *other people* defend his ideas?Lee is welcome to write in and discuss HIS OWN ideas with us -- if hehas any [2] -- just as you are welcome to discuss your own ideas withus.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note 2. I've read three of Strobel's books. Amongst the three books didn't find a single point that I hadn't seen covered somewhere else. He is very skilled at salesmanship, I'll admit. And the most prominently featured product on his sales floor is -- Lee Strobel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. We've heard it before -- all of it. Some of it we've been through hundreds of times, and much of it we'd been through long before he published his first book. We've already addressed the material he provides. We're so very bored with rehashing the same thing over and over and over and over and over. It's essentially McDowell with different wording. Unlike the material written by Corny Van Til and similar theologians (men who have doctorates in Christian history, etc), the popular apologetics (the stuff written at a sixth-grade level) is designed to keep staggering Christians from leaving the fold.

Unfortunately, themorality of those who depend on such fly-by-night scholarship is flawed to the point where the kids who discover the fatal flaws in this stuff are almost forced, by their own sense of morality (not thattaught to them by the church) to leave the fold.

These flaws are very clear to those of us who were not raised (from infancy) by the "Rod of God."

Lee's goal is to reinforce that training, and the Churches pay him well for his services. It's clear to me that he has no interest in discovering truth. But that's *his* problem, not yours. And it's certainly none of *my* business.

3. We do not shell out all this money (from our own personal andfamily budgets) and we do not use up all this time (sacrifice almost all our evenings and weekends of free time) in order to provide people with an opportunity to copy the work of other people: we, being artists, writers, musicians, etc, are interested only in ORIGINAL thinking.

We are not curious about the number of crackers Polly wants. Neither do we wonder or speculate about the various ways in which Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell have taken the core ideas of others and presented them with different wording, framed by a different backdrop, and placed into a different context.

With Strobel, the new context is both original and that of an investigative journalist asking questions of various experts -- er, people who are willing to defend, at whatever cost, the ideas that Strobel knows will sell among Evangelicals.

> Your entire website & organization's message is a total contradiction to itself.

Which parts? Tell us!!

(I get two or three letters a week leveling this very charge against us. Never do they give examples: ("On such-and-so page you said thusly, but in thus-and-so letter, you said such-and-such. What gives?")

In fact, the moment I demand that they give us some details they disappear back into the baseboards as if I'd just opened up a can ofRaid™!

Just in case you are not like all the others, here's a description of the site:

The parts that are ours are: (1) the FAQ replies; (2) the Letters replies; (3) Cliff's editorials.

The rest is simply a library and we do not necessarily agree with what's in the library, any more than you would necessarily agree withthe material that your tax dollars acquire for your local public library. We don't put it there because we agree with it, we put it there to make it available to our readers.

Again, if a work is not signed by our editor-figure, Cliff Walker, it's not ours.

So, on with or question to you:

Which parts of our message contradict which other parts of our message, and what is it about these that make them contradictory.

Your use of the word *entire* changes a few things, too, because in so doing you have exaggerated even your own opinion of us. (The Hebrew Scriptures, which Christians disparagingly call "The Old Testament,"cracks down on this form of dishonesty by mking its prohibitiion one of the so-called Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not bear false witiness againsgt thy neighbor.)

But since you used the word *entire* in your charges against us, we'll need more than just a few examples for you to make your point. In fact, we expect a full 23 examples of ways in which Cliff Walker(Positive Atheism) material contradicts other Cliff Walker (PositiveAtheism) material. We want examples AND explanations.

If you will not do this, then we will chalk you up as yet another lying Christian who has written in solely to harass us.

That's our response. We cannot afford to take lightly behavior such as this.

Cliff Walker PositiveAtheism.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Here's my 2nd email to Cliff; countering his responses.) I appreciate your reply. I do understand WHAT you're saying, but don't clearly understand how you came to these conclusions. Regardless of that, I do want to answer a couple of your points / questions; Just a couple things that you misunderstand about MY personal viewpoint, as well as the REAL meaning & message in the bible. But to clarify a couple key things in your reply... mainly the ones that are MOST important, let's continue. -Umm, send me the URL to a good web site about sin-free Christians,that is, Christians who live lives without sin. The truth is, NOBODY lives a sin-free life. NO regular person is able to. Christians included. Just because we accept salvation from God, does not mean we become sin-free. We're FORGIVEN, & strive to resist our sinful nature, but nonetheless, we are STILL SINNERS. PERIOD! The apostles explicitly taught that. So, anyone claiming to be "sin-free" is a liar. Faith!? Atheism is a LACK of faith. Atheism is not a belief in itself.As an atheist I lack a god-belief. I do not believe in thesupernatural (or, I lack a belief in the supernatural). Here's the thing. You "BELIEVE" there is no God, or nothing supernatural. That's YOUR belief. That in fact makes you a believer, whether it's anti-God or not, that's what you "believe". Your "lack of faith" IN God, means that you have faith that God doesn't exist. No matter how you spin it, or word it, that's what it boils down to. You asked what "contradictions" I'm talking about, concerning the "positive atheist website?" Here's one: You said you “don't know what a "positive atheist is". AND “it's nowhere discussed on the site”. Well, what are you actually POSITIVE about? Are you POSITIVE there's no God? Are you POSITIVE you're truly an atheist? The name of the website itself contradicts what you told me. How can you be a "positive atheist" if you don't even know what that is? To also clarify your misunderstanding of scripture you quoted me: Your use of the word *entire* changes a few things, too, because in sodoing you have exaggerated even your own opinion of us. (The HebrewScriptures, which Christians disparagingly call "The Old Testament,"cracks down on this form of dishonesty by mking its prohibitiion one of the so-called Ten Commandments: Thou shalt notbear false witiness againsgt thy neighbor.) There are a couple things wrong here. 1st, how can you quote scripture to tell me I'm wrong? You don't believe in it, so there's no credibility in your statement.

2nd, the context you applied to the verse, is not the TRUE Meaning behind it. Also note, my use of the word "entire" website would include information that you say you disagree with. Whether or not Cliff Walker signed them, they are still in fact on the site, & can be considered part of it. If those things are in contradiction with YOUR opinions, you can understand why I would say that. I AM interested in looking at more pages on your website, because I'd like to have a better understanding as to why you believe what you do. So I'll accept the offer to continue reading what's there. One last thought before I go for now. I'm sure you're familiar with Anthony Flew; One of the most famous, & vocal atheists ever! For over 50 years he stood firm in his belief that there is no God. BUT, he has since changed his mind, & admitted being wrong, because of the integrated complexity of biological life. I know this isn't "New News" to you.

I also realize he doesn't claim to believe the bible is completely true, & hasn't become a Christian. But he DOES explain why he feels the scientific evidence DOES point to GOD as a Creator. That's a pretty strong statement from a guy who has been one the biggest faces, & supporters of atheism. Anyway, I'll look through your website some more. Like I said, I'm interested in trying to understand this viewpoint better than I currently do. Thanks again for your response!I appreciate & respect the time you took to write back.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Cliff wrote back to debate my 2nd letter. As you’ll see, he starts becoming less credible as he goes along. I’ve made comments to his replies to point out the various techniques & tactics he tries to employ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >I'd like to have a better understanding as to why you believe what you do.

The best way to start is to take my word for it when I tell you that Idon't believe, period. This is admittedly difficult for a believer to grasp, but this is what's going on (rather, not going on). (I DO take his word for it; I was just asking “why?” However, Cliff gave no answer here other than, it’s just his belief. He wasn’t able to give any foundation or basis to his reason. He danced around the question & never made a valid point.)

> The truth is, NOBODY lives a sin-free life.

My point exactly. You don't know what a sin-free Christian is (in that context, anyway), and I don't know what a "positive atheist" is. The concept is foreign to my thinking because I do not pretend to tell people how to live their lives.

(I specifically stated that there is NO SUCH THING as a “Sin-Free Christian”. I said I’m personally not “sin-free” and anyone who claims to be is a “liar”. So, if Cliff had paid attention he’d realize I do know.) Instead, I describe a philosophy that I have developed for myself. This outlook I call Positive Atheism. The "Positive" in it has more to do with being *proactive* than with being pleasant or cordial. Thus, I boldly assert my atheism. Of course! The lapel button on the head rest of my wheelchair says, "How Dare You Presume I'm Christian!" In fact, my hands recently healed enough that I was able to put it on there myself. I couldn't do that as recently as six weeks ago.

(The context used in my question to Cliff about “Positive Atheism” was, “How can you be POSITIVE that God doesn’t exist?” Notice how he (unsurprisingly) misinterprets my question. Most likely an INTENTIONAL action.)

I also dauntlessly insist upon my right to live my life in dignity and in peace despite what others might think of my atheism (indeed, despite what *anybody and everybody* thinks of atheism). By *positive* I do *not* mean "dogmatic" which is another popular and legitimate use for the adjectival phrase "positive atheism." And since that is a popular use for the phrase, I must constantly be on guard lest I confuse readers into thinking that I'm talking about or advocating the dogmatic form of atheism ("There are no gods" or "I believe no gods exist" as opposed to "I have no god-belief" or "I am not a theist" or "I do not believe in any gods").

>1st, how can you quote scripture to tell me I'm wrong?

Firstly, don't use a numeral at the beginning of a sentence. Spell it out: "First, ..." If it's a huge number (such as 3.1415926534...) then consider recasting the sentence so that the number is not the very first part of the sentence.

Secondly, spell out ALL numbers below 10 when writing prose. Finally, and to address your question, I don't believe that Christian scripture is truthful -- at all -- but I do know that Christians hold themselves to the scripture of their religion, most American Christians considering it the very word of their deity.

(Again, Cliff tries to intimidate, or change the immediate subject by trying to “educate” me with absolute, proper grammar. (I actually found this a little entertaining. Heehee)He then attempts to answer the question, but again, has no reasonable answer. Nothing in his response actually relates to what I asked him. All he did was make “statements” & nothing more. Basically his tactic is to Misdirect, or RE-Direct the topic, & then change the subject altogether, without actually answering the question. You’ll see this several times throughout his replies.)

>You "BELIEVE" there is no God, or nothing supernatural.

Wrong.

(How can you say this about me when you don't even KNOW me? You'veobviously not read ANY of my writings!)

(This is where he THRIVES on “trying” to use confusion by word-mixing, & context shuffling. He states he “has no belief in God, or the Supernatural”. The meaning and context of that statement is the equivalent of, “He believes there is no God or Supernatural”. No matter how you say it, it STILL means the same thing. )

I have no philosophically positive beliefs about gods and the supernatural. Those are concepts that others believe in, and they think about those things and think they are real, etc.

I don't have any such thoughts, generally ignoring the entire discussion unless my work calls upon me to write about it.

I am knowledgeable of what people of various religious persuasions believe and claim, but these things mean nothing to me so long as the believers are willing to leave me alone about it. Certain believers, particularly the Christians and a small number of Muslims, refuse to leave me alone about it, so I am forced to write about the subject in the hope that some day these Christians and Muslims will learn a more dignified way to behave.

(Again, It STILL means, you BELIEVE there is no God. Another conflict in your statement is that you’re knowledgeable of what various religions believe & claim. You will confirm that in just a moment.)

>Your "lack of faith" IN God, means that you have faith that God doesn't exist.

Wrong.

(No, I’m correct. You have FAITH in your BELIEF that God doesn’t exist. Period!!!)

The devil supposedly lacks (saving) faith in God, but that says nothing about where he allegedly stands on the question of God's existence.

My belief about the subject of whether or not gods exist is not rightly described as "faith." Rather, this belief is absent in me. I do not have such a belief in my thinking. I don't believe that He doesn't exist, and I don't believe that he does exist. The subject does not interest me in the least -- except in the context that you continue to slander me regarding the nature of my thinking, even afterI have described that nature to you!

(Here, Cliff is showing his lack of KNOWLEDGE about the subject. Satan / Lucifer (aka “the devil”) DOES INDEED believe in GOD! It’s not a matter of him lacking “saving grace” as Mr. Walker tried to imply. He REBELLED AGAINST God, out of pride & jealousy. My advice to Cliff would be; “Learn the subject matter BEFORE you attempt to ‘teach’ it.” Also noteworthy is how he begins this section: “MY BELIEF….” That is precisely what I’ve been telling him! He BELIEVES a certain scenario. Or…. he just has no clue…. Which makes him NOT an “Atheist”. An ATHEIST firmly believes that God Doesn’t exist. He ends up saying he doesn’t believe EITHER WAY. What a NON-Committal stance!)

(And who is a better authority of what I am thinking than myself?) (In fact, who is the ONLY authority on the subject of what I think!?) (The truth HERE is, even CLIFF doesn’t know what he thinks!)

To continue, I do not have a (philosophically) positive belief aboutgods and the supernatural, period. I don't WONDER about gods and thesupernatural. I don't CARE about gods and the supernatural. The topicof gods and the supernatural is not a part of my thinking or outlook(except when I'm at work -- and it is both unfair and erroneous foryou to define me by my work). (Snore…… More of the same, unnecessary, meaningless rhetoric.)

> Well, what are you actually POSITIVE about?

Take your pick: there's more to it than you seem to think. The *Encarta World Dictionary* (dead-tree edition) gives 23 definitions for the word *positive.*

This is our in-house authority on word definitions. (*Merriam-Webster's* Tenth Collegiate is our authority on word division, that is, the location of the hyphen.) Like I explain elsewhere in this letter (and prominently in our FAQ, which is there for readers who are not too lazy to find out what they're talking about first, lest someone open up his mouth and puthis proverbial foot inside), "positive," in the sense of what I'm thinking about when I use the term "Positive Atheism" means, primarily, "proactive".

(Notice the “Misdirection / Re-Direction tactic he starts with; but, I will give him credit for FINALLY getting to the point. *WHEW*!!)

> Are you POSITIVE there's no God?

Again, see above. In that sense, I am not "positive" about anything, because from an early age I trained myself to think by the standards of liberal scientific method

(Hmmmm… If he wants to take a “literalistic” or liberal approach at questions / answers and to generalize everything, what can that lead us to Believe? Let’s think about that. He’s not “positive” about anything? That means we can conclude that Cliff isn’t "positive" he’s an atheist. He’s not “positive” that he even knows what he thinks. He also can’t be positive that without oxygen & blood, the human body is unable to survive. I figured I’d throw in a little of the Cliff Walker “re-direct” myself, just for fun.)

>Are you POSITIVE you're truly an atheist?

(He didn’t answer the above question, but responds to my mention of Antony Flew, a man who spent more than FIFTY YEARS as a full-fledged atheist. He was a HUGE figure & spokesperson for the Atheistic movement. However, Antony recently ADMITTED that due to SCEINTIFIC EVIDENCE, & the Biological Complexity of life, he was WRONG! He now BELIEVES that (a) God exists, at least as being “The Creator”. He’s not a Christian, & doesn’t believe the Bible, or the Bible’s description of God, which I pointed out to Cliff… who, by the way, ignores that fact).

I read his book (again) and to say that he has renounced atheism andbecome a theist a la evangelical Christianity is more dishonest than a simple misnomer. Had you read the book (rather than listening toothers talk about the book) you would see this too.

(Like I said, he ignores the fact that I’m completely aware of the “limits” of Mr. Flew’s belief).

Look, I don't have the time or the patience to sit here and answer other people's questions and address other people's thinking that you choose to sit there and present as your own. If those other people want to write in with their ideas, that's fine.

However, if you want to be taken seriously (if you want your future letters to stay out ofthe round file), you'll need to stop using the thoughts of other people as your arguments (read: lies that other people have told you,that you bought without checking out the facts).

(Basically what this comment means is, Cliff cannot present a reasonable case. He is unable to come up with legitimate answers. Also, he mentions that I’m “using the thoughts, beliefs, & ideas of OTHER PEOPLE, & not my own.” BUT… the fact is, these ARE MY thoughts, beliefs & ideas. Just because other people share my same view, doesn’t mean I have no case. If THAT were true, then all of HIS reasons & arguments fall into the same category, of being “Unoriginal”, & therefore he should stop using them. He is trying to sell the same argument that most atheists use.)

>Also note, my use of the word "entire" website would include information that you say you disagree with.

(Cliff, at this point came back to a previous question, which coincides with the “Biblical quoting” he employed.)

Okay, your public library has in it a copy of a book that contains thefollowing text:

When the nations on this planet fight for existence -- when the question of destiny,

'to be or not to be,' cries out for a solution -- then all considerations of humanitarianism or aesthetics crumble into nothingness; for all these concepts do not float about in the ether, they arise from man's imagination and are bound up with man.

When he departs from this world, these concepts are again dissolved into nothingness, for Nature does not know them. And even among mankind, they belong only to a few nations or rather races, and this in proportion as they emanate from the feeling of the nation or race in question.

Humanitarianism and aesthetics would vanish even from a world inhabited by man if this world were to lose the races that have created and upheld these concepts.

But all such concepts become secondary when a nation is fighting for its existence; in fact, they become totally irrelevant to the forms of the struggle as soon as a situation arises where they might paralyze a struggling nation's power of self-preservation. And that has always been their only visible result.

As for humanitarianism, Moltke said years ago that in war it lies in the brevity of the operation, and that means that the most aggressive fighting technique is the most humane.

I assume you agree with the point this writer makes about how the mostaggressive fighting techniques in war are the most humane. And of course you agree with the point made that morals do not exist without the existence of humans (either before we arose or after we die offand become extinct).

I make this assumption based upon the fact that you financially support your local library. Therefore, since you agree with these two statements, I therefore insist that you back them up with arguments justifying them. Hey, the book is in YOUR public library!

(Notice, CLIFF is the one that brought this WHOLE unrelated subject up, BUT tries to pin the burden of proof on ME.... sneaky stuff)

Since you hold me accountable for a library that I support (financially as well as physically, as a volunteer), I get to hold you accountable for the library that you support (at least financially, through taxes that you pay either directly as a taxpayer or indirectly as the dependent of a taxpayer).

That's all. I must go back to work.

Once again: you need to start hurling ORIGINAL salvos at me if you want my continued participation in this particular dialogue.

Cliff Walker

PositiveAtheism.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Walker concluded his diatribe with the Re-direct, subject change, AND by calling MY questions and replies “Unoriginal”. HA!!! I love it!

I apparently touched a nerve.

He seemed to become quite frustrated throughout the “debate”.

He didn’t (and COULDN’T) give a solid answer to ANY of my questions. He basically used the “long, drawn out response” to lead away from the actual subject. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now then, HERE is the knockout-Punch!!

**I sent this 3rd and final email before he even replied to that last one. My tactic was to shut down every attempt he could, would, or MIGHT make for his case… before he even had a chance to give them.

Not only do I hand out a "Beat-Down" he won't soon forget,

But I do it using HIS own system of beliefs, AND I stick to the subject at hand until I actualy answer the question, or make the point. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exposing the flaws and tactics in the argument of an atheist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Walker, Editor of the website “Positive Atheism” makes claims & statements for his belief that God does not exist. Let’s take a look at these quotes, & his reasons for his opinion, we’ll see how they hold up, using HIS examples, (& “rules” if you will.) In Cliff’s own words, (Quoted from this link- http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9731.htm )

"Here is why I lack a belief in the existence of a "God": The purported existence of a deity (sometimes called "God") is a claim that is made by certain people. They tell us that this deity exists even though we cannot see it or otherwise verify that their claim is truthful. Nobody has to claim that the sun exists because the sun's existence is self-evident to all but the most severely mentally impaired. When discussing the claims that atoms and molecules exist (though we cannot see them), we can verify these claims with instruments and through abstract thought".**

**side note/interruption**… remember this reference to “abstract thought”

"However, nobody has ever given me a reason to believe that a "God" exists. Of course, I can see no "God," and a "God" cannot be detected or measured through instrumentation. So the theist (one who claims that a "God" exists) is left with abstract reasoning to make his or her case to me. Not one of the arguments presented to me for the existence of a "God" has held water."

(Wait… Didn’t Cliff say “Abstract Thought” was part of the “Verification Process” he agrees with when it comes to things you “cannot see”? Hmmmmm… That sounds like Selective Usage of these “so called rules”. It’s acceptable for HIM concerning HIS side of the debate… but NOT for the viewpoint that opposes him…. But we’ll come back to this “biased rule” later.) Now, let’s assume Mr. Walker was using good deductive reasoning for these statements. Let’s keep these same rules / guidelines in place for the following examples, & see if his argument makes sense…. or “Holds Water”. He starts by leading with the idea of, “If I can’t see it, it must not exist.” Then follows up by comparing God, to “atoms & molecules”; Although we “Can’t see atoms & molecules”, we can verify their existence with instruments & abstract thought.

(Just another thought; I’ve never seen an atheist. In fact, I can’t think of any instruments we have that can detect them…. And my abstract reasoning can’t even remotely begin to grasp the idea of some “atheist” type of being. Therefore, ATHEISTS DO NOT EXIST! ) Am I right or wrong? Stop right there for a moment, & think (abstractly of course) about the implications of that thought process, & what it REALLY means. If we’re going to accept this rule of discernment, we MUST be able to apply it to ALL situations that fit into the same category if it’s to have any credibility whatsoever. That category being; “If we can’t see it, then it must not exist. Unless of course we can “detect it” with instruments, &/or abstract thought”. (Paraphrasing the context)

However; personally, I believe that God’s existence is SELF EVIDENT… I mean, unless of course you are “Mentally Impaired”!!!!. Is that a FACTUAL statement I’m making? Or just an OPINION???

(…..Cliffy??? Any thoughts?) OK, using the VERY SAME principles that Cliff Walker himself subscribes to, Can we reasonably question & deny the existence of gravity? What about the existence of wind? (That’s CRAZY you say??)

Well, let’s “go there” & explore this “rule of reasoning”; All the while, playing by Mr. Walker’s OWN RULES. Are you ready? (How about you Cliff?) Rule #1 Gravity: I cannot see gravity, therefore it must not exist. I’ve heard people talk about it, but I’ve never seen it. In fact, NOBODY has seen gravity. So, how can I believe it exists?? Wind: I can’t see wind, so again, it ALSO can’t possibly exist. NOBODY has seen wind….. blah blah blah… (same redundancy). Now, let’s go to “Rule #2” of Cliff Walker’s argument. We DO have instruments to “measure & detect" the existence of gravity & wind. We’re able to see the effects of gravity because, everything falls unless otherwise supported. We can see trees & grass (among other things) blowing & swaying in the wind.

So, even though the wind itself can’t be seen, its EFFECTS can be seen & detected. Let’s pause again. (Time for questions & thinking) Do we REALLY have instruments to detect gravity? OR… Are we under the assumption based on OTHER PEOPLE’S claims that gravity exists? I’ll admit, based on scientific explanation of what gravity does, along with “abstract reasoning”, it’s safe to assume gravity DOES exist. OK, then..... Deal. I agree with Mr. Walker’s “basis for proof of existence” so far. ...........At least concerning gravity. But, how about wind? Are we POSITIVE that wind isn’t some “man-made” myth? Can we be TRULY certain that wind exists? Sure we can measure “wind speed”….... We can also SEE trees blowing, clouds moving, and all the other effects of wind. So, AGAIN, based on science and “abstract reasoning”, it’s safe to assume WIND exists. It’s looking favorable for the Atheist’s argument. Right? Sure, unless, that is......... the tables turn; & the very foundation they base their claims on, works AGAINST THEM…... So, using the same deductive, rational, abstract reasoning, measurements, & scientific “evidence” that Atheist “Spokesperson”, Cliff Walker accepts for verifying the existence of “unseen things,” Here’s what we come up with:

If you can’t SEE something, but can verify it’s existence through “units of measure”, or abstract thought, then it exists. But if it can’t be “measured or detected” then it DOES NOT exist. What do you TRULY believe, based on your own rules / laws? Does Gravity, or Wind, or Molecules, or Atoms, or GOD exist? Yes? No?? Confused? No comment?? Let me help you.

If you want to use the examples you gave, then you also helped the case for verifying the existence of God. So, THANK YOU! Good work! If you want to “Preach” YOUR theories & reasons for “Positive Atheism”, you have to live by them in ALL ASPECTS! Not just selective, limited applications that (attempt to) support your beliefs. My questions start here: WHO decides what is “verifiable detection, and/or measurement?” Because, what might be “evidence” for YOU, may not be sufficient for ME. Who chooses the METHODS of “detection or measurement”?

Again, because YOUR opinion of determining “verification” may not be enough to convince ME that you’re correct. Here’s the thing Cliff. You committed verbal, communicative suicide, by bringing up “Detection, Measurement, & ABSTRACT THOUGHT” into your argument. Using “abstract thought” alone, is enough to shut your atheistic outlook down; You contradicted yourself from the beginning by mentioning that! You used it for BOTH sides of the argument. Negatively, for the “Theistic, God Believing side;” But, as a positive reason for your “Atheistic side”. (How does THAT work??) You think I’m wrong? Let’s look again. This is YOUR DIRECT QUOTE:

Nobody has to claim that the sun exists because the sun's existence is self-evident to all but the most severely mentally impaired. When discussing the claims that atoms and molecules exist (though we cannot see them), we can verify these claims with instruments and through abstract thought. However, nobody has ever given me a reason to believe that a "God" exists. Of course, I can see no "God," and a "God" cannot be detected or measured through instrumentation. So the theist (one who claims that a "God" exists) is left with abstract reasoning to make his or her case to me. Not one of the arguments presented to me for the existence of a "God" has held water. Sorry. It can’t work that way. PERIOD! It’s either ALWAYS, ALL THE TIME, for EVERY situation like this, or….. Not at all!!! Rules are rules. You can’t selectively make exceptions to the rule, just to suit your own personal agenda. Your claim is; we can’t “detect or measure” the existence of God.

Well, using SCIENTIFIC EVEIDENCE, AND ABSTRACT THOUGHT, your “claim” is nullified. In fact, the ‘SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE” points towards God’s existence! That’s PRECISELY why Antony Flew, One of the BIGGEST, most vocal & famous atheists of our time, has openly admitted that, “Based on the integrated complexity of biological life, (he) can NO LONGER reasonably deny the existence of a “God / Deity / Supernatural Creator”.

WHAT???????

A man who spent over HALF A CENTURY as a full-blown, “card carrying” atheist, admitted his own thoughts, reasons, arguments & teachings were WRONG?

YEP! That means, even some of the very same arguments YOU try to use!

Your “claims, beliefs, thoughts, statements, arguments” etc…. aren’t original. You got them from people JUST LIKE ANTONY FLEW!

In fact, I KNOW that many of your arguments are based on Antony’s (self-admitted “wrong”) beliefs! OK, now that I’ve beaten you up, & exposed your ridiculous statements for what they are, (which are nothing more than selective, biased conditional comments) I have to ask the FINAL QUESTION!! (Not JUST to you, but to myself too) In all honesty, can I claim to have “PROOF” that God exists? Absolutely not!! Especially when dealing with people who REFUSE to acknowledge, accept, or at the very least open-mindedly look at the ALL THE EVIDENCE. BUT, Keep THIS in mind: Before you go challenging someone to “PROVE that God DOES exist”, you ALSO MUST be able to prove God doesn't exist. And that is something you CAN’T do. If you KNEW FOR A FACT that there is no God, it would require omniscience; which by the way, is a “God-Like Quality”…. Something you deny is possible. So, that means all of your statements are nothing more than “opinions”; Just your personal taste / belief, based on your ego. (AND, the unoriginal, recently self-denounced Ideas of Antony Flew!) Now, I ask you Mr. Cliff Walker, Editior of “Positive Atheism” (as well as the rest of you atheists who follow his unfounded, unreasonable, biased, thinking,) where does this put you?

You’re trying to sell “Old Crap” as Current News!!

How are YOUR “beliefs” any different from Mr. Flew’s?

What sets YOU apart from him?

What gives YOU any credibility, when you’re shouting out FLAWED, UNORIGINAL opinions? Here’s the difference between you & me. I personally believe in GOD. YOU “believe” there ISN’T a God. But just remember this one thing: *“There are no atheists in Hell… …Only believers;” - Adrian Rogers And you ARE indeed a believer. *Now…. think about that! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember how “High & Mighty” Cliff was in his first 2 emails? Remember how confident he seemed? Let’s see what his reaction / reply was, to that “Beat-Down” I handed him.

So...................What did he have to say after that?? You are not allowed to forward, post, or publish my writings without permission. Cliff Walker --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HAHAHAHA!!! That’s ALL! Nothing else!! No argument, no debate, no attempt… he KNEW he was beat! All I did was used Cliff’s own tactics, & even some of the same comments he made. I Shut him down and left him with nothing else to say.

How do I feel about his reply? Well, I absolutely can forward, post or publish your “writings”. I gave YOU FULL CREDIT for your words. This, my friend, is called “QUOTING”. I can legally quote ANYONE I want, so long as I give credit to the original “owner” of the words. (Which I did.) Besides, your “quote” is publicly posted on your website for the entire world to read freely. I’m not sharing anything private or protected. I’m giving people the opportunity to make their OWN decisions about this subject, by letting them see YOUR stance too.

I’m really just being fair to you by including your argument, rather than omitting it from consideration. After all, I don’t want to give just my biased opinion. ;o) So there you go.

Now you can understand how an Atheist thinks. You can see the sneaky, deceptive tactics they use.

They try to talk in circles, re-direct the subject, change it altogether & try to get you believing you brought it up, so they can "demand" an answer.

This trick is used almost every time.

In fact, the argument of "belief - non- belief / lack of belief" is generally the same old thing, just like you read here. Unoriginal, & easily turned around.

They LOVE to pretend their word selection / arrangement changes the context of what they say.... but as we know, you can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig!

I hope this exposes the flaws in their argument, & helps you better understand how to see through them.

How to Beat Up an "Atheist"

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

10 questions every atheist must answer

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Exposing the tactics of an Atheist

Friday, October 12, 2007

Flawed arguments of Atheism

Blog Archive

About Me