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
MavisPike | Aug 15, 2010, 12:02 PM EDT
I meant "libel rather than slander" Duh!
Report abuse
Tautologous | Aug 15, 2010, 10:50 AM EDT
LijDavid,
Not X, no matter what X is, does not exist. There is no such thing. We prove certain gods so not exist by showing them as the subject of a logical contradiction, or the subject of P (for proposition in P and not P at the same time. eg: the ball that is on the table and is not on the table at the same time, cannot exist. The gods we can show do not exist include christianities and islams proposed gods. In the bible god never repents AND repents. Impossible. In the koran allah can do anything and also cannot have a son. Impossible again. Those gods can be rejected without atheism (the belief there is no god), since they are proven impossible.
What you call atheism, does not exist. There is no such thing as "not believing". Not X, no matter what X is, does not exist and is not a thing. If it was, then when I say 2 is not 1 and think that is what 2 is, and I say 3 is not 1 too, then if that is what 3 and 2 are then 3=2. Rethink the word "not".
Report abuse
Tautologous | Aug 15, 2010, 10:44 AM EDT
"How do you as an atheist resolve the issue of prime mover and ultimate causality? Aren't you being declarative and decisive on that unresolvable problem by stating there is no first cause?"
There can be no first cause, since a first cause requires what is impossible to do. Time does not exist before time exists. To start time would require an event takes place at a time when there was no time. Therefore the universe always existed. We can prove "creator" gods do not exist, not all proposed gods are shown to be contradictory and thus impossible, but a creator god is.
Report abuse
MavisPike | Aug 15, 2010, 07:16 AM EDT
Oh and can I just add that, if any civil offense has been committed, it is slander rather than libel. If the statement had appeared in the comments section then he might get away with libel, but defamatory statements in the main body of a piece are, these days, usually regarded as libel.
Report abuse
LijDavid | Aug 15, 2010, 04:57 AM EDT
To express absolute certainty about a negative statement (nonexistance) is rather foolish reasoning. That is why Hitchens said he could not rule out a 'prime mover.' My guess is that Hitchens would include other various naturalistic ideas as 'prime mover' for our universe, such as a 5 diminensional superverse perhaps based on an ekpyrotic model. Thus one need not identify a 'prime mover' with a god or gods.
As to the definition of atheism/atheist I have always first considered the definition of theism, and that is not 'yes god,' but "having a belief in a god or gods." Thus atheism simply adds the word 'not' out front - "not having a belief in a god or gods." This fits with my experience concerning my own journey into atheism in that early on I simply lost my belief in a god. Further on I came a more positive statement to a reasoned conclusion from various facts that there are no gods (yet full well knowing one can neither prove there is or is not a god or gods). The difference in the two stances is what separates weak atheists from strong atheists.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 12:16 AM EDT
I have no control over comments. No one filters them. Sometimes they don't appear, but keep trying, sometimes you just need to refresh the browser.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 10:32 PM EDT
I'm not responsible for the comments posted. It's a common glitch that a comment will not appear until the browser is refreshed, and sometimes, never appear, but most times (I can only hope) appear.
Report abuse
MissSxxiii | Aug 14, 2010, 06:55 PM EDT
You arrogantly went up against atheists and Austin Cline and lost. I think it's time to be a gentleman, admit your mistakes and apologize. You owe it to the world.
Theism: The belief in the existence of a god or gods.
A-theism: The LACK of belief in the existence of a god or gods. (e.g. babies)
Also, please learn the difference between "dis-belief" and "denial." Denial requires disbelief but disbelief doesn't require denial. I guess just go ahead and study all your prefixes, just to be safe.
Video Define Atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OozkaHxMvFA
Report abuse
BillKilpatrick | Aug 14, 2010, 05:25 PM EDT
You still haven't posted my comments. I'm beginning to think you don't intend to. How sad for you.
Report abuse
dfxdeimos | Aug 14, 2010, 03:34 PM EDT
BrendanPKeane,
It is very easy to insult someone anonymously. If you wish for me to do it to your face then you would have to come to the west coast of the United States, as I have no intentions of coming to Ireland anytime soon.
dfxdeimos@gmail.com
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 03:29 PM EDT
RichWilson: atheism is the belief that God (prime mover) does not exist. Atheism is unsatisfying because of the problem of causality, where a prime mover cannot be overcome by reason, due to the limitations of human understanding. If you have another definition, feel free to share it.
Report abuse
RichWilson | Aug 14, 2010, 12:30 PM EDT
Based on YOUR definition of atheism, I have never heard of any atheists. Never. Rather than claiming that someone else who is a self-described atheist is really an agnostic, why don't you write an article about what YOU think atheism and agnosticism mean?
It is insulting to tell someone what they 'really' are. You HAVE read 'The God Delusion' right? The seven point scale? That none of us are 7.0 doesn't mean we aren't atheists. We just understand that you can't rule out us living a dream in a Matrix, waiting for a Red pill.
Report abuse
jacersisityourself | Aug 14, 2010, 11:08 AM EDT
I think Brendan isn’t on top of his topic, which is why I refrained from comment under his Hitchins article or this until now. I’m happy to fall into Category 4 as defined by dfxddeimos Aug 16 06.24pm. The proof of God (or ‘prime mover’ for Hitchins) has manifested itself for centuries through thousands of Miracles. Lourdes in France is known for many miracles but did you know that the majority of them occurred during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, far more than happened in the miraculous waters of Lourdes?- proof that God’s power exists in the Sacred Host. Atheists need to get real, there is a God and there is no need for atheist sites like Cline’s.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 09:38 AM EDT
Tautologous: How do you as an atheist resolve the issue of prime mover and ultimate causality? Aren't you being declarative and decisive on that unresolvable problem by stating there is no first cause? Isn't the choice between atheist, theist and the rest of us (like Hitchens) who just don't know.
Report abuse
41 Comments
Report abuse