Austin Cline is Playing Rhetorical Games

In the following article, Austin Cline talks about the idea of atheism being simple lack of belief in any gods.

He then relates this to the Christian / Theist claim that aggressive and militaristic atheists are actively attacking religion and Christianity because of their atheism.  This is a myth and is one more example of bad motives and wrongheaded thinking, etc...

Pish posh, he says, simple atheism is simply what it is and has no relationship to the more concentrated and unrelated acts of people who happen to be atheists.  If an atheist has a further belief that Christianity is bogus and actively attacks it, that bears no meaning related to the simple definition of atheism as simple non-belief.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismreligionideology/a/AtheismBelief.htm

In the article, Austin compares the flow of the argument to theism... and says that simply because someone is a theist, doesn't mean that they are also Christian... which is true.  He also mentions that theists come in varying and often contradictory flavors, so if theism doesn't necessarily mean a subsequent belief, then atheism follows the same logical rule and flow.

This is a classic example of the argument of the Straw Man.  A logical Straw Man is when someone proposes an argument that is weak, or flawed, or worse, that no one is actually making and then you proceed to tear down the non-existant argument highlighting a superior position.

Here are the two problems with this "myth."

1) The OED, which is The Oxford English Dictionary, is considered the academic resource and the principle authority on word definition.  It defines atheism primarily as active belief that there are no gods.

Now philosophers and scholars of all stripe will seek to define their terms in a specific way.  So it completely in bounds for someone like Austin to say something like, "when I say 'atheist' I mean, simple unbelief."

But he doesn't do this.  He refuses to acknowledge any other definition as valid and rails against anyone who knows the OED and who knows that many respected and authoritative sources simply do not agree with him as invalid, as ignorant, as unacceptable.

It isn't that he can't make a case for his definition... it is that the definition of the word is in dispute.  Austin doesn't get to define words on his own and use that as evidence that he is right and others are wrong.  Austin Cline is not the primary authority for word definitions.

He especially doesn't get to do this when the OED is the source of disagreement.

By refusing to acknowledge the legitimate dispute and ask for agreement in terms for the sake of argument, reduces the rhetoric to a ridiculous he said / she said and stops all productive discussion.

2) This isn't the problem Christians have with aggressive atheism.

What Austin does - and does regularly- is this: he will attack a Christian position... scripture, the pope, Christians in general, arguments for the existence of God, etc... and will be incredibly aggressive and unfair and will go to the extent of feeling jingoistic to the point of propaganda.

When someone calls him on his outlandish claims, he tries to reverse the conversation... calling any opponent a bigot, calling them stupid and uninformed, asking them to "prove" statements of theology and ignoring legitimate arguments while focusing on irrelevant details.

At some point the exchange will call out the New Atheist mode of operation, which aggressively seeks to deny any truth that is not scientific truth.  When someone points out that this has problems, the defensive mode will turn to the idea that atheism is making no claims at all, it is simple unbelief.

The problem Christians have with Austin's brand of atheism is that it is logically flawed, it is incoherent, it is aggressive and prejudiced against any thinking that disagrees and become cultish in anything that strengthens the "party line" while attacking anything that may disagree, even if the disagreement has a legitimate point.

Do you see the problem?

Austin is using atheism (and his site is the "atheist" section of About.com) as a platform for launching libelous and slanderous attacks of religous people of every sort... for forwarding his agenda of scientism and New Atheist thinking.

At the same time, he retreats to the rhetorical position of nothingness, claiming that atheism is simple unbelief and nothing more. In case after case, he makes the definition the argument... instead of dealing with the quite real problem at hand.

It is quite a magic trick.  Using atheism as a cudgel - then claiming it doesn't actually exist when someone asks him to stop smacking people with it unfairly.

Austin, in this article, says, "Some atheists do actively believe that no gods, or at least common conceptions of the Christian god, exist. Some atheists actively criticize theistic arguments, theistic beliefs, and theistic religions. These atheists and others do indeed act on the basis of what they believe, but what they believe goes beyond mere atheism — just as theists act on beliefs which go beyond mere theism. Atheism is only the absence of belief in gods, regardless of whatever other beliefs individual atheists act on beyond this."

Fine.  Own up to that.  You criticize theistic arguments, beliefs and religions. What you believe goes beyond mere atheism.  This is what people mean when they say that "atheists are rude and mean spirited."

It is a rhetorical shell game to use your atheism as a platform for a philosophical and political agenda and at the same time claim your position is unassailable because there are no claims at all... I am just advocating simple unbelief and you're too stupid to get that.

You can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest.

Is the Pope a Homophobic Bigot?

No.

But for some reason Austin Cline seems to think so.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/03/18/pope-francis-i-homophobic-bigot.htm

In support of the shocking claim, Austin quotes a letter where Francis (then a Cardinal) asks for prayer concerning a vote on gay marriage in Argentina. His statements are entirely consistent with the Catholic Cathechism, and his beliefs related to homosexuality are no different than the beliefs of every single pope, without exception who has preceeded him.

The question is this.  Is there a difference between someone who earnestly, and thoughtfully believes that something is morally wrong (i.e., homosexuality) and someone who is a bigot?

Bigot is defined as follows:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

However, in terms of Francis' regard or treatment, there is strong evidence to suggest that he has shown a great deal of kindness and compassion to homosexuals, particularly with his work with HIV sufferers and AIDS victims.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/pope-francis-condemning-gay-marriage-while-kissing-aids-patients-feet

It doesn't sound like he was treating those people with hatred and intolerance.

Imagine three people, who hold varying opinions:

1) A Ku Klux Klan member who believes that black people are inferior and who actively participates in lynching people to death, for no other reason than the color of their skin.  This is the person who has traditionally carried the title of "bigot" or "racist."

2) Someone in the South, say in the 1970's who believed that marriage between a white man and a black woman (or vice versa) was morally wrong.  This person might (or might not) be vocal in their opinion... they probably not be willing to date someone of a different color... but they probably weren't violent about it. 

3) A catholic minister who has dedicated his life to service and from all accounts, is a man who loves God and loves people, giving freely of himself in amazing ways.  He believes that sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin - in the sense that it is harmful to the individual participating in it... and that would extend to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.

Are we really prepared to lump all three of these people into the same category?

It seems to me that the way bigot has been used in the past would apply well to 1, would be shaky and not often applied to 2 and would not at all apply to 3. 

Francis isn't lynching lesbian couples - he just isn't.  Is it really to be considered bigotry to hold an opinion that differs from your own? 

When you take into consideration the love Francis shows the poor... and the homosexual poor... I don't think you can use the same word that we use for the KKK and still be in bounds.

Homophobic bigot means fearful and aggressively and actively showing hatred to... and the evidence doesn't bear up.