Moderated Book about Hitchens claims he almost converted

[Craig B]

Give me a believer over a cynic any day.

Bad idea if you want to be able to distinguish good sense from garbage. The essence of religious faith is the ability to believe without evidence.

Even a cynic believes things for which evidence exists. That is why, cynic that I am, I believe that bus route number 3 passes near my home. But faith?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.​

A person of faith who hopes that Hitchens almost converted, may believe that he or she has evidence that Hitchens almost converted, even though Hitchens was not seen to have almost converted.

So you can keep the believer, and I'll take the cynic.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sorry to ask the bleeding obvious again, but what's the point of the claim anyway?

1. Even if Hitchens were to have actually converted at some point, so what? He's not the Pope or the messiah of atheism, or anything.

Something isn't true or false because of who believes it to be.

2. "Almost" means nothing. If he didn't actually convert, then there was no actual point when he thought it's true.

As long as it doesn't reach the point of actually saying that X is true, "Almost" being ready to start believing X... what does it even mean? Even at best it's nothing more than keeping an open mind and seeing what some argument is about, or even just being polite and listening to someone.

I mean, technically I'm "almost" ready to believe just about anything too. Gods, bigfoot, fridge elves, little grey aliens, or werewolves. You name it. You show me good, sound evidence and I'll start believing in werewolves in a jiffy. But as long as it just stays at that "almost" stage, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever.

 

[Magrat]

Sorry to ask the bleeding obvious again, but what's the point of the claim anyway?

1. Even if Hitchens were to have actually converted at some point, so what? He's not the Pope or the messiah of atheism, or anything.

Something isn't true or false because of who believes it to be.

2. "Almost" means nothing. If he didn't actually convert, then there was no actual point when he thought it's true.

As long as it doesn't reach the point of actually saying that X is true, "Almost" being ready to start believing X... what does it even mean? Even at best it's nothing more than keeping an open mind and seeing what some argument is about, or even just being polite and listening to someone.

I mean, technically I'm "almost" ready to believe just about anything too. Gods, bigfoot, fridge elves, little grey aliens, or werewolves. You name it. You show me good, sound evidence and I'll start believing in werewolves in a jiffy. But as long as it just stays at that "almost" stage, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever.

As someone mentioned previously, if you are of a mind where you have *faith* because someone told you to, you may also assume other people are the same way. Therefore, if you discredit a prominent atheist, to your mind, that discredits atheism. It is false, but many many people believe that way. "Hitler was a socialist, how can you support socialism?!" Etc etc

 

[angrysoba]

Sorry to ask the bleeding obvious again, but what's the point of the claim anyway?

1. Even if Hitchens were to have actually converted at some point, so what? He's not the Pope or the messiah of atheism, or anything.

Something isn't true or false because of who believes it to be.

2. "Almost" means nothing. If he didn't actually convert, then there was no actual point when he thought it's true.

As long as it doesn't reach the point of actually saying that X is true, "Almost" being ready to start believing X... what does it even mean? Even at best it's nothing more than keeping an open mind and seeing what some argument is about, or even just being polite and listening to someone.

I mean, technically I'm "almost" ready to believe just about anything too. Gods, bigfoot, fridge elves, little grey aliens, or werewolves. You name it. You show me good, sound evidence and I'll start believing in werewolves in a jiffy. But as long as it just stays at that "almost" stage, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever.

On the one hand, we have all of Hitchens's books, articles, debates and TV appearances of him showing nothing but contempt for the idea of a deity and heaven, and the established churches and the promises of an afterlife.

On the other hand, we have a vague claim by 16.5 from a book he hasn't even read yet.

Hmmm... this is a toughie. Where could the truth lie?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As someone mentioned previously, if you are of a mind where you have *faith* because someone told you to, you may also assume other people are the same way. Therefore, if you discredit a prominent atheist, to your mind, that discredits atheism. It is false, but many many people believe that way. "Hitler was a socialist, how can you support socialism?!" Etc etc

Well, I suppose that would kinda explain point 1, in a stupid kinda way, but not point 2 of my objection. When you add "almost", it stops meaning anything even by association. "Almost" still means "didn't actually happen".

"Almost" wouldn't pass muster in any job resume or even penis enlargement testimonial. No shoe salesman ever would put "almost sold a pair" on his resume. Even as celebrity endorsements go, you're never going to hear an ad saying "we ALMOST got Beyonce to drink our Cola". Or "we almost got Sean Bean to endorse these steak knives, but he did a death scene on the set like in all his roles."

I mean, even the other made up deathbed conversions or anything, at least claim to have converted someone. Sure, it's not much of an achievement to outwith a half-conscious dying person, but, you know, it at least crossed the finish line. "Almost" converting someone is like "almost" having a valid argument. WTH does it mean? It means even less than "almost" running the local charity marathon. If you didn't actually cross the finish line, it doesn't count.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, I suppose that would kinda explain point 1, in a stupid kinda way, but not point 2 of my objection. When you add "almost", it stops meaning anything even by association. "Almost" still means "didn't actually happen".

"Almost" wouldn't pass muster in any job resume or even penis enlargement testimonial. No shoe salesman ever would put "almost sold a pair" on his resume. Even as celebrity endorsements go, you're never going to hear an ad saying "we ALMOST got Beyonce to drink our Cola". Or "we almost got Sean Bean to endorse these steak knives, but he did a death scene on the set like in all his roles."

I mean, even the other made up deathbed conversions or anything, at least claim to have converted someone. Sure, it's not much of an achievement to outwith a half-conscious dying person, but, you know, it at least crossed the finish line. "Almost" converting someone is like "almost" having a valid argument. WTH does it mean? It means even less than "almost" running the local charity marathon. If you didn't actually cross the finish line, it doesn't count.

The word "almost" does not appear in the linked article and we know that the OP has not read the book. As such, it would appear that your complaint is not with the author of the book but rather the OP

 

[The Big Dog]

Sarcastic and satirical. Both aim at ridicule. At this juncture you can only continue to slander Hitchens and other members, sans argument.

Give up.

One cannot slander the dead.

The curious thing is that Hitchens would more likely be on my side in this discussion, because although Hitch might have been a bigoted slob, he was a well-read bigoted slob.

 

[Magrat]

I still say it is a strong statement for Hitch that even in the extremity of death he still didn't fall into the trap of mythological sky daddies.

 

[The Big Dog]

Tauton rejects malicious rumors about his book

In a significant new interview Author Larry Taunton Denies the assertion that he claimed Christopher Hitchens 'Accepted God' Before Death

"I am saddened by [the headline and tweet] because not only [are they] not true, it detracts from what this story really is about," Taunton added. "If I was going to create a fictitious story, I would have had Christopher Hitchens dramatically receiving Christ somewhere in the Shenandoah Valley during our first road trip or perhaps on our second road trip in Yellowstone National Park. I would have ended the story that way."

One of Taunton's main objectives with the book was to explain that Hitchens maintained two different "books" in his life — a private book and a public book. Taunton claims that Hitchens wanted his atheist followers to believe that he was riding the same ideological line that they were. However, Taunton says Hitchens was not personally "defined" by his atheism and wasn't afraid to seriously weigh deep ideological questions privately.

In response to this tweet:

"A controversial new book claims a dying Christopher Hitchens accepted God."

Taunton responded on Monday with with tweets of his own.

"The astonishingly bad journalism continues. I say no such thing," Taunton wrote. "Do any of these people read books?"
I am certain that the above highlighted part will reverberate with avid readers of my posts in this thread.

He concluded:

Taunton added that he has been "personally assailed" on Twitter and in media by atheists whom he claims didn't read the book. He predicted atheist backlash in the book when he wrote that his assertion that "Christopher had doubts" was "enough to cause consternation among the God-haters." He told CP that he believes atheists desperately "needed [Hitchens] to die as a confident unbeliever."

"In a weird kind of way, it validates the last chapter of the book," Taunton said of the controversy surrounding his book.

I think this thread also bears that out.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-god-before-death-162816/#id5jLjpmkMp2K7Hz.99

 

[Magrat]

Why are you so scared of people reminding you that religion is a load of bollocks, that you have to resort to ReligionRule#21?

21 : You have no sensible, adult argument to make. So call people poopy heads and shout NeenerNeener instead :

Because what is there to defend? That a God who doesn't exist didn't create a religion it benefits nobody to follow, and this religion in fact has caused and continues to cause tremendous harm to people worldwide? Neener neener.

 

[The Big Dog]

Shermer embarrasses himself

Mickael Shermer, in walking back his endorsement of Taunton's book writes:

I thought the statement was a fair appraisal of the book, but now I am having second thoughts because of the reception the book has received in which many people seem to think that its author implies that Hitch had a death-bed conversion, or that he had serious doubts about his atheism, or that he was earnestly considering Christianity as a viable belief system.

He thought it was "fair." But changed his opinion based on other's (most of whom did not read the book)'s opinions.

Damn, way to abandon your opinion based on which way the damn wind blows Shermer.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Mickael Shermer, in walking back his endorsement of Taunton's book writes:



He thought it was "fair." But changed his opinion based on other's (most of whom did not read the book)'s opinions.

Damn, way to abandon your opinion based on which way the damn wind blows Shermer.

Wow. Someone converses with someone else, and then changes their opinion. I can understand why this troubles you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wow. Someone converses with someone else, and then changes their opinion. I can understand why this troubles you.

Wow. That is not what that quote said...

Say, I thought this was a great book!
Book gets bad reviews...
Oh yeah, I meant that book sucked.

It doesn't "trouble" me, it should trouble Shermer tho.

 

[Magrat]

Wow. Someone converses with someone else, and then changes their opinion. I can understand why this troubles you.

Obviously this is a foreign concept to a certain segment of the population.

 

[Noztradamus]

Wow. That is not what that quote said...

Say, I thought this was a great book!
Book gets bad reviews...
Oh yeah, I meant that book sucked.

It doesn't "trouble" me, it should trouble Shermer tho.

Or possibly Shermer thought Larry was being a bit Urquhart when people suggested that Hitchens might be in a process of conversion "You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment"

 

[angrysoba]

In a significant new interview Author Larry Taunton Denies the assertion that he claimed Christopher Hitchens 'Accepted God' Before Death



In response to this tweet:

"A controversial new book claims a dying Christopher Hitchens accepted God."

Taunton responded on Monday with with tweets of his own.

"The astonishingly bad journalism continues. I say no such thing," Taunton wrote. "Do any of these people read books?"
I am certain that the above highlighted part will reverberate with avid readers of my posts in this thread.

He concluded:



I think this thread also bears that out.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-god-before-death-162816/#id5jLjpmkMp2K7Hz.99

I see. So the view you have been championing about Hitchens converting or almost converting has been repudiated by the author of a book you haven't read but which you nonetheless attempted to use as evidence for your demonstrably false belief.

All's well that ends well then.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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

This might be a reasonable request in certain circumstances. Asking us to read the equivalent of "Flat Earth Proven!" is not. Ridiculous premise, ridiculous book.

 

[The Big Dog]

This might be a reasonable request in certain circumstances. Asking us to read the equivalent of "Flat Earth Proven!" is not. Ridiculous premise, ridiculous book.

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.

 

[Agatha]

Another bunch of posts has been cast into the flames, mostly for breaches of rule 12. To be clear: if you are talking TO each other, be civil and polite. If you are talking ABOUT each other, you are almost certainly breaching rule 12. This thread will be set to moderated status to encourage all participants to write their posts with the Membership Agreement at the forefront of their minds.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sorry to chip in late about that, but essentially it boils down to the burden of proof. If your claim boils down to "X happened" or "Y exists" (which are equivalent), you have it fair and square. Asking everyone else to read every book or apologetic on the topic if they want to disprove it, is just lame. That's not how it works.

If you found something interesting or convincing in the book, then please do present it. If you make the claim that it has any merit, then basically it's your homework. No amount of complaining about how the others aren't doing it for you is going to change that.

Until you do, actually it's very sane to go by the information we already have. In fact, it's the rational position.

And I'm using a very generic form of "you", just for the record. The burden of proof doesn't care which "you" it is.

Short version: if I were to claim that a pig was documented to have flown, then it would be MY burden of proof to show exactly where does which source make that claim and how they support it. I wouldn't get to reverse that by just claiming that nobody can object unless they go on a wild goose chase to read this book, and that book, and that other book, and so on. I like to call that the argument by denial of service, except it's not even making an argument, it's just claiming that an argument exists somewhere, and someone else should find it.