Moderated Book about Hitchens claims he almost converted

[Hlafordlaes]

How exactly do you know that you declare it is a ridiculous premise and a ridiculous book without reading it?? Particularly the fact that most of the comments of the book are flatly incorrect.

See what I wrote again:

Actually what I endeavored to do was have people read the book before slamming it and the author.

The reasoning is presented in #130.

But in the most general terms, if someone repeatedly makes some public claim over many decades and then immediately prior to their death, including only days before, then any contradiction of that claim in their final hour is suspect. This is not just a question of faith/none, it happens with final wills and testaments, etc. Brains conk out toward the end, this is why there is a 'sound mind' requirement for actions/decisions taken near the end.

Therefore, a claim about the man Hitchens that leads one to conclude he may or may not have said anything seemingly contradictory to his life's work and known convictions -- literally in his final hours -- is barely worth taking note of, unless one wishes to make unfair and unwarranted extrapolations.

So, no, there is no compelling reason to lend credence to the book's claims, and reasonable suspicion that since it deals with last-minute conversion, the work is really all about the gotcha faithists are always searching for in a debate that was lost a long time ago.

 

[The Big Dog]

The scenario here was that we were dealing with representations regarding what a new book says. My antennae went up immediately when the original post did not link up with the referenced article.

Further examination showed other information from the author, including an explicit denial that what was being represented about the book was not true.

For example, there appears to be a misapprehension that the book was based upon discussions "literally in his final hours," when in fact there is no support for that whatsoever.

It appears that there are people adamantly rejecting the book without have an accurate understanding of what the book actually says.

I find that a bit mystifying.

 

[Magrat]

Question for 16.5: you have in this thread and in others strongly criticized Hitchens. Which of his books have you read?

I ask this because I am currently reading God is not Great and I would have a very difficult time reconciling the man who wrote this book and the suggestion this person could have even considered monotheism.

 

[bignickel]

Some famous guy once said "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

So unless the author produces audio recordings, that pretty much removes any need to move to Step B, I reckon. Wake me up when that happens.

 

[KwamiFabu]

Yeah, it would be nice to have some documentation of Hitch's alleged near-conversion. It would've made an interesting article if he'd written it. As it stands all we have is Religion News Service, whose agenda couldn't be clearer. That said, I didn't know him personally, and unless you've looked the Reaper in the eyes up close you have no idea what it's like. Maybe he thought Pascal was on to something after all...

 

[Magrat]

Yeah, it would be nice to have some documentation of Hitch's alleged near-conversion. It would've made an interesting article if he'd written it. As it stands all we have is Religion News Service, whose agenda couldn't be clearer. That said, I didn't know him personally, and unless you've looked the Reaper in the eyes up close you have no idea what it's like. Maybe he thought Pascal was on to something after all...

I can tell you I have been very very close to the reaper, and it contributed to my losing what faith I had left.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, it would be nice to have some documentation of Hitch's alleged near-conversion. It would've made an interesting article if he'd written it. As it stands all we have is Religion News Service, whose agenda couldn't be clearer. That said, I didn't know him personally, and unless you've looked the Reaper in the eyes up close you have no idea what it's like. Maybe he thought Pascal was on to something after all...

Oddly enough, a surprising number of members right here have looked the Reaper in the eyes up close, myself included. We all know what it looks like. We remain atheists. Funny that.

 

[The Atheist]

Very good review of the book and premise it contains:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/christopher-hitchens-christian-conversion-book

 

[catsmate]

In a new video Brian Dalton discusses Taunton's book and it's ridiculous claims.
Some ranting and NSFW language.
NSFW - ranting and bad language

 

[abaddon]

In a new video Brian Dalton discusses Taunton's book and it's ridiculous claims.
Some ranting and NSFW language.
NSFW - ranting and bad language

Pretty much nails what most now think of Larry.

 

[The Big Dog]

here is a very good article headlined:

Are Atheists Afraid of God?
Christopher Hitchens’s fans are incensed by a book that dares to say he took faith seriously.

But the idea that, contrary to his blunderbuss public attitude toward Christianity, Hitchens was not just friendly with Christians but also open to the idea of faith, has many atheists apoplectic.

Avenging anti-God hordes have crashed the book’s Amazon page, fulminating with one-star reviews that the book is “tripe!” and “dishonest” and “morally reprehensible,” and accusing Mr. Taunton of riding the beloved Hitch’s coattails “to make a fast buck.” It is pretty obvious that none of these Amazon “reviewers” has actually read the book. But why haven’t they, and why are they so outraged?

Really a fine article and I recommend it to all of you.

Are atheists afraid of God?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Are Atheists Afraid of God?

There is no such thing.

 

[Noztradamus]

I think it's that religious types lack a moral compass and can't understand how it's wrong to lie for The Cause.

 

[abaddon]

here is a very good article headlined:

Are Atheists Afraid of God?
Christopher Hitchens’s fans are incensed by a book that dares to say he took faith seriously.



Really a fine article and I recommend it to all of you.

Are atheists afraid of God?

1. Paywalled.

2. Written by Eric Metaxas, another ignorant christian apologist.

3. Having read it, he clearly does not know what atheism actually is, nor what Hitchens views actually were.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'd like to point out it's possible for a person to be interested in something without actually adhering to its tenets. For example, I'm rather fascinated with Adolf Hitler. How did this rather unassuming failed art student end up leading a brutal genocidal government that plunged all of Europe into war and directly murdered about 11 million people? But even though I'm interested in Hitler the person, I'm most certainly not a fan of Nazism or of killing people just because of their ancestry or current beliefs.

I think it's entirely possible Hitchens was interested in Christianity from an academic point of view without even once considering its core claims to be true or applicable to his life.

 

[Desert Fox]

1. Paywalled.

2. Written by Eric Metaxas, another ignorant christian apologist.
3. Having read it, he clearly does not know what atheism actually is, nor what Hitchens views actually were.

Does he actually not know what atheism is or is it a case where the author is creating a strawman to then beat up?

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Paywalled.

2. Written by Eric Metaxas, another ignorant christian apologist.

3. Having read it, he clearly does not know what atheism actually is, nor what Hitchens views actually were.

1. Sorry! Worked for me but I see you were able to read it.

2. "Written by Eric Metaxas, another ignorant christian apologist"? I have looked at his credentials and he seems very knowledgeable and qualified, certainly to discuss Hitchens

3. "Having read it, he clearly does not know what atheism actually is, nor what Hitchens views actually were."

Doesn't know what atheism actually is?

 

[abaddon]

1. Sorry! Worked for me but I see you were able to read it.

There are methods for circumventing. I am unwilling to discuss those.

2. "Written by Eric Metaxas, another ignorant christian apologist"? I have looked at his credentials and he seems very knowledgeable and qualified, certainly to discuss Hitchens

He is a christian apologist. It is unsurprising that you find him agreeable.

3. "Having read it, he clearly does not know what atheism actually is, nor what Hitchens views actually were."

Doesn't know what atheism actually is?

Read the article, he clearly has no clue. Did you not read it? Surely you did not spam a link which you had not read?

 

[jimbob]

Another from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nversion-christopher-hitchens-defiant-to-last

Like the cleverest spin doctors, Taunton gets the Times and others to suggest that the man he debated and travelled with experienced a deathbed conversion without quite saying that he did. Christopher stared “into the depths of eternity”, allegedly. He teetered on the edge of faith but did not, even in Taunton’s account, fall for it. The naive reader is left suspecting that, if only he had lived longer, Hitchens would have turned into a holy roller.

I put the book aside last week. There seemed no need to write about Taunton, as Matthew d’Ancona and Padraig Reidy had already taken him to pieces with admirable vigour. But then Alexander Hitchens wrote back about that “bloody book”.

On the deathbed conversion – I spent my father’s final weeks and days at his bedside and watched him draw his final breath and die, and can assure you that there was no hint of any sort of conversion (as I’m sure you have already guessed). In fact, we barely spoke about religion at all except for joint expressions of frustration at the god botherers who made the rounds in the ICU and other units where dying people could be preyed upon by vulturous Christians.



I want to print what he said because lies on the web can last for ever and need to be countered. Indeed, they have always needed to be countered. In the 19th century, American believers claimed Tom Paine had died “howling and terrified”, recanting his assaults on organised religion and the reliability of the Bible.

 

[jimbob]

And from the same article this comment:

ChristH
I am that rare bird-a fundamentalist Jesus nut, who takes the gospels very literally-as much as most could manage in 2016 anyway!
So, some might expect me to reckon that Tauntons grave robbing efforts in his "righteous cause" of standing guard at the gates of hell trying to persuade "atheists" not to go inside , would be a good thing.
But you`d be wrong-Taunton is an evil slime, and Cohen does an excellent job is deconstructing this creeping whitewashed tombstone of a human being.
Hitchens is "square with The House", and certainly sharpened MY faith. Yes, he got things wrong, could be spiteful and pretentious...but so what, don`t we all?
We`re all under Gods judgement, and God will have honoured Hitch-he had the mind to discern and articulate right from wrong...and , even if you don`t believe in God of His Son, being of good judgement, courageous and fearless speaking to truth to power are virtues that Hitch had, much as Jesus did.
Hitchens, like Dawkins and Harris are reputable respected whetstones for the Christian-and we thank God for them, whether they wish us to or not...they help us, as opposed to the beehive trollers and empty headed camp followers who either eulogise them, or spitefully note their "spiritual journey" to the deathbed.
Taunton is in trouble...he`s in no position to judge others standing with Jesus...I could give the scripture verses, but the " work out your own salvation in fear and in trembling" line applies.
Hitchens needs no hagiography- honest, flawed and courageous in the light of his appalling early demise-like John Paul 2, Bowie, Prince and , now Ali....death is the measure of the man, and in all cases they`re fine with Him.
Taunton?...less so...and thanks to Nick for his analysis-needs saying if only to sift the real Jesus sleepers from the oily Jesus creepers like Taunton.