This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Insulting religion

Insulting religion - Comments

Dirty Kuffar's Avatar Comment 1 by Dirty Kuffar

Down to earth punchy stuff from Pat Condell again ! the reason he annoys the bible-heads, islamists and their apologists so much is because he says what most people think ! Keep up the good work Pat !

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 06:47:54 UTC | #850071

skinned's Avatar Comment 2 by skinned

Bravo Pat. I signed up to RDF just so I could endorse everything you just said. Glad to see someone else feels exactly to the same way I do. What are the odds? Pretty good huh? ;)

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 06:55:04 UTC | #850072

keymaker's Avatar Comment 3 by keymaker

Response to the video...

No I'd say he was getting a bit carried away there to be honest trying to cram as many superlatives as possible into his diatribe and in the process somewhat overstating his objections to censure... there's absolutely nothing wrong, for example, with people, of any persuasion, offering opinions on the moral conduct of others, including him... we don't live in a world where viewpoints are censored unless the author happens to be an atheist.

km

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:22:12 UTC | #850077

martwek's Avatar Comment 4 by martwek

I salute Mr. Condell. At last, a British who is not afraid to say what he thinks, and does not care too much about political-correctness. The Brits ill wake one morning to find out that their country was hijacked by Muslim preachers. The message is already on the wall.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:26:48 UTC | #850078

sbooder's Avatar Comment 5 by sbooder

Comment 3 by keymaker :

Response to the video...

No I'd say he was getting a bit carried away there to be honest trying to cram as many superlatives as possible into his diatribe and in the process somewhat overstating his objections to censure... there's absolutely nothing wrong, for example, with people, of any persuasion, offering opinions on the moral conduct of others, including him... we don't live in a world where viewpoints are censored unless the author happens to be an atheist. km

I feel you missed the parallel; Pat was parodying religion with the rant and intentionally chucking as many superlatives in as possible.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:48:59 UTC | #850080

Tony d's Avatar Comment 6 by Tony d

I like Pat,his core message is so clear. He says to theists your religion is bullshit don't involve me in it.It must drive the religious crazy because even the most brainwashed of them can't misinterpret what he is saying.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:52:19 UTC | #850081

keymaker's Avatar Comment 7 by keymaker

Comment 5 by sbooder

I feel you missed the parallel; Pat was parodying religion with the rant and intentionally chucking as many superlatives in as possible.

Well, it wasn't a very good one... no, I just didn't find his delivery at all persuasive.

km

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:59:04 UTC | #850083

keymaker's Avatar Comment 8 by keymaker

Comment 4 by martwek

The Brits ill wake one morning to find out that their country was hijacked by Muslim preachers

No I don't think that's very likely, to be honest.

km

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:01:11 UTC | #850084

Dixiedog's Avatar Comment 9 by Dixiedog

I don't think us Brits are likely to wake up with Muslim preachers running the show either, but a government that bends over backwards to accommodate every religious crank...oh, we've already got that. So well done Pat! Done with something most religious goons can't do, wit.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:47:43 UTC | #850092

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon

I wish he'd come to the point.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:49:37 UTC | #850093

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 11 by -TheCodeCrack-

Bravo!

I think this is Pat's best video! And all the others are fantastic too!

Well done Pat!

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:12:33 UTC | #850095

danconquer's Avatar Comment 12 by danconquer

Comment 4 by martwek :

The Brits ill wake one morning to find out that their country was hijackedby Muslim preachers.

There are about 665 British MP's. Of those 665, how many of them subscribe to or promote Islamic policies? And why have we seen greater liberalisation in recent years of the laws and regulations governing pornography, gambling, alcohol, homosexuality, et al. Why are these people who have hijacked the state doing this?!? How very confusing!

But don't tell me! It's all part of their big, cunning, muslamic sleeper-cell plan, right?!

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:58:53 UTC | #850100

All About Meme's Avatar Comment 13 by All About Meme

As much as I love and appreciate the efforts of Pat Condell, imagine a pastor playing this video one Sunday morning for the congregation of a large mega-church. An eruption of laughter mixed with indignation would be the likely result, especially if the pastor primed his audience by comically feigning shock and dismay during Pat's "sermon". A young Baptist minister I knew years ago could pull-off such a stunt with relative ease.

Given this fact, perhaps it is the preachers and ministers themselves that Condell should be targeting, instead of his broad-based attack on all things religious. Go after the shepherds, rather than the sheep.

I don't know if this would work any better, but if anybody could script a scathing and convincing indictment against ecclesiastics who fill people's heads with religious nonsense on a weekly basis -- it would be the illustrious Pat Condell.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:04:10 UTC | #850103

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 14 by Rich Wiltshir

Thank you Pat.

"... dangerous, evil, dehumanising, superstitious garbage ..."

If Pat's five words appeared on a poster, with no attribution, no accompanying explanation, the religoons would complain; BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THOSE WORDS COULD DESCRIBE.

I think I'll test that theory... can I order one via this site?

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:07:57 UTC | #850105

MentalLentil's Avatar Comment 15 by MentalLentil

Comment 3 by keymaker

there's absolutely nothing wrong, for example, with people, of any persuasion, offering opinions on the moral conduct of others, including him.

km

But that's what blasphemy laws and the likes of the UN campaign to make insulting religion a crime are attempting to do - stop people criticising religions while allowing religions to say what they like.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:11:06 UTC | #850106

hemidemisemigod's Avatar Comment 16 by hemidemisemigod

Comment 10 by Stafford Gordon :

I wish he'd come to the point.

Yes, me too. He makes some very important points but they're buried in a lot of pointless ranting.

You can see his smile broadening as he reaches his favourite put-downs and insults. He's obviously enjoying himself, perhaps too much if he's really serious about what he wants to say.

Maybe it's meant to be an amusing parody of religious rantings but it would be far more effective if he allowed his viewers to calmly consider the logic of his statements without distracting them with unnecessary insults and scorn.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:19:39 UTC | #850107

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 17 by Peter Grant

Religion is like a bad con, it insults both one's intellect and one's virtue. Keep blaspheming Pat! :D

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:25:57 UTC | #850109

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 18 by AtheistEgbert

Big two thumbs up from me to Pat Condell, who has both intelligence and wit powering his excellent rhetoric.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:33:10 UTC | #850110

keith's Avatar Comment 19 by keith

Maybe it's meant to be an amusing parody of religious rantings but it would be far more effective if he allowed his viewers to calmly consider the logic of his statements without distracting them with unnecessary insults and scorn.

Maybe you don't realise that there are many people out there who calmly state the logic of their position - and nobody listens to them.

There is this weird idea among some atheists that were all religious people to listen to say, A.C. Grayling, they would immediately be convinced of the truth of his views. Well, they wouldn't. Being sensible has been tried before and it might work with a few but not with many. By having both A.C. Grayling and Pat Condell on our side we are covering all bases. What's wrong with that? Or do you think that Pat Condell will drive away the millions that others have brought to a state of wavering uncertainty in their beliefs and who only need a further gentle nudge towards sanity? No. Sometimes a good figurative slap in the face is precisely what can bring someone to their senses.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:48:57 UTC | #850112

sjd's Avatar Comment 20 by sjd

I wish i could remember this word for word and just pull it out whenever a religious person says that I insult his religion by saying something that I have said :) great video, keep it up!

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:53:07 UTC | #850116

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 21 by cheesedoff17

Not one of my favorites. Too much anger. I think he's more effective when when he lets his humour shine. He's damn right though about everything he says.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:12:38 UTC | #850120

JackR's Avatar Comment 22 by JackR

Totally with Pat on this. I am so tired of the "Attack the belief, not the believer" nonsense. People should be held responsible for their beliefs - and treated accordingly. Should we have attacked Nazism but respected Hitler? And no, I don't recognise the concept of the Godwin as a valid argument.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:39:49 UTC | #850124

hemidemisemigod's Avatar Comment 23 by hemidemisemigod

Comment 19 by keith :

Maybe it's meant to be an amusing parody of religious rantings but it would be far more effective if he allowed his viewers to calmly consider the logic of his statements without distracting them with unnecessary insults and scorn.

Maybe you don't realise that there are many people out there who calmly state the logic of their position - and nobody listens to them.

There is this weird idea among some atheists that were all religious people to listen to say, A.C. Grayling, they would immediately be convinced of the truth of his views. Well, they wouldn't. Being sensible has been tried before and it might work with a few but not with many. By having both A.C. Grayling and Pat Condell on our side we are covering all bases. What's wrong with that? Or do you think that Pat Condell will drive away the millions that others have brought to a state of wavering uncertainty in their beliefs and who only need a further gentle nudge towards sanity? No. Sometimes a good figurative slap in the face is precisely what can bring someone to their senses.

Agreed but I think this is more of a headbutt.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:58:09 UTC | #850129

UncleJJ2's Avatar Comment 24 by UncleJJ2

This was pitched just right, given the subject, with nicely controlled anger and annoyance at religious people telling us and Pat what we should do. It is not really a subject for humour a simple rebuke and rejection of their claim that we can't insult their religion works well here. It is about time someone told them just how many of us atheists feel about what some religious people dare to say about us. We have every right to return the insults and disparaging comments, to tell them they are deluded and superstitious and their religion is garbage.

I think that this could become a Pat Condell classic. Some of his videos are more memorable than others and deserve a replay every now and then to remind us of just how well our case can be put. Pat certainly has an impressive way with words in this format that few can match.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:03:26 UTC | #850131

digibud's Avatar Comment 25 by digibud

it makes me want to have this as a video signature for every email I send. outstanding.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:08:38 UTC | #850135

RomeStu's Avatar Comment 26 by RomeStu

Comment 17 by Peter Grant :

Keep blaspheming Pat! :D

This phrase just made me realise that the religious have such a nice word to describe anything that offends or criticises their entirely made-up viewpoint, yet we do not have a similarly punchy and easy-to-understand word to describe the the sort of poisonous rhetoric which denies proven fact.

And to think they want anti-blasphemy laws!!!!! There should be laws against denying scientific evidence. At least it would have some basis to it.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:08:52 UTC | #850136

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 27 by prettygoodformonkeys

I am with Pat on this, except for around the 2:00 minute mark, where he says he sincerely hopes he inflicts pain with his responses. Not an impulse I am proud of when I notice it in myself, and it's unnecessary to boot.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:10:27 UTC | #850146

danconquer's Avatar Comment 28 by danconquer

Comment 22 by JackR :

Totally with Pat on this. I am so tired of the "Attack the belief, not the believer" nonsense. People should be held responsible for their beliefs - and treated accordingly. Should we have attacked Nazism but respected Hitler?

Your analogy doesn't hold up to logical comparison... As the chief architect and promulgator of Nazism, Hitler fully deserves the blame for the terrible outcomes of the vicious ideology he created. But at the same time, it is possible (as I, and probably most people do) to have some understanding, perhaps sympathy, for the 40-odd percent of German people who naively voted for this lunatic, due to a mixture of unfortunate circumstances in which they found themselves. You don't really hold the unemployed, semi-educated, fearful, propaganda-fed German worker who voted for the party on the same level of moral culpability as the likes of Goebbels, Himmler and Eichmann... Do you?!

And so too it is with those who subscribe to the "Attack the belief, not the believer" principle. I think you will find that most of us who think this is a sensible policy make a clear distinction between the blindly following (often uneducated) masses on the one hand, and the architects, masters and ringleaders of the organised delusions. When we talk about not attacking the 'believers' it means the passive mass, rather than the orchestrating popes, imams, rabbis, gurus and the other charlatans upon whom it always is, and always should be, open season.

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:26:50 UTC | #850153

fsm1965's Avatar Comment 29 by fsm1965

Comment 26 by RomeStu :

Comment 17 by Peter Grant :

Keep blaspheming Pat! :D

This phrase just made me realise that the religious have such a nice word to describe anything that offends or criticises their entirely made-up viewpoint, yet we do not have a similarly punchy and easy-to-understand word to describe the the sort of poisonous rhetoric which denies proven fact.

And to think they want anti-blasphemy laws!!!!! There should be laws against denying scientific evidence. At least it would have some basis to it.

IMO religion needs defending with laws, cuz it's BS, the truth doesn't.

The only defence BS has is laws, truth just needs people to seek it out

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:28:11 UTC | #850155

keymaker's Avatar Comment 30 by keymaker

Comment 29 by fsm1965

The only defence BS has is laws, truth just needs people to seek it out

No the rationale of tax relief for charitable organisations is that they perform compassionate or other socially desirable services which are considered beneficial in the community such as helping persons who are hungry, homeless or otherwise distressed or needful so it makes no difference whether the benefactor is a scientific foundation, for example... or a temple, church or mosque.

km

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:17:15 UTC | #850165