Here's some of what Pat Condell says at 4:20 into the video ...
Maybe you think the way to deal with this is to engage it in polite debate, to make all your little points and counter-points and show us all what a clever dick you are. And that'll be great fun for you.And that's not even the best quotation. You should hear what comes after that!
And the good news is you don't even have to worry about someone like me damaging your cause because you haven't got a a cause. What you've got is a hobby.
If God exists, and I had any reason to ask him for anything, I think I'd probably ask him to save me from the curse of polite and deferential atheists.
[Hat Tip: Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge]
Hehehe. Is he a little...bitter? He really doesn't want anything to do with atheists that do not follow his philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, these merely antireligious half-philosophers half-comedians are quite abundant nowadays. I guess they fill in a niche for (deserved) antireligious rage. But we have to be able to look beyond religion. NO, the progress of humanity does not hinge on this issue, on that particular component of human society and organization called religion.
Religion is something that occurs historically, for motives that include many other factors other than upsurges and dowfalls of some "epidemic" of religious fanaticism.
"NO, the progress of humanity does not hinge on this issue, on that particular component of human society and organization called religion."
ReplyDeletePerhaps it doesn't "hinge" on it, but religion certainly has to be regarded as an obstructive force in that regard. One of a multitude, but one nonetheless.
Perhaps someday we'll have widespread acceptance of a religion that can easily mesh with the Enlightenment. Right now we are exercizing unwarranted deference to ancient superstitions that have no place in a modern society. A conciliatory attitude may have made sense when secularism and the scientific enterprise were in their infancy. I see no reason to walk on eggshells nowadays.
"Religion is something that occurs historically, for motives that include many other factors other than upsurges and dowfalls of some "epidemic" of religious fanaticism."
That hardly seems debatable. What does, however, if what exactly these causes tell us about the nature of religion and whether or not religion is an inevitable result. Racism and ethnic hostilities seem to be the same way, but the west has gone a long way in reducing them under the influence of the Enlightenment.
Thanks for the pointer, it was an engaging speaker. And as Dawkins he concentrates on a positive message, always a likable trait.
ReplyDeleteI like it. He presents a clear message, and stays on it throughout. And the message that I got was "stop bugging me with your beliefs".
ReplyDeleteI can agree with that.
I dont understand this tirade against the "other atheists" I guess it's the usual, "either you are with me or you are with evil religion" moral predicament. What he does not seem to grasp is that just feeling that way does not make him right.
ReplyDeleteI can feel exactly that way too. Some of these atheist "radical wannabes" most definitely are more part of the problem than part of the solution.
Several times, history, politics and religion have come together. The role taken by religon in a given society will be greatly affected by cultural, political and economic circumstance. You know, people. Religion is only one thing that people may (or may not) do.
Improductive atheism, which is no true atheism, but mere antireligiosity, treats religion as if this were some mysterious outbreak of irrationality and supersititon just coming out of nowehere, Then they relish on this, quasi-innate supidity of their opponents. They just ARE stupid and superstitious. They think that focusing on that is what is needed and further think they need to proceed to insult people for teur stupidity to kind of "shake it out" of their systems. If you disagree, you are "accomodationist" "appeaser" "neville chamberlain" whatever.
Good to hear someone not afraid to offend religion. Although the god adherents ability to take offence is astounding. Anyone who disagrees with them is supposedly causing offence. Well, I'm offended by their actions, I just don't think I have a right to stop them just because I'm offended. I'm offended by Condell because I would lie in that group of atheists he attacks but I can see his point of view.
ReplyDeleteMore Pat Condell please.
sanders: Improductive atheism, which is no true atheism
ReplyDeleteDo improductive atheists wear kilts? In other words, did you expect us not to notice that "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
That big day came and Pat Condell found himself at the gates of hell.
ReplyDeleteSo, said gatekeeper what did you do for a living?
I insulted religious believers, said Pat
And what do you expect to do here? asked the gatekeeper.
Have a bit of break and enjoy the company.
Break? You must be joking! We’ve Got Benny Hinn here, his entire management entourage, plus the Bourges, the inquisition, Moses David, David Koresh, Rev Jim Jones, Jimmy ‘swaggering’ Swaggart, and a whole lot more. Welcome to Hell sonny, you’ve got your work cut out!
Pat suddenly woke up sweating, relieved it was all just a bad dream. In order to get a grip on reality he switched on breakfast TV. The God channel came on as Benny Hinn asked viewers to touch his outstretched hands. Suddenly a terrible realization dawned – Pat has been in Hell all along.
People like myself who do not believe in god are not merely antireligious and I think that point must be made clear.
ReplyDeleteObsessing with religion is not something a better atheist should do: that is an atheist that has not begun from the right starting point: HUMAN reality. From basic biological activities to economy, politics and society. Religion usually is mixed in but not sole responsible of the situation, be it bad or good. Rather, "situations" tend to generate new religions, weaken or strengthen old ones (consider the colonization of the american west, the divisions of the catholic church...)
I think what we may have in the current globalized world of information-sharing, is that after at least 3 centuries of consistent cultural glorification of science and reason, there IS some culturally established sentiment of fatigue towards "scientific authority" (as "automatically true"), a lack of trust in responsibility (specially since nuclear weapons) , and the belief that scientists can abuse their authority, presenting their personal prejudices as facts
Information is saturating and people feel they cannot decide on their own what is true. There is lots of facile postmodernism.