Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Right on! Is no one else even willing to COMMENT on this oh-so-dangerous editorial?
Pat Condell needs to stop using strawman arguments. I feel alienated by his blatant discrimination towards atheists as if we all support Sharia law under the banner of multiculturalism.
Right on indeed. No bacon sarnies under sharia law people. Remember that when you next consider respecting this dark ages religion.
DR and Don, looks like this one's for you....!
Right on Pat, but still, WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source of knowledge.
Dead on, Pat, particularly the sarcastic reference to too many in the atheist "community," who, while congratulating themselves of their independently skeptical credentials, will no doubt gage the temper of the majority and check with their peers before deciding what their politically correct opinion is.
Straw man??? Is that some racial group??? I knew it. He's being a racist again.
JED,Why? Pat doesn't think he's a bigot? Very few bigots do. Those who disagree with his position are PC weaklings or whatever? That's not an argument worth responding to.I don't see everybody who is hostile to Islam as my natural ally because although (surprise) I would put Islam on top of my list of 'Religions we could do with less of.' I am aware that not everybody who has arrived at that conclusion did so from the same starting point.That would include extreme religious groups to whom it is a rival to their own cult. For example, World Net Daily. I don't like them, I don't trust them, and we are not on the same side. It would include those who are disturbed by the changing ethnic make-up of their country and see even the provision of squat toilets as creeping dhimmitude. And actually anyone who uses the word. Not on the same side.It includes those who, either through malice or fear, insist that there are no moderate moslems or who refer sneeringly to their supposed reluctance to speak out. Who were the brave people being brutalised, and now facing death and torture, in Iran because they took to the streets against a theocracy? Who are the (mostly women) who try to educate and support women in the face of murderous fanatics in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Moslems, but I guess that's just takfiri, right? Because we know that really they are all the same. These people are not on my side.It includes those whose response to the problem of politicised and triumphalist Islam (and, yes, it is a problem) is draconian and illiberal legislation against an entire demographic. Such as Gaubatz, the co-author of Pat's favourite book, who is a member of SANE (check it out) which urges that adherence to Islam should be a crime carrying a twenty year jail term and that immigration to the US should be restricted to western nations and christians. Definitely not on my side.It includes the EDL and the BNP who find anti-Islam rhetoric to be a useful fig-leaf for their thuggish racism. We've been on different sides for decades.Pat seems to be happy to accept any grist to his mill. I used to like the guy, but I'm choosy about my grist.
Your comments here would have a lot more weight with me if it weren't for the innumerable times where well known atheists have used their pulpits to promote left leaning political views (I'm looking at you Dawkins and your double standard with Obama's faith) as well as the large number of PC "I'm secular, but I don't have the balls to offend anyone" people that Pat is describing dead on (We've met them all haven't we?)Sad as it may be to admit, the Penn Jillettes and Ayaan Hirsi Alis are not compadible with the Richard Dawkinses and Sam Harrises of the world. And we can't all straddle the apolitical line and be non-offensive forever like Carl Seagan. Non-belief is spreading, but it certainly won't end the disagreements, and so just as Dawkins sees progressive Christians as he politcial allies in a crutch, so do many of us see our political affiliations as more consiquential then our religious affilitations (or lack there of.)You can call Pat whatever you like for joining forces with right wing Christians and Jews against Islam when it suits him, but we all make alliances of circumstance in the face of what we see as a greater threat. The ones who don't will find that they lose almost every time.
Andrew,the Penn Jillettes and Ayaan Hirsi Alis are not compadible with the Richard Dawkinses and Sam Harrises of the world. And we can't all straddle the apolitical line and be non-offensive forever like Carl Seagan. I have no idea what you are talking about.but we all make alliances of circumstance in the face of what we see as a greater threat.No, we don't .
Summarized clarrified statements:Libertarian and Progressive atheists will continue to argue if religion goes away. And their bickering will only get worse as religion's power diminishes. Dawkins has openly supported Obama dispite Obama's professed religious beliefs and Ayaan Hirsi Ali has told Christians to proselytize to Muslims because she thinks modern Christianity is a safer, kinder religion. Both are willing to work with the religious to promote their political views. If you are unwilling to do so, then prepare to lose.
<span>I agree with Andrew Clunn about how we all make alliances of circumstance when needed. Left and right leaning atheists join forces when the religious right, and occasionally the religious left, try to push religion on the rest of the country. But they'll go their separate ways on other issues.Whether it is politically correct or not to say so Islam is a far bigger threat than Christianity. Although there are secular minded Muslims who want to live and let live. If I have to ally with Christians to oppose Islamic extremism so be it.Although I wouldn't put Sam Harris in the same category with Dawkins. Harris has been willing to criticize the left and has even called them weak on terrorism on occasion, even though he is a man of the left.</span>
Don, are you asserting that all those view points you list are adopted by Condell? I'll ask you the same question as last time - provide the links (and maybe a pointer to what your point is exactly in each case) and demonstrate it. I agree with almost all you said by the way, I just think you've taken against Condell and are spouting off what you think are his opinions without bothering to check first.
Sadly, I'm one of those who finds Pat is starting to come across like the BNP with O Levels. His stuff is more or less Melanie Philips-lite. While there's clearly evidence that some anti-democratic stuff is being pushed by Islamic groups, much is just made up by the UK press, and Pat swallows this Daily Mail rubbish uncritically. If viewing the Mail sceptically makes me "PC", so be it.Resisting real attacks on freedom is essential, resisting something that turns out to be media fiction is self-defeating. If freedom is everything, then it's not just the Muslim faith that's attacking it. There's as much evil going on in the name of the Jewish religion as any other these days, even a Tory PM is now openly calling Gaza a prison camp, but Pat can seemingly ignore that subject as it doesn't apply to "the West". I'm sure Pat has a more complex view, but from his recent output it just seems to be Jews are good because the Muslims hate them. Witness this example where being Jewish is somehow the same as being homosexual.I'm an atheist and I think reliigious violence in the name of a Jewish state is as evil as violence in the name of an Islamic state. Sorry if that's "PC", but it's an example of why I can't listen to Pat any longer.
Perhaps you've watched some videos of him that I haven't seen, which you can poitn me in the direction of? Because as it stands that seemed like a fairly textbook strawman.
Listen carefully about 3:18-3:20 in this video for the example which jarred badly, with me at least, which made me want to comment.
3:18-3:20 ish in this video is the example that triggered my comment.
You said it
JED,No, I wasn't imputing all those views to Condell, just listing some of the people who would taint any common cause and with whom I would never associate myself.Andrew H said, <span>If I have to ally with Christians to oppose Islamic extremism so be it. </span><span></span><span>Which is fair enough if we are talking about that nice Simon Barrow from Ekklesia, not so much if it is that nutter who wants a Quran Burning day. Your choice of allies is relevant.</span><span></span><span>I believe that Condell has effectively allied himself with the first group - religious fundamentalists of a different stripe - by so fervently endorsing their book. He is not stupid and must know exactly who WND are. It is exactly like endorsing a book on developmental biology published by the Discovery Institute. They have a clear agenda and no regard for honesty.</span><span></span><span>(I have skimmed the book on google books, but I have no way to fact check it.)</span><span></span><span>I wouldn't include him in the second group - plain racists.</span><span></span><span>The third group - those who simply refuse to accept that many muslims are actively working against the extremists and fundamentalists, and imply that the majority are at best passive supporters? Yes, he does that a lot. In 'The Enemy Within' video at around 1.20 it's the classic 'Of course there are many moderate and peaceful muslims, indeed many of them are so moderate and peaceful they are invisible' sneer. But of course, they are only invisible if you don't look beyond the tabloids.</span><span>The fourth group, who want to 'crack down' on muslims in general</span> is well represented by the group SANE which I mentioned earlier. Condell must have been aware of Gaubatz's track record and affiliations before so strongly endorsing his book. To me that is little better than endorsing a book by Nick Griffin or David Irving. He has never personally, AFAIK, urged 'special treatment' of muslims but he has associated himself with those who very strongly do.The fifth group, white supremacist thugs, no.I think we are getting a better understanding through this discussion. But do you really need pointers as to what my point is? I had hoped I was being reasonably coherent. I don't accept Condell's claim that his critics are all motivated by weakness and political correctness, and I certainly don't accept Andrew Clunn's assertion that it is down to a lack of 'balls'. Seriously? Balls? I regard Islam as currently the most toxic of the religions (although Christianity and Judaism have some serious contenders in that contest) but since Condell has established himself as a public figure of sorts then when he makes common cause with bigots and fanatics it is reasonable to point it out and to lose regard for the man.Andrew H,I enjoy Harris as a brilliant polemicist, but he has too much regard for vague woo for me, and I don't agree with his key claim that every moderate believer is empowering extremists.Andrew Clunn,Dawkins did indeed support Obama, as did PZ Myers, while knowing that he was a declared christian. So what? Who else was going to be president? Best option in a limited field. Throwing in your lot with extremists is a different matter.
Him saying that the religion of freedom doesn't require you to hate homosexuals or Jews and therefore it will have less appeal to people with only one brain cell... That jared you? I think you should listen to that segment again because I think you misheard him.
I'll only repsond to the parts directed at or about me. Yes balls. Is that sexist? Should I have said guts? I'm not assuming that you're racist because you said you wouldn't work with white supremisists. What not all racists? Why are white supremisists worse than violent racists of other ethnicities? Don't answer that. It's not a real question because its so nitpicky that it's pretty much a straw man. So yes BALLS.And Dawkins has repeadedly tried to link atheism with hard-left (at least in the American sence) politics. There's nothing wrong with being an Atheist and being a lefty. There's nothing wrong with supporting Obama. It's when you trying to link the two together that you're are essentially attempting to combine a position regarding religion with a political view. Ayn Rand was guilty of the same thing, and it lead her movement down the path that ends in becoming a cult. Dawkins will end the same way if he doesn't die first (This is not a veiled death threat, take it at face value.) If you would like evidence that Dawkins is consciously attempting to link atheism and a particular political view, then I refer you to the following:Example of conscious ommission:1) His "don't label kids campaign." What economic theories does he always include in his examples (which he changes each time)? Which ones does he never mention?Example of in-group out-group mentality:2) That whole Bill Maher / Richard Dawkins science award thing.Example of him using ad-hominem attacks against secular rightwingers:3) Oh there are so many of these, but he gets right into it in this videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212#Example of him using religion as a red herring to (falsly) claim that those who disagree with his political position only do so because of religion:4) Check out the Q&A at the end of the video "A Universe from Nothing" on Dawkins' site.
Yes balls. Is that sexist? Should I have said guts?Maybe, if you think my opinion stems from a lack of moral courage. Or you could have just said that.I'm not assuming that you're racist because you said you wouldn't work with white supremisists. That's nice of you. Because a lot of people would have taken that as implied in my comments. Why are white supremisists worse than violent racists of other ethnicities? Don't answer that.Do you mind if I do? Where did anything I said relate to some kind of sliding scale of violent racists? What the hell kind of question is that?So yes BALLS. OK, I get it. Balls matter to you. I won't mention it again.And Dawkins has repeadedly tried to link atheism with hard-left (at least in the American sence) politics.As it happens, I am an admirer of Dawkins, but why are you asking me about his economic theories? I haven't even mentioned his name. But if you think Obama and Dawkins are hard left, in an American or any other sense, then we have a very different perspective.But I agree Bill Maher is a jerk. Although I don't think Dawkins actually gave him that award.
Andrew,You link is for a 46 minute video. Is there a particular moment we should watch?
<span>Do you mind if I do? Where did anything I said relate to some kind of sliding scale of violent racists? What the hell kind of question is that?</span>I told you not to answer that question because it was porpusefully ridiculous. I said so in my post with the sentence: "<span>It's not a real question because its so nitpicky that it's pretty much a straw man." But alright, we'll leave the balls out of this.</span>As to Obama being hard left, well, it seemed like he was when Dawkins came out in his support..Also (I understand if you aren't aware of this) but at The Amazing Meeting Dawkins stated that he would have given Bill Maher the award if it had been up to him.
"Several right wing economists approached me because they thought it justified their rather nasty view of life." Or somethign very clsoe to that is said within the first 5 minutes or so. i chose that video because he levels the ad hominem in the introduction.
Andrew Clunn writes of those who are critical of Pat Condell that they are " PC 'I'm secular, but I don't have the balls to offend anyone'ie, anyone who disagrees with Pat and his position (and apparently yours) it is simply because they lack the balls to offend. Wht a stupid comment - the fact you live in such a narrow bigoted view speak volumes. Do you really believe that anyone who does not support Pat' view do so because they lack balls. Are you so closed minded that you cannot perceive with someone disagreeing because they genuinely believe Pat is wrong - and that PC and having balls have nothing to do with it.This is the very mind set that Don quite rightly criticises in his excellent post which you try to respond too.I disagree with Pat because I believe he is wrong, is selective with his 'facts' and generalises to the point of extreme bigotry.I have never been a big fan of Pat Condell since I first listened to him, I was suspicious of his cocksure, shoot from the hip attitude. He seems as 100% certain of his position as any Islamist Mullah he speaks of. Certainty, that comes from a closed mind to any other possibility is not certainty - but foolish bigotry.Now I know I was right to be suspicious - the man is simply a bigot!
For those who want to know why I believe Condell is simply a bigot, then here is why.Any man who would promote a work by<span><span> David Gaubitz, </span></span>an American White supremist is either simply ignorant, or ignorantly simple.I am prepared to give Condell the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply ignorant. However, as time goes on I am sadly having to conclude that Condell has joined the ranks of the ignorantly simple.When Condell made his video promoting David Gaubitz '<span>Muslim Mafia,' it may be possible that he did not know Gaubitz's history. For example he may not have known that Gaubitz believes black people are more genitically disposed to muder then white people (whatever 'genetically disposed to murder' could possibly mean), however </span>if he did not know before he should know by now that Giaubitz is a white supremist racist nutter.)But for me it is too latefor Condell to redeem himself - any man who could take David Gaubitz seriously has lost any discernment in my eyes, and is a person whose judgement should always be questioned - rather than merely accepted.Remember, even broken clocks tell the right time twice a day, though that is not evidence that they are reliable time pieces. Pat Condell is one such time piece.
One final comment, Why doe Condell address 'atheists,' as if atheists are some like-minded group of people.'Am I the only one who finds this more then a little bit odd?
3 things:First, taking one line out my comments and building an entire refutation around what you presume to be my position because of it... Wow, major straw man.Second, Pat used the term 'atheists' sarcastically (and it's obvious in the video) because there is no atheist collective, or at least shouldn't be.Third, your point about "Muslim Mafia" not being a reputable source is well taken, but it's drowned out in all the other ad hominems you threw out in those three posts.
Andrew,>First, taking one line out my comments and building an entire refutation around >what you presume to be my position because of it... Wow, major straw man.Possibly, but your post does carry a strong whiff of the only reason one could disagree is because of 'PC'ness. (I suspect the people who make this charge have their own currupted understanding of what PC means - anyone who disagrees with my position)Pat seems to have falling into this trap for himself. It like trying to debate with BNP idealology, in their eyes the only reason one could possibly disagree is because one has been dupped by the establishment, PC, or muslim lies etc., The idea of a genuine disagreement not based on some delusion by the person disagreeing is something their mind simply cannot comprehend, so instead of debate one gets insults.In your post I responded too you were also expressing the same narrow minded thinking ->Second, Pat used the term 'atheists' sarcastically (and it's obvious in the video) >because there is no atheist collective, or at least shouldn't be.I know he used it sarcastically, but even in that context, talking about an atheist orthodoxy, as though those known personalities who disagree with him see themselves as some kind of 'priesthood,' protecting the purity of atheist teaching, with PAt, the only true free thinker take on the narrow mindedness of 'orthodoxy' is merely another example of Pat's closed mindedness.Rather than take on the arguments - he merely throws out ad-hominems. Unless you know where Pat as actually addressed the arguments of those who have criticised his use of 'Muslim Mafi, for example.>Third, your point about "Muslim Mafia" not being a reputable source is well >taken, but it's drowned out in all the other ad hominems you threw out in those >three posts.I love it! Pat trades in ad-hominems and very little else - insults fall off his lips as easy as racist slurs trip off the tongue of people like David Gaubitz. (Pat's new hero).You misunderstood my post if you thought my calling Pat a bigot was a mere ad-hominem. He is a bigot - that's no ad-hominem - just listen to the man.
Okay, first Pat is guilty of a false dichotmomy not an ad hominem (I'm not being snoody here, it relates to what I'm about to say). He is not having a discussion or debate with any particular person (a function of his medium of presentation) and that means that he has to fill in the opposing argument. What Pat is doing is he's missing completely that many people are attacking the credibility of his source. Now there are people making the very argument he's arguing against in this video, so it's not a straw man, but the implication that all those that disagree with his last post are characterized by that argument is (while not outrightly stated) strongly implied by this video. So he is certainly guilty of false dichotomy.Now unfortunately we can't know whether this is consciously done by him or whether it's a factor of the limited large breadth little depth communication of YouTube comments. But either way, statements like, "He has zero credibility" are foriegn to honest discussion here. Because Pat identified the sources of his previous video and states his arguments clearly, we are free to take each one at face value, and in fact I would hope that all YouTube videos have zero credibility and must prove themselves anew if they are attempting to make an argument. So if he has no credibility then good! But the insinuation that his statements expose his as a bigot (which is where the disagreement in this discussion stems from if you read all the comments) is an ad hominem. There is a valid reason to dismiss Pat's previous video (though this one is as much about promoting freedom as a religion as it is an extension of the last video) but that was not Don's postion. For a reasonable objection see Dave's post:"Right on Pat, but still, WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source of knowledge."That's it, simple as that.
Andrew Clunn,I agree with your first paragraph.I agree with parts of your second paragraph. Certainly, 'credibilty' on the internet is a slippery customer and needs to be nurtured.You say that but that was not Don's postion. And you are probably right, my point was that he is choosing to associate himself with bigots, and by doing so loses crediblity.That's it, simple as that.You're dead wrong there. It's never as simple as that. If it looks simple, clear and feels comfortable... that's a heads up.
Andy,Pat is clearly of the view you either agree with him or you are 'soft on Islam.' That is the dishotomy - you either agree, or your a PC wussy. Which is simlar to the sentiments you expressed in your initial post to this thread.Pat then calls, or accuses, these PC wussies of being like religious bigots in that they are "equally in denial," "equally irrational," "equally delusional" "slaves to a different dogma."In other words Pat users ad-hominens to attack those who will not accept his false dichotmomy, and who do not share his view that Muslims are the enemy within, about to take over Western society and force us all to live in Dhimmitude!This is not simply about Pat using an unreliable source - though let us examine this more. He is using scources produced by right wing evengelicals - homophobes, many of which support Intelligent design (some even Young creationism) - and where some white power extremists take cover to find another outlet for their vile.That is some mistake to make. We are not talking about someone merely using an incorrect reference here.As for the liberty issue. I am afraid this video has nothing to do with liberty! In fact it is an attack on liberty. The very people Pat is taking his 'facts' from are more of a threat to American liberties then a small minority (islamists) within a larger - but still very small minority (muslims) within American society.Evolution is not under attack in the American school system because of muslims, but because of christians - and that threat is very real - same goes for abortion, gay rights, womens rights. Of course many Muslims oppose these things - but they are not in a position to have any influence, unlike the extreme evengelical community.Pat as joined the bigoted fear mongers - only instead of red's under the bed, this time it is muslim's under the bed - who hope to scare us by trying to convince us that an almost totally impotent group (muslims) are a real and present danger to our liberty and then have these bigots use that fear to take away our liberty to choose our own sexual partners, decide whether to have an abortion, and to remain free from religious intolerence in the public square.Now Pat does not share the values of nutty evengelical groups, but he is preaching the same fear regardless, and if this view became accepted within society then the liberties that Pat values would soon be in danger.Also, Pat's idea of liberty seems odd. All are free to hold property and build places of worship where they wsh apart from Muslims, all are free to promote what ever anti-liberty view they wish, such as christian dominionism and reconstructionism (ie Mosiaic law enforced, with crimes such as 'adultery,' 'sodomy,' 'blashphemy' should be punished by death), but only Muslims are to be forbidden.'Pat is not promoting liberty, that is the irony of the whole thing. Of course they are limits to liberty, but speech and belief is not one of them. John Mills settled all this in the 19th century with his excellent essay on 'On Liberty.'Education, and where neceessary carefully guided legislation is the answer, not intolerence. Let us leave that to the demagogoues - be they religious or secular, and let those who really do value liberty call out the bullshit when we hear it!The answer to this desagreement is not more diatribes from Pat, but reasoned argument - but going by his sources recently - reasoned argument seems the last of his concerns."Those who forsake liberty for the sake of security will end up without liberty or security."
Look, if he's wrong then he's wrong, your insistence (to both of you here) that I accept that he's wrong because of racism is just... wrong. You can show hypocrisy. you can show error. Unless someone openly states that they are racist then there's no way to show that they are with jus ttheir words. Assuming you can see into another human being's mind or that you have some sort of "bigotry sense" is morally wrong. it's wrong because it predisposes both you and any society that accepts that notion to disregard views because someone "cried racism." He's wrong here because of a false dichotomy. I've stated that. We all accept that. Why the need to have everyone accept that his positions are bigotted by their very nature? Really, think about it.
Andrew,<span>Andrew writes: Look, if he's wrong then he's wrong, your insistence (to both of you here) that I accept that he's wrong because of racism is just... wrong.</span>I for one am not insisting that you think anything - you decide what you think - and if your a rationalist you base it on the facts of the case - the facts here being Pat's recent videos.And I am most certainly not insisting that you think Pat is a racist - because as far as I can tell he most certainly is not!!. However, he is a bigot.Since I have never used the word racist - I am confused by your use of the word. All racists are bigots, this is true, but not all bigots are racists and I for one have never thought Pat was racist.A racist is someone who expreses hatred and intolerence for another race - Pat has never done that.A bigot <span><span>is someone who</span> <span>is</span> <span>intolerant</span> <span>of</span> <span>a</span> <span>different</span> <span>creed,</span> <span>belief,</span> <span>or</span> <span>opinion.</span> A bigot, like a racist, is someone who will make wild and unfounded negative generalisations. </span><span></span><span>For example, if someone thinks because a particular black man is lazy, therefore all black men are lazy - then that is a racist comment.</span><span></span><span>If someone says this Muslim is a terrorist, therefore all muslims are potential terrorists - he is not making a racist statement, but he is making a bigoted one.</span><span></span><span>Clearly Pat has not made racist comments on his videos and it would be wrong to conclude the man is a racist - he is not - but he is a bigot!</span><span></span><span>Andrew writes: Assuming you can see into another human being's mind or that you have some sort of "bigotry sense" is morally wrong. it's wrong because it predisposes both you and any society that accepts that notion to disregard views because someone "cried racism." </span><span></span><span>You do not need to see into someone's mind to know if they are a bigot - the language they use and the claims they make are quite sufficent. I judge Pat on what he says. If Pat speaks like a bigot, guess what - he is a bigot.</span><span></span><span>If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - it's a duck. If Pat makes bigoted statements - guess what, he is a bigot. That is what the word bigot means, someone who makes bigoted statements!</span><span></span>
Not according to occam's razor.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard in some time. You don't need to define what a bigot is, you jsut say, "well he sounds like a bigot" and that's good enough. How about actually clarrifying your views enough so that your words mean something, until then no point in arguing.