Latest Pat Condell video

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc[/youtube]

Spot on the money - The U.N Human Rights Council couldn't be any more sad if they tried. They managed to get the neighborhood foxes to decide upon the basic rights of the hens. It's kind of funny in a sad way. They've spent so much time decrying Israel that their original founder has now disowned the council as the worthless shill for the abusers of human rights that it is. I'm especially digging this latest separate "Islamic" human rights thing that we are now sponsoring!

While I agree with most of what he's saying a lot in terms of the notion that government CAN'T roll over for religious control, should never, guys like this also worry me in the sense that I could imagine Dawkins - a guy who believes that parents should be taken in for child abuse for raising them within one - just as easily giving this speech.

I'm normally not a Condell fan, but in this case I'm on his side. Western governments can't afford to give in to Islamic pressure and compromise our basic liberties.

This is weird: two posts here are gone. One was mine: about Blaise Pascal who said islam was sent by Satan.
Does someone know, is there some technical problem?

Most of what he said in that video is the same reason I'm a bit dumbfounded by those who have a need to hold America up as 'the' glimmering beacon of barbarism, stupidity, oppression, etc. in the world - in my mind when I see that there's only one way I can take it; as an emotional need that transcends reality, doesn't need to be measured in proportion to the rest of the world, and is very realistically a superstructure that they build in their minds to externally orient whatever suffering they've been through in their lives and/or those around them to the nearest and easiest target.

I think you dont understand british irony and sarcasm.

When I clicked my email notification link I was actually whisked into the global moderator's forum. Apparently someone in green noted this as a violation of forum policy.

I can actually say, quite clearly, that your post and reuvyn's were extracted and move to the global moderators forum - no confusion on my part. You may want to remember though, American based or not this forum is internationally moderated and whether the mod who pulled it may have even agreed with you or not, if the rules are that no straight ad-hominem'ish statements be made - true or not, if we subjectively start letting them slip then we'd have week long deliberations before we could decide on say locking threads, banning trolls, etc.. Rules are blunt instruments but, for the minor discomforts they cause sometimes they still have they're place and are still needed in the broader sense.

That said, I wouldn't give up hope on America - nor would I take this one all too personally, just live and learn. If this thread were on lockdown for political reasons it would have been swallowed OP and all.

Condell is already too late for the US maybe.
Very sad.

Rock on, Pat. We should all criticize religion without regard to who may or may not get offended.

I have been watching a few of Pat's videos lately. He makes some very good points (with an awesome attitude too, if I might add). I strongly agree with his statement that anybody, be it religion, culture, etc., should be incriminated if they impede basic human rights. The case of Muslim men and their "right" to beat their women deserves to be questioned. Women have a right not to be beaten or forced to hide under a burka, despite what the religion permits. Human rights trump all.

The death penalty for apostasy is a sticky one too.

No, Dawkins is referring to children who are deliberately sheltered and given no option. His point is that religion is something to choose for yourself, like political standpoint. "You wouldn't agree with someone saying a baby was a fascist baby. So why is it OK to call a baby a christian or muslim baby?" is a paraphrase of Dawkins.

To teach your child that your religion is fact is lying. It is indoctrinating the child and barring them from growing into their own person. By all mean, people should teach their children about their beliefs, but not as fact. They should also teach them about the beliefs of others and not just the alternative supernatural ones.

Most importantly really, children should be allowed to think.

Now to connect to the Condell video.

In army training, the men and women will be broken down to a point where they will accept anything. This is so they will take orders as second nature. This broken down state can be said to be similar to that of a newborn child, reaching out for information to base itself on. Except, obviously, the baby is a bit more of a blank slate.

If you flatly permeate its life with something it will not learn how to think, and will more or less be an obedient soldier. Just think about how many people reject things because it goes against their religion, there have been muslims saying that it rains because Allah wills it and think that condensation is a myth.

Effectively, every sincere theist is a soldier and it is not just Islam you need to worry about. The problem is that they want to shape reality based on what they think reality is or should be, instead of wanting to know what reality is based on what we can experience. Anything trying to change something will create conflict, and when there are multiple strong forces trying to ignore reality and bend it to its will, the world will have problems.

Yeah, I'm definitely not a fan of unmeasured theism of that sort. The very logic is - if God created this world and science is our best attempt at understanding how that works, there can really be no conflict. Just like with human biology, diversity, how we all articulate reality just on how our neurological structures are built - evidence is pretty compelling that we're not supposed to all think the same, if we did the world would be utterly deprived of innovation or even constructive dialectic debate. This is why I get irritated with militant metaphysical claims of any type - theists and atheists equally.

Hmm, God of the gaps... But, there is conflict anyhow: The Earth was created 6000 years ago in six days by a powerful wizard, and we are all descendants of the two first people he created. The reason women have pain during child-birth is because the first woman, Eve, created ate an apple, and the reason snakes crawl on their bellies is because a talking snake made Eve that apple. 2000 years ago, the son of a wizard in the sky was killed, but he came back as a zombie, and apparently, eating crackers that we pretend are his body will benefit us somehow. Also, the bible flat-out says that in much knowledge lies much sorrow.

That's Christianity, abridged. We could move on to Scientology or Raélianism if you like, but I tell you, it's just as bad. Needless to say, whatever religion you choose, it will not be compatible with science. The only way it is not in conflict is if you commit heresy(Punishable by death!) and pick and choose what to believe, for example not taking Genesis literally. The bible is supposedly the inerrant word of God, so if you call yourself a Christian and you do not take the bible literally, you are a hypocrite and you will burn in hell. Islam actually addresses this specifically. According to the Quran, there is a special place; the lowest part of hell, where only the hypocrites -- those who pick and choose -- will be sent, so that won't work out well, either.
So what is it gonna be? Heresy, literalism, or Atheism? Seems like a false dichotomy, but it really isn't because religion is the enemy of science; Science diminishes and ridicules the once revered principles of religion such as camel urine as medicine and burning animals in order to get a bigger harvest, and that's why they are fundamentally incompatible.

I know, and if one isn't a new earth creationist and wholly-embracing bible literalist then they have no claim to any philosophical integrity whatsoever because of their divorce from the anthropology of it.