I loved reading Christopher Hitchins’ outrageous quotes. He had some brilliant ways of putting things.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Speaks for itself.
My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilisation, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it either.
That made me laugh. But it seems like it sometimes. Some of the people who achieve high office are utterly deranged yet people vote them in!
The Koran shows every sign of being thrown together by human beings, as do all the other holy books.
If you look objectively at the writings that is obvious – yet there are still people who firmly believe they are the word perfect utterances of God.
Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.
Too true! You do not have to be religious to be moral. Neither are all religious people moral.
Only the aspirants for president are fool enough to believe what they read in the newspapers.
I certainly don’t.
To terrify children with the image of hell… to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?
Well you know my answer. The inbuilt misogyny of the Abrahamic tradition is a cultural legacy from the nomadic Arab tribes who wrote it. To teach religion to children is nothing more or less than child abuse and a blatant attempt to indoctrinate.
If you gave Falwell (Jerry Falwell – conservative Southern Baptist Pastor) an enema he could be buried in a matchbox
I found this hilarious.
The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.
To think and question is human. To accept and put blind faith in superstition also seems to be human.
To the dumb question, ‘Why me?’ the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply, ‘Why not?’
There’s nothing special about any of us.
To ‘choose’ dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.
I prefer a good vintage.
I don’t think the war in Afghanistan was ruthlessly enough waged.
Well I think war is always brutal and ruthless. There has to be better ways.
I don’t think it’s possible to have a sense of tragedy without having a sense of humor.
???
Well, we can’t say any more than we can say there is no god, there is no afterlife. We can only say there is no persuasive evidence for or argument for it.
That’s good enough for me.
High moral character is not a precondition for great moral accomplishments.
Seemingly not!
I miss the guy!! We need more outspoken, intelligent free-thinkers.
Amazing quotes! And you’re right we do need more people like him who aren’t afraid to be different and speak their minds
Spot on Pooj!! You be one of those people!
Yeah absolutely hope I can be someone like that š
Course you can!
I always found him to me as hectoring, pompous and self righteous as the people he mocked, of course that may very well have been the point.
he could come over a bit like that but his intelligence and with were his saving grace.
I’ve never heard of him, but the things he say is very thought provokingš.
he is a writer, columnist and speaker who is very outspoken. I think he was very good.
WW2, in the Pacific, was ended by “ruthless” bombings. Einstein, “genius” that the masses think him to be, was tortured by the fact that his mathematic equations allowed for the bombs that obliterated so many Japanese. In reality, those bombs allowed for a relatively quick and clean ending to a war, against aggressors, whom glorified war. War, like the parts of human nature which lead to it, is not simple enough to be solved by wishes.
Thank you for that Louis. War and aggression is certainly a human trait that is a deeply entrenched and complex part of our nature that will not be easily solved by wishful thinking. But ruthless bombing is no answer either. I believe that in Vietnam three times as many bombs were dropped on one small country than were dropped in the whole Second World War and yet the Americans lost. In Syria the ruthless bombings have not brought peace. In Japan it is possible to justify the bombing of Hiroshima (doubt over whether it was a military target or not) but the bombing of Nagasaki was probably not justified as the Japanese were already suing for surrender.
You’ve missed the overall point: I was not implying that bombs are a salve to all problems. I implied that the best way to reduce human suffering, in situations of conflict, is often the precise application of severe measures. Whereas, going into a warzone with a limp-wristed, hopeful idealism, will most often extend the conflict, and thus the suffering of both sides – or simply cause your side to be slaughtered.
A practical example. In fighting wildfires, smaller, controlled fires, are set ahead of the main blaze. The purpose of those new fires is to burn up the available fuel, in a controlled manner, before the wildfire arrives. A casual, layman’s view of fires, will lead one to think that more fire could not possibly help; but those controlled fires clear available fuel much faster, safer, and cheaper, than any other available method.
I believe you are right in a number of instances. Sometimes it is necessary to deal with things in a strong manner to prevent a long-drawn out conflict. But sometimes this tactic doesn’t work.
I’m not sure your analogy with forest fires actually works though fighting fire with fire can be effective.