Positive Atheism Dialogue
Graphic Rule
Is There Evil In The World?
(or, Why Did Humpty Dumpty Fall Off The Wall?)
Mike Boston

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:12 PM

Your question is very vague. I'll try my best at trying to answer what I think you may be asking. You may want to clarify, or respond to this response.

Basically, I think good and evil do not exist outside the opinions of humans. Good and evil are value judgements, and it requires a human being to make such a judgement or to hold such values.

I do not know of any intrinsic good or intrinsic evil, as was suggested by Plato and as has been posited by various Christian theologians and others. In other words, I don't think it is possible to isolate something from its environment (which includes isolating it from human observation) and still make a case that it is either intrinsically good or intrinsically evil. There needs to be a context and there needs to be a human to experience the situation before we can rightly call it good or evil. (I will not here get into the question of whether humans are the only conscious, aware entities in the Universe; humans are the only entities that we know of that can make the value judgements I am talking about.)

If an isolated star with no planets suddenly explodes, this would mean nothing: it would be neither good nor evil, but would be something that occurred naturally. However, if the star around which our planet exploded, this would be evil because it would destroy all known life. (I realize that we would no longer be here to call it evil, but that's not my point: the context is that for the sun to continue functioning as it has is good; for it change the way it functions would be a monumental evil.)

Here's a better one: If an asteroid roughly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined (in spherical diameter) plowed into the planet Jupiter, this would be neither good nor evil. At most, scientists would learn something from it, perhaps by measuring changes in Jupiter's orbit or perhaps changes may occur in Jupiter's rings. And we might see some pretty patterns in our telescopes. But if an asteroid that size dropped onto the Yucatan Peninsula, this would be evil for those species living here: we could expect over 95 percent of those species to go extinct within a few months to a few years. However, for those species who survived, this would be a good thing, because new resources are now free, and this is how evolution has been able to change species. It was just such an asteroid that probably caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, thus paving the way for mammals to dominate, and thereby leading, eventually, to the evolution of our own species. So, as terrible as my own inevitable death seems to me, right now, I must realize that only through death can species even evolve, so only through death -- and the very survival of premature death in every one of my ancestors -- could I even have existed.

On a personal level, the only good with which I have to do is in the choices I make. I make good decisions and I make bad decisions. To me, a good decision is not the choice that brings the most amount of overall good (hedonism) but choice that brings about the least amount of evil; that is, pain, suffering, and premature death.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:55 PM

I would define evil -- for the purposes of discussing it philosophically -- as involving suffering and premature death. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but without a specific context, I am content to rest with that definition for the word evil.

The point I was trying to make about involving people is that I don't see any way to determine if something is evil outside of a context, a situation, and thus need to call it, at minimum, a human judgement or assessment. If there is more to it than that, I have yet to see it.
 

I don't know. I do know that I want to live, and I do have very strong reasons to think that this is my only crack at living. I do know that my little brother never got to have a life, because he died when he was a little boy. It pains me to think that this was his opportunity to live, and that he gets no other chance to exist.

I also know that I have lead a rather sickly life, and the health that I see others enjoy is not something that I've been able to enjoy. Lately, over the past several years, I have been in a lot of pain, and this makes living my life even more complicated than it already would be. At times, I cannot function due to the pain, and on occasion, I feel willing to die just to be over the pain. Only the fact that I know what causes the pain and that it will never last more than a few hours gives me the courage to keep going. I don't know how I would react if I knew that pain that bad would be chronic, and would thus be a condition for remaining alive. I do know that I wouldn't wish this on anybody, no matter what they'd done to me or anybody else, and I do know that if any of my cats suffered the way I do that I would take them down without giving it a second thought.

Thus, I want to make the most of my life while I'm here. In a similar sense, I don't want to be the cause of any suffering on the part of others, because I realize that this is (probably) their only opportunity to exist. As to the mechanics of why I feel that way, I cannot really say; I only know that I have spent half a lifetime (40-plus years) thinking about it, and this is where that quest has taken me at this point in my life. I will say that this outlook has been with me for most of my life, but I do continually test my outlook to see if there is any way I could be mistaken. This outlook, which I have summarized for you, is the outlook that has continued to pass all the scrutiny that I have been able to muster. In other words, although this is what my Mother and my Grandmother taught me, I no longer feel this way because that's what they taught me: I feel this way because it is, as far as I've been able to tell, the best semblance of truth that I have been able to muster for myself.

As for a how a society functions, that is best determined by the people who live in that society -- not by the people who used to live in that society but are now long dead. I think that groups function best when the members of that group have a say in what the rules are, and have redress against any abuses that the leaders my perpetrate. If we have a greater number of people involved in the decision-making process, we are more likely to make acceptable decisions in the first place, because we are more likely to come up with good ideas and to weed out bad ones. Also, it is easier for me to accept a decision if I had ample opportunity to express my views and provide input for the decision making process. If I still disagree, I can always rest on the hope that the decision may someday be overturned. (Portions derived from a speech I gave in St. Helen's, Oregon, in October, 1991.)

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:44 AM

Again, I do not see anything as having evil as an intrinsic quality: thus, it depends upon the context and the humans involved. Some things are universally shunned by all humans as evil -- such as murder (this is even recognized by those who commit murder). Even thieves try to protect what they steal from theft.
 

I would need an example -- a real-life example. I cannot address a question this vague.
 

I cannot answer your questions as worded, because they seem to presuppose conditions that I do not recognize as valid -- they seem to miss the point of my position entirely. If I said yes or no to either of these questions, as they read here, I would not be giving you an accurate picture of what I see.

Meanwhile, how can evil be anything but relative to a human context? If it exists on the moon of a lone planet orbiting an unremarkable star at the far reaches of a remote galaxy, where any living entity would need a very powerful telescope just to detect the existence of the galaxy, then how can it be evil?

However, I am not saying that because someone says it's evil that it is therefore evil. I am not going that far. I am also not saying that it is always relative, at all times and in each instance, to each individual: all humans have remarkable similarities and, in given situations with similar backgrounds, would respond similarly.

I think the biggest differences among humans depends upon which culture we were brought up in: polygamy is abhorrent to many modern Western Christians, but was accepted by many early Christians and is still practiced by Christian converts in some aboriginal tribes (according to a friend who is a Christian missionary). It is accepted in some segments of Islam, and was once commanded in Mormonism -- at least until the United States Government decided that it was the government's role to proscribe to consenting adults what is and what is not acceptable behavior in the privacy of their own bedrooms. So, to make the modern Western Christians happy, to give them a bone, so to speak, the United States government made it illegal to have more than one spouse at the same time. We are allowed to have as many spouses as we want, through a succession of marriages and divorces, what the late novelist Anthony Burgess called "serial polygamy," but Americans are forbidden by their government to be anything but the modern Western Christian concept of a family unit and still reap the benefits enjoyed by modern Western Christian families.

So, to say that evil has a human context is not to say that each individual always and without exception assesses what is evil, or that evil is always and without exception the assessment of a single individual.
 

I don't know. It was here when I got here. I don't think about it much, except when being asked about what I think about it, or when describing the acts of various groups such as the Christian governments of mediaeval times or the Islamic governments of today.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:23 PM

I tried to explain that we tend to come hard-wired, biologically, with a will to survive. This makes sense, since this is our only crack at even existing. I think it goes much further than this, down to the genetic level, but I don't need to do any more than mention that aspect. Thus, it would make sense to me that to thwart someone's chances for survival would be considered an evil by that person (for lack of a better term). The key here, I think, is that the individuals involved consider that an evil (for lack of a better term). Since empathy also comes with being human, we consider it an evil for others to die (for lack of a better term). Also, if we like people and need for certain people to be around, and if for them to die brings about great pain and sorrow, then for them to die would be considered an evil (for lack of a better term). I don't know much more than that, because I don't understand what you want.

I think the problem may be that you are the one using the word evil and asking for a definition for that word. I prefer simply to describe what I'm talking about rather than to give it a name like "evil." To me, the word evil conjures up various meanings for various people, ideas which I would just as soon not bring in to a conversation because they are not views that I hold to be valid. For example, I don't recognize any malevolent entity, force, or property in the universe, but the word evil means just that to many people. So, I would rather describe, specifically, the aspect or instance or case that we are talking about, rather than to apply a potentially confusing term like evil to it. I occasionally use the word evil as shorthand, but I try to make sure, by the context and by my arrangement of the words, that the meaning I intend is clearly conveyed, that it would be very hard to misunderstand what I am trying to say.

Another quirk of mine is what the philosophers call a "negative" approach. When I say something, I will place great limitations on what I say: I am going thus far and I do not mean any more than what I have said. In this case, I do know that the vast majority of people want to live and to continue living, and thus will do almost anything to live even for another year if they can, and will go to great lengths to prevent premature death. This is true even for religious people who believe that death brings them to a much better existence than can be had in this life.

All I'm saying here is that if you asked me for an example of what the word evil means, this is one example I would bring up. But, I would readily admit two things: first, I don't use the word much, unless asked; secondly, I don't really know what the word means because it comes primarily from the language base of a philosophy that I don't hold: religion. So, when a religious person uses the word evil, chances are she or he is thinking of concepts that I don't even recognize as true or valid.

That is why I don't like that word (and many other words): I must spend way too much time making sure that what I say is understood to be what I say, and that nobody reads into my words anything other than what I meant by them. By avoiding the terminology and the buzz words, I can have an easier crack at accomplishing this goal, but this is not always possible, because people will take what I say and translate my words into something they can understand, and then will react to their own understanding of what I said rather than what I actually said. This is most disconcerting when I wasn't even talking to that person in the first place, but was talking to someone else. This happens both in the social context and in philosophical discussions.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:41 PM

I am not convinced that animals do not have concepts similar to what some of us would call "right" and "wrong." The dog growls when another dog seeks to take his bone, and the other dog knows that if he wants to accomplish this deed, he must take certain precautions: he will not get away with simply waltzing up and taking the bone, and he knows it. How does this differ from what you are talking about?

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:33 PM

You are the one using the terminology "right and wrong," not I. I don't even think along those lines, but rather examine various situations in their own context. Generalizing about "right and wrong" or "good and evil" may be fine for someone who has not given these things much thought, but I have come to the point where I can no longer speak in such general terms and still consider myself honest.

Anything I might say about such general things would have an exception, and then my philosophical opponents could easily use these exceptions to paint my entire philosophy with a broad brush. It has happened many times on this forum, and I have learned to be very careful, because some people out there write to me and ask me questions that are designed to trip me up or otherwise catch me unawares, thereby giving them ammunition to further misrepresent atheism and thus justify the continued degradation of atheist. For these reasons, I must be very careful, but the most important reason is that I do not generalize like your question expects me to; I do not think in such broad sweeps.

If you could give me some specific examples of what you mean when you ask about "right and wrong," and then ask me some specific questions about those examples, then I could perhaps I could more easily let you know what I think.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:48 AM

This is something specific I can talk about.

Yes, it would be wrong. Though I would no longer be here to see it as wrong, you would have taken my life away from me, prematurely and unnaturally. You also would have done considerable harm to yourself (prison or execution, to say the least) and to many others -- both those who know me and those who know you (and even people who knew neither of us but who read about it in the paper). Were you a political activist or a member of a group that opposes the rights or dignity of atheists, you would have most certainly harmed that cause by making me a martyr. Shall I continue?

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 7:53 PM

Think that if you must. I attach a lot more dignity to the human species than that, and stand in awe of the evolutionary process -- particularly those aspects of the process which led to the human species.
 

And humans cage cattle to produce veal. Is that wrong? Is it necessary? We de-beak chickens and a whole number of things that a vegan would call "criminal."

That's the way it is. If you want to stop sharks from eating seals, you'd need to eliminate the sharks. Do you know anybody who would suggest that? The closest we've come to eliminating a species is at the microbial and viral level, and those were species which were directly threatening our species or indirectly threatening us through attacking our food supply.

Is it wrong? I don't like to say "No" but this is what life is, and I don't see how life could possibly have developed any other way. If I were an omnipotent, omniscient Creator, with supernatural powers at my disposal, able to speak things into existence or able to "adjust" or "fine tune" the laws of physics, I would have done it quite differently. So, from a creationist standpoint, I see a great wrong, a monumental evil. But I am no longer a creationist, I am an evolutionist. I still don't necessarily like what I see, but I realize that this is part of the process that led directly to my opportunity to exist for a few moments. For those few moments, I am humbly grateful, and over this whole prospect I am completely floored in awe.
 

The whole thing is both natural and unnatural at the same time. What's unnatural about it is life's invasion of the environment. Life is why we have oxygen in our atmosphere, for example: it wouldn't be here were it not for the living organisms which produced it over the course of billions of years. So in a sense, an oxygenated atmosphere is unnatural -- but it is natural because the living organisms developed naturally.

Thinking about these things is no easy deal, and I understand why so many people let religious and political leaders do their thinking for them.
 

"Survival of the fittest" is an oversimplification of the natural selection process. Humans are a classic exception, wherein nurturing and educating our young and developing societies is the way that has, until the development of the city-state, increased our chances to survive long enough to procreate (99 percent of our history). After the emergence of the city-state (one percent of our existence), the tendency toward credulity, the ability to go along with the State Religion (whichever religion that is in whatever region we live), is the single most prominent guarantor of survival (apart from the absence of debilitating genetic defects, of course).

So now that we know that religion is not necessary to keep the populace in line, the populace, having been unnaturally selected toward credulity, tends to go along with the prevailing religion anyway (or, more recently, since the advent of religious Liberty, to go along with whatever religion suits their fancy). But humans do have a tendency toward credulity which the Freethinkers, the minority, find quite baffling, considering the shallowness that we see in all religious systems and the dishonesty that we see at the root of their propagation.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:21:37 -0000

We are all animals. We're certainly not plants!

I am a human, and thus it is perfectly natural for me to have an affinity for my fellow-members of the species. Besides, evolution provided me with the ability to think abstractly, which includes categorizing. I even categorize among humans, and so do you.

How do you think humans differ from the other animals? And why is this question so important to you?
 

If you think you can kill whoever you want, then I'd hate to be around should you go ahead and try it and experience for yourself what happens to people who kill other people. Johnny Cash sings "Folsom Prison Blues," which talks of the things that happen on the outside of a human killer's mind, if you will, and he sings "Delia," which talks of what happens on the inside. I don't know what it's like because I have never even thought about killing someone.

I told you what I think about murder. You are grasping at straws by continuing to ask me to answer a question that I already answered to the best of my ability.

You are the one using the word wrong here. The best you can hope for from me is to take what I've said, and try to force it to mean something that I haven't said, in order for it to conform to a question that presupposes something that I don't even acknowledge. When you ask loaded questions, don't expect to always get the answers you want: some of us are unwilling to fall into these subtle traps.
 

This is a complete misrepresentation of what the Theory of Evolution teaches. Please find for me a living evolutionist who thinks this is what evolution is. The only people who say that this is evolution are those who deliberately misrepresent evolution for the purpose of trying to convince people that theirs is a philosophy of truthfulness.

Besides, how would killing members of your gene pool make it dominant?

On a broader note, how would potentially upsetting the balance of nature guarantee your dominance? Someone would come out on top, to be sure, by the very nature of the top, but whose to say it would be you?
   

I never equated abstract moral ideals with dignity. I see dignity as something completely different. Please stop putting words into my mouth, and address what I've actually said if you address anything. I am growing tired of this behavior on your part, as well as your tendency to change the subject whenever I've managed to back you into a corner.

The human quality of nurturing has long been recognized as a product of natural selection. The human tendency toward credulity (the readiness to believe religious claims simply because those claims have been made, and not because they have any weight to them) is now seen by many as having been naturally selected into the species (or, rather, unnaturally selected) , because the State religions systematically executed any who showed the slightest rebellion against the dominant religion (the skeptics, the atheists, the other-religionists, etc.), and confiscated their estates and sold their children into servitude or banished them to die in the wilderness. The Christians would simply tie our entire families to poles and light us on fire in a public display of power; non-Christians thoroughly enjoyed the "sport" of making us to sit upon a sharpened pole. No wonder people are still to this day afraid to admit they're atheists! The race is slow to forget such crimes.

Thus, the skeptics, those who thought for themselves and refused to believe the claims of the State-sponsored priests, never had much of a chance to procreate and pass those traits on to their offspring. This is why, in this day of science, so many people are so willing to believe any flim-flam artist who comes along and bends spoons or whatever and claims to have supernatural powers. This is why, in this day of the global community, people still tend to form packs and herds based around some totem, such as an ideology.

I don't see dignity as a trait that's very widespread in the human species. Rather, I see a tendency toward tribalism (a false dignity; a contrived dignity).
 

Society's laws dictate some of the consequences that one can expect for murdering someone. Those laws came either by fiat of a ruler or ruling party that overthrew the previous government or by the consent of the governed.

I already told you what I think about murder. (Again: you're the one who keeps using the word wrong.)
 

I already told you what I think about murder. (Again: you're the one who keeps using the word wrong.)
 

This whole e-mail exchange is about you trying to get me to say something that I don't believe, and when I refuse to use the language that you want me to use (so that you can trip me up? what!?), you then start placing words into my mouth.

Why do you seem so desperate for me to make certain statements?

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:50:07 -0000

For you to sit there and try to lay traps like this serves only to discredit the position you seek to defend.
 

What "30 e-mails"? I see that you cannot listen: can you not count, either?
 

Please quote me dodging the question. You ask a question that uses terminology that I do not use, and incorporates a presupposition that I recognize as outdated. When you rephrase the question using terminology and concepts that I do accept, we seem to get along fine (except that it now becomes more difficult for you to place words into my mouth -- oh well!).

I told you what I think about murder. I told you that I don't use the terms "right and wrong" or "good and evil" except as shorthand; I don't like using either term because it is very easy for someone to take what I've said and twist it into something that I have not said at all (as you have done with my words many times). This done, it is a simple matter to use the "Straw Man" ploy to discredit me and to discredit my position, to the end that the bigotry and discrimination that atheists endure is aggravated, not abated.
 

This is a loaded question, asking me to justify an outdated idea that has been shown to be erroneous. Your presupposition hearkens specifically from a religious dogma: only religious dogmatists refuse to admit that this idea is erroneous.

While I can understand a religious person ignoring science for the sake of preventing one's faith from crumbling, I do not have this problem and am ready, willing, and able to ac cept recent findings in science. Since I accept Liberal Scientific Method as the best way for acquiring knowledge that we have yet devised, and because, as a result, I submit to the findings of Liberal Scientific Method, I have no problems with following truth wherever it may lead, and allowing new facts to alter my understanding of the world around me.

The "idea of right and wrong" being something that humans have but animals don't is not something I know anything about, because it is a religious dogma, not a fact. I live and breathe in the realm of facts, not religious dogma; I interview scientists, not swamis. The only difference that I see between humans and other species is in the degree of abstraction, the basic fundamentals appear to be intact in at least some other species. May I refer you to the work of Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal for starters. Professor de Wall says:

I've argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. Dogs are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that's why we like them so much, even though they're large carnivores.
-- Frans de Waal, from Natalie Angier, "The Bush Years: Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," New York Times Magazine (January 14, 2001)

Robert T. Pennock says of Jane Goodall:

Jane Goodall was the first person to observe tool-making behavior among nonhuman animals, thereby shattering the myth that it was a defining ability of human beings alone. When she reported the news to her mentor, Louis Leakey, he noted wryly that humans would now either have to change the definition of "tool" or "man," or else accept chimpanzees into the human race.
-- Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (1999) chapter 2

If you wish to ask me what I think about those facts, I'd be glad to discuss them with you (although I do, at this point, question your motives). If you'd like me to speculate on how humans developed the abstraction of good and evil, and why some humans stubbornly refuse to admit that science has shown this to be a trait not unique to humans, I'd be glad to speculate on these matters. But I'd do this only within the context of current scientific findings.

But I cannot explain why Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, because no Humpty Dumpty ever fell off any wall. Similarly, I refuse to try to explain why some myth or dogma is fact.

Similarly, I refuse to try to explain the "occurrence" of something that is allegedly (but not actually) unique to humans.

It is clear to me (and to several who have already commented on this dialogue) that you seek to trick or badger me into "acknowledging" that outdated information is still current -- and I refuse to fall into your trap.

There is way too much at stake, and I refuse to give you legitimate ammunition to continue long-standing tradition of unfairly and unjustly and untruthfully discrediting the atheistic position.

If you are able to recast your question so that it make no erroneous presuppositions, I would be glad to take it on. If you cannot recast your question to eliminate the outdated presuppositions, I would suggest that you either update your understanding of the world around you or join a cloistered order.

But for you to sit there and try to lay traps like this serves only to discredit the position you seek to defend.

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine"
To: "Boston, Mike"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:07 PM

If by "truth" you mean the presuppositions unique to the Christian religion, I simply have yet to find a compelling reason to believe the claims of the Christian religion. In addition, I have caught many spokespersons for Christianity -- yourself included -- speaking falsehood for the purpose of trying to convince me that the Christian religion is the truth. This forces me to be extra careful with my words, because I can fully expect certain Christian antagonists to twist my words out of context and force them to mean something that I never intended to say, thus placing word in my mouth. You have done this very thing to me before.

To change the situation ought to be a simple matter: simply show that you were, in fact, speaking the truth by demonstrating that my arguments are not valid and by demonstrating that what you tell me is worthy of my assent. In this particular situation, you need simply recast your question in language which we both understand: do not use language that is unique to the Christian system of mythology and expect me to engage in a discussion that makes it appear that I take these myth-based concepts as more than shorthand or metaphor.

Meanwhile, what you have done is try to trap me into saying something that you would find easy to refute. My position is this: I try not to say things that are easily misunderstood. In doing this, I say only what I have strong reason to think is true, and I go no further. This includes my reluctance to engage in serious discussion of the uniquely Christian concepts of good and evil. Since I know that these issues are not as simple as the Christians make them out to be, I will discuss what I do know and refrain from making statements that I do not know to be true, or from appearing to say things that are easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. I will gladly discuss specific behavior, such as murder and such as a Christian lying for the purpose of convincing others that the Christian religion is one of truthfulness, but I will not engage with you in a on the dualistic abstraction of good and evil incorporated in the Christian mythology, when that discussion asks me to take this abstraction seriously, because to do so would be to suggest that the Christian notion of good and evil is realistic.

Mikey Boston has a firmly established history of deliberately twisting and misrepresenting simple statements made by myself and others. Mikey Boston is known have done this for the express purpose of trying to discredit us and our positions, in an effort to try to portray his version of the Christian religion as a position of truthfulness. Thus, special caution is in order when holding any discussion with Mikey Boston.

Fool me once: shame on you; fool me twice: shame on me!

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995–2010 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 Positive Atheism 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.