Pat Condell

Galvasean

Anyone else hear of this guy? He's quite the speaker.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM&feature=related

Makes a lot of good points.
Some excellent responses too.

limerick_woody

I enjoy his posts - he does make a lot of sense, but i often feel sorry for him as he always appears so pi**ed off. It can't be healthy for him or any family that must endure him.

bnt

limerick_woody wrote: »

It can't be healthy for him or any family that must endure him.

Or maybe 'e's acting the grumpy old man for comic purposes, as on that TV show, Grumpy Old Men? Have a read of what 'e says about 'imself, 'ere.

edit: he also puts up audio versions of his talks in podcast form, which is convenient.

OK-Cancel-Apply

He's a human tabloid.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

didn't get go off on a half racist rant a couple of months ago? face is familiar anyway

eoin5

Its just smarmy ranting with nothing to add to whats been said a thousand times before but I suppose its a good way of baiting the religious into a debate. I think I'll go listen to a Douglas Adams speech now.

adamd164

I enjoy him not on the basis of his originality, but because I think he brings adds a refreshingly blithesome voice to atheism. Some of his posts are much better than others, so it can be hit and miss.

Dave!

Anyone wanna recommend a good 'un from him? Not arsed looking through them all...

Ekancone

DaveMcG wrote: »

Anyone wanna recommend a good 'un from him? Not arsed looking through them all...

His new one is pretty good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPG3-1gogXU

And his first is legendary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8PCecgWKeI

adamd164

Incidentally, for anyone who's interested: http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=58

OK-Cancel-Apply

adamd164 wrote: »

Incidentally, for anyone who's interested: http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=58

I'm shocked! Richard Dawkins is actually endorsing this guy?? What has come over him? The only explanation I can think of is that Condell is some sort of family friend, or has some sort of connection that would allow for a favour.

I've seen many of this guy's videos. 80% seem to be about Islam, and Muslims in Britain. He puts links in the description to gutter rag filth like The Daily Express (who have headlines like, "In 50 years there'll be no whites in Britain") and the Telegraph (who seem to constantly post mugshots of dark-skinned bearded men caught looking at 'Islamist' websites).

Condell pretty much incites hatred. He wants people to believe that the minority is the majority, with lines like, "There are SOME Muslims who just want to get on with it like the rest of us, and should be praised" or "Praise is due the Muslims in Holland for NOT reacting violently to X".

It's his constant reference to 'culture' that really gives the game away. He's vile, and thanks to 'vloggers' like him, more people will want to vote BNP.

Dawkins has always steered clear of politicising his arguments, and has managed to maintain intellectual integrity with what he says, but I've lost a little bit of respect for him having seen his endorsement of this conservative bigot. I can only assume that Dawkins is a busy man, and was only shown a couple of the videos.

Ekancone

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I'm shocked! Richard Dawkins is actually endorsing this guy?? What has come over him? The only explanation I can think of is that Condell is some sort of family friend, or has some sort of connection that would allow for a favour.

I've seen many of this guy's videos. 80% seem to be about Islam, and Muslims in Britain. He puts links in the description to gutter rag filth like The Daily Express (who have headlines like, "In 50 years there'll be no whites in Britain") and the Telegraph (who seem to constantly post mugshots of dark-skinned bearded men caught looking at 'Islamist' websites).

Condell pretty much incites hatred. He wants people to believe that the minority is the majority, with lines like, "There are SOME Muslims who just want to get on with it like the rest of us, and should be praised" or "Praise is due the Muslims in Holland for NOT reacting violently to X".

It's his constant reference to 'culture' that really gives the game away. He's vile, and thanks to 'vloggers' like him, more people will want to vote BNP.

Dawkins has always steered clear of politicising his arguments, and has managed to maintain intellectual integrity with what he says, but I've lost a little bit of respect for him having seen his endorsement of this conservative bigot. I can only assume that Dawkins is a busy man, and was only shown a couple of the videos.

Boooooooooooo!

adamd164

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I'm shocked! Richard Dawkins is actually endorsing this guy?? What has come over him? The only explanation I can think of is that Condell is some sort of family friend, or has some sort of connection that would allow for a favour.

I've seen many of this guy's videos. 80% seem to be about Islam, and Muslims in Britain. He puts links in the description to gutter rag filth like The Daily Express (who have headlines like, "In 50 years there'll be no whites in Britain") and the Telegraph (who seem to constantly post mugshots of dark-skinned bearded men caught looking at 'Islamist' websites).

Condell pretty much incites hatred. He wants people to believe that the minority is the majority, with lines like, "There are SOME Muslims who just want to get on with it like the rest of us, and should be praised" or "Praise is due the Muslims in Holland for NOT reacting violently to X".

It's his constant reference to 'culture' that really gives the game away. He's vile, and thanks to 'vloggers' like him, more people will want to vote BNP.

Dawkins has always steered clear of politicising his arguments, and has managed to maintain intellectual integrity with what he says, but I've lost a little bit of respect for him having seen his endorsement of this conservative bigot. I can only assume that Dawkins is a busy man, and was only shown a couple of the videos.

“Pat Condell is unique. Nobody can match his extraordinary blend of suavity and savagery. With his articulate intelligence he runs rings around the religious wingnuts that are the targets of his merciless humour. Thank goodness he is on our side.” - Richard Dawkins

Sounds fairly sure.

Cato

pat condell is a racist bigot who gives all atheists a bad name, bit like hitler people take his hate speech to heart as none of his followers have the balls to say it themselves and make him out to be some sort of intelligent speaker on current topics which he is not, and i think anyone who defends this ass is worse than the religious types that atheists most insist on putting down constantly because of their beliefs.

limerick_woody

pat condell is a racist bigot

Please back this rant up - i have never for a second considered him racist, and he addresses this in some of his posts. Where exactly is he racist?

Ekancone

Cato wrote: »

pat condell is a racist bigot who gives all atheists a bad name, bit like hitler people take his hate speech to heart as none of his followers have the balls to say it themselves and make him out to be some sort of intelligent speaker on current topics which he is not, and i think anyone who defends this ass is worse than the religious types that atheists most insist on putting down constantly because of their beliefs.

Why does Hitler give atheism a bad name?-

robindch

Cato wrote: »

pat condell is a racist bigot who gives all atheists a bad name, bit like hitler people take his hate speech to heart as none of his followers have the balls to say it themselves

Of the little I've seen of him, I don't remember seeing anything that I'd characterize as racist, but maybe you're more familiar with him than me -- where is he racist?

And anyhow, even if he is racist, so what? I've no doubt that he rejects the phlogiston theory of combustion too. Does that mean that everybody else who rejects phlogiston theory should worry that they're having their names blackened?

Zombrex

limerick_woody wrote: »

Please back this rant up - i have never for a second considered him racist, and he addresses this in some of his posts. Where exactly is he racist?

After Condell criticized Islamic women who feel the need to cover themselves in head to toe (he called it a social controlling device imposed by men, and criticised the women who play along with that), there were various internet attacks on him calling his view "racist"

He pointed out in a separate video that Islam isn't a "race" and is in fact made up of a number of what we would call races.

While his particular rant on this subject is off the mark in my view (he believes that some Muslim women go out of their way to wear these veils in impractical situations as a statement meant to cause an issue so that they can claim offence when they are asked not to), he is right that it has nothing to do with racism.

limerick_woody

Condell reminds me of hitchens in his delivery. Both men use polemic, Condell does it with more humour however. I'm confident that neither man holds racist views and i'm yet to hear a response suggesting otherwise for Pat Condell. Pat Condell consistantly rails against the madness of belief in the unbelievable, and it's consequences - it just happens that the most obvious manifestations of this is currently exemplified by members of the the Islamic faith, hence his seeming pre-occupation with them. Obviously though, Muslims are not a race so in criticising them you can hardly be racist, and his rants are not exclusive to muslims.
I would also agree with other posts regarding the implicit association of racism with Atheists, - it's hard to justify the association from Pat Condell, and i note that no attempt was made. It reminds me of arguments by the religious, large on unsubstantiated waffle and low on actual content.

PDN

limerick_woody wrote: »

It reminds me of arguments by the religious, large on unsubstantiated waffle and low on actual content.

Also stereotypical and containing sweeping generalisations?

estebancambias

I hate most Youtubers, thus I hate Pat Condell.

Really though, I dislike this man so very very much. There is a much 'better' Atheist youtuber from Greystones who is far more informative and interesting.

A human tabloid is right.

limerick_woody

PDN wrote: »

Also stereotypical and containing sweeping generalisations?

touche

adamd164

Some of us would say that the true bigots are those who claim there to be any sort of need for the construct of "race" at all - it's certainly got no biological basis whatsoever. Then again, the religious are all for partitioning and drawing battle lines, so it's no surprise to see them at it again.

Cato

I just don't think hes all that different from the radicals he always giving out about, he spreads hate pure and simple, get me a video were he comes up with a solution to a problem that doesent involve an o so witty put down, something that would generally work? because i have yet to see one, infact he reminds me more of the fundamentalist **** heads hes talking about hes a catastrophist spreading the **** around in the hope to incite some sort of negative action, in this case legions of mindless internet followers, nobody can prove whether he is a racist or NOT, but his views do border dangerously close to one just because hes in denial means he i sent one? please...

Cato

adamd164 wrote: »

Then again, the religious are all for partitioning and drawing battle lines, so it's no surprise to see them at it again.

PDN wrote: »

Also stereotypical and containing sweeping generalisations?

sigh*

adamd164

Cato wrote: »

sigh*

To me, it's not a generalisation, because my point is that the need to partition is actually inherent in religious beliefs the world over. Religion is a societally divisive, segregating factor; those of one faith believe their own to be the way, the truth, and the light, whilst those who worship other gods must necessarily be wrong.

Cato

true but their are quite a number of social divides, probably greater than religeon, it is human nature

Zillah

adamd164 wrote: »

Some of us would say that the true bigots are those who claim there to be any sort of need for the construct of "race" at all - it's certainly got no biological basis whatsoever.

What? Yes it does. White people are all white because they share the same genes for skin pigmentation. Black people have similar hair because they share the same genes for hair. Different diseases and conditions are more prevalent among different races.

Of course there's a basis. Its genetic.

ChocolateSauce

Cato wrote: »

pat condell is a racist bigot who gives all atheists a bad name, bit like hitler people take his hate speech to heart as none of his followers have the balls to say it themselves and make him out to be some sort of intelligent speaker on current topics which he is not, and i think anyone who defends this ass is worse than the religious types that atheists most insist on putting down constantly because of their beliefs.

Pat Condell is an intelligent, moral and upstanding atheist, and I would be proud to call him a friend. He is not racist, and he has never made a single racist remark in any of his videos that I have seen. Islam is not a race; it is an idea. It is an idea that can, and should be, treated with hatred and contempt, not because it is different (as Pat puts perfectly), but because it is barbaric, and inferior to the ethics of (moral) atheists and even most western Christians, and beneath western values of freedom.

I don't attack non-militant atheists for not being militant (that's their decision), but I do attack non-militant atheists for attempting to obstruct the work of those of us who care about our fundamental freedoms. Bad name? He might give atheists a bad name. To the people he is attacking. But the video isn't aimed as Muslims, and it isn't trying to de-convert them, so it really doesn't matter if he makes them hate us. It is aimed at westerners, it is aimed at people like you, people who are willing to sit back and defend Muslims, who in this country pose as a cringing minority, but in every single country in the world where they are in control, oppress their citizens on some way, notably women, but also gays, Jews, atheists, minority religions, etc. People who defend them by handing away our freedoms to to them and smiling while it's done, all out of fear that we don't "offend" them, they are just the people who need to hear the opinions of Pat, myself, Hitchens and Dawkins. In the medium term, it is more important to mobilise our society against the creeping erosion of our liberties than it is to spread atheism, and if you don't wish to support this most epic and noble of causes, at least don't do it any harm. Just sit back and let other people fight for your freedom.

As Pat put it, anyone reading this who is offended, can bloody well stay offended.

estebancambias

theozster wrote: »

Pat Condell is an intelligent, moral and upstanding atheist, and I would be proud to call him a friend. He is not racist, and he has never made a single racist remark in any of his videos that I have seen. Islam is not a race; it is an idea. It is an idea that can, and should be, treated with hatred and contempt, not because it is different (as Pat puts perfectly), but because it is barbaric, and inferior to the ethics of (moral) atheists and even most western Christians, and beneath western values of freedom.

I don't attack non-militant atheists for not being militant (that's their decision), but I do attack non-militant atheists for attempting to obstruct the work of those of us who care about our fundamental freedoms. Bad name? He might give atheists a bad name. To the people he is attacking. But the video isn't aimed as Muslims, and it isn't trying to de-convert them, so it really doesn't matter if he makes them hate us. It is aimed at westerners, it is aimed at people like you, people who are willing to sit back and defend Muslims, who in this country pose as a cringing minority, but in every single country in the world where they are in control, oppress their citizens on some way, notably women, but also gays, Jews, atheists, minority religions, etc. People who defend them by handing away our freedoms to to them and smiling while it's done, all out of fear that we don't "offend" them, they are just the people who need to hear the opinions of Pat, myself, Hitchens and Dawkins. In the medium term, it is more important to mobilise our society against the creeping erosion of our liberties than it is to spread atheism, and if you don't wish to support this most epic and noble of causes, at least don't do it any harm. Just sit back and let other people fight for your freedom.

As Pat put it, anyone reading this who is offended, can bloody well stay offended.

Are you his lover?

ChocolateSauce

If he were 40 years younger, and I 40 years older, and gay, then I just might be!

Dades

theozster wrote: »

Just sit back and let other people fight for your freedom.

So, where's this fight take place?

*pulls up chair*

Cato

as i said he is a catastrophist he is blowing it way out of proportion, the Muslim religion is just the vehicle in which to deliver their hate, its not the cause, saying that Muslim all want to destroy the western culture and that its somehow ingrained in their coran is stupid, he mentions numerous times not all Muslims are fanatical and are reasonable but continues with the generalizations regardless, the reason why some fundamentalist Muslim believe western culture to be a threat is not religion it is something deeper, religion is just a means to rally people to a cause, if there was no religion i believe we would still have the same problem, it would just be more political, there has always been huge tension between Europe and the middle east even before Judea Christian religion, it is cultural tension that has not been resolved in a long time and is being fueled by trolls like Mr condell on the side lines spreading hate and fear just like the Muslims that all want us dead, does condell know that nearly all fundamentalist leaders who cause alot of this fear mongering studied in the west and are well versed in western philosophy? especially marx...

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

What? Yes it does. White people are all white because they share the same genes for skin pigmentation. Black people have similar hair because they share the same genes for hair. Different diseases and conditions are more prevalent among different races.

Of course there's a basis. Its genetic.

I think what he means is that recent genetic studies has found that there is little genetic basis for the classical idea of races. Two African men can have as much or more genetic difference as a European man and an African man.

All humans on Earth developed from a handful of humans who lived between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago. The population at one point has been estimated as low as 20,000 humans who lived in a small area and would have been very similar genetically.

There is simply not enough genetic difference between humans to separate them into "races". The classical view of race is based on what humans consider to be obviously important phenotypes, such as skin colour, but these have no greater importance than any other phenotype from a genetic point of view.

A tall black man can be as genetically different to a short black man as a tall black man can be to a tall white man, its just we pick the skin colour phenotype as having greater importance than height in defining this person.

CerebralCortex

estebancambias wrote: »

Are you his lover?

Esteban I am shaking my head sir/mam.

ChocolateSauce

Dades wrote: »

So, where's this fight take place?

*pulls up chair*

Thought that would be be obvious! In the hearts and minds of people. Where else does it matter? Certainly not the streets of Baghdad.

adamd164

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what he means is that recent genetic studies has found that there is little genetic basis for the classical idea of races. Two African men can have as much or more genetic difference as a European man and an African man.

All humans on Earth developed from a handful of humans who lived between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago. The population at one point has been estimated as low as 20,000 humans who lived in a small area and would have been very similar genetically.

There is simply not enough genetic difference between humans to separate them into "races". The classical view of race is based on what humans consider to be obviously important phenotypes, such as skin colour, but these have no greater importance than any other phenotype from a genetic point of view.

A tall black man can be as genetically different to a short black man as a tall black man can be to a tall white man, its just we pick the skin colour phenotype as having greater importance than height in defining this person.

Well put; I'd just like to add a couple of links that Zillah can check out for more: this recent study undertaken by researchers in Cambridge, and some stats here from the Geosciences institute at Carleton University in Canada. "Race" is a meaningless concept when there is as great a genetic difference between individuals within a given grouping. Freckled people may be more likely to sunburn than non-freckled people, but we don't segregate them into societal groupings on the basis of their propensity to tan or fry. Why not? Because we know full-well that a freckled person overall can have less or more physiological features in common with a non-freckled person; we cannot make a generalisation. The same is true of "race", but it seems to be deeply ingrained in the human psyche that the opposite is true.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what he means is that recent genetic studies has found that there is little genetic basis for the classical idea of races. Two African men can have as much or more genetic difference as a European man and an African man.

All humans on Earth developed from a handful of humans who lived between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago. The population at one point has been estimated as low as 20,000 humans who lived in a small area and would have been very similar genetically.

There is simply not enough genetic difference between humans to separate them into "races". The classical view of race is based on what humans consider to be obviously important phenotypes, such as skin colour, but these have no greater importance than any other phenotype from a genetic point of view.

A tall black man can be as genetically different to a short black man as a tall black man can be to a tall white man, its just we pick the skin colour phenotype as having greater importance than height in defining this person.

sometimes you do my posting for me..only better!

estebancambias

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Esteban I am shaking my head sir/mam.

Did you not see the guys post? It was like he knew Condell personally.

I don't know if you like football, but its similar to the time Dunphy defended Roy Keane when he left Man Utd.

estebancambias

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what he means is that recent genetic studies has found that there is little genetic basis for the classical idea of races. Two African men can have as much or more genetic difference as a European man and an African man.

All humans on Earth developed from a handful of humans who lived between 100,000 and 70,000 years ago. The population at one point has been estimated as low as 20,000 humans who lived in a small area and would have been very similar genetically.

There is simply not enough genetic difference between humans to separate them into "races". The classical view of race is based on what humans consider to be obviously important phenotypes, such as skin colour, but these have no greater importance than any other phenotype from a genetic point of view.

A tall black man can be as genetically different to a short black man as a tall black man can be to a tall white man, its just we pick the skin colour phenotype as having greater importance than height in defining this person.

That was class.

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote: »

sometimes you do my posting for me..only better!

that's what your wife says :eek::cool::pac:

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

that's what your wife says :eek::cool::pac:

hey when you're doing my wifes 'posting' I be over be at your house 'taking in your mamas washing'.......how dya like them apples?

DanCorb

Pat Condell is a hero and I think his videos should be shown in Religion class in secondary schools. Well presented videos like his would give the students a clear understanding of the opposition's viewpoint.