Reminds me of Dawkins in many ways... although I'd love to hear Dawkins say "..if we'd had the BALLS to do some straight talking years ago.."

"... you haven't got a cause; you've got a hobby.." wonderful line there. This guy is good with sound bites and the overall picture

I completely agree. All one needs to back up this fine chap's stance is to read about the current predicament of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

From Sam Harris and Salman Rushdie:

"As you read this, Ayaan Hirsi Ali sits in a safe house with armed men guarding her door. Hirsi Ali may be the first refugee from Western Europe since the Holocaust. She knows the challenges we face in our struggle to contain the misogyny and religious fanaticism of the Muslim world, and she lives with the consequences of our failure each day. There is no one in a better position to remind us that tolerance of intolerance is cowardice."

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/ayaan-hirsi-ali-abandoned-to-fanatics/

They are raising funds for her protection at this site: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1891,n,n

Like the Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie himself and even less tangible threats like Intelligent Design, Faith-based litmus tests for politics, the War on Christmas crap, gay bigotry and so many others that good people like Norm dedicate so much time to informing us on, it is very clear that given an inch these people will happily take your rights, your respect and even your life.

A lot of things I totaly agree with regarding people being arogant in beleiving religion would just phase out over time, so now we have to deal with so called holy wars, incompetant faith based world leaders, and the whole concept of "blasphamy" which today should be taken with a grain of salt but instead is actualy taken seriously by some people.

I love that part near the end which told God to "know itself".

Overall aesthetic improvement in lighting noted, but does does Condell use a teleprompter or what? If not, he's pretty facile at going on a tear without missing a beat. I think he must be half robot.

Why debate? Two reasons:

First of all, the nut-jobs have a nominal majority and raw antagonism may not be a smart strategy for survival.

More importantly however, the world doesn't cleanly divide into people who are true believers and atheists. Julia Sweeney, for example, was raised as a Catholic but at some point in her life became fully susceptible to the power of reason (i.e., she truly became an adult). You don't debate the dogma, of course, but as tedious as it is to continue the argument - the world continues to be populated by young people and they continue to need to hear the old tired debate. Pat Condell is absolutely right - by any reasonable standard of debate, religion should have been buried long ago, but it is still there. I'm fine with Condell's derision - so I don't agree with atheists who are telling him to play nice - but playing nice has its place. There are young people, and a few old people, for whom the debate - has an impact - so that for the atheist debater, it is occasionally more than a hobby. Whenever I swing into Condell's cynical frame of mind (and what intelligent atheist doesn't?), I ask myself: If reason is what I "believe in", then why how much sense does it make to place so little value on its power to persuade?

Wonderful video piece. I'm a huge fan of Pat Condell. Thanks for featuring him.

I too am getting very tired of trying to be nice in the face of insurmountable evidence against these silly belief systems.

Tim:

First of all, the nut-jobs have a nominal majority and raw antagonism may not be a smart strategy for survival.

I strongly disagree with this. Look at the debate over global warming. You have the "antagonists", the people who see global warming happening saying to everyone else "you are wrong, we must do something". And now, Newt Gingrich of all people has to say "ok, well, global warming may be happening... but we don't have to... blah blah blah". He's lost the debate already. He used to say that it all was a croc and it was warming from natural cycles, now, that safe haven for his ideology has been destroyed.

Same with Evolution. All except the extremist fundamentalists (including Deepak Chopra) will say "ok, so evolution might be happening, but we don't have to say WHY evolution is happening..." etc. etc. They've lost. Intelligent design is an empty well.

They have had to reformulate the arguement. Those without evidence have had to concede, in the face of direct attacks and evidence.

Religion has been pushed back so hard that they have been left in the realm of Fantasy and "faith" (fantasy with a respectable title). All of their "infallable truths" have crumbled into "metaphor" and "interpretation".

Let them have their fantasy world, if it makes them feel better. Just quit trying to make laws that conclude that their delusional faith policies deserve more/equal respect to human rights and evidence.

Pat condell has A myspace account. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=119389495

I agree, smash these silly arguments with a Sledgehammer!! No debating, just mockery...it is all Creationism and Christianity deserves!

Let me get this straight: Pat Condell is advocating that atheists change their behavior in accordance with his belief that the cause of reason depends on rational people abandoning rational discourse in favor of personal ridicule.

Why does anyone accept this wretched belief? He gives not the least bit of evidence to support it, and on its face it's an insult to reason (e.g. less reason = more reason).

He talks favorably about the enlightenment, but what do you suppose we have most to thank for the enlightenment?

Is it:

1) Rational people abandoning rational discourse for the sake personal ridicule.

or is it:

2) Rational discourse.

Religion was an even more invasive and pervasive threat to reason during that period, and yet is there any doubt that it was more rational discourse and less personal ridicule that characterized the enlightenment revolution?

Of course I could be wrong, but that leads me back to Condell. Does he offer any evidence to support his belief? Not in this video. And yet, he's willing to fascistically insult anyone who disagrees with him. By his own standards of conduct, Condell deserves our ridicule for foisting his beliefs upon us without evidence to support them.

Resorting to name calling is the feel-good approach that may be a lot of fun for Condell and others. But it's this approach (not reasoned debate) that is older than dirt and at least as common. It's been tried before (relentlessly), why do you think it will work now?

I think that Pat Condell has lost his way under the label of "atheism". Fighting for the cause of "Atheism" has become more important to him than promoting reason. Rational debate is not simply a pointless hobby; it's the prerequisite for reason to exist among people.

Equally bad, Condell fails to see the difference between personal ridicule, and the ridicule of an idea. To ridicule and insult crappy ideas (like Condell's) is important; it promotes the cause of reason. But what Condell is advocating in this video is the use of generalizations and personal insults in place of reason. He's promoting bigotry, irrational and unenlightened, bigotry.

It may not provide the immediate feel-good rush of testosterone that giving someone the verbal finger provides, but if you want to make the world a more rational place, then start by being and acting more rational - not by acting less rational. Understand the difference between good and bad arguments and speak to the differences wherever you find them. Aggressively and unapologetically fester out the bad arguments. Resorting to personal attacks is a cop-out.

.

You haven't had a "war on xmas" thread recently, so this following video may be a good way to begin.

If you don't laff at this, you are probably dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3lJec7_QbQ

A montage of Fox Newsiness reports to the tune of the 12 days of xmas.

I wish he was my dad. He takes what all the atheists say, puts a wonderful british accent on it and makes me smile. I use more of his quotes than anyone. Thank you sir.

Wow! what passion and righteous anger! I'm also tired of being part of a minority that is demonized and treated like second-class citizens (unable to hold office, afraid of loosing our friends, family , jobs and sometimes even our safety) …only to be blamed for it and then accused of being intolerant. Speeches like this make me feel justified, emboldened, empowered. But If religion is the opiate of the masses then righteous anger is the amphetamine of the alienated few. And now that this potent cocktail of neurotransmitters has worn off, I'm just a little confused by some of his comments. Is there really no middle ground between name-calling and tripping over yourself to be polite? Since when? What irony to present rationalists with a Forced choice between extremes when a spectrum of options are possible. Were Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan wimps when it came to religion? Some of their statements were pretty harsh, but they never de-humanized their opponents Another point...would you berate a schizophrenic for their illusions? The way this metaphor of mental-illness is being used is very puzzling. Because we don’t hold the mentally ill to the same standards, we take pity and try treat the disease, heal the person. I'm amazed at the number of Naturalists who act as if their was such a thing as free will, As if fundamentalists are not a product of their genetics and environment--they have chosen to be that way and and should "pull themselves up by their (intellectual) bootstraps". Of course being consistent naturalists might knock us off our pedestals a little, because we can't take all the credit for avoiding such delusions either. Which brings me to his comment "you can't debate with dogma." Well that much is true. However, you can debate with people. Myself and many of the atheists I know, were former believers. Apparently our "mental illness" was more than treatable, by persuasion. Of coarse, had more people made discussion their "hobby" I might have found relief much earlier than I did. Nevertheless I'm grateful to those who endured the frustration and took the time to model good thinking skills to me. If these people were thinking with their "balls" instead of their hearts and minds my life would be so less rich. By the way, these people were not wimps either they made strong condemnations of religion, but they appealed to my values as well.

Bernarda, I tried to watch the video. I wanted to laugh, I really did, but that song. I cant handle christmas music it kills.

People…it's comedy for cryin' out loud. Get over yourselves and lighten up, otherwise you're making his point for him…which is actually pretty damn funny come to think of it!

Never mind, carry on.

"Let me get this straight: Pat Condell is advocating that atheists change their behavior in accordance with his belief that the cause of reason depends on rational people abandoning rational discourse in favor of personal ridicule."

No, what he is saying is that there is NOTHING "rational" about religion at ALL. So why grant people who wish to argue God's existence a legitimate forum to do so by bothering to debate them on the subject. It's like offering to debate someone on the existence of the Easter Bunny...I mean who is sillier, the one arguing for the Easter Bunny's existence, or the one who offered him a legitimate public stance to even do so?

I would also like to point out that Religion is not only silly, but can and has been proven to be very VERY dangerous! If it was merely the notion that they wished to argue on a topic for which they had no existing evidence to support there claim, then that would be one thing. What were talking about here though, is a fraction of people who are hell bent on actively and aggressively pushing there irrational belief systems into every aspect of our society, and in doing so causing innumerable counts of damage(mental, physical, political, educational, medical, scientific, you name it.)in the process of doing so...well then I'm sorry, but it is no longer a topic of polite discussion, now is it? No politeness is not what such dogmatic practitioners deserve. I think a swift verbal kick in the trousers is all these dilutional god worshipers have earned, to send them spinning dizzily upon there way. You legitimize there arguments by offering them the respect of a debate, such irrational institutions have not earned, nor deserve such fair treatment. Save it for someone who has a valid point to make on a topic that is not limited to merely faith based "evidence", and superstition alone.

Reily seems in his post to be trying at long lengths to make some kind of a point, but it is completely lost on me as to what that point may be...What evidence are you asking Mr. Condell to provide? You can't prove that God does not exist, you can not prove a negative. It's a pointless debate, so why have it at all? You can disprove creationism as a science by displaying the countless forms of evidence against it as a scientific theory, but he is right when he says that logic is lost on believers of faith, so why even bother?...and as far as the use of insults go, I think you have missed the point he is making entirely. The greatest insult you can give Creationism and Christianity is to laugh it right out the door! You give these people leverage with this talk of having "polite" and "logical" debates with them, as if they had some logical point to make to begin with. It is complete nonsense that your preaching to us here, what exactly is your point?

Is it really pragmatic to insult and ridicule religion rather than try and explain why you're convinced it's silly? All it seems to do is give you a nice "I'm right!" feeling with a side of "I'm better than him!", but on the grand scale, does anyone here honestly believe that insulting someone makes them change their point of view on ANYTHING? And insulting the majority around you, to boot. I did that in high school and wow, did that get results. Also, Pat thinks all you're ever going to get from trying to explain things is just conviction in the face of evidence and clear thoughts, and he's right for the majority of the cases, but that doesn't mean every religious person in the world is going to be like that(Tim brought up Sweeney, for instance), and I seriously doubt coming off negatively will help the doubters of the world change their views.

Unrelated to his points - his smugness is just astoundingly irritating.

Riley:

If you are having trouble processing the position that Condell is advocating, here it is in convienient Illustrated form that Norm posted earlier this month.

"...does anyone here honestly believe that insulting someone makes them change their point of view on ANYTHING?"

I don't know, does debating politely with a crazy man offer hope of making him any more or less insane? Why are you trying to convert these people any ways? That makes you just as annoying and intrusive as the people were talking about here. Let them believe what they want to believe, if some of them are truly rational individuals as you claim them to be, they will come around in there own time.

Magnolia Electric Co,

Yes, the Cectic comic is true and funny. But, if you conclude from that comic nothing is accomplished from rational debate because the dogmatic appear unreachable, then I would simply disagree - and on multiple levels. For example, debate with fundamentalists has helped me better understand where they're coming from. I know first hand now what many of their arguments are, and I have learned to better recognize and address the fallacies I find in their arguments - I've also discovered weaknesses in my own arguments. But this issue is not the one I find most absurd.

What I find particularly absurd and pig-minded about Condell's rhetoric is the enormous and unsupported leap of logic that proceeds from that Cectic comic narrative into his implicit argument that: because rational debate is a pointless hobby, therefore personal ridicule is an effective alternative. His rhetoric is a merciless onslaught of logical fallacies, mostly "negative proof" fallacies and false dichotomies. On the second type, "Jeremy Reasonable Doubts" addressed the issue in better detail than I could, but it'll suffice to say that there's a middle ground between political correctness and ridicule which Condell in his fell-good rant, can't seem t recognize.

Like "Jeremy", I was also a believer in theistic dogma but was swayed by rational debate and reason. In no small part I owe my growth away from theistic dogma (and many other forms of dogma) to those who served as role-models of how a clear thinking person could confront dogma and cut through the crap with good arguments and reason. By doing so, these people differentiated themselves from the dogmatic. My own recognition and conversion didn't happen in the presence of the person who confronted me, that person planted the seed of dissonance and just as importantly, provided an alternative model of behavior. The seed took years to develop. So I would argue from first-hand experience that even when it appears that rational debate isn't working, it's working.

Moreover, you'll never know who the person is that you're debating with, until you actually have the debate. To assume and act as if you do, before you do, is bigotry.

bob, I'm looking for some hint of evidence to support Condell's argument that less rational debate ( in his words: "pointless debate") and more insults might have resulted in less religious dogma in the world today.

bob wrote: "logic is lost on believers of faith, so why even bother?" That's quite a claim bob. Roughly 10% of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science believe in a personal God. I would suspect that logic is not any more so lost on them than it is you. And I continue to be impressed by the strong logical arguments made by "believer in faith" Kenneth Miller in his online lectures and at his testimony in the Dover Pennsylvania trial.

In the face of this (and other) proof-positive counter evidence to your claim, I would say bob that your claim is even more obviously wrong and dogmatic than is the generic theist claim about the existence of a god. Given that, do you think you should be banned from civil debate and subjected to personal ridicule?

Riley: I get your point. However, there is something for saying "You must be foolish to believe the world was created in 6 days!" I shouldn't have to respect the idea that the world was created in 6 days, or anyone who seriously believes it in the face of the world's evidence.

"Roughly 10% of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science believe in a personal God."

First off, if there is evidence being presented to help prove an argument for the existence of a God, no one is suggesting that it should not be examined. Not Condell, nor I have suggested such a thing. However to take a stance that you deserve the right to an intellectual debate with OUT providing any evidence to support your claims, is indeed laughable and should continue to be aggressively discouraged abroad. If the scientists you speak of have evidence, by all means allow them to bring it forward! I am not however going to ammuse the religious masses, by suggesting that sense I can NOT prove in a "debate" that there God does not exhist, because they make claim that he resides "out side" of our realm of scientific understanding, that there argument for God's existence should be allowed to win by default...No, this is not even a debate, why give people with this stance any attention at all?

Now as far as me being "Dogmatic", I will merely point out that unlike many Christians and even Atheist, I have NEVER attempted to push my beliefs out on to ANYONE, nor have I suggesting that I be given a stance in a debate in which I have no evidence to present in my case. The point is that the terms of the debate must be met with facts, and scientific evidence, or that they are to be merely laughed out as being fraudulent. This is not a complicated point that is being made here, and I do not see were the need for kindness with such people demanding less than this should reside.

You guys all seem to be missing the most important thing about laughing at religious people. It's fun.

Debate is always better than insult. It's more decent, more fun and more effective - if you want to achieve something, that is. And we have Dawkins to show this. After all, he is a stern debater, not giving any ground - but he is a debater.

The comparison to the climate debate is off the mark, here. Because the climate "debate" is fought on the same basis: science (even though the climate change deniers use cooked up science). The debate about religion is a debate between two different worlds. We can refuse to debate it at all, of course, which Condell seems to be arguing. But what does that get us?

Saying, religion is a filthy lie, and religious people are just nut jobs, really ends the discussion. Which you might want, I agree with that. Sometimes one is just fed up with further debating a topic.

But I think Condell uses pretty much youtube bandwith with not wanting to debate something.

"bob, I'm looking for some hint of evidence to support Condell's argument that less rational debate ( in his words: "pointless debate") and more insults might have resulted in less religious dogma in the world today."

Well one would have to first define what is found to be insulting. Plato caricaturized the popular Greek religion of his time as being "The Great Lie", and this is the man who is credited with the awakening of the minds of his era. Now is this not as insulting as calling modern day religion "A Disgusting Lie", because in all fairness, far more death and destruction has fallen under the veil of Christianity at this point, and considering are access to the Internet, and other forms of access to knowledge I find it very hard to find an excuse for our lack of enlightenment as a World today.
As far as up close and personal evidence though, it was Christopher Hitchens who I credit with knocking that last drop of Christianity out of my head that had been planted there so many years ago. It was his relentless, and at many times down right insulting language that shook me out of the spell that Christianity had me under for several years.
I can also credit such insulting language as the depicting of me as being "Blasphemous", for keeping me with IN the confines of the church for so many years. The idea that speaking out loud of the notion that God most likely does not exist, would result in my personal damnation to an eternal hell, was precisely what keep me and continues to keep several others at bay with reason and rational arguments for so very long. Now is that not considered to be insulting language? Where do we draw the line on "insulting" dialog here Riley?...Because quite frankly I find it to be a mute issue, and completely aside from the point that is being made here...

"The debate about religion is a debate between two different worlds. We can refuse to debate it at all, of course, which Condell seems to be arguing. But what does that get us?"

There are very few people on the opposing side of this argument who will actually carry on in a rational, and fair debate on this subject. I think that we are all well aware of this reality. However if you listen to what Cordell is saying, he is NOT shooting down people who actually have evidence to bring to there arguments, and THAT is entirely the point that everyone here seems to be missing. Why would you debate someone who refuses to obey the rules of the debate to begin with?

Bob, Being dogmatic doesn't require pushing your beliefs, it just involves asserting an opinion as fact without evidence. As is the case here.

bob wrote: "Why would you debate someone who refuses to obey the rules of the debate to begin with?" You yourself in this thread are failing to obey the rules of rational debate.

Condell has made a simple claim and bases an entire rant on the claim. He claims that rational debate is a pointless hobby and that the world might have less religious dogma if only we engaged the religious minded in less rational debate and more insults.

If you want to defend his claim, then present some evidence to support it. Otherwise you have no basis to make this claim and you (and Condell) are simply promoting dogma. You should stop defending it/asserting it/pushing it on others.

Riley: I have offer you evidence, just as much as you have offered me against it. Just read what I wrote. The point of his arguement was NOT that rudeness would be more productive in converting believers of faith, but that arguing rationally with a person who rejects rationality as a way of life, is not a path to conversion but rather a waste of your time...hence the reference to it being no more than a "pointless hobby". If you are truly finding my arguments to be irrational however, I would suggest that you find yourself a new hobby as well.

This vid I feel illustrates quite well what happens when you offer religious figures the honor of a fair and public debate...they do not wish to win the argument, rather to merely be granted an equal opportunity in a public platform to help legitimize there stance as being an "equal" one...this sort of "debating" has been going on for years.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Sq-aMXHeCg&feature=related

This video discusses in great length this same problem, with religion unjustly claiming ground it has not yet earned...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TNxXlq8_OTA&feature=related

...And this last vid is just funny.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=56FMD8zd7Xc

Bob said:

but that arguing rationally with a person who rejects rationality as a way of life, is not a path to conversion but rather a waste of your time..

Amen

but that arguing rationally with a person who rejects rationality as a way of life, is not a path to conversion but rather a waste of your time.

Bob (JoAnn),

I'm willing to concede this point - in fact, it is obvious. But converting such opponents is not the point. To put it in terms of the characters in your hilarious Simpsons video, who gives a damn about Ned Flanders - converting that moron is a hopeless cause. But if you leave his nonsense unrefuted, Lisa and her class are screwed - and we are screwed. The strategy of fundamentalists is to convert your kids - and that is why the tedious jobs of "dabating" these assholes has to be done.

The debate is ludicrous, of course. But if you make it about nothing but Condell-like insults and fundie counterinsults - you lose by default. That is precisely the kind of debate that Christian fundamentalists want - irrationality is their home field and much as we like to take the ball and go home, they aren't going to stop pitching.

Tim:

I am in total agreement with you. These people ARE a great threat, and I am not against debate, but rather only the terms of it...in a way this is not a contest between rudeness and rationality, but rather the idea that we should be picking our battles, and not giving ANY more ground to these people, OR there beliefs.