Pat Condell: Dodgy neo-nazi or just an atheist?

[upsidedownwalrus]

Old Tibet was not really a result of Buddhism though. Old Tibet existed because of feudalism. Sure, buddhism may have been a device to enforce that feudalism, but I'm not sure that it was really directed from a holy book per se.

I can see why people get more wound up about monotheisms to be quite honest.

 

[DotCommunist]

Risk to whom? The C of E is the biggest risk in this country. Far more children in this country get brought up being taught Christian myths as facts than they do Muslim myths. I don't get Muslims knocking on my door trying to tell me about Mohammed.

excuse me while I die laughing. The C of E are toothless old sheep who will get to heaven before anyone else cause the bible tell us 'the dead shall rise first'

No your Jesus Army?JW/Evangalists of all denominations are far more dangerous imo.

clue: the c of e doesn't spawn masses of wild eyed evangelists ime

 

[TomPaine]

Risk to whom? The C of E is the biggest risk in this country. Far more children in this country get brought up being taught Christian myths as facts than they do Muslim myths. I don't get Muslims knocking on my door trying to tell me about Mohammed.

True, but then I haven't seen any CofE members blowing themselves up on tubes or driving into Glasgow airport on fire recently either. As for indoctrination of children, well ALL religion has a hand in that, some go straight for the kill and try and bring their kids up as bigots, others provide a CofE style approach, which is it has anything positive about it seems to have contributed to the secularisation of England.

With regards to your Evangelists etc. yes they do prove a threat, but I would imagine the number of people Christian extremists are responsible for killing in the name of their god/on a mission from god in the past year is substantially less then Islamic extremists.
Even whackos like Bush who believe god is on their side in Iraq have hardly decided to invade Iraq and Afganistan to smite the followers of Mohammed in the name of the Lord.. unfortunatly their reasons are far more material.

TomPaine

 

[Knotted]

excuse me while I die laughing. The C of E are toothless old sheep who will get to heaven before anyone else cause the bible tell us 'the dead shall rise first'

I meant what I said and you've articulated why I said it. The C of E are revolting weasels. Its worse to be brought up believing that you should hum and har and wring your hands in order to make your metaphysical beliefs acceptable than it is to brought up with metaphysical beliefs. You can get rid of the metaphysics no problem, its being brought up to be a weasel that takes years of therapy to remedy.

Its the C of E that get the bulk of the tax breaks, the schools, the charities, the influence, not the Evangalists or the Muslims.

 

[Knotted]

True, but then I haven't seen any CofE members blowing themselves up on tubes or driving into Glasgow airport on fire recently either.

Suicide bombers are rarely religious, even those from religious organisations are generally not particularly religious.

 

[In Bloom]

Old Tibet was not really a result of Buddhism though. Old Tibet existed because of feudalism. Sure, buddhism may have been a device to enforce that feudalism, but I'm not sure that it was really directed from a holy book per se.

True, the same, however, could be said of repressive Islamic regimes.

 

[TomPaine]

Suicide bombers are rarely religious, even those from religious organisations are generally not particularly religious.

Well I recently read a book regarding this by a Harvard scholar. It is true that Tamil Tiger suicide bombers are indeed secular, fighting for a homeland and all. However Islamic suicide bombers, are exactly that, religious. They are not however mad. Research shows that they are mostly intelligent, educated and sane people. This brings you to the question, what could possibly override their preservation mechanism to make them want to blow themselves up.
It is without a question of a doubt that there are factors which increase the the chance of somebody wanting to do this, i.e. religion, poverty etc. we only have to look at Palestine to see that. However religous dogma is exactly what provides many of these people with the sort of mental shield they need and in many cases the justification in order to press the button.

TomPaine

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well I recently read a book regarding this by a Harvard scholar. It is true that Tamil Tiger suicide bombers are indeed secular, fighting for a homeland and all. However Islamic suicide bombers, are exactly that, religious. They are not however mad. Research shows that they are mostly intelligent, educated and sane people. This brings you to the question, what could possibly override their preservation mechanism to make them want to blow themselves up.
It is without a question of a doubt that there are factors which increase the the chance of somebody wanting to do this, i.e. religion, poverty etc. we only have to look at Palestine to see that. However religous dogma is exactly what provides many of these people with the sort of mental shield they need and in many cases the justification in order to press the button.

TomPaine

Actually, "religion" is not and never has been indicated as a factor for the likelihood of suicide attacks.

 

[TomPaine]

Actually, "religion" is not and never has been indicated as a factor for the likelihood of suicide attacks.

Can you provide some sources for that as I am afraid I disagree with it? Or at least define why you placed religion in " if you where trying to convey a point I have missed?
Thanks

TomPaine

 

[Knotted]

Well I recently read a book regarding this by a Harvard scholar. It is true that Tamil Tiger suicide bombers are indeed secular, fighting for a homeland and all. However Islamic suicide bombers, are exactly that, religious. They are not however mad. Research shows that they are mostly intelligent, educated and sane people. This brings you to the question, what could possibly override their preservation mechanism to make them want to blow themselves up.
It is without a question of a doubt that there are factors which increase the the chance of somebody wanting to do this, i.e. religion, poverty etc. we only have to look at Palestine to see that. However religous dogma is exactly what provides many of these people with the sort of mental shield they need and in many cases the justification in order to press the button.

In the vast majority of cases it isn't religion that's the catalyst. Its poverty and oppression, the moral weight from the struggle and previous martyrs and competition with other militants. There was a New Scientist article a while a go profiling Palestinian suicide bombers. It made much the same points you are talking about. The bombers are generally more educated than the rest of the populace, they are also not especially interested in religion. The Palestinian cause is political not religious.

 

[TomPaine]

In the vast majority of cases it isn't religion that's the catalyst. Its poverty and oppression, the moral weight from the struggle and previous martyrs and competition with other militants. There was a New Scientist article a while a go profiling Palestinian suicide bombers. It made much the same points you are talking about. The bombers are generally more educated than the rest of the populace, they are also not especially interested in religion. The Palestinian cause is political not religious.

Yes I would agree that that the Palestinian cause is of course political and not religious on many levels, other then much of the rhetoric regarding Jews being the enemy of Islam, or in the case of some Israelis "Israel being the Jews promised land" etc.
However on a larger scale religion I am afraid does play a part in this, with groups siding with either the Israeli or the Palestinians because they are percieved as being Jewish (in the case of Zionists of both a Christian and Jewish bent) or Muslim (in the case of some of the Islamic terrorist group who have shown solidarity with the cause).
Religion unfortunatly adds petrol to the flames.

TomPaine

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

True, the same, however, could be said of repressive Islamic regimes.

I agree - but the caveat here is that many of the rules of certain oppressive regimes are arguably directly from the tenets of the Koran and Hadiths...

 

[In Bloom]

I agree - but the caveat here is that many of the rules of certain oppressive regimes are arguably directly from the tenets of the Koran and Hadiths...

So you don't see any connection between Buddhist ideas about the innevitability of suffering and rigid feudal structures?

 

[Knotted]

I agree - but the caveat here is that many of the rules of certain oppressive regimes are arguably directly from the tenets of the Koran and Hadiths...

So what if they are? The tenets need to be interpreted and emphasised before they can be used/abused in a certain way. Its people who oppress not ideas. A religion is a social structure not just a bunch of tenets.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

So what if they are? The tenets need to be interpreted and emphasised before they can be used/abused in a certain way. Its people who oppress not ideas. A religion is a social structure not just a bunch of tenets.

The point is, it's parts of the Hadiths which directly say that you have to stone adulterers to death.

While In Bloom's point is valid, I still think it's slightly different. Unless you can point me to a Buddhist 'commandment' saying 'thou shalt enslave the masses' and keep them in a state of uneducated serfdom.

In one case, it's about a direct following of the orders of a religion, in the other, it's about people abusing a religion for their own ends.

Don't get me wrong, I think people have a stupidly idealised view of old Tibet, and in many ways China has improved it a lot, but I still don't think that it's quite the same thing as the Saudi, Taliban etc regimes where the rules are directly from the holy texts.

 

[Knotted]

In one case, it's about a direct following of the orders of a religion, in the other, it's about people abusing a religion for their own ends.

I'm not so sure on either score. I don't know if there are any direct orders in Islam. Scripture is always interpretted in one way or another. I think this goes to the heart of the problem with religion - the belief in universal morality which is independent of context. You get different sects with very different takes on the same scripture and yet they all see it as an unambiguous truth.

Also with Buddhism there is a tendency to promote stoicism in the face of suffering. Accept things the way they are and change yourself. Buddhist philosophy can be used as an apology for any regime. Buddhism seems particularly well adapted to be 'abused' in such a way, perhaps because it is not perscriptive.

 

[In Bloom]

While In Bloom's point is valid, I still think it's slightly different. Unless you can point me to a Buddhist 'commandment' saying 'thou shalt enslave the masses' and keep them in a state of uneducated serfdom.

While they don't directly say anything like that, the four "noble" truths basically say "Life's shit, if you don't like it, it's your own fault for being so attached to the material world."

It's an ideology specifically designed to reinforce the idea that everybody has a place in society and any attempt to change things is futile and counterproductive. C.f. Hinduism and the caste system.

Religions are merely the product of the society that they develop in, if you have a society that is brutal and patriarchical, the tenants of mainstream religion will be brutal and patriarchical.

 

[Dr Jon]

Pat's no Nazi. He's just righteously intolerant of weak-minded tossers, who not only think their superstitious blah-blah has some relevance in the 21st century, but want respect for their sky pixie bollocks too... FFS!

 

[TomPaine]

sky pixie bollocks too...

One thing that has made me laugh is this; why do the majority of art pieces depicting the garden of Eden, show the snake wrapped around the tree with no legs? I thought <insert invisible sky pixie> stole the snakes legs for handing out stolen fruit?

TomPaine

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Pat's no Nazi. He's just righteously intolerant of weak-minded tossers, who not only think their superstitious blah-blah has some relevance in the 21st century, but want respect for their sky pixie bollocks too... FFS!

While I probably agree with him to a fair extent, don't you think his tone is a bit aggressive? He often talks about 'the muslims' rather than the faith, which makes it a bit dodgier-sounding.

 

[elbows]

While I probably agree with him to a fair extent, don't you think his tone is a bit aggressive? He often talks about 'the muslims' rather than the faith, which makes it a bit dodgier-sounding.

Well yeah I like very strong and brutal humor but he must of said something that was too much for me at some point, as I stopped watching.

 

[Bluesman]

Just seen "Hitler the greatest story never told" has been uploaded to YT and it sounds like Condell is the guy doing the narration (I recognise the voice as I was the subject of a video by Mr Condell all about me being a "useful idiot for Israel"( despite my being an anti-zionist campaigner, oh how we laughed ;-) ) -made me feel really special :-P )

Can anyone confirm (or refute) that Condell is the narrator on this advocacy, the main thrust of which appears to be "Hitler was a really nice guy who was a bit misunderstood" ?

TIA

 

[Bluesman]

Having seen some of this rants on youtube, I had been under the impression that he was a bit of a BNP type. A lot of his stuff veers from being merely a critique of Islam as a religion, and more towards dodgier demonisation of Muslims themselves. Yet it appears Dawkins approves of his stuff.

Which is he?

His apparent advocacy for Adolf Hitler makes me think he is fundamentally dodgy (as fuck)

 

[maomao]

Just had a look at the video on the front page of his site and got as far as 'until Israel finally retaliates to protect its people' before I decided he was definitely a fucking knob. Probably not a Nazi but definitely a fucking knob.

 

[nino_savatte]

Condell is a UKIP supporter. Make of that what you will.

Back in the 80s and early 90s, he seemed like a decent bloke. I've no idea what happened but he ended up on the Dark Side.

 

[Stoat Boy]

There should have been the following option for the U75.

'When he is slagging off Christians (who are mostly white) then he is fine, when he is slagging off Muslims (who are mostly brown) it confuses us."

 

[butchersapron]

Who said the latter then stoat boy? Who suggested the latter even?

 

[Bluesman]

Condell is a UKIP supporter. Make of that what you will.

Back in the 80s and early 90s, he seemed like a decent bloke. I've no idea what happened but he ended up on the Dark Side.

Of course I may be mistaken re the narrator's voice, mistaking it for Condell's in the voice-over on the "Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told" But for now I'm fairly certain it's him (as I said I feel SO special to have been made the subject of one of his hate-videos, so I am familiar with his dulcet tones :-P )

Going to YouTube and searching for "Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told" should throw up a 2hr version, a 3hr version, and numerous parts (those who can't upload more than 15 min videos I presume ;-) )

The video is I believe a reworking of "Hitler:Rise of Evil" (made by a Canadian company for TV I believe) with Robert Carlyle as Hitler, as a 'documentary' explaining 'what a nice guy Hitler (the WW1 war hero) was once you got to know him' (my paraphrasing ;-) )

HTH

 

[butchersapron]

Are you doing some sort of advert for this little known vid??

 

[dylans]

I'm not sure if you have read Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation"? He does a pretty good job of explaining why extremisim in this one particular religion should be equated with the moderate believers. .

TomPaine

Sam Harris is an pro Israeli neo-con who advocates nuking any Islamic regime that acquires nuclear weapons (Iran??) . He is also a gun nut who opposes gun control.

. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Fuck Sam Harris