1. Comment #121052 by MelM on February 2, 2008 at 10:40 pm

This god certainly has a talent for really strange and imaginative punishments. I would never have thought of sending frogs for the Second Plague.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/exodus/the_second_plague/ex08_01-02.html

Other Comments by MelM

2. Comment #121059 by sarah95 on February 2, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Wonderful job, Pat!

As for that bit at the end about preferring damnation, I quite agree. If the god of the desert ever defies mathematical prediction and comes knocking on my door, I'll simply say, "No thanks, I'd much rather spend eternity studying very hot tectonics with rationalists and atheists. I don't think I'd much enjoy the company in heaven."

Other Comments by sarah95

3. Comment #121082 by AtheistAspy on February 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

Look at this way; if God is the kind of being who deserves worship, then he won't punish disbelief. If he does, then he shouldn't be worshipped anyways.

Oh, and Pat's hilarious!

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

4. Comment #121101 by Nails on February 3, 2008 at 12:59 am

Shortly after this he floods the entire planet because somebody must have looked at him the wrong way. He does tip off one person to build a boat because obviously he doesn't want to wipe everyone out - there'd be no-one left to punish.

If it wasn't so apt, it would be hilarious.
It did raise a smile on my face though - so thanks again Pat. You are etting better and better - keep up the good work, dir!!

Other Comments by Nails

5. Comment #121142 by JamesDB on February 3, 2008 at 2:01 am

Haha I quite liked this one, blunt and to the point.

How come christians can send atheists letters about finding god and loving jesus and we just laugh and toss it out but when an atheist sends a christian anything everything goes to hell.
The christians rights are being violated and blah blah blah.
I think an interesting experiment would be to hook a bible believing christian up to a polygraph and ask them questions about which parts of the bible they believe and which parts they don't accept, and see if we can get a difinitive answer on which god all these people are talking about. Its time to stop with all the excuses and distractions used by the faithful. I want to know what they truly believe is real.

Other Comments by JamesDB

6. Comment #121143 by Mr Blue Sky on February 3, 2008 at 2:13 am

Keep it up Pat, you may be being squeezed out elsewhere like MySpace etc but I suspect you will always be welcomed here. So eloquent too. You represent so many of us. Thanks from a displaced Yorkshireman in Bedfordshire

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

7. Comment #121168 by Darwin's badger on February 3, 2008 at 3:55 am

Nice job, Pat.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

8. Comment #121187 by ianmkz on February 3, 2008 at 4:41 am

Yahweh is a bit of an easy target though, isn't he.

Other Comments by ianmkz

9. Comment #121241 by Laurie Fraser on February 3, 2008 at 5:55 am

Another goodie from the irrepressible Pat. Gee, Pat, I hope you have secure locks on your doors! You did forget to mention the punishment for wayward sons (Deuteronomy ch22, if memory serves me correctly): take them to the gates of the city, where the elders shall stone them to death! I keep telling my two boys that's what lies in wait for them, but they seem to be quite nonchalant (sp?) about the prospect!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

10. Comment #121263 by bluebird on February 3, 2008 at 6:19 am

Pat Condell serves another piquant morsel!!

Other Comments by bluebird

11. Comment #121273 by GBile on February 3, 2008 at 6:33 am

Pats performances should be shown on the big screens in those mega-churches before every service.

That will really 'test their faith'.

Other Comments by GBile

12. Comment #121339 by liberalartist on February 3, 2008 at 9:13 am

now that's what I call a sunday morning sermon! Nothing like a good laugh to set up the day.

Other Comments by liberalartist

13. Comment #121357 by babrock on February 3, 2008 at 9:38 am

Discovering the Pat Condell vidios has been one of the coolest things I have experienced thru this site, and there is useally plenty of interesting ideas to be had here.

Other Comments by babrock

14. Comment #121363 by tieInterceptor on February 3, 2008 at 9:47 am

Another good Pat Condell video,

he is getting really high views counts on every single video now, it's also on the top 20 most viewed humorists I think ,

not a bad platform for common sense and godless humour you tube,

still, sometimes it looks like they are doing something strange with the view counts... dodgy censorship I think.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

15. Comment #121368 by ridelo on February 3, 2008 at 10:01 am

Man, would I run to church if I could hear there sermons like this one!
EDIT: Oh! liberalartist said that already. Sorry!


Other Comments by ridelo

16. Comment #121369 by GroovinMastiff on February 3, 2008 at 10:02 am

It amazes me how Pat always hits the nail on the head when it comes to religion.

And as he said - and as I'm sure many people feel - the bible should be read, but only as a piece of literature, nothing more.

Other Comments by GroovinMastiff

17. Comment #121377 by SPS on February 3, 2008 at 10:19 am

That was great! I've thought much the same way for a long time now.

Other Comments by SPS

18. Comment #121380 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 3, 2008 at 10:26 am

Look at this way; if God is the kind of being who deserves worship, then he won't punish disbelief. If he does, then he shouldn't be worshipped anyways.

Gotta love The Atheist Gambit. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

19. Comment #121390 by Acitta on February 3, 2008 at 10:54 am

A good rant, but he speaks about Abraham as if he was a real historical figure rather than a mythological one. The Jewish religion was not the sole origin of monotheism.

Other Comments by Acitta

20. Comment #121393 by steveroot on February 3, 2008 at 11:00 am

Another classic from the Condell library.
Well done!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

21. Comment #121437 by ofir on February 3, 2008 at 12:03 pm

You should check the youtube comments. Some are shocking, others encouraging. But he's creating a lot of noise on youtube. No 4 most discussed today.

Other Comments by ofir

22. Comment #121504 by D'Arcy on February 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Good stuff Pat. See you at Milliways, where we will await the great Prophet Zarquon!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

23. Comment #121621 by dragonfirematrix on February 3, 2008 at 8:38 pm

As always... Great topic and info! Great presentation!

Pat needs to go prime-time and stone the Abrahamic world! Maybe a few rocks up side their Abrahamic heads will do these religious fanatics some good.

Wayne (Forest, VA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

24. Comment #121680 by gcdavis on February 4, 2008 at 1:14 am

Brilliant!!!!

Pat has produced a considerable body of work now, he deserves a permanent headline spot on this site, C'mon Josh lets give this guy the prominence he deserves.

Other Comments by gcdavis

25. Comment #121682 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 1:23 am

Pat has produced a considerable body of work now, he deserves a permanent headline spot on this site, C'mon Josh lets give this guy the prominence he deserves.

I would really rather this did not happen. He has, in one video or other, been highly critical of those who don't share his approach and are somewhat milder towards the religious, or who prefer polite debate rather than sarcastic rant. My view is that we should not promote to the level you suggest those who don't accept that a broad range of strategies are possible in the fight for reason. Or if they can't do that, at least show some respect for others who are at least trying to help.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #121689 by irate_atheist on February 4, 2008 at 2:04 am

Buy the man a beer!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

27. Comment #121692 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:06 am

Pat has produced a considerable body of work now, he deserves a permanent headline spot on this site

I may have missed something, but I don't think I see link to the Rational Response Squad anymore. I would not support a Pat Condell link and put him in the same bucket as these lot. All power to them for getting up and doing something, but I don't particularly like their style and think they would damage the respectability of this site somewhat.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

28. Comment #121769 by Azven on February 4, 2008 at 5:38 am

I've always said that God's love is the love of a stalker...

He LOVES you and wants you to LOVE Him back. He WATCHES you. He wants you to KNOW who He is. He wants you to WORSHIP him. He gets JEALOUS if talk to anyone else.

He KNOWS WHAT YOUR THINKING.

He will TORTURE and KILL to get what he wants...

God is decidedly creepy. Thanks be that He doesn't exist...

Other Comments by Azven

29. Comment #121856 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 9:02 am

or who prefer polite debate rather than sarcastic rant... who don't accept that a broad range of strategies are possible in the fight for reason.

Steve, let me apologise for the length of this post, which is not a rebuttal of what you say, but more a way of clearing my mind on Pete Condell and his place in my mind.

There is a place for sarcastic rant, Steve, and, while I agree that he should not be one of the main reps for reason, his is an important and clear tool in our box of tricks.

His rants do not lack value and even illustrate the truth and the strength behind his own values, but, I can see that his style would make him a sitting target for those who won't engage with us anyway. This is why I agree he should not be a representative in the same way as Richard Dawkins et al.

However, his comments do help to focus things and lead to inevitable discussions on the value of prolonged, continued and possibly time consuming polite chit chat with people who simply believe in supernatural beings who created the universe and interfere in human affairs.

Pat has made it clear he has no wish to engage with the faithful simply because they aren't listening and probably never will.

Simply put, authority-led faith based reasoning does not want to be questioned on the truth value of their beliefs and Pete does not stand on ceremony in letting people know this in very straightforward, simple English.

Theists can be like horny young men caught masturbating; they hate to admit the pointlessness of their solitary activities and embarrassment at their own humanness. Something, rational human beings accept without question.

We live in proselytising hope we can change their minds, but if evidence can't change that, how can we?

Do we have tools of influence they don't already have and use expertly to bemuse the gullible into believing baseless rhetoric is in fact substantial knowledge.

I like Pat Condell's style because it is just as uncompromising in its own way as the theist's own stance. He is fighting fire with fire and while he may burn some bridges reduces to ashes many of their cherished ideas.

Let's not kid ourselves that polite conversation is going to turn many theist's heads, or, change the mind of those dominated by superstitious, pernicious, dangerous and plain wrong ideas.

Theists think any questioning of their beliefs and attitudes are rude, ignorant and arrogant, because there can be no questioning the validity of empty, vacuous faith, in their hypersensitive opinion.

They will think even someone as polite, charming and erudite as Sam Harris, or even Daniel Dennett for that matter, impolite for simply asking why they believe what they believe. they know there is no reason to; at all.

A mild approach seems to lead to theist's actually believing their irrationality and their unreasonable, unevidenced views actually have a merit, and therefore, can be considered on the same level as those views which are backed by well backed, supported and logically tight evidence.

Steve, you and I know their views have no merit at all. Pete is simply stating what we all feel, that we can forget about their ideas for the simple and universally understandable reasons he outlines in his videos.

The way forward for this movement is not, it seems by counter evangelising, but by simply encouraging those who are not too deeply immersed in nonsense to reclaim their own brains and to ensure they have the tools to question and then decide.

I think Pete has a very important part to play in that, simply because he speaks in a common tongue which will make the ditherers sit up and listen.

The true theist will love us wasting our time giving credibility to ideas they are not going to change their mind about anyway.

Your view is as valuable as ever.

Other Comments by Incredulous

30. Comment #121860 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 9:08 am

Incredulous: Just first thoughts... may edit more in later.

My disagreement with Condell is not primarily because of his approach. I am gay, and the fight for gay rights here in the UK has always involved a range of approaches, from the mild (Ian McKellen/Stonewall) to the far more agressive (Peter Tatchell). Both approaches seem to have been needed.

My disagreement is that he does not seem to share this view. He seems to think that those who are more polite are just playing a self-indulgent game. I am sure he was only saying this in response to those who have criticised him, but that still does not make it right.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #121862 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:14 am

Steve: What did Peter Tatchell think of Ian McKellen's approach?

Other Comments by Phoenix42

32. Comment #121864 by irate_atheist on February 4, 2008 at 9:15 am

29. Comment #121856 by Incredulous -

Theists can be like horny young men caught masturbating; they hate to admit the pointlessness of their solitary activities

Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love.- Woody Allen

Other Comments by irate_atheist

33. Comment #121866 by irate_atheist on February 4, 2008 at 9:19 am

31. Comment #121862 by Phoenix42 -

What did Peter Tatchell think of Ian McKellen's approach?

Well, I'm guessing he turned him down.

*coat ->

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #121868 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:23 am

irate_athiest:

Well, I'm guessing he turned him down.

I can't believe I phrased it like that! If you didn't say it someone else would have :-)

Other Comments by Phoenix42

35. Comment #121874 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

There is something about reading irate_athiest's posts next to that innocent looking picture of Dougal that cracks's me up.

Steve: What did Peter Tatchell think of Ian McKellen's approach?

I don't know what the personal reaction was. I know that there was considerable disagreement on both sides about the correct approach. (There are many parallels with the "atheist" situation).

I think there is a consensus that in the end, both approaches where necessary.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #121876 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 9:35 am

Steve:

I agree many approaches are needed, but Pete's approach is just one. My interpretation of Pete's statement about polite self-indulgence is based around efficacy. Like all of us, I think he simply wanted to maybe make us aware of factors affecting our own effectiveness.

I am black and whilst growing up, in the sixties and seventies, there were some people who would villify in the most beastial way any non-white person who engaged with the, then enemy.

This approach proved stronger for those who maybe needed a stronger identity to lead them forward into more productive ways of living. So it's not a question of right or wrong. Just exploring ways of change and rolling with the punches when someone on your own side disagrees or maybe says something a little inconsiderate and possibly wrong. Pat may simply have been looking for an effect which focuses us on the effective.

The civil rights movement in America turned from non-violent to confrontational, with violent undercurrents; from Martin Luther King to Malcolm X, to be simplistic. Both paths contradicted each other but were of equal importance and effect.

Socially, the less threatening way has been rewarded; but was it really the most effective in effecting change in American society?

The feminist movement has, in the mind of some females, been hampered by those uncompromising women who took no prisoners in their fight for equality.

The more amenable route does not necessarily have to be the most effective, though we would like to believe it was the softness and charm which has led to women challenging for all the top spots in the western world.


One or two homosexual friends, male and female, refuse to acknowledge the existence of heterosexual people, believing us to be egocentric in our behaviour.

A jaundiced opinion, in my view,, but perfectly understandable, and a very potent tool in the fight for respect for gays over the years.

I do agree that Pat Condell is a conversation stopper, but along with the smooth and sugary techniques of atheism's main spokesmen, surely he has a prominent part to play - if only as a totem pole for many of our intellectual frustrations with theists.

You will have to forgive me for not being as incisive as yourself, but, for me, this question of approach is quite important.

Many of the ideas, attitudes, behaviours and approaches I have are formed by this site and one other atheist site.

The ideas submitted by ALL the members here have a value as they DO affect the way I engage with people different to myself.

Other Comments by Incredulous

37. Comment #121882 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 9:45 am

Incredulous:

I agree with just about everything you say. I differ with Pat about the effectiveness of different approaches. I have actually had some very occasional successes at changing the minds of theists about theism. I have had considerably more success in changing the minds of theists about atheists. It is deeply rewarding to me when people talk to me and then then say that I have changed their mind about atheists - that they can be moral and pleasant. I think that is important, as we need allies in the fight against fundamentalists, and in the fight for acceptance. We aren't going to make that many allies with Pat's approach alone. We need the "good cop/bad cop" approach, I think.

You will have to forgive me for not being as incisive as yourself, but, for me, this question of approach is quite important.

You seem pretty incisive to me!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #121897 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 10:02 am

It is deeply rewarding to me when people talk to me and then then say that I have changed their mind about atheists - that they can be moral and pleasant.

This is why the discussion about approach is important to me. In the end, it seems to me that we have to convince our enemies that they are wrong about us and maybe I understand more clearly why you are concerned at Pete's approach, which can be interpreted as aggressive and threatening; especially to those obviously abused by God, through mankind.

Just one last point. My only concern with the bad cop/good cop approach, as well as the other creative possibilities in between, is based around my own experience.

A bad experience with the bad cop, can make the good cop's job a little more difficult, whereas the good cop's effect can last only for a little while ... until a suitable bad cop comes along to confirm our fears, suspicions and prejudices about cops.

I'm in this ride for the duration or until evidence tells me otherwise, however, my experience tells me that changing perceptions and raising awareness can be quite thankless and gains easily reversed.

Other Comments by Incredulous

39. Comment #121904 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 10:14 am

I am not that concerned about Pat's approach. I find most of his videos pretty amusing, and I can see how they can help the morale of many isolated atheists.

A bad experience with the bad cop, can make the good cop's job a little more difficult, whereas the good cop's effect can last only for a little while ... until a suitable bad cop comes along to confirm our fears, suspicions and prejudices about cops.

A very important point. Things have to be balanced for the best effect.

Things aren't that simple even for the "good cop". I believe in challenging people's views vigorously but politely, but sometimes it can get frustrating and there is a real temptation to say "you are a moron!" and give up!

There is also the matter that many religious people are so sensitive about their beliefs that the distinction between approaches is irrelevant. If they consider Dawkins strident there is no hope!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #121907 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 10:21 am

There is also the matter that many religious people are so sensitive about their beliefs that the distinction between approaches is irrelevant. If they consider Dawkins strident there is no hope!

I know that my parents, who are evangelicals, frequently cite Prof Dawkins as being an 'Atheist Fundementallist'. I challenged them once and asked which book, tv appearance or lecture had given them that impression. Turns out they had never read, heard or seen him. It's just 'well known' - i.e. the preacher told them. I think that was around the point I asked that we not discuss their beliefs anymore!

Other Comments by Phoenix42

41. Comment #121910 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 10:36 am

I believe in challenging people's views vigorously but politely, but sometimes it can get frustrating and there is a real temptation to say "you are a moron!" and give up!

I think there is a point where emotionally you kind of stop taking the RD approach and Pete Condell takes over. I don't think Pete would bother with niceties, though, and the temptation simply becomes an invitation.

I'm really frightened to think that there are people who will harm other people physically, emotionally and intellectually, simply because of their arrogantly held beliefs.

The tragedy is to be mainly found in their ability to displace or project their ignorance, prejudice, arrogance and superstition, which to my way of thinking can only end in ... well, I don't want to think about where it will end, suffice it to say it always ends there.

Thanks for helping to clear my mind on this, Steve. I've been bothered by this for a little while.

You're a gent.

Other Comments by Incredulous

42. Comment #121918 by wonderer* on February 4, 2008 at 11:04 am

30. Comment #121860 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 9:08 am

...My disagreement is that he does not seem to share this view. He seems to think that those who are more polite are just playing a self-indulgent game. I am sure he was only saying this in response to those who have criticised him, but that still does not make it right.

I agree Steve,

As someone who's been a very regular poster for more than a year in a forum dominated by religious fundamentalists, I can say there is definitely value in having a repertoire of styles available.

I use harsh sarcasm, or extremely patient explanation, depending on the situation. The ability to put people in their place is an important capability for earning respect, but once respect is earned, mutually respectful dialog can ensue. Patient, reasonable, explanation of an atheist viewpoint is something many theists have never seen.

Through earning respect and seducing theists into a mutually respectful dialog, mind opening on the part of theists can occur. I think it's unrealistic to hope a theist will admit he was wrong, but they clearly can learn that atheist thinking is not the simplistic straw man they assume it is. There's a lot of value in just putting a human face on atheism. Also, I do see things I express echoed in others. Clearly understanding gets propagated regardless of whether it is acknowledged.

We social primates have a totally different mindset when we perceive a situation as US vs THEM. In that situation, we only hear what the other is saying enough to formulate a counterattack. Skillful dialog, can result in WE humans (atheists and theists) carrying on a consciousness raising conversation.

Here's a link to a forum thread where perhaps some of what I'm talking about can be seen:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=817672

BTW Steve,

Thanks for requesting that the P.Z. Myers' 'Neuroscience of Religion' presentation be posted here.

Other Comments by wonderer*

43. Comment #121922 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:20 am

Aarrgh lost a whole post again!

I am gay, and the fight for gay rights here in the UK has always involved a range of approaches, from the mild (Ian McKellen/Stonewall) to the far more agressive (Peter Tatchell). Both approaches seem to have been needed.

My vocabulary is going to let me down again, but here goes:

My mild dislike of Pat Condell is not because he is agressive, its simply because he's not very sophisticated.

Peter Tatchell may have more aggresively campaigned for gay rights, but he also came across well in interviews and had a good degree of intelligence. Condell is by no means stupid, and is funny in places, but he's pretty childish in others.

I just wouldn't want him linked here alongside Myers, Hitchens, Harris, as an example of the best we have. I think it would dilute the power of this site as a place of reason and thinking.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

44. Comment #121923 by Diacanu on February 4, 2008 at 11:22 am

I may come off as a "bad cop", but I just don't suffer fools gladly, and I won't eat a bullshit sandwich, and call it peanut butter.

You shovel drivel and lies at me, or play passive-aggressive, I'm not going to grit my teeth and grin.

I really don't think I'm any kind of reactionary hothead, when I dish out, it's rationally justified.
There are just so many ignorant pricks out there, well, it keeps me in a tourrettes state for a stretch.

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #121927 by Diacanu on February 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

Peacebeaponme-

Well, as Steve has said, I think there's room for a variety of approaches, and fearing him being put alongside Myers/Hitch/Harris as if it would poison the well is a bit elitist.

Other Comments by Diacanu

46. Comment #121929 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 11:28 am

I think it would dilute the power of this site as a place of reason and thinking.

This is the clinching point for me. It is important to accept all viewpoints, but be careful about who actually speaks on your behalf.

I'll buy this, as I think we all agree that Pat Condell is often pertinent and valuable.

Other Comments by Incredulous

47. Comment #121931 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 11:30 am

Well, as Steve has said, I think there's room for a variety of approaches, and fearing him being put alongside Myers/Hitch/Harris as if it would poison the well is a bit elitist.

Diacanu. I disagree. We need sophistication and eloquence. I rate you far higher than Condell in those areas.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #121937 by Diacanu on February 4, 2008 at 11:35 am

Steve Zara-

Aw, shucks.

You saying I should invest in a webcam?
;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #121938 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, as Steve has said, I think there's room for a variety of approaches, and fearing him being put alongside Myers/Hitch/Harris as if it would poison the well is a bit elitist.

See Steve's comment above. Eloquence is a good word. Look at that Rational Response TV debate with the creationists. It was a bit of a mess. Fine for Condell to do his thing, but don't harm the integrity of this site.

Imagine if Condell had a section in the Hitchens compilation "The Quotable Atheist". How incongruous would it look?

End message.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

50. Comment #121941 by Diacanu on February 4, 2008 at 11:39 am

*Shrug*
I guess I'm not seeing how one damages the other.
They all seem to naturally float in their own circles.

Other Comments by Diacanu