Pharyngula

I like this guy.

Posted by: Moses | November 28, 2007 9:05 PM

I give Pat a 10!

Posted by: Rick Schauer | November 28, 2007 9:28 PM

My god, that video has over 1,300 comments! Good to know that this whole atheism business is stirring things up.

Posted by: Casey S | November 28, 2007 9:41 PM

Pat just gets better and better. That summed up my position exactly.

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 28, 2007 9:44 PM

I agree and disagree.

There's nothing wrong with being polite and respectful. The problem with using mockery is that there's no correlation of the degree of the insult with respect to the accuracy of the argument. I imagine that Pat could be just as biting in arguing a viewpoint I don't agree with- but that wouldn't mean that he was right.

Ultimately, the only reason I am an atheist is because the arguments convince me. It has nothing to do with the wittiness of the insults that famous atheists have concocted. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a good insult from time to time.

I am in complete agreement that religion deserves no more respect than astrology. However, I'm more inclined to feel sorry for the 'ordinary' people who have been conned into believing that nonsense.

Posted by: Christianjb | November 28, 2007 9:46 PM

religion delenda est!

Ooh. So close. 'n' littera delenda est.

Posted by: noncarborundum | November 28, 2007 10:03 PM

steve99: "This is not about moderate atheism - it is about dealing with individuals with sympathy and respect"

I don't interpret anything Pat said -- or anything PZ, or Dawkins, or Hitchens, etc. have said -- as meaning that atheists shouldn't have social graces or treat people without sympathy or respect.

"But what about those of us, or friends of us, who have aged relatives with belief? Or who (to give a real example) work to provide medical care to people? Do we say to them 'I give your religion the finger', when they are in desperate need of care and consolation?"

Pat is giving religion the finger in the public sphere. If Grandma doesn't want to hear what Pat has to say, she doesn't have to watch his YouTube videos, or read Pharyngula. Nobody's saying you should barge into Grandma's hospital room and browbeat her about how her beliefs are a bunch of poorly written fairy tales, any more than you should barge into Grandma's hospital room and browbeat her with your views on politics or any other topic.

But if Grandma asks you to pray with her, there's nothing unsympathetic or disrespectful about saying that you don't believe. If Grandma wants to lecture everyone over Thanksgiving dinner about what a great president Bush is, there's nothing unsympathetic or disrespectful about voicing your disagreement if you so choose.

Posted by: jdb | November 28, 2007 10:14 PM

I part company where he asserts that if atheists had taken a strong line with religious nonsense sooner, we wouldn't have the situation we have, any more than with astrology and palmistry. (Lots of people believe those sorts of nonsense too.) I see no evidence that prompt opposition (when, exactly?) would have interfered with the rise of fundamentalisms of various kinds. I don't mind Condell's on-the-muscle 'tude, or even (very much) his unconsidered equation of "balls" with courage, but as an explanation for why religious belief declines in some periods and thrives in others--as a sociology of knowledge, which I submit we need if we're to make real headway against ignorance and bigotry--he doesn't have anything to offer; I admit there's a certain visceral satisfaction of seeing an expert reviler do his stuff, but it wears off quickly.

Posted by: rootlesscosmo | November 28, 2007 10:17 PM

But if Grandma asks you to pray with her, there's nothing unsympathetic or disrespectful about saying that you don't believe.

which inevitably leads to the question from grandma/relative/friend:

why not?

whereupon the only honest response is the one Pat gives, insulting or not to the person who asked the question.

I myself finally gave up trying to be dishonestly polite or evasive in such circumstances (the question ends up just being asked again at a later date), but at least have learned only to go as far as the questioner is willing to extend themselves - only when it comes to friends/relatives, though.

If it makes grandma feel bad on her deathbed that she wasn't able to convert me, so be it. It would be worse to lie about it, yes?

In fact, i have found that people WANT to hear reasons not to believe, even if they themselves can't accept them at the moment, and get all defensive in the immediate sense. They seem to come back for more...

might be just curiosity, or it might be that they themselves doubt their own faith, and want to see how the other side "lives".

when asked about comforting the aged, instead of encouraging them to look at a fantasy future past death, i always make them look back at the many great things accomplished during their LIFE, which is all that really matters.

the comfort should come from whatever experiences one has managed to squeeze out of one's current life, not some sweet lies about a future trip to a non-existent place.

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 28, 2007 10:29 PM

Steve99 said:

"Do we say to them "I give your religion the finger", when they are in desperate need of care and consolation?"

Oh for crying out loud, man, of course we don't! Every time this sort of thing comes up we get someone handwringing like this, ala D'Souza's asinine response to the VT tragedy. I'm know you mean well (which is more than I can say for D'Souza), but pay attention. Very few, if any, of us have advocated what you fear. Your worry is unfounded.

Certainly I'll argue in other circumstances that religion shouldn't be prized as a great solace to the suffering. But I give those in desperate need of care and consolation...care and consolation. If it's religion they demand, I defer to someone who can provide it.

Posted by: rrt | November 28, 2007 10:35 PM

I always love to see his videos on pharyngula. He has me laughing every time with how right he is. i only wish i could strap some friends down and make them watch the videos.

Posted by: Michael | November 28, 2007 10:43 PM

"I part company where he asserts that if atheists had taken a strong line with religious nonsense sooner, we wouldn't have the situation we have, any more than with astrology and palmistry"

Pat is quite right actually. Yes, there are still people who believe in astrology, and you can even find horoscopes in otherwise respectable newspapers. But most of those who control public discourse (the editors and the newsmen and the pundits, etc.) while they can be very stupid very often, wouldn't admit to believing in astrology or palmistry to anything else that has been tagged as nonsense. Yet, they will profess religious faith at the drop of a hat without embarrassment.

The simple reason is that most supernatural nonsense has been ridiculed for a while and eventually all the insults stuck. Conversely, everybody has been so reverential when it comes to religion that it has escaped a similar fate. It's time to change that, and I do think all the dismissive atheists who've been ridiculing religion are having an impact -- when you we get one religion apologist after another writing transparent defenses of mystical mambo jumbo week after week, the work of those who won't take religion seriously is obviously having an effect.
___________________________

Posted by: Aris | November 28, 2007 10:55 PM

This guy rocks. Spits it out like it is.

I just ordered another "Science Rocks" T from Skeptic.com - sorry guys, it's available in womens' sizes only (why is that?).

Seriously, I don't care what people believe as long as they don't get in my face with their beliefs, hurt my family or friends, attempt to redefine how science is done (include the non-falsifiable), or try to deny, distort or obfuscate scientific evidence. If somebody wants to not believe scientific evidence, that's OK with me. If they want to teach that non-belief in a science class, it not OK with me, Big-Time.

Unfortunately, live-and-let-live doesn't seem to be an option. Too bad. I intend to keep on living.

Posted by: foxfire | November 28, 2007 11:08 PM

More ridicule! Less debate! I like it.

Posted by: poke | November 28, 2007 11:33 PM

Sure, Mena. And the fact that he proceeded from the unfounded assumption that we aren't considerate of other people when they are in a crisis point in their lives had nothing to do with Janine's reaction.

Now if you excuse me, I'm late for dinner. Mmmm. Roast puppy.

Posted by: rrt | November 28, 2007 11:37 PM

I don't know if Steve99 is a concern troll or not. That being said I do deal with his described dilemma. As a 48 year old who's been raised in the Lutheran church, served as it's treasurer, been a Sunday School teacher and has a 89 year old mother in a nursing home, I think I can speak with some authority regarding the complexities of life for someone who has been raised/indoctrinated for the better part of 50 years and has a family that is still deeply religious.

I've been going through a deconversion for the last couple of years. My immediate family contains 2 believers and 2 athiests. Call me hypocritical if you want but when I take lunch to my mother every Friday, I say a prayer before we eat. It pleases her and that is what is important to me.

Lest I seem like a wet blanket, I thought the You Tube video was great.

Posted by: rmp | November 28, 2007 11:38 PM

Steve99 states:

"This is not about moderate atheism - it is about dealing with individuals with sympathy and respect."

Please explain to me what "moderate atheism" is. I'm an atheist by definition because I don't believe in a god or gods. What is it that would make me "moderate" or "liberal" or "conservative" in this regard. If I lied about what i believe because the idea bothers some people, would I become a moderate? Come on now! Moderate atheism, my ass. That's like saying I should be a less vocal and therefore "moderate" heliocentrist because some people gain solace in the thought of a geocentric solar system.

I don't think so.

Posted by: Dahan | November 28, 2007 11:42 PM

I stopped this about a minute in...

So I could get popcorn and a drink. I'm glad I did, because it was better than some of the stuff hollywood puts out.

It was beautiful.

Posted by: chris rattis | November 28, 2007 11:51 PM

oops...too many links...let's just say that those who think we should take more care of the sensibilities of the fairytale set, while they feel free to ignore ours, during the same times of need...well, fuck 'em and fuck those who would have us continually shut up.

Posted by: MAJeff | November 28, 2007 11:59 PM

Pat Condell sucks, to put it bluntly.

Posted by: Alex | November 29, 2007 12:05 AM

Steve99--

In similar vein to your question, I have to ask, why do religious people have such a strong tendency to flay the living flesh off of atheists in a public square? I'm not talking figuratively, but actually skin peeling, preferrably preceded by stoning. I also sometimes wonder why all religious people seem to rape and kill women at such high numbers and why priests like to molest little boys, often by inserting their penises into the tightly puckered anus of the youth after promising to let him drive the parish Cadillac if he takes a deep breath and relaxes after applying the holy oil. I think it may just be endemic to religion itself. What do you think?

At any rate, unlike some Billy O'Ratheists here,I welcome your contribution to advancing the debate in a serious and civilized fashion.

Posted by: inkadu | November 29, 2007 12:15 AM

Janine wrote:

I have dealt death in the family

Is that a confession? Now I'm worried!
(Warning- this post may contain humor.)

Posted by: Christianjb | November 29, 2007 12:23 AM

"We're sorry, this video is no longer available"

I missed out?? any alternative source?

Posted by: Jason | November 29, 2007 12:29 AM

To Alex's point, I'd say many people (until recently myself) suffer from a variation of Stockholm Syndrome. Be gentle.

Posted by: rmp | November 29, 2007 12:32 AM

Janine wrote:

I have dealt death in the family

Is that a confession? Now I'm worried!
(Warning- this post may contain humor.)

Posted by: Christianjb | November 29, 2007 12:23 AM

And what did I say before that? 'Like everybody else'. In other words, I am not unique, this is a common event. Millions of atheists have dealt with death and illness. But how often does anybody hear about people acting as steve99 suggests?

Perhaps you are in the need of confession? You seem to be projecting that need onto me?

(Warning- this posy may contain humor and teeth.)

Posted by: Janine | November 29, 2007 12:43 AM

But how often does anybody hear about people acting as steve99 suggests?

I've got a post in moderation about going to my grandmother's funeral in NW Iowa last week (couple posts on my blog--click my name and scroll down). I was the good son and stayed closeted as a liberal, a gay man, and an atheist. i even let mom get away with a homophobic erasure of my aunt's wife so as to not offend the "good christian" bigots.

But of course, again, it's we atheists who are the problem, as a starting definition.

So, yeah,, steve99, slag off.

Posted by: MAJeff | November 29, 2007 12:48 AM

Mike P,

It was the same refrain as always, "Do you atheists go on the attack in every social situation?" We always get it. I was at a funeral last week where I was the good tolerant one and the Christians were the bigots. But, of course, Steve's opening volley is, "What, are you atheists attacking all the time."

Sick of it. Period. Get a fucking clue. We're human beings and we go through funerals and try to tolerate our relatives and just get through like everyone else. But, toss out the A-word and all of a sudden we're these monsters looking to pick fights at every family gathering. Steve's was just one more string in the same line...and I've had it. Maybe it's a long day after a long couple of weeks, but could we please get over that shit and the stupid assumptions...and the just plain stupid and insulting question.

That answer it?

Posted by: MAJeff | November 29, 2007 12:59 AM

Mike P, I promise I will ignore you.

MAJeff, I feel I should have given you my condolenses last week when you brought it up. Suffer from a lose and then having to deal with all of the insults. You should have recieved some kind words, even if it was from a stranger.

Posted by: Janine | November 29, 2007 1:01 AM

I'm not planning on taking you to lunch with my mom at the nursing home ;)

actually, what you would hear from me is only asking your mom to recall the many assuredly amazing adventures she has had during her life.

that's about it.

surely you do the same to comfort her, yes?

My pop is also very religious (heh, moreso as he gets older), but it's all I do with him any more when he asks me why I am an atheist. seems pointless to drag out the obvious answer as he, like I'm sure is the same with your mom, has already heard the reasoning.

Instead, it's of great comfort to him to relate already many times told tales of his adventures overseas in the Merchant Marines, the wonderful times spent with his wife of many years, etc.

the point being not to focus on the negative, other than to answer direct questions, but to focus on what is actually REAL - the very life that person has lead to date.

like i said, I only drive the issue of atheism as far as the other person in the conversation wants to question me about it.

btw, for Alex, that is NOT the same thing at all as preaching a fantasy delusion to people without asking, is it.

my point is we're all humans, and atheists such as yourself are just as capable of believing utter lies as theists are.

that is very true, hence why I would hope someone would have enough respect for ME to point out any unsupported delusions I was suffering from.

right?

However, going into detail, that might not actually be the case. There is some evidence that there are measurable differences in susceptibility to delusional thinking in humans, just as there are measurable differences in susceptibility to alcholism, or addictive behavior, for example.

I think you might be falling into the "fair and balanced" trap so often brought up here on Pharyngula.

see, the difference is that someone preaching the gospel at me to 'save my soul' is in fact, suffering from a delusion, while my trying to point that out to them is not an equivalent measure.

see?

it's not like preaching competing religions at all. the situation you describe is more like if I was a muslim, and trying to convince a xian he was wrong and going to hell.

I'm not trying to replace one delusion with another, ergo I'm not doing the same thing at all as the xian trying to convince me I'm going to hell without Jeebus in my life.

so, I pose the question to you:

If you knew someone suffering from schizophrenia, do you feel any responsibility at all to suggest they seek treatment? that they might be suffering from delusions?

Have you ever seen, "A Beautiful Mind"?

if you met John Nash, do you feel you would be doing him a favor, or not, by pointing out to him that his delusions were not real?

what level of responsibility would you feel for that?

Posted by: Ichthyic | November 29, 2007 1:04 AM

But instead of engaging in debate, it's "slag off"? I've seen you in engage in plenty of rational discussion around these parts, so is there something I'm missing?

* yawn *

I see my earlier attempt at mirrored parody failed.

Steve99's question may have been honest, but it's stupid. He may be sincere, but it's a non-sequitur. It's like debating nuclear non-proliferation, and having someone ask, "But without nukes, people could just come into your house and eat the ice cream right out of your freezer. What do you do without nukes? Just stop buying ice cream?" I mean, what the hell does one thing have to do with another? It's a starting point for debate yes, but the debate is, "What is wrong with you that you think atheism somehow entails giving the finger to bald chemo patients while their raspy death rattles echo down the empty hospice halls?" It's certainly not a continuation of the debate -- "how do we stop religious values from destroying the enlightenment?"

So -- in practice -- the diagnosis: concern troll.

Posted by: inkadu | November 29, 2007 1:06 AM

RE: the video

THIS is what you get when throw away "The Frame." In a word, you get honesty.

Posted by: matthew | November 29, 2007 1:10 AM

inkadu,

Alright, I guess I see your point; I just didn't see that particular post as necessarily representative of the concern troll variety. He was off the mark, to be sure, but I was just put off by the sheer nastiness of the criticism directed at him. If it were me, I'd save that bile for the truly odious, not just the honestly confused.

Posted by: Mike P | November 29, 2007 1:18 AM

This is not about moderate atheism - it is about dealing with individuals with sympathy and respect.

Never really understood why we should treat faith with respect, and sometimes I wonder why we should treat those with faith with respect. We don't respect the guy in the psych hospital who believes he's Napoleon. We call him insane, mandate that he gets medical treatment and we probably lock him away so he can't hurt anyone including himself. The only substantive difference between his illness and faith is the number of people who share the belief.

If we find more than one person who thinks he's Napoleon does that make it a religion? Is there a set number of wanna be Napoleons when it becomes faith and not insanity? I don't think so, there could be millions of people who genuinely belief they are Napoleon, they'd all still be insane. Faith is no different, these are people who actively believe in a delusion, they need medical treatment and locking away so they can't hurt anyone including themselves.

That faith isn't seen as and treated as a mental illness only tells us that the inmates are running the asylum and that they out number the rest of us. But faith itself deserves no respect, and people who have it may deserve our sympathy, but how can you honestly be an atheist and respect that they have faith? That's like talking to our would be Napoleon and respecting that he has delusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Venger | November 29, 2007 1:18 AM

It seems to me that some people are confusing the beliefs with the people believing them. The beliefs deserve neither respect nor sympathy, and often indeed deserve outright and unashamed ridicule. The individual people who hold those beliefs, on the other hand, deserve respect (when earned) and sympathy (when needed).

Part of basic human respect is that whole thing about treating other people the way you'd want to be treated if the positions were reversed, which seems to me to entail a measure of decorum. I don't scream "God is fake! Fake, I tells ya!" in the face of every believer I meet. I'm sure that few would, and I'm equally sure that Pat's not condoning such a ridiculous action. After all, I would prefer that believers not shove their beliefs down my throat, and so I offer the same.

I'd also prefer that other people were not dishonest and condescending, so I don't treat people with such behaviors. If asked my opinion on matters of faith and other fairy tales, I'll be honest and perhaps a bit blunt. If engaged in intelligent discourse, I'll do much the same. And if asked to violate my principles in order to satisfy someone's smug need to hold some high ground on their deathbed or in order to spare Great Aunt Margaret the pain of knowing the truth about my heresy, I'll politely decline.

Yes, there's a time and a place for insults and ridicule, and a time and a place for silence. Much less often is there a time and a place to give up principles to spare someone else mild discomfort

Posted by: Tom Foss | November 29, 2007 1:21 AM

I don't scream "God is fake! Fake, I tells ya!" in the face of every believer I meet. I'm sure that few would, and I'm equally sure that Pat's not condoning such a ridiculous action.

Just imagine, Pat is engaging in public discourse. Indeed, so public that it's become intertextual in the way multiple blogs are linking to it and commentators in different locations are talking about it. He's created a public.

At a funeral, we're talking about private conversations, deeply personal relationships.

I wonder why that distinction is so hard for some people to grasp, and to note that the types of conversation, the topics, the modes of address, etc. are all dependent upon the discursive situation.

Posted by: MAJeff | November 29, 2007 1:25 AM

People here are always comparing religion to fairy-tales like it's a bad thing.

Fairy tales are great! They're a vital part of our mythic internal landscape.

Liking fairy tales is fine. Believing that they're the literal truth and that people who prefer other fairy tales should be flayed alive- well that's a problem.

Posted by: Christianjb | November 29, 2007 1:38 AM

MikeP,

I would have been shunned had I uttered one of two sentences: "I am gay," or "I am an atheist." My aunt and her (legally married in Canada) wife were shunned at my other grandmother's funeral a couple years ago.

These are "good Christians." They are not, however, good people. And make no mistake, the are far more common than we like to think. This group is among the 24%ers, complaining about brown people and Massachusetts liberals and the French. But they'er also anti-evolution and the whole shit. There are a lot more of them than us.

Posted by: MAJeff | November 29, 2007 1:51 AM

PAT RULES!!!

Posted by: Atilio | November 29, 2007 2:50 AM

Who is "giving the finger" to whom or what? I would say it is some hypocritical sky pilot who blesses the soldiers before they go into battle and later comes around to "console" them when they come back with missing body parts or dying.

Also, organizing group prayers in the army or, say, sports teams, regardless of who might be in the group is giving the finger to some.

The word "to bless" has an interesting source.

"WORD HISTORY The verb bless comes from Old English blœdsian, blēdsian, blētsian, "to bless, wish happiness, consecrate." Although the Old English verb has no cognates in any other Germanic language, it can be shown to derive from the Germanic noun *blōdan, "blood." Blœdsian therefore literally means "to consecrate with blood, sprinkle with blood." The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, the early Germanic migrants to Britain, used blœdsian for their pagan sacrifices. After they converted to Christianity, blœdsian acquired new meanings as a result of its use in translations of the Latin Bible, but it kept its pagan Germanic senses as well."

A little Eric Burden: "Sky Pilot"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_LjjI8TcQ0

Posted by: bernarda | November 29, 2007 3:19 AM