Wednesday

Pat Condell

Pat Condell is my hero. Also he's very very funny.

4 comments:

  1. I begin this comment questioningly. Is what I'm about to say above and beyond the scope of your post? I hope you don't mind me interjecting my own thoughts on it. Consider it an overflow of thoughts from other posts on your blog.

    Here's my thoughts ....

    First, Mr. Condell makes a point about the intrusion of universal morality from people of faith. He clearly states what an intrusion this is on personal privacy to which I wondered where he might draw the line in the sand. For example, one might argue that he is giving liberty to pedophiles to do as they please because to prevent them otherwise is to enforce a morality which they do not support (essentiality the same position as Mr. Condell's but in different context). Would it not then be proper to disrespect the laws of the land given that these are provided as a means of instilling a form of universal morality on society? Just questions to which I don't necessarily have sound answers for.

    He makes a statement that struck me: "... and more important, what they want to do with those beliefs." Sounds like his biggest issue is not believing in God but essentially having someone(or something) else telling him what to do. A classic case of control issues.

    He says, "faith is not a state of grace, it's a state of choice." Exactly. Once again uncovering a grave misconception held by a number of religious individuals.

    He says, "Faith, by definition, is unexamined so in that sense it has to be amongst the shallowest of experiences." Really? Tell that to the many prominent scientists, etc. that have examined issues of faith ad nauseum and concluded something very different than Mr. Condell.

    (more on next comment, just in case it limits comment size :) ... Cornelius)

    ReplyDelete
  2. (continued from previous comment)
    Mr. Condell says, "believing a thing, no matter how strongly, doesn't necessarily make it real." True. Conversely, however, not believing a thing doesn't make it fake.

    Last thing ......

    How does Pat Condell's way of thinking support your view about freedom of thought? Case in point: he uses the example of someone wearing a toupee as someone deemed worthy of his ridicule. Is that because his view of toupees is superior to another's view? Perhaps it is but in reacting the way he does he clearly demonstrates that the only worthy thought is the ones that he has/supports (making him, by implication, the highest authority on a matter) and therefore restricting good thought to the confines of his "dogma". That's his condition and not necessarily yours but you deem him a hero nonetheless. I find that striking given the clear discrepancies I've alluded to here.

    BTW, I recognize he only used the toupee example as a tongue in cheek figure and not as an important commentary on the silliness of toupee-wearing. Just thought I'd make that clear. :)

    Cornelius

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Condell's assertion is that religion wants to impose on peoples private life. Pedophiles on the other hand are certainly not acting privately - they would be violating the rites of another human being. Laws to protect people from other people are not under dispute here, and don't impose a universal morality, rather, they stop people from being violated by others morality or lack of.

    Its not about religion telling people what to do, Mr Condell has made his stance on free speech very clear, his problem (and I'd agree) is when religion imposes itself on the rights of other people. Brainwashing children with its doctrine, taking tax payers money for funding, injecting its beliefs into school science classes, preventing same sex couple marriage, etc.

    When he said "Faith, by definition" he meant it literally!
    faith: belief that is not based on proof - dictionary.com Yes, there are scientists who believe in God, but whats important there is that they didn't reach their conclusion through science, but despite of it. Also, scientists are far less likely to be Christian than a member of the general population BECAUSE they have examined the subject so thoroughly

    Making fun of religious people is expressing a right to free speech, and his authority comes from evidence, not from some twisted belief that he's the highest authority. He's asking for proof, not submission to his dogma.

    Glad you can see the tongue in cheek aspect.

    Out of curiosity, have you ever come across a religious comedian?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Condell's assertion makes my reference to pedophile morality a valid reference. The pedophile considers his/her actions valid even on a moral level. Much of society disagrees. In this example, the pedophile is the atheist just wanting to live his/her life and the disagreeing portion of society is the Christian forcing a morality upon them that they don't support. This is exactly the same as in Mr. Condell's assertion that Christians are trying to force their morality on others, such as opposing same-sex marriages where advocates of such are feeling imposed upon. This apparently is not the whole of Mr. Condell's assertion but certainly represents a key component of it; see how quickly the logic is dismissed when applied to something "universally" abhorred.

    The force of the argument of imposition is invalidated by the fact that it is reciprocal. The very point of imposition made by Mr. Condell and to which you agreed is effected by him and others of his mindset toward members of faith. Hence, one could reply, "look at the pot calling the kettle black."

    You say scientists who became Christians did not do so through science whereas others (and myself, to some degree) would say the opposite. This is a matter of interpretation - the unbelieving scientist necessarily applies his filter to the interpretation of the facts while, I suppose, the believing scientist does the same. A curious conundrum which seems to logically reach a significant conclusion - that atheism is as much an act of faith as Christianity is.

    I would certainly not wish to deny one free speech. That was not my goal or my point - my point was that he ridicules another's position of "authority" while being guilty of the very thing he judged and summarily ridiculed another for.

    And finally, the answer is 'Yes' :). Why do you ask?

    ~C~

    ReplyDelete