Moderated Book about Hitchens claims he almost converted

[Bram Kaandorp]

I was actually with you until you wrote "with a singular agenda."

You ever read the author's work, or just gonna go by the misinformed opinions of pro Hitchens zealots in this thread?

Speaking for myself, I'm going by the words of the subject of the book. There's this great Anderson Cooper interview in which he said that he would not convert, and that Christianity had no appeal to him at all.

Furthermore, he said that if he ever did convert, it would be because the disease would have rendered him insensible but why am I even typing this? It's been said before, and you'll just say that I'll have to read some unverifiable account by someone with a vested interest in showing Hitchens as a sympathiser with Christianity.

 

[ComfySlippers]

As with most of the misfiring weapons in the believer's arsenal, putting words into a dead man's mouth is childish and pathetic.

You'd think that their god would have sent them a speshull message by now, telling them this.

But no. Forever opening their mouths without hearing the nonsense that comes out.
A very special breed indeed. Not only do they not listen to others, they don't listen to themselves.

 

[Magrat]

As with most of the misfiring weapons in the believer's arsenal, putting words into a dead man's mouth is childish and pathetic.

You'd think that their god would have sent them a speshull message by now, telling them this.

But no. Forever opening their mouths without hearing the nonsense that comes out.
A very special breed indeed. Not only do they not listen to others, they don't listen to themselves.

It makes me wonder, how could God have spoken to all those prophets and made the sun stand still and made the Nile run blood, etc etc etc etc...but he can't give his followers a single shred of unquestionable evidence. Wouldn't it be in his best interest to do that? Jesus said the goal was to get everybody to believe in him. But he didn't give them anything to work with really.

Now someone like 16 will jump in with faith!

. complete trust or confidence in someone or something

According to christian doctrine, god endowed us with reason and discretion. But then he expects us to put that all aside and believe in him. His "word" is nonsensical and contradictory, his commands often inhumane , and the church "built on peter" and "divinely inspired" has murdered and raped huge portions of the world population "in God's name".

What's really sad is the effect it has on otherwise intelligent people. Smart people who are forced to twist and mold logic and data to match what they are told is true, but their own cognitive dissonance tells them is impossible. Not to mention all those people in countries where basic health care and disease prevention are illegal because of the church. Aids in the name of god.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now someone like 16 will jump in with faith!

Actually I jumped in with I am going to read the book, there are lots of folks in this thread who will not only not do that, they are proud of it lest it contradict their faith in Chris.

It reminds me of the truthers in the 911 threads bragging about not reading the NIST reports.

oh well.

 

[Craig B]

Actually I jumped in with I am going to read the book, there are lots of folks in this thread who will not only not do that, they are proud of it lest it contradict their faith in Chris.

It reminds me of the truthers in the 911 threads bragging about not reading the NIST reports.

oh well.

Well, when you've read the book, get back to us with an account of any enlightenment you have received from it, and an estimate of its plausibility.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, when you've read the book, get back to us with an account of any enlightenment you have received from it, and an estimate of its plausibility.

"read the book." "read the Book." Careful there, perhaps I have led you astray because those words are blasphemy in this thread. Because we have the words of Chris, bona fide and sanctified.

Because on that day did Chris summit the hill and on that day did Chris speak to his prophet Anderson and lo he didest thou speak in great words and great passion to his beloved Anderson and he didest deny thrice that he would considerest Christianity.

Once he did deny by words, once by deeds, and once by Whiskey and so the words were written and none shall Read heresy and blasphemy from this day forward until Chris's combined works are alone available on Amazon.

Amen.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is an earlier piece Tauton wrote about Chris.

I think everyone can enjoy this:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/my-take-an-evangelical-remembers-his-friend-hitchens/

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Not those kind of "stoners." The kind of stoners who throw stones at people who say blasphemous things like " say, maybe we should read the book" before judging it.

Still at that? The proposition under discussion is in the title of the thread. Were the focus of discussion the author of the book or what this particular book says, you might have a point that reading it is required to make opinion. However, the proposition is that a man whose extremely well-known opus as an atheist recanted, or almost so, near his end. That is balderdash from the get-go, in any meaningful terms, even were it entirely true, okay? I already spoke earlier as to why that is the case for so-called deathbed conversions, a point you misunderstood previously.

So, no, no need to read the book to do due diligence in this case. Insisting the contrary, ever so repeatedly, is frankly misguided. And tiresome.

 

[The Big Dog]

Still at that? The proposition under discussion is in the title of the thread. Were the focus of discussion the author of the book or what this particular book says, you might have a point that reading it is required to make opinion. However, the proposition is that a man whose extremely well-known opus as an atheist recanted, or almost so, near his end. That is balderdash from the get-go, in any meaningful terms, even were it entirely true, okay? I already spoke earlier as to why that is the case for so-called deathbed conversions, a point you misunderstood previously.

So, no, no need to read the book to do due diligence in this case. Insisting the contrary, ever so repeatedly, is frankly misguided. And tiresome.

I will simply say that I find this utterly astonishing on so many levels.

By the way the focus of discussion of course is what this particular book says, how can it be anything but?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I will simply say that I find this utterly astonishing on so many levels.

By the way the focus of discussion of course is what this particular book says, how can it be anything but?

Thread title: Book about Hitchens claims he almost converted

There is a book

It deals with Hitchens

There is a claim (we shall call this "C")

The claim is that Hitchens almost converted (to a religion, one must assume)

Other common knowledge:

Hitchens passed away not long ago.

People close to death may suffer changes in brain function and chemistry that alter output and make it unreliable.

Up until very shortly prior to his passing, he specifically warned strenuously that the claim C would be made, and that it would be false.

So:
Even if the book were to provide undeniable evidence that close to his death Hitchens converted, given the above, I have enough to sincerely reject the proposition; i.e., specifically, that C is true in the sense of reflecting what Hitchens the man, of sound mind, would do.

The book can take a hike.

 

[Craig B]

I will simply say that I find this utterly astonishing on so many levels.

By the way the focus of discussion of course is what this particular book says, how can it be anything but?

Then read it, and tell us why we should devote time and energy to that task.

I am very much used to religious people telling me in these threads that I must read some book, or watch hours of Youtube and if I do, I will realise why some guru or other is to be followed. My usual response is to tell the devotee to read or watch these things, and tell me why I ought to follow suit.

If I have an argument derived from my reading or viewing, I will set it down in writing, to persuade others, and if they want to back to the primary sources, fine.

Now, why should we read this book which tells us not that Hitchens converted, but that he nearly did so? Not impressive.

By the way, I am not a particular admirer of Hitchens. His God Is Not Great is full of extremely silly factual errors, and other infelicities, which I wrote to him to point out; and his later political opinions were nonsense, as may be seen here, but I have no reason to suppose that he abandoned his materialist views, and if you think otherwise, tell me why. If that means you have to read the book, do so, and tell me why.

 

[Desert Fox]

Then read it, and tell us why we should devote time and energy to that task.

I am very much used to religious people telling me in these threads that I must read some book, or watch hours of Youtube and if I do, I will realise why some guru or other is to be followed. My usual response is to tell the devotee to read or watch these things, and tell me why I ought to follow suit.
If I have an argument derived from my reading or viewing, I will set it down in writing, to persuade others, and if they want to back to the primary sources, fine.

Now, why should we read this book which tells us not that Hitchens converted, but that he nearly did so? Not impressive.

By the way, I am not a particular admirer of Hitchens. His God Is Not Great is full of extremely silly factual errors, and other infelicities, which I wrote to him to point out; and his later political opinions were nonsense, as may be seen here, but I have no reason to suppose that he abandoned his materialist views, and if you think otherwise, tell me why. If that means you have to read the book, do so, and tell me why.

It is pretty common for Christians to do that. . . . For example, a while back I read The Pope Against the Jews. I was discussing it with a Catholic and he told me to read a book (The Myth of Hitler's Pope) which refutes it. My agreement what that I would read his suggested book if he would read the book above.

I actually got the book through an interlibrary loan, read through it, and basically it was little more than a poor apologetic which does not really address The Pope Against the Jews but instead uses a lot of deflection. I actually wrote a discussion of the book (PM me if you want to read it - Edit: Likely just start a thread if there is a lot of interest.)

Found out later that the Catholic I was arguing with did not read the book he asked me to and never read the book I asked him to either.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now, why should we read this book which tells us not that Hitchens converted, but that he nearly did so? Not impressive.

I am simply gobsmacked that people are ripping on this book while at the same time stating they won't read it. Case in point, you are declaring that you are not impressed with a book you have not read and do not intend to do so.

It is like bizarro-Skepticism in here, things I would expect to hear from fundamentalists proffering excuses why they won't do something.

 

[Desert Fox]

Irony meter explodes

Seems like it is not limited to Christians either, just take a gander at this thread and the adamant refusals to read the book in question while continuing to reject it.

It is perfectly acceptable to reject a book if you have other reliable sources to refute it.

Do you believe the Holocaust occurred? Have you read any books by Holocaust deniers? If you have not, how can you argue that they are wrong having made the argument that you have to read anything which you argue against?

 

[The Big Dog]

It is perfectly acceptable to reject a book if you have other reliable sources to refute it.

Do you believe the Holocaust occurred? Have you read any books by Holocaust deniers? If you have not, how can you argue that they are wrong having made the argument that you have to read anything which you argue against?

hell, no one cares that you "reject" the book, it is rather that that people continue to rip it without reading it. Seems more than a bit ironic for you to post tales of people who didn't read books while at the same time admitting that you won't read this one eiether.

As for your holocaust analogy, yes I have read books by holocaust deniers; one of my neighbors was a survivor and had a small collection of such books that he would angrily denounce.... but i digress.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Irony meter explodes

Seems like it is not limited to Christians either, just take a gander at this thread and the adamant refusals to read the book in question while continuing to reject it.

The reason I won't read the book is:

Hitchens.

Hitchens himself said that he would not convert if he was in his right mind. He said that if he ever converted, it would be because the disease had got to his brains.

So even if the book gave evidence that Hitchens had considered converting, that would just mean that the disease had got to his brain.


Care to tell me why I shouldn't trust Hitchens' on his own mindset, but I should read a book which vaguely contradicts it, just to see if it's credible?

Pull the other one.

 

[The Big Dog]

The reason I won't read the book is:

Hitchens.

Hitchens himself said that he would not convert if he was in his right mind. He said that if he ever converted, t would be because the disease had got to his brains.

So even if the book gave evidence that Hitchens had considered converting, that would just mean that the disease had got to his brain.


Care to tell me why I shouldn't trust Hitchens' on his own mindset, but I should read a book which vaguely contradicts it, just to see if it's credible?

Pull the other one.

I get it! People are very adamant that they aren't gonna read it, they have heard what they want, and that is it. We get it.

Why the heck they keep posting in this thread declaring that there is no possibility of new or contradictory information that is going to change their mind just bewilders me.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I get it! People are very adamant that they aren't gonna read it, they have heard what they want, and that is it. We get it.

Why the heck they keep posting in this thread declaring that there is no possibility of new or contradictory information that is going to change their mind just bewilders me.

I don't know, the same reason you are?

People aren't just constantly screaming "IM NOT GONNA READ IT! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" over and over, they're responding to other posts. You know, discussion. On a discussion forum. Weird.

 

[Desert Fox]

On reading the book, at $13.00 for Kindle and $16.65 for hardcover, many of us likely do not want to give this author any money and encourage him.

I know of a guy who likes to collect creationist books but he does not like to give the authors money for them. As a result, he looks for people to help him find used copies. He looks himself too but he is only one person.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now the excuse is they don't want to give hitchens friend money

Hey maybe that was the reason those christians people were ragging on for not reading books had.