1. Comment #35818 by Gurnet on April 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

"But what is the point of writing such a book? Surely, it will change no mind"

So unless a book is written with the express intention and aim of converting as many people as possible, it shouldn't be written at all? What an ignoramus.

Other Comments by Gurnet

2. Comment #35819 by Cyboman on April 29, 2007 at 1:43 am

It may be read only by the choir and a few religious, but curious, people. What it's really going to do is help release new, better arguments and ideas into our meme-pool. Books like these are written for societies, not individuals. Strong atheists, are learning to argue better. Journalists are invoking names like Dawkins, Harris and so forth when interviewing conservatives. The so called "college" discussions about the validity of religion are getting more interesting and lucid. Ideas about atheism are getting exposure in news papers. These are just a few reasons these books are important and effective.

Other Comments by Cyboman

3. Comment #35823 by Machinus on April 29, 2007 at 2:05 am

Obviously the person who wrote this review has felt the effect of rational criticism. The world has a tougher time justfying insanity when books like this exist.

Other Comments by Machinus

4. Comment #35826 by denoir on April 29, 2007 at 2:39 am

"Surely, it will change no mind."

Don't be so sure. I'm pretty convinced that it actually will. The reason why I think that is because I have actually managed to "convert" at least two people - and my writing skills are not especially good.

I've been posting on a certain forum for a few years and on occasion I would go off on a rant against religion. For the most part the usual stuff - nothing too new or creative. I have since then been contacted by two different persons from the forum saying that as a result of my atheist polemics they started to think about it for a bit. And in both cases they went from theists to agnostics to finally become atheists.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where people won't change their mind but to assume that it goes for all people is silly and defeatist at best. There are people out there who are sensitive to a rational argument and that can get influenced.

If I with my limited English skills can get some people to think, imagine what a skilled writer such as Dawkins or Hitchens can do.

Other Comments by denoir

5. Comment #35828 by Mikado on April 29, 2007 at 2:49 am

Hitchens' quarrel with God is too complex to invite summary...........

How is it possible to have a quarrel with something that do not exist.

"Yes Sherlock Holmes and I have had our differences in the past, but at the moment we are the best of friends"

Other Comments by Mikado

6. Comment #35829 by Russell Blackford on April 29, 2007 at 2:57 am

It all helps to change the climate. Even if not too many people read it who don't already agree with its message, it starts to create a space for others to criticise religion ... or simply to express their opposition to it or their scorn for its teachings. The indirect effects of a few people as prominent as Hitchens being prepared to speak out could be enormous.

I think the same is the case with other unpopular causes. It doesn't take many people dissenting from the popular wisdom - especially if those people already have high profiles - to produce a truly significant impact.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

7. Comment #35832 by petermun on April 29, 2007 at 3:00 am

The point of such books? Cyboman has it right - athiests "are learning to argue better".

The two dark-suited mormon "missionaries" who found themselves at our front door earlier this week would surely agree. My wife, fully armed with the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett et al shocked them into silence. They wowed never to return!

When asked whether they had read any of the works of the aforementioned authors they said they were not allowed to do so by their elders - so open-minded these faith-heads.

Other Comments by petermun

8. Comment #35836 by MarkSmith on April 29, 2007 at 3:04 am

My only gripe with Hitchens is that to read him one must also lug a dictionary around ;-)

Combining Dawkins the scientist, Harris the logician, and Hitchens the Oscar-Wilde-like-but-cantankerous literary genius, we atheists have a real trinity to rival and do in the mythical one. Perhaps Dennett will read superstition it last rights.

Other Comments by MarkSmith

9. Comment #35839 by Logicel on April 29, 2007 at 3:10 am

petermun wrote, My wife, fully armed with the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett et al shocked them into silence. They wowed never to return!
________

Way to go, Mrs. 'petermun'!!!

Other Comments by Logicel

10. Comment #35842 by Logicel on April 29, 2007 at 3:14 am

Hitchens is, if he will forgive the religious reference, preaching to the choir.
_____

And what a wonderful, intelligent, enthusiastic, GROWING choir it is!

Other Comments by Logicel

11. Comment #35847 by Pi Guy on April 29, 2007 at 3:51 am

"But what is the point of writing such a book? Surely, it will change no mind"

I think that, in addition to honing the arguments in our memepool, one practical reason for writing such books is that it helps dispell the "This is what everybody thinks" myth that - especially American - Christians seem think prevails here urging more than a few quiet, closet atheists out as well as providing a source of support the vast number of young people who are currently questioning, if not challenging, the beliefs and customs that their parents have attempted to bequeath to them.

But, we clearly have long way to go. I was on the plane the other day and overheard a guy say "Well, 97% of the population is believes Jesus is the son of god but apparently the majority doesn't rule in a democracy anymore (speaking about the laws of the land not being the same as Biblical law)." Aside from the stat used to support this, uh, argument being greater than it actually is by at least one sixth, the poor, gullible man also clearly isn't aware of "shall establish no religion" statement - despite the fact that the greatest majority of citizens are the Christian, the government cannot assign favored status to any faith. I won't even bother going into the "majority rules" BS.

Suffice it to say that there are a lot of people who need to critially consider the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al.

Other Comments by Pi Guy

12. Comment #35848 by shmooth on April 29, 2007 at 3:53 am

brilliant. Hitchens, the Iraq War supporter, blasting Islam for...causing war. guy doesn't have a coherent thought in his dome.

Other Comments by shmooth

13. Comment #35850 by Gurnet on April 29, 2007 at 4:15 am

Side issue, I know, but I prefer "preaching to the converted" to "preaching to the choir".

It's more precise and does not insult atheist choristers.

Other Comments by Gurnet

14. Comment #35857 by k1mgy on April 29, 2007 at 4:43 am

For his unabashed support of the current US mal-administration's oil (and religious) war, I offer Hitchens no quarter, but on this book I'd roll out the red carpet and set out a hearty and good-spirited meal. A true love-hate relationship.

There's some good news in this combination, for Hitchen's book may well have influence: in the rattle heads who march forth in our national politics with a bible. Discrediting this bunch, which at the moment seems to represent the core of the mal-administration's regime, most surely will assist in dissolving it.

So perhaps Hitchens, by serving to spray a little more weed killer into religion, has helped to undermine the same system that is feeding the war. With this thought I cheer, and lift an elbow with a hearty, "here, here!"

Other Comments by k1mgy

15. Comment #35862 by denoir on April 29, 2007 at 5:45 am

Just a small observation:

There is a certain irony in the Hitchens situation here. Many dislike his position on the Iraq war and think he betrayed humanism when he joined forces with the neocons. According to Hitchens himself, it is a temporary alliance due to overlapping interests. It is in fact the same realpolitik logic that we se here - many disagree with Hitchens generally but see him as useful in the specific case of religion. The logic is the same - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It is not necessarily a bad way of thinking. It just requires a more nuanced view - that you opinions about a person don't have to be binary. It doesn't fit with the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, but is more realistic.

I think that this view is especially difficult here where there is an unspoken agreement that religion is just bad with nothing good ever mentioned. This gives us a very sharp boundaries of black/white and makes characters such as Hitchens problematic to deal with. Almost everyone here is a liberal secular humanist which Hitchens most certainly is not - his view just overlaps with the secular part. Trying to classify him as either a good guy or a bad guy produces predictable confusion.

Other Comments by denoir

16. Comment #35865 by John P on April 29, 2007 at 6:07 am

But what is the point of writing such a book?

The point of writing such a book is to start an avalanche.

The point of writing such a book is to get others of like mind and ability to do the same, albeit with their own spin on the matter. The more that's out there, the more that society will sit up and take notice.

You might not pay attention to the stone rolling down the hill towards you, but you will pay close attention to all the rocks on the mountain doing the same thing.

Other Comments by John P

17. Comment #35866 by donaldito on April 29, 2007 at 6:13 am

The constantly made point by critics of Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens here, about their books preaching to the choir, is mostly true. The fact is though, just a few years from now, what these critics will notice is that the choir will have grown. By simply getting the information out there (and we're certainly being bombarded lately), at least some children who are constantly indoctrinated by their parents and by other means will find this information and realize how ridiculous their parents' beliefs are. The choir is growing.
Addition: John P and I must have been writing at the same time... or I wouldn't have bothered. Although repetition is part of my point, isnt it?!

Other Comments by donaldito

18. Comment #35869 by firemancarl on April 29, 2007 at 6:50 am

Denoir,

You don't post on the packerreport.com do you? You sound like one of the other athhiests on there who gets into it with the overbearing bible thumpers.

ANother book on why religion is bad. I hope that "everybody" reads this, and not just us athiests. Figuring that if the percentage of atheists in the US is around 7% or, I cannot believe Prof. Dawkins book or any of the others would still be selling so well. There must be more of us!

Other Comments by firemancarl

19. Comment #35874 by denoir on April 29, 2007 at 7:07 am

firemancarl:

Denoir,

You don't post on the packerreport.com do you? You sound like one of the other athhiests on there who gets into it with the overbearing bible thumpers.

Heh, I'm afraid not. Generally speaking I seldom bother to debate with bible thumpers as most of them are beyond redemption ;)

Right now I'm sort of interested about the group dynamics of this forum and the type of thinking that goes on here. Hitchens is an interesting disruptive element - probably more problematic to the average atheist than to the average theist.

Other Comments by denoir

20. Comment #35875 by scooternyc on April 29, 2007 at 7:08 am

Books like this need to be written so the message continues to get louder and louder to the religious of this world:

Your scam is a sham and we're on to your game.

Other Comments by scooternyc

21. Comment #35876 by kkant on April 29, 2007 at 7:11 am

Pi Guy quotes someone on his plane:
"Well, 97% of the population is believes Jesus is the son of god but apparently the majority doesn't rule in a democracy anymore (speaking about the laws of the land not being the same as Biblical law)."

No, in fact, us Americans do not live in a democracy. We live in a *constitutional* democracy. Plain old democracy = majority tyranny. Consitution = universal inalienable rights. So the guy on the plane will continue to be disappointed, thank goodness. :)

Other Comments by kkant

22. Comment #35877 by kkant on April 29, 2007 at 7:16 am

shmooth writes:
brilliant. Hitchens, the Iraq War supporter, blasting Islam for...causing war. guy doesn't have a coherent thought in his dome.

I think what Hitchens would say is, there is a difference. The same way there was a difference in WW2. Both sides wanted to go to war--but there was still a difference between the Nazis and the Allies.

You know, I am a liberal type, or at least I think I am. But when I listen to Hitchens speak about the war, frankly I find myself hard-pressed to refute his logic. I hear the people trying to trip him up from his audiences (in Berkely for example), and I find myself thinking, "these people are full of shit, and Hitchens is making sense". That's exactly what the atheist community needs--someone who can really convince people on the other side.

So, here's what Hitchens says on the war. I'd love to see a response on these points from anyone on this board; because I can't think of anything myself. I'll play Hitchens' advocate for a bit here, let's see how it goes:

1) This war didn't start just now; the US has been in a continuous state of war with Saddam since 1991.
2) The US caused this problem initially by putting the Baathists and Saddam in power, and has a responsibility to fix it.
3) The guy was commiting genocide (on the Kurds and others), harboring terrorists, WMD were found (e.g. the buried nuclear centrifuge), and he was in the past used WMD on his own people (chem attacks on the Kurds).
4) Bush is a liar and also an incompetent (on which I think we all agree with Hitchens), but that doesn't change the humanitarian and other logic above.

Other Comments by kkant

23. Comment #35878 by slummingangel on April 29, 2007 at 7:18 am

fireman carl if you look at the bill o reilly interview on the main page he qoutes it at 12% atheism is on the rise

Other Comments by slummingangel

24. Comment #35884 by lt_zippy2 on April 29, 2007 at 7:36 am

"But what is the point of writing such a book?"

Firstly I have just had a branch of one of the UK larges bookstores open less than 5 minutes walk from my home "heaven" (in a non spiritual, real world gounded sense!). The section on religion is huge with every major faith (and a few really off the wall ones) represented. They don't apparently have an athesim section. Most of the books that we are mostly familiar with ie Dawkins et al. are placed either in the popular science section or the, philosophy (if you can find it!)section mixed in with such wide ranging subjects you'll be lucky to find what you are looking for. There must be a crtical mass of these books where we will break into a mindset amongst the general public who will begin to accept that maybe there may be something in this.

Secondly as mentioned before it will be an additional reseouce for atheists. The more we are armed the more we can counter arguments that theists throw at us when we might not have the answer at the front of our brains. The more we keep pushing the explainations as to why theists are wrong/mistaken/dangerous etc. and get these reasons (or is that get reason) out in the open the more it will soak into the psyche of ordinary people that sometimes these resons don't reach.

I'm looking forward to reading this tome even though I don't agree with everything Hitchens says, but then I probably don't agree with everything other commentators say either, but I have to open mind to listen.

Other Comments by lt_zippy2

25. Comment #35886 by John P on April 29, 2007 at 7:39 am

I agree partially with kkant, about Hitchens war stance. Part of his logic is hard to refute. I've had this discussion on other sites, and most of the time it comes out the same.

After the first Iraq war, there were UN resolutions that Saddam was supposed to comply with, but clearly flipped the bird towards, until Bush started making noises about invasion. Then he seemed to get more cooperative. But the fact remains that he clearly violated those Resolutions. What's the point of issuing them, if there is no teeth behind them? And if their is no teeth, then Al-Queda and similar groups get the message that the West just won't do anything, that we are weak, etc.

The UN is a very ineffective organization, when it come to force. It requires the members to apply the force, and apparently, only the US and the UK, along with a few minor members, actually did so.

I think Hitchens stance is that, while regrettable, the war was inevitable. I don't hear him saying it's been conducted admirably, just that it had to be conducted.

Much of his stance also seems to come from his views on religion, his belief that Islam needs to be stopped in it's tracks.

Other Comments by John P

26. Comment #35888 by Bookman on April 29, 2007 at 7:40 am

Just curious -- if H.L. Mencken was "the penultimate social critic of the first half of the 20th century", who was the ultimate?

(sorry if I'm being pedantic, but journalists who think that "penultimate" means really really "ultimate", bug me).

Other Comments by Bookman

27. Comment #35895 by denoir on April 29, 2007 at 8:09 am

I think Hitchens stance is that, while regrettable, the war was inevitable. I don't hear him saying it's been conducted admirably, just that it had to be conducted.

It was just as inevitable as the war against North Korea or Iran - wars that apparently didn't happen. This is just to mention two of the habitual violators of UN sanctions. The humanitarian need for intervention? Please, what kind of an idiot does he take us for? Darfur anyone?

Hitchens' arguments are the same load of manure that you get from other right-wring pundits. That doesn't mean he is wrong on religion though.

Other Comments by denoir

28. Comment #35905 by flobear on April 29, 2007 at 8:50 am

Actually, I think this review is great. He complements Hitchens' writing style, says it's "accessible to the causal reader" and claims that "Hitchens' may be the best since Bertrand Russell's" book. I read his review twice but couldn't find any real criticism with the book's content. Only perhaps that Hitchens uses familiar arguments (and what's wrong with that?)

Other Comments by flobear

29. Comment #35906 by Lagomort on April 29, 2007 at 8:52 am

As an American, I assumed this writer was one as well. See, in America, there is a journalistic belief that there are 2 sides to every story, and no freakin' more. No people in the middle wondering where they stand. No people that question their beliefs, ever, just camp A and camp B.

I have met very few people that are purely one-sided. Most people I have met are far more mosaic. I know Christians that are deeply religious who fight to keep Intelligent-design out of schools. I know Conservatives that are deeply pro-choice, and believe gays are just normal people like everyone else. I also know liberals that think we should cut taxes as much as possible.

In the end, one of the main things that is strangling my country is the work of such reporters quoted above who attempt to simplify complex issues into a sporting event. In short, they are simple minded morons...

Other Comments by Lagomort

30. Comment #35907 by cassdenata on April 29, 2007 at 9:10 am

Firstly, I will say that although Christopher Hitchens was 'incorrect' about the war, I have a great deal of respect for him and not just for his outspokenness on atheism. He is a witty scholar and an asset to our country. Unfortunately, he got caught up in the great muslim conspiracy, of a battle between groups. I use the word incorrect, not lightly. While you may argue that his reasons for war, logically make sense, the outcome is that he was wrong as current events indicate. It is like Bertrand Russel's comments on the ontological argument, the argument is hard to disprove even though you know its wrong.

1) The US was not in a continuous state of war with Saddam. The last few years he was a neutered puppy thanks solely to the UN (which of course has problems, but they were successful this time). Weapons inspections were obviously successful. Think about how easy it was to beat Saddam's army this time. His army was much larger in the first gulf war but due to international pressure, their current army was tiny. Saddam was the least of our worries from a threat perspective.

2) I imagine that the US does bear 'some' responsibility but if we went around fixing all the damages our foreign policy has done, we would bankrupt the entire country and that is a fact. You have to have some perspective in your foreign policy. The goal may seem worthy but that doesn't mean it 'should' be done. It is ironic that Saddam, a ruthless dictator, was able to stabilize a region with bitter, divided hatreds and simmering religious fanaticism. I remember the common language early on in the war was that Iraq was a religiously moderate, secular country compared to other middle eastern regions. No, it was just Saddams ruthlessness that kept that in check as we are witnessing now.

3) WMD's were not found, don't try and stretch the truth. While it is a decidedly awful event that the US largely bears responsibility for, he gassed the Kurds years ago after the first Gulf War. There are atrocities going on around the globe that are 100s of times worse than Saddam was currently inflicting on his people, why choose this one.

4) The humanitarian defense. Sometimes going to war with the best intentions, causes more pain and bloodshed than had occurred in the previous situation that you were trying to fix (see the Iraq War). Intelligent people have realized that there are atrocities occurring in the world but not all can be fixed at the end of a gun. It is purely a matter of strategy. I believe that even if we didn't have an incompetent administration, the war was unwinnable. Putting a democracy like this in a region of the world, largely set in the dark ages, requires longer-term grass roots changes.

While I agree with Hitchens that the religion of Islam causes much suffering and pain to its own people, I have different strategies. Iraq was not a terrorist state, not a hotbed of anti-american fervor, not really a part of the overall battle between west and dark-age Islam.

Other Comments by cassdenata

31. Comment #35908 by bouwe on April 29, 2007 at 9:12 am

Watch out Alistar McGrath! Can you hear the rumble of the on-coming avalanche? You are about to be buried in a pile of atheist "screeds" falling off the bookshelf at your local bookstore! Don't worry -- quick! -- open up your own copy of "The Twilight of Atheism" and cower under it as if it were your own little "faith umberella". I'm sure all your strawman-notions of atheism will protect you from the big boulders of reality!!!

While this thread is about Hitchen's book, it is an example of the rise in profile of atheism. And so this is a good a place as any to comment about how absurd it was/is for anybody write a book with THAT title.

I mean, the arrogance and presumption of a Christian to appoint himself as an "expert" on atheism ("I was an atheist myself, when I had a brief teenage hissy fit, so I know all about it") and then to call his tome "The TWILIGHT of Atheism", well....all he proved was just how prone to wishful thinking Christians actually are. One is reminded of a certain quote from Mark Twain concerning rumours of his supposed death being "greatly exaggerrated" - except here we replace the human individual with an idea (not an IDEOLOGY...that would be McGrath's idea - of atheism!!)

Atheists don't write critiques of Christianity and call it "The Twilight of Christianity". We know enough about it to know it ain't going away any time soon. Sure, we're a small minority, but these books -- Hitchens just the latest -- show that WE AREN'T GOING AWAY EITHER and, hell, our numbers might actually be GROWING.

So, thanks Christopher, for your contribution. Now someone get the hardcover and give that McGrath guy a decent wack on the proverbial faith-filled head, for giving his worthless tome that idiotic title, which is looking more idiotic with every new edition of atheist book that comes out. McGrath is like Eric Idle in the "Bring out your dead" skit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" : atheists keep popping their heads up saying "I'm not dead yet," and he just pretends that they are, just for his own convenience.

Twilight my arse -- apologies again. I know this thread is supposed to be about Christopher Hitchens. But I'm just wondering if McGrath will have to re-title his book in future editions, with something that reflects reality. Something like: "Atheism: the Second Coming" or "Atheism: I'm not quite dead yet, Alistair!"

Or maybe, best of all, "The TRIUMPH of Atheism".

Ahem.....sorry folks, just letting off steam....back to the subject of Christopher Hitchens....normal service to resume shortly...

Other Comments by bouwe

32. Comment #35912 by Duff on April 29, 2007 at 9:22 am

As a former brainwashed prisoner of a dynamic American religion, trust me when I tell you it is effective when non-believers poke fun at you and ridicule the rationality of your beliefs. It hurts and it embarrasses but it may cause one to actually think about what one believes. I specifically remember someone telling me how "corny" my religion was. That description of what I had, here-to-fore, thought was a great belief system set me to thinking and reading and investigating, and it wasn't long until I realized my beliefs were in fact "corny" and even worse, wrong. I am now a very happy atheist.
Never let an opportunity go buy to tell a theist how silly they are.

Other Comments by Duff

33. Comment #35913 by Zaphod on April 29, 2007 at 9:32 am

To the first comment "Gurnet". Not all books are written with the hope that they will change someone's mind. They can be entertaining, enlightening, thought provoking and more. They need not be all 3 together either. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens has written his books to make us atheists laugh, to make us cry, or just to give us an example of one more person who just doesn't stand for nonsense dogma.

Other Comments by Zaphod

34. Comment #35915 by Mr. Mark on April 29, 2007 at 10:02 am

Yes, Hitchens' book will "change no minds" in the same way that the earliest books that were critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq War "changed no minds" when they were first published. In fact, their authors were portrayed as liars, malcontents, anti-American and worse.

But, strangely, as more and more books came out that were written from an anti-Bush perspective, the public's perception began to change.

It always amazes me that people - not just book reviewers/critics - assume that everyone has already read Dawkins or Harris or Dennett or whoever, and, therefore, a book by Hitchens is superfluous. The truth is that many people who would never read Dawkins or Harris will read Hitchens. All roads lead to Rome, but not everybody approaches Rome from the same direction.

In the final analysis, one must wonder what these naysayers are really afraid of.

I look forward to reading Hitchens latest effort.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

35. Comment #35918 by jshuey on April 29, 2007 at 10:15 am

"But what is the point of writing such a book? Surely, it will change no minds."

What an intellectually plebian thing to say.

While it may not convert those at the fundamentalist fringe, even in the U.S. that is a relatively small number. (For instance, only about 25% of American Christians go to church regularly.)

As in all great conflicts, this war is being waged for that vast majority in the middle: the Holiday believers, the social church-goers, those believers who recognize that much of what they believe is problematic, but who haven't been "tipped" yet.

The (recently) constant attack on irrationality will "convert" a reasonable number. In fact, even before the recent spate of books non-belief had been gaining ground in the U.S.

Every new book does have an impact -- why else the rush of true-believers to attack each and every one?

Other Comments by jshuey

36. Comment #35927 by Gurnet on April 29, 2007 at 10:47 am

Zaphod:

Where are we supposed to disagree? My post was a comment on what I saw as the ridiculous notion in the article that a thing should only be written if it is a serious attempt to change people's minds.

Other Comments by Gurnet

37. Comment #35930 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 11:12 am

When it comes to Christopher Hitchens I really feel that a lot of people are missing the point.

What Hitchens brings to the table is simple - a fresh way of looking at things. He is, by definition, a contrarian and as such it is his personal mission to expose himself to new information while never letting his current opinion stand in the way of his new opinion. Something we should all aspire to. This explains his ability to "jump" from Trotskyism to become something of a "temporary ally" (his words) of the neo-cons. Some people here find this "sea-change" disturbing which is absurd considering that our goal (surely) is to win theists over with logical argument.

There is no "group agenda" with Hitchens. He is not pandering to anybody's sensitivities. He is not seeking to win friends. He is simply arguing his point, I believe, from the heart and as a humanitarian aided by an unquenchable thirst for information, old and new, from which he might compose, for our analysis, the most clear and precise summation that he can. Some people, understandably, in this day and age, do not understand this. Hitchens is a brave man. How many people were so disgusted by the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia that they were prepared to relocate to Bosnia itself to try and help in any way possible as it was all kicking off?

Before I ever heard or read Hitchens I disagreed vehemently with the Iraq war (I still do) and I was most disappointed to find that Hitchens supported it. There was a time that I would not even listen to Hitchens speak on the subject, such was my disgust. But by happy accident I discovered through this site he was an atheist and I was pleased to hear his views at least on this. I'm glad I did because Hitchens is adroit at making stunningly convincing arguments.

Reading Hitchens was like discovering Dawkins all over again. Hearing him on Iraq, as I have since, is a shock to the system. You begin to realise how locked into a mindset you can become, for someone such as myself who thought of himself as a "free-thinker". Although I still disagree with him on Iraq, the case for war is much, much healthier as Hitchens explains it and I am glad that I took the time to listen to him.

This is why Hitchens does what he does. He takes it upon himself to shake other people out of their mindsets. We don't have to adopt his opinion, it would be pathetic if that were the outcome every time somebody picked up one of his books. He shakes people enough so that they at least have to think about things. You'll always find yourself discovering something you didn't know.

It is an issue of trust. We trust Richard Dawkins' books because at the very least they have the quality of honest argument coursing through the text -"Here is my honest opinion - with all the facts as I know them and as best as I can explain it". This is what, more than anything, lends power to books like The God Delusion. Only idiots cite the honesty of Ann Coulter's or Alister McGrath's work. Normally, in our media age, we have to sift and filter through a constant stream of waffle, lies and perversions in the hope that, in the end, we can reconstruct the truth. Such a mindset sometimes imposes limitation criteria for new information. We tend to ignore what we don't like. It can sometimes lead us to disregard people before we have even heard them because we presume them to be disingenuous.

I once read on this site a female member, posting that she would not read an article by Hitchens on atheism, simply because he had written another article for Vanity Fair entitled "Why Women Aren't Funny", explaining, in his opinion, women's lack of faculty for humour. This in itself was a provocative piss-take - which obviously succeeded in ensnaring the female poster in question. (Hitchens I suppose would argue that if women were more humorous the accusation would never be made and, even if it was, women would just laugh it off and indeed, fall over themselves to read the article to laugh heartily at the absurdity of this fat drunkard). Nevertheless, refusing to read a totally unrelated article on such a ad hominem basis is the intellectual equivalent of taking your ball home.

Hitchens deserves his chance. I've seen a few silly comments about him here that are only the product of sheer ignorance. To those I say - do yourself a favour - take time out to read Hitchens and be enriched by his argument.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

38. Comment #35939 by wednesdayguevara on April 29, 2007 at 11:41 am

bouwe:
"Atheism: I'm not quite dead yet, Alistair!"

Hilarious! Love it.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

39. Comment #35944 by MorituriMax on April 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm

But Hitchens is an equal opportunity atheist. His reviles all religions and scorns anyone foolish enough to accept any idea on faith.

Equal Opportunity? Wow, and here I thought atheists by definition scorned all religions?

Other Comments by MorituriMax

40. Comment #35951 by _J_ on April 29, 2007 at 1:06 pm

I know everybody's basically been addressing this angle of the above article, but still:

--'But what is the point of writing such a book? Surely, it will change no minds.'--

This, whenever it crops up, is a non-point. Take a second: can anyone imagine a book that gives a convincing argument against religion that *wouldn't* attract this criticism? If the book is strident and robust then it's deemed insensitive and alienating. If it's soft spoken and sympathetic, then it's woolly and indirect. If it's scientific it's inaccessible; if it isn't, then it's 'just as unscientific as faith'. The same 'rebuttal' works (or fails to work) every time: 'it will change no minds'.

Honestly, 'it will change no minds' is a non-argument and suitable only for being ignored. It tells us only about those unchangeable minds, those people who are fundamentally wedded to their chosen fantasies - nothing at all about the article actually being criticised, be it Hitchens' book or whatever. Desperate, last ditch, straw-grasping, fingers-in-the ears, wishful-thinking-as-criticism. Ignore it as standard.

Other Comments by _J_

41. Comment #35953 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm

The times they are a changin'. Hitchens speaks to an audience that hasn't heard from Dennett, Dawkins or Harris, and the "battle" is moving into a new and radical phase.

The guys below are planning to sue the arse off corporate religion for FALSE ADVERTISING!!!

http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/

What could be more just?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

42. Comment #35957 by ghostbuster on April 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

It would be nice to live long enough when the Bible will become a book not worth publishing--just an ancient, historical dusty relic of by-gone eras, studied only by the bespeckled geeks of history and anthropology. I like geeks, by the way.
The supersititious have had their say for centuries, over and over ad nauseum, so let's just jump right in there. Worked for them after a time.
Sometimes you have to repeat yourself again and again before you are heard. Ask any woman.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

43. Comment #35976 by MarcKeys on April 29, 2007 at 4:32 pm

All aboard the atheism cash cow.

Other Comments by MarcKeys

44. Comment #35985 by Mango on April 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Hardly a case of getting a slice of the "cash cow." Hitchens has had this book inside him waiting to be written for years (obvious when you read "The Missionary Position").

And the cash is with Jesus, as any "megachurch" should tell you.

Other Comments by Mango

45. Comment #35988 by A on April 29, 2007 at 6:27 pm

There is no hope.

There will be confrontation.

Other Comments by A

46. Comment #35991 by DistrictSelectman on April 29, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Mencken may or may not have been the penultimate social critic of this century -- and I agree with Bookman (comment 26): that comment torpedoes this guy's credibility -- but HL was definitely an asshole with few peers.

If anyone hasn't read Mencken, leaf through his Chrystomathy and it will cure you of any urge to quote him on the topic of atheism, or anything else.

Other Comments by DistrictSelectman

47. Comment #35994 by MelM on April 29, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Hitchens speaks to an audience that hasn't heard from Dennett, Dawkins or Harris...

This is important. It's one of the reasons why I think "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a good book for atheism. She can be understood by people with no science background at all and who will respond to a concrete personal journey. (BTW, I hope you are aware that a US Imam decided she deserves to be put to death.)

I haven't read this Hitchens book yet and would be interested why it speaks to a different audience. And, what audience? (I'm not challenging this idea, just intriqued by it.)

Other Comments by MelM

48. Comment #35995 by sillysighbean on April 29, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Reading the books of Dawkins, Harris and Russell this past year has changed MY mind. Looking forward to this one.
Also, thank you to all who took the time and effort to post links, I read most of them and watch ALL the movies. Keep up the good work.

Other Comments by sillysighbean

49. Comment #35997 by briarwood on April 29, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Christopher Hitchens was on C-SPAN today at the LA Times Book Festival.


On Sunday, April 29 at 1:30 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2007 LA Times Festival of Books - LIVE Religion & Culture Panel
Description: Book TV presents LIVE coverage of the LA Times Festival of Books. At 1:30pm ET/10:30am PT, a panel on the mixing of religion and culture featuring: Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great"),

Recently I read "The God Delusion" which led me to Richard Dawkin's other works and then to this site. I have enjoyed reading many of the postings and I saw a reference to Mr. Hitchens which led me to the television today.
Many of us here in the southern U.S. are reluctant to express our views concerning religion or the lack thereof. Mr Hitchens hit upon a major issue for me and that is the teaching of Creationism in our schools and his handling of the topic will help me and many others like me.
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have given me newly found confidence and tools to challenge deeply rooted cultural biasis without the fear of being overwhelmed intellectually.
It really is nice knowing that you are not alone.

Other Comments by briarwood

50. Comment #36008 by hightrekker on April 29, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Nietzsche said it best a long time ago- 'Christianity is voluntary stupidity.'

And that applies to all of the Bronze Age fiction, or New Age Delusion

Other Comments by hightrekker