41 Comments

• NoKnownGods | Aug 25, 2010, 07:43 AM EDT

  I would say you are stupid. You clearly do not have the gigabytes required to talk about atheism. Just because an atheist says he can not prove their is no god, does not through him into the agnostic category. I do not think any Gods known to man exist. Nor do I think any entity will be discovered with qualities of God. That would be childish. Is there an entity with some God like qualities? That I would be agnostic for. Even there, while it is possible one exists. I find it so unlikely, it might as well be not possible. If you or any other believing melon-head has proof one exists. Please submit it. Because as you know, the proof always rests with the person trying to assert there is something. Saying we do not have enough proof or evidence for the origin of the universe. Does not infer there is a God. It infers exactly what we said. He has stated there is no god. Not maybe there is no god. Not knowing if his statement is true, or not knowing if there actually is a being with God like qualities. Does not make him an agnostic. He is an atheist for all known Gods of man. Ask him ya melon-head. :D Cheers

• 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.

• 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."

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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".

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 12:23 PM EDT

  Tautology: All who follow philosophical questioning, atheists and theists alike, arrive at a similar "proposition" which is really more like a problem no one escapes or surmounts. Theists have not invented the problem of origin. They have merely personified (in some cases) the suspected resolution. Atheists confront the problem of origin also. Theists replace the question mark of origin with a personification. Atheists replace the question mark of origin with nothingness. Neither replacement is satisfying, in that both proposed solutions to the universal problem are merely suspicions.

• MavisPike | Aug 15, 2010, 12:02 PM EDT

  I meant "libel rather than slander" Duh!

• 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".

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 11:33 PM EDT

  Brendan, Yes atheism is the belief there is no god. All beliefs may be true and may be false. They are not certainties or even claimed to be so. It is very controversial among nonbelievers. X is not Y, does not say what X is. Those who say atheism is a lack of belief in god are saying it does say what X is. It is true that atheists are not believers in god, true about what atheists are not, not true about what atheists are. The logical error of those (Cline & Co.) saying atheism is a lack of belief is that they are saying "are" = "are not". What atheists are not, is what atheists are. You are debating a moron.

• Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 11:30 PM EDT

  dxfdeimos, I am an atheist. That means I believe there is no god. It does not mean I lack belief in a god. It is true I lack belief in a god, true about what I am not, not true about what I am. Lacking belief is not something that exists. If you do not believe there is no god then you are not an atheist. Cline doesn't know what atheism is and calls it by something that does not exist.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:39 PM EDT

  A truly sensational title is Hitchens own God is Not Great. My headline merely repeated his title and clarified the record on the matter of Hitchens' certainty.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:35 PM EDT

  dfxdeimos: As well you may interpret the original Greek to mean as you have defined, I take atheism to mean what it means in the English language, which is the rejection of or explicit disblief in the existence of God. It is very easy to insult someone anonymously.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:30 PM EDT

  If my headline was sensational it was because I quoted the title of Hitchens' sensationally entitled book "God is not Great." Please spare me the piety on behalf of someone who would have none of it.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:29 PM EDT

  In our common vocabulary atheism means the belief that there is no god. I understand that some who have made something like a religion of atheism must do away with its inherent logical fallacies by pretending atheism means something like "maybe God." Hitchens is not a true atheist in the narrowest sense because he logically brought to uncertainty. It's not that controversial.

• Tautologous | Aug 13, 2010, 08:41 PM EDT

  Atheism is by logical necessity the belief there is no god. A lack of belief in god is not anything, no such thing exists. "No belief in god" is not anything at all, so it isn't atheism. Logical buffoons say atheism is, what does not exist. Ironic too.

• MCVotaw | Aug 13, 2010, 07:46 PM EDT

  You are mistaken that a-theism = no-god; it means no god BELIEFS. As in, we don't believe in any gods, not that we believe there are no gods. Furthermore, calling you mistaken is hardly slander, unless you're perfect, e.g., god, yourself, which, um, you're not.

• .aerie. | Aug 13, 2010, 06:39 PM EDT

  Mr. Cline is correct. The title alone was cheap sensationalism at best, cruel at worst. Hitch spoke of his fear of a "deathbed confession" fake. You reduced it to egoism when you dismissed it his "over-arching political concern". Hitch has plenty of cause to worry, even before his "deathbed" is cold. Your motives were transparent in your article. It seems as if you were setting a stage, Mr. Keane. Perhaps a death scene?

• dfxdeimos | Aug 13, 2010, 06:24 PM EDT

  Mr. Patrick, the ineptitude that you demonstrate on this issue is astounding. Firstly, let us talk about the word atheism. Theism is defined as the belief in God or gods. The prefix "a" means without. Therefore atheism is a lack of belief in god, or being without belief in God or gods. It does not now (nor has it ever) been a statement that god does not exist. To further cement the point, think about the difference between the words moral, amoral, and immoral. Secondly, agnosticism is NOT a belief system. Agnosticism (or gnosticism) is simply a statement about the truthfulness of a proposition (or the lack thereof). On cannot just be agnostic, there must be an actual belief system to go along with it. Most people would fall into one of four categories: (1) Atheist Agnostic - Lacking an explicit belief in God or gods, not sure if the truthfulness of God or gods or the lack thereof can ever be proven one way or another. (2) Atheist Gnostic - Lacking an explicit belief in God or gods, sure that the truthfulness of God or gods or the lack thereof can be (or has been) proven. (3) Theist Agnostic - Having an explicit belief in God or gods, not sure if the truthfulness of God or gods or the lack thereof can ever be proven one way or another. (4) Theist Gnostic - Having an explicit belief in God or gods, sure that the truthfulness of God or gods or the lack thereof can be (or has been) proven. If you do not have an EXPLICIT belief in God or gods, you are an atheist. You may wish to redefine the word atheist to mean something different, but fortunately your desire to do so is not at all relevant to the reality of the situation or actual meaning of the word. Please stop embarrassing yourself by talking about things that you clearly have no knowledge of.

• datavortex | Aug 13, 2010, 04:39 PM EDT

  He's right and you're lying. End of story.