1. Comment #96765 by GodlessHeathen on December 10, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Ahhh. I love this fellow.

I swear, if the Muslims took half his advice they'd be in great shape. Sad they don't seem able. I guess it's just so much more fun to sit about and feel persecuted.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

2. Comment #96766 by Wiggy on December 10, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Pat Condell's doing a great job of churning out these fantastic videos on youtube at the rate of just about one a week. He cracks me up every time! If you haven't already, subscribe to him and check out all of his previous monologues.

Other Comments by Wiggy

3. Comment #96779 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Paging Pat Condell to the "An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins" thread. The pope and a certain catholic priest require a lashing from your scathing wit :D

Other Comments by Don_Quix

4. Comment #96780 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Godless Heathen-

Love the avatar.
Thought I was the last Tenchi Muyo fan left on earth.

Other Comments by Diacanu

5. Comment #96784 by Ohnhai on December 10, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Heck no.. Love Tenchi... Liked the new OVA series that finished the original one :)

Other Comments by Ohnhai

6. Comment #96804 by room101 on December 10, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Awesome Pat...keep 'em coming

Other Comments by room101

7. Comment #96823 by Ben Jennings on December 11, 2007 at 1:32 am

He's wrong about one thing. These people don't disgrace their religion. They represent their religion, which is itself disgraceful.

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

8. Comment #96830 by gcdavis on December 11, 2007 at 1:48 am

Pat's witty and withering comments on religious extemism are priceless. I know that these are perfectly crafted monologues but I would love to see Pat in open debate, my guess is that he could crucify (oops!) any religious apologist that he encountered.

Other Comments by gcdavis

9. Comment #96848 by tieInterceptor on December 11, 2007 at 2:23 am

Pat rules, as usual.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

10. Comment #96876 by Katherine on December 11, 2007 at 3:21 am

I wonder if Pat will ever get a 'flea'......

Other Comments by Katherine

11. Comment #96887 by Nighttripper on December 11, 2007 at 3:57 am

Oh he has loads, just type in "reponse Pat condell" into youtube. Be prepared to weep though.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

12. Comment #96908 by Acleron on December 11, 2007 at 4:44 am

"in all their full three dimensional bollick brained stupidity"

Priceless. Condell for Prime Minister.

Other Comments by Acleron

13. Comment #96940 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 6:09 am

After Dennett's lame job, put Pat up against Dinesh D'Souza for the next debate.

Other Comments by Rtambree

14. Comment #96987 by notsobad on December 11, 2007 at 8:00 am

Rtambree,
lame job? Do you prefer O'Reilly-style debate to an intelligent speech?
Condell said he wouldn't debate fundamentalists, since they will never listen.

Other Comments by notsobad

15. Comment #96990 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 8:13 am

Dennett was certainly more intelligent, but in terms of debating style, he lacked flair. A slower words/minute rate, higher disfluency and arguments that jumped around mid-sentence from topic to topic meant that he only addressed 10% of the many points that D'Souza made.

Sure, Dennett got 9/10 for substance, but perhaps only 3/10 for style, whereas D'Souza got 1/10 for substance but perhaps 6/10 for style.

Even the questions at the end of the debate from the audience were better than Dennett's points.

I was just commentating on the spectacle or showbiz aspect of the debating format. Like you I detest the O'Reilly format because it's too short, too superficial.

I would prefer an approach where the opponent of D'Souza take him to task on the first incorrect statement he uttered, and hammered him on that one point for the next three hours if necessary in order to get him to recant or apologise.

Pat has an eloquence of speaking with good rhetorical skills and low disfluency so that in the "arena" of debate, he would make a worthy champion against D'Souza.

Other Comments by Rtambree

16. Comment #96992 by Godless Heathen on December 11, 2007 at 8:16 am

It looks like I have a flea of my own!!!

Who is this "GodlessHeathen" copy-cat? Why did you steal my user name? Have you no shame? ???

I challenge you, sir, to a duel!!!

Other Comments by Godless Heathen

17. Comment #97008 by tieInterceptor on December 11, 2007 at 9:06 am

found this line on the comments section under the video, :)

I bought a Teddy Bear today for a tenner. I named it Mohammed, then sold it for twenty quid.
My question is "Have I made a prophet?"

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

18. Comment #97010 by BicycleRepairMan on December 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

I challenge you, sir, to a duel!!!

You forgot to add "..You Godless Heathen!" to fill my daily dose of puns.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

19. Comment #97090 by Kris Verburgh on December 11, 2007 at 11:48 am

What is this woman doing with a leopard on her lap??? ;-)

Other Comments by Kris Verburgh

20. Comment #97674 by Cartomancer on December 12, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone.

Spout vicious theistic nonsense and invent insults where none exist and the world laughs at you. Cry foul and it laughs even harder.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

21. Comment #98233 by NeuroTrumpet on December 13, 2007 at 10:19 am

I don't know why everyone raves about this guy so much--or more pressingly why his YouTube videos get posted on RichardDawkins.net.

He mostly regurgitates the novel comic musings of other skeptics, and the fact that it's in video format is unnecessary since he's basically reading something that would do just fine as a blog. There isn't any added visual interest--just a guy with a bland background talking into the camera.

I really don't mean to sound like a jerk. I just don't get it. Yeah, he's funny--but why's he HERE?

Other Comments by NeuroTrumpet

22. Comment #98686 by scoobie on December 14, 2007 at 3:55 am

Wow, I never saw this guy before. What a breath of fresh air and how nice to see a little sarcasm used where it's warranted instead of the usual pussyfooting around. Peace! - especially to those in the religion of "peace"...

Other Comments by scoobie

23. Comment #98693 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 4:14 am

I don't know why everyone raves about this guy so much--or more pressingly why his YouTube videos get posted on RichardDawkins.net.

Pat Condell is a stand-up comedian and writer. I would not doubt there is an element of self-promotion in these videos. (Not that there is anything wrong with that if they are done well)

I find it hard to know what to think of him. I have grown to dislike his videos, as I can't see that much new or interesting about what he is saying. Personally, I think one short sketch by Marcus Brigstocke (availabile on this site) is more effective than all of Condell's.

I do sense a little 'jumping on the bandwagon' with these videos. Even if this is what he has always believed, it is telling that he started this only last year.

Anyway, that is just my cynical view.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #98696 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

I can't see that much new or interesting about what he is saying.

I think many people here, for instance, re-cycle their thoughts. However, he does have a way with coining new ways of seeing and saying it.

"Thats what happens when little men get hold of big ideas..." sums up perfectly the mindset of the troublemakers. A valuable insight.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

25. Comment #98711 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 5:30 am

However, he does have a way with coining new ways of seeing and saying it.

Not my feeling, but there you go. I don't much like his approach. I think that to be that confrontational and effective you need the wit and wordplay of a Hitchens, otherwise it verges on just ranting for effect.

Other Comments by steve99

26. Comment #98718 by Incredulous on December 14, 2007 at 6:08 am

#98711, steve99

I think that to be that confrontational and effective you need the wit and wordplay of a Hitchens, otherwise it verges on just ranting for effect.

There is no doubt that Christopher Hitchens is the kind of guy you wouldn't want to meet in an intellectual dark alley and he is a very strong spokesman for us sceptics, especially in more formal, journalistic and presentation situations.

Nonetheless, I am quite taken by Pat's 'ranting for effect' he has, for me, a kind of everyman feel him. He always comes across as 'Peeved from Peterborough' or 'Annoyed from Birmingham'.

You're quite right about the bandwaggon feel, but is that necessarily a bad thing, Steve? I'm assuming you mean he's just another comedian making a living out of having a humourous stab at fundies.

Ok, I wouldn't dare see him as an 'official' spokesman or even someone on the same level as 'The Big Four' but maybe he captures something for us not so smart atheists who also like it earthy and apparently, if not genuinely, heartfelt.

Yes, Pat is as subtle as a house brick, but does being an atheist need only appeal to the highly intelligent, superbly educated and sensitively aware amongst us? Can it be that a good old belly laugh at some of religion's inanities is also appealing?

Just who is likely to be atheistic? Are we alienating anyone or group? Are there other ways of fighting the oppressive, overbearing, authoritarian meanness of faith unreasoning?

As ever written with the utmost respect for you, but this question of representation and appeal is quite interesting.

Other Comments by Incredulous

27. Comment #98719 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 6:10 am

A matter of taste I guess, Steve.

I'm mystified by Billy Connolly, f'rinstance.

Hitchens, however, could do a great nightclub act, perched on a bar stool a la Dave Allen or Lenny Bruce, clutching a glass of scotch and wreathed in cigarette smoke.....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

28. Comment #98727 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Yes, Pat is as subtle as a house brick, but does being an atheist need only appeal to the highly intelligent, superbly educated and sensitively aware amongst us?

No, but I think what matters here is the impression you want to make if you make videos and post them for the world to see.

Can it be that a good old belly laugh at some of religion's inanities is also appealing?

I happen to know that Condell is a comedian, but these things just don't come across as that funny. To me. And sometimes, just sometimes, I think he steps over the line that marks provocative and yobbishness. And I think that can be problematic.

You're quite right about the bandwaggon feel, but is that necessarily a bad thing, Steve? I'm assuming you mean he's just another comedian making a living out of having a humourous stab at fundies.

Well, that is it. Some of what he says implies (or could be taken to imply) that even the mildest religious people should be attached with verbal vigour.

As for the "yobbishness", perhaps that is the image he wants to create, I don't know. Perhaps he wants to seem a bit like the atheist equivalent of Gordon Ramsay, if you see what I mean.

I don't mind rants against ideas at any level, but sometimes Condell seems to me to suggest being offensive directly to people, even people who may just be gently deluded and not doing much harm.

And the thing that gets me, is I am not sure how manipulative he is being. Is this really Condell, or it a sort of "Al Murray the Pub Landlord" figure (that should confuse any non-Brits)?

I'm mystified by Billy Connolly, f'rinstance.

I'm glad I am not the only one!

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #98803 by drbreakfast on December 14, 2007 at 11:23 am

Yes, it is a matter of taste and some here may find him tasteless. However, I think he's great and I discovered him from this site. I think that the combination of his delivery, "rough" eloquence and the raw bite of his humor is a welcomed addition to the voices of reason.

While he is not likely to do it, I think that a Pat vs. Denish debate would be highly amusing and it would plainly show the empty suit that religion really is.

Other Comments by drbreakfast

30. Comment #99102 by Titchfield on December 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Nice. Makes me wonder what Bill Hicks would have had to say about this.

Other Comments by Titchfield

31. Comment #100558 by Minium Jones on December 18, 2007 at 10:23 pm

Wow, who is this whitty fellow! That was magnificently blunt and honest. Wish i had the guts.

Other Comments by Minium Jones