The Keane Edge by Brendan Patrick Keane
Atheism site slanders me for my analysis of Christopher Hitchens' stance on God
Posted on Friday, August 13, 2010 at 04:35 PM
- 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
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.