Atheism site slanders me for my analysis of Christopher Hitchens' stance on God
Posted on Friday, August 13, 2010 at 04:35 PM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Exorcism of my inner Peter King
- Gas question: why give Ireland's enormous wealth away? the Norweigan alternative
- Bashing the Irish -- a break neck run down on Ireland's history of betrayal
- Stephen Fry to appear on Gaelic soap opera Ros na Rún
- Stolkholm Syndrome infects Dublin
Archives

In a piece I wrote called, Christopher Hitchens, "God is not Great" author, is not really an atheist, I state just that--Hitchens is not an atheist.
I defend my analysis from the starting point that atheism means "no god."
In a slanderous attack on my motivations, a priest of atheism named Austin Cline accused me in a headline of "misleading," and "fibbing." One can read his unsatisfying ad hominem attackhere.
In order to justify his libelous falsehood about my motivations, Cline must prove that I am incorrect:
a) in defining atheism as the belief that there is "no god"
b) in calling Christopher Hitchen an atheist.
In the video one can hear Christopher Hitchens assert that he cannot rule out a "prime mover." God is common parlance for the more philosophical term "prime mover." By Hitchens own explicit comments, he is not certain about the issue of a prime mover.
Cline is confusing skepticism with atheism.
Cline is attracted to the sensational, as his unsubstantiated personal attack in a headline on my character demonstrates. He is attracted to the aesthetic of atheism, and is not willing to give up his personal powerful association with the term.
But atheism as an assertion--"no god"--is not defensible according to uncertainty principle which belies our absolute inability to both observe and report back on this issue of the prime mover.
Therefore, Cline has pulled a fast one, and is conducting a smear campaign against me, based not on a philosophical argument, but on a semantical one.
The only way Cline can defend his insulting comments towards me, as one "dispassionate about the truth," for example, is if he can somehow do two things:
1) redefine atheism to mean "no god and maybe god." (skepticism)
2) redefine atheism so that it is now the same word as agnosticism.
This is semantics, and is not the basis of an intelligent debate. If atheism cannot mean "no god" then the English language has no word for this very old concept. Nonsense. Skepticism is not the same thing as atheism.
Cline says nothing except to accuse me of "errors," and "lies" and all kinds of unsavory things.
His irresponsibility is emotional, unreasoned (he says nothing! except that I am dishonest) and a testimony to the illogical religious-like faith a professional atheist like Cline must employ to defend his inverted religion against more reasoned criticism.
Cline's religion is his disregard for the uncertainty principle, which leaves us--Hitchens included--unable to make conclusions, such as atheism or theism, about the ineffable and unknowable.
41 comments
Next
Page 1 of 3 pages
plasticpaddy | Aug 17, 2010, 06:18 PM EDT
who cares! labelling yourself an athiest is just the same as organised religion. Believe what you want and keep it to yourself and your home/place of worship, then all is fine. I don't care if you believe you created the universe, I just don't need to hear it.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 17, 2010, 11:35 AM EDT
elektros: atheism is belief that something just as absurd as "god" began the universe, namely "nothing." Atheism and theism answer the question of origin with non-reasonable assumptions which are summarized in the incomprehensible concepts of "nothing" and "God."
Report abuse
elektros | Aug 17, 2010, 02:10 AM EDT
I'm an atheist, but I can't prove there's no god, and I don't think that makes me an agnostic. No more so than religious people who can't prove their god does exist are agnostics. I expect they'd take issue at being called agnostics too.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 16, 2010, 12:40 PM EDT
Tautologous: Would you explain how "some atheists believe a god created the universe?" Our understanding of time is limited to the history of the material universe. Resolving "what is pre-time?" is archaeological. The philosophical statement that pre-time is impossible because "time must exist to have a cause to start time" is very interesting, but just another one of those "it's turtles all the way down" comments. The conundrum you say proves time must have always been, is really just another one of those illogical concepts like "God" or "nothing" or "always." RichWilson: If I am wrong on Hitchens, then I'll write as such.
Report abuse
Tautologous | Aug 16, 2010, 10:12 AM EDT
Brendan,
"I would drag him into court just to make Cline clarify his false assertion that atheism denies belief, when in fact it denies God."
Then why do you call him an atheist? He doesn't even know what it is. Why call it an atheist site? If you can argue that Hitchens is not an atheist, why do you argue that Cline is? Obviously Cline has no idea what atheism even is, yet you call him an atheist?
Report abuse
Tautologous | Aug 16, 2010, 10:09 AM EDT
Brendan,
Wrong. Some atheists believe a god created the universe. Deists who maintain god no longer exists but once did and did create the universe do exist.
You do not overcome how time must exist to have a cause to start time. It is impossible and thus, with or without a god, time cannot begin. An eternal universe is the only reasoned explanation.
Tip: stop using "true atheist". True and false only ever apply to propositions and atheists are not propositions. It shows a failure with using logical terms. There is nothing that is true that is not a proposition. There is no such thing as a "true atheist" anymore than there is a "true theist".
Report abuse
RichWilson | Aug 15, 2010, 07:19 PM EDT
@MavisPike
IANAL but I believe you do have to show injury to make a claim (at least in the US):
Again going to Wikipedia:
Other defenses - No actual injury: If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse.
You know, this legal discussion of defamation laws is a lot more interesting that Patrick's very unsatisfying re-definition of the popular understanding of 'atheism'. Of course the big question is, can Hitchens sue Keane for defamation?
Then we'd get to hear a court decide on the truth of the statement "Hitchens is not an atheist". Despite Keane's assertions, I think the statement would be found to be false. Not that anyone would care.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 04:26 PM EDT
MavisPike: thanks for the legal advice. I would drag him into court just to make Cline clarify his false assertion that atheism denies belief, when in fact it denies God. He wrongly defines it as the absense of belief, when atheism is belief. Atheism believes that "nothing" is the ultimate cause. Theism believes "God" is the ultimate cause. Both "god" and "nothing" are absolutist concepts that defy reason. Cline is contradictions piled on mistakes.
Report abuse
MavisPike | Aug 15, 2010, 04:18 PM EDT
Well, Rich, it is true to say that, in this case, no great damages would be awarded. That does not mean a court would not consider the accusations libelous (or, if Brendan were less lucky, slanderous). I can see a judge sighing and awarding nominal damages of a few pounds then chastising Keane's brief for wasting he court's time.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 03:15 PM EDT
Samlehman: Hitchens is not a true atheist. The better label for Hitchens is skeptic and determined anti-clerical agnostic.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 03:13 PM EDT
RichWilson: True atheists are resolved (illogically, unknowingly) and function as though origin and ultimate causality is nihil, nothing. My point is that atheism replaces God with nihil. Both resolutions (beliefs) are illogical, unsubstantiated and impossible to defend reasonably. Therefore, "weak atheists" and "cultural Catholics" and other middle spectrum people (the uncertain) will purport, but not believe. Belief (a requirement of true atheism) is absolute. Hitchens is just anti-clerical, and another uncertain purporter like the rest of us.
Report abuse
samlehman | Aug 15, 2010, 01:22 PM EDT
OED:
atheism
n noun disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.
DERIVATIVES
atheist noun
atheistic adjective
atheistical adjective
ORIGIN
C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' theos 'god'.
Hitchens is an atheist, think about it.
Report abuse
RichWilson | Aug 15, 2010, 12:57 PM EDT
As to libel/slander, you also have to show damages. All Cline has done is provide some extra ad-views for your employer. Hardly damaging.
Report abuse
RichWilson | Aug 15, 2010, 12:56 PM EDT
@BrendanPKeane What you're describing is 'strong atheism' (see Wikipedia). "assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement." That's not Hitchens or any other reasoning atheist. Hitchens et al fit into the 'weak explicit' category. We don't believe in a prime mover, but understand that such a thing cannot be disproved. I'm fond of saying "I don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny either".
I can accept your definition as long as you understand that "belief" is not the same thing as "certainty". Hitchens doesn't believe in God. That makes him an atheist. Hitchens accepts that he could be wrong. That doesn't make him agnostic.
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 3 pages
41 Comments
Report abuse