Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I like how he criticizes (religious) views that claim "jurisdiction" over his experiences. Some more detail here would have been good.
The venting is a little overboard however; it's my understanding that the categories of "good" and "evil" are religious terms and not terms from general ethical or moral theory. In other words, he's a little too religious ... in his denunciation of ... religion (when he notes that religion is evil). heh.
I think the religious overtones were his attempt to turn the tables, hoist the fervently religious on their own petard.
One of the insults from religion comes from Martin Luther, who said:
"Reason is the Devil's harlot; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Now you can rant and rave about that in response, or maybe you can put "The Devil's Harlot" in script around a candle shedding light in a black background, and tattoo it on your arm.
Like I did.
Tempting....
I feel a compelling need to share this.
I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thank you.
Heh! Reminds me of a series of threads where I was upholding the thesis that religion was a steaming pile of shit, while certain babblers were attempting to demonstrate some fragrance. This was one of my favourites, but there were many others.
Ah, nostalgia - it just isn't what it used to be.
You are quite welcome Rebecca... it kind of made my day when I stumbled across it. I like unapologetic atheists.
Don't take it personaly. He's Was just really angry.
For me he look like a guy who's been feed up to nausia with religion.
I'm an atheist my self and the religions of other never barder me at all.
My philosophy is not about the existence of god, it simply that i don't have a single clue if god exist!
more over that if it exist, what are his or her will? don't know!
For me you might be right or you might be wrong? yet again i'm a total ignorant!
when i'm in a debate with a religious people, i got some joke to do a quick escapes, it light and none offensive!
ex: when somebody say to me that is part of choses or elected people i simply answer ; perapse but not by democratic ways!
What ever your religion or your none-religion just stay cool don't force it on other people and don't let other people force there religion on you!
I'm a militant atheist, but that guy comes across as an obnoxious bully.
...the thesis that religion was a steaming pile of shit...
My only quibble? I'd change "was" to an emphatic "is"...
I enjoyed the OP's video clip. Very Hitchensesque.
The two most vile religions are Christianity and Islam -- they are positively loathsome.
I have noticed one thing on babble that I find odd. Few people break much of a sweat when people rightfully dog Christianity but several get all a-twitter when Islam is likewise dogged. Why is that? They are both, to steal Unionist's language, steaming piles of excrement...
I like unapologetic atheists.
I do as well. Even today, if a person mentions that he is an atheist, people will often look at him like she's got two heads and is into sex with small children.
Also, loved that M.L. quote posted by Tommy. That's one I'm cutting and pasting into my list of quotes to keep on hand...
Tommy, I also found this Martin Luther quote:
Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, Reason, stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.
I'm a militant atheist, but that guy comes across as an obnoxious bully.
That's because, frankly, he is. Condell tries to present himself as being in the general Lenny Bruce/George Carlin/Dave Allen tradition of comic anticlericalism...but there's a problem with his claim on that: those guys spread their ire around equally at all forms of religious absurdity. Condell, on the other hand, has spent most of the last few years focusing exclusively on Islam, and doing so that goes beyond a legitimate critique of its teachings and practices to vicious attacks on it and on Muslims in the U.K. as a group. For the proof of that, you can you through his YouTube cache and look at any video in which he specifically references Muslims.
Basically, this guy sees himself as Geert Wilders with jokes. But he stopped getting laughs awhile back and that's why what you see in his videos is basically self-pitying rage.
"I'm a militant atheist, but that guy comes across as an obnoxious bully."
In a way, yes. But in reality, you have to go out of your way to find that video. And, I bet the biggest proportion of the audience are fellow athiests. To borrow a religious aphorism, he's preaching to the converted.
But have you ever seen the Church of Later Day Saints work the sidewalk? How they actually step in front of people, corner them, and won't take a polite rebuff? Now that's bullying. And, there's more dramatic examples of that, like the Westboro Baptists.
In context of a reaction to that kind of thing, the video isn't bullying at all.
But that's the problem athiests face. We react to the wack jobs in religion with commensurate rhetoric. And when moderates see that reaction, they point the finger at us for being arrogant, bullying, what have you. It's like the slash behind the play in hockey. The fans react, the victim retaliates-- just in time for when the referee turns around to see what the hub bub is alll about. And who gets the penalty?
Really, athiests should stop reacting to the wack jobs the media loves to give the podium to, and start asking the moderates why they think so little of their religion that they allow the crazies to carry the flag for them.
"Few people break much of a sweat when people rightfully dog Christianity but several get all a-twitter when Islam is likewise dogged. Why is that? They are both, to steal Unionist's language, steaming piles of excrement..."
Well, obviously Christianity is the establishment religion, some here might even say the oppressor religion, while Islam is not only not that in this society, but we live in times when Islamic people are under attack, due to stereotyping and racism. So, we have to look at it differently, if only to check and see what exactly the motivations are behind those who would attack Islam.
But you can't go so far as to start allowing that religion or any other special status in the face of reason.
Just where the line is drawn between one and the other suffers from parallax error when we all discuss it. One's view of where the line is depends upon where one is standing. But we need the tension of that discussion to arrive at the best possible approximation.
I'm a militant atheist, but that guy comes across as an obnoxious bully.
My impression also. And if it's true that he spends more time attacking Islam than (say) Judaism, then it confirms some of my subjective impressions. It's why I stopped reading Sam Harris's book years ago after a few pages. But I don't know enough about this fellow to judge.
The fundamental point - that people feeling "offended" when their beliefs (good, bad, or indifferent) are attacked - is their own tough luck. If I can't get on a progressive board and ridicule Jesus, or aboriginal spirituality, or Darwinism, or creationism, or Mohammed, or Unitarian fence-sitting, then we're all in trouble.
ETA: Needless to say, I don't gratuitously insult people's beliefs in their homes, or in mine, or anywhere else - no more than I would laugh at them for being vegans or meat-eaters or running around in ATVs.
Well, that's one of the things about these debates. Religion or religious ideas are welcome in the public forum, as should all ideas. Heck, I'm a sceptic, but if someone comes along with what they think is new evidence for Bigfoot, heck, let's look at it. I'm curious.
But Bigfoot goes down on the science of it. Where's the scat? Where's some hair? Can that plaster cast of a track be faked? Does it look like what a primate would make?
But religion cowers and claims special protection from such examination, and those who hold those positions get all huffy and feel persecuted when their ideas wither in front of reasoned probing.
So I'm not so sure it's us being rude, so much as the awakening.
Very well analyzed, Tommy. Needs to be preserved somewhere... Like in the Hall of Fame maybe.
they are over a 10000 religion who claim to hold the truth and much more if we count all the one who disapear in history.
So everybody is the pagan of somebody else.
But science what ever append it alway the same what ever append.
Many theory have been lost then recover and lost again ....
the best kown example is our round earth.
little sentence to think: If god exist he/she/it must be an atheist.
Thank you, Unionist.
I second that; nicely parsed, Tommy, particularly this:
And thanks for this, bag kitty. I work with vulnerable people suffering from addictions and mental illnesses. My practice setting has always included a certain percentage of religious folks who, in my experience, are most likely to be judgemental fuckwits, waving their fingers in the faces of people who have experienced abuse/deprivation the likes of which most of us never experience and can't imagine. If I may rant a bit: religious assholes held back the progress of addiction medicine by about twenty years after the 1960s, when randomized controlled trials proved that harm reduction treatments were more effective in getting people off drugs, saving lives and reducing crime. But in the 1980s when I started in the field, the prevailing dogma was abstinence-based treatments that punish addicts for the very behaviour that made them seek treatment in the first place. Harm reduction strategies weren't able to gain a toehold until people started dying of AIDS.
So that provided a much-needed bit of catharsis on my Saturday. Thanks again, bagkitty.
I wouldn't mind religions so much if people didn't "belong" to them. It's that feature which, through the ages, transforms religion from mere diversion to division and destruction. The world is divided between your co-religionists and the less-than-human Other.
... Condell, on the other hand, has spent most of the last few years focusing exclusively on Islam, and doing so that goes beyond a legitimate critique of its teachings and practices to vicious attacks on it and on Muslims in the U.K. as a group. For the proof of that, you can you through his YouTube cache and look at any video in which he specifically references Muslims.
@Ken Burch
You are quite right about your description regarding the anti-Muslim tone of a lot of his YouTube rants. He is a total asshat when you look at the totality of what he has posted up there. I hesitated before posting the link because of that - but a little voice in my head (I think it was the memory of Orwell writing about Pound) convinced me that this particular rant fell into the category of the broken clock being right at least twice a day... I think the fact that I found this one posted over on Joe.My.God in the midst of entries about the Catholic Church in Ohio banning churches and schools raising money for breast cancer research (might involve stem cells), Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blathering on about how Christians are being persecuted by the Obama administration, Bryan Fischer (of the American Family Association, the ones being defend by Tony Perkins) claiming that criticism of potential GOP candidate Michelle Bachmann and her husband's support of "conversion" therapy as an "Anti-Hetero Hate Crime" and "religious bigotry" -- well I hope you can see why I was tempted to indulge myself and post the link to Condell's rant.
Feuerbach was part of a movement analysing society and looking to change it. This movement, the Young Hegelians, was a radical offshoot of the philosopher Hegel that seized on his method but rejected his conservative conclusions. Feuerbach argued that it was religious views that degraded humans, by holding up illusory ideals such as god and heaven set over and against humankind and the material world. So, for Feuerbach it is ideas that create society.
Marx was initially a pupil of Feuerbach but just as Feuerbach had used Hegel's method to reject his conclusions, so Marx built on Feuerbach's ideas to reject his conception of human's relation to religion. Marx put it succinctly in 1845: "Man makes religion; religion does not make man. Religion is, in fact, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man... Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion."
Marx and Feuerbach's society was the new world of capitalism that was supplanting feudalism. Everything, including our most fundamental human characteristic, the ability to labour on the world to meet our needs, was being turned into a commodity for sale. Under capitalism labour-power is controlled by an alien power, the capitalist driven by the laws of competition. As a result, argues Marx, religion is "the fantastic realisation of the human being because the human being has attained no true reality... The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression of and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Most people usually only quote the final sentence and misunderstand Marx to mean religion is the result of false ideas. But taken as a whole, Marx's meaning couldn't be clearer. Society, especially one that alienates our labour, creates religion. Religion does not create society. To abolish religion requires society to be changed, not atheist propaganda as Feuerbach and most Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century believed.
Noel Halifax
Not just Marx. His friend and life long comrade Fred Engels once wrote "We were all Feuerbachians " (in those days).
Incidently, Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity is still a good read, two centuries later.
Thanks for that essay, Spector. Spot on.
Seriously, I would question anyone using an ATV, just for personal safety reasons alone as much as the environmental cost. Maybe not actually insult but a hard slant of the eye and of the head, questioning their conceptual grasps of things.
I'm a militant atheist, but that guy comes across as an obnoxious bully.
My impression also. And if it's true that he spends more time attacking Islam than (say) Judaism, then it confirms some of my subjective impressions. It's why I stopped reading Sam Harris's book years ago after a few pages. But I don't know enough about this fellow to judge.
The fundamental point - that people feeling "offended" when their beliefs (good, bad, or indifferent) are attacked - is their own tough luck. If I can't get on a progressive board and ridicule Jesus, or aboriginal spirituality, or Darwinism, or creationism, or Mohammed, or Unitarian fence-sitting, then we're all in trouble.
ETA: Needless to say, I don't gratuitously insult people's beliefs in their homes, or in mine, or anywhere else - no more than I would laugh at them for being vegans or meat-eaters or running around in ATVs.
Ok, I see your point. I would indeed mercilessly mock ATV monomaniacs.
The offended belong in the 5th circle.
Sorry people, but the guy isn't exactly an 'equal opportunity' religion basher. He insists that anti-semtism is getting out of control, and he opposes building a Mosque anywhere near where the sacred twin towers fell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=related
The commentary under most of these videos are downright putrid.
I think all Xians should have their lands an goods exchanged for a bible. Personal property only gets in the way of their salvation and they would be better off living in poverty than worshipping the false gods that materialism represents. The redistribution of Xian wealth would be good thing for their souls.
Sorry I forgot that only applies to brown converts and the good white missionaries get the stuff due to their superior righteousness.
No, I am sorry for going off topic Eric. I think you are correct; he is not equal opportunity but neither is Christopher Hitchens currently. And I think Sam Harris too might also be overly focussed on Islam as well. One of the reasons why I am more semi-closeted about my atheism than say 20 years ago.
Sorry people, but the guy isn't exactly an 'equal opportunity' religion basher. He insists that anti-semtism is getting out of control, and he opposes building a Mosque anywhere near where the sacred twin towers fell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=related
The commentary under most of these videos are downright putrid.
he opposes building a Mosque anywhere near where the sacred twin towers fell.
So he's not actually all that irreligious.
he opposes building a Mosque anywhere near where the sacred twin towers fell.
So he's not actually all that irreligious.
Religion has nothing to do with Islam bashing, similar to the fact that sex has nothing to do with rape. I at first sort of liked his piece but he is no George Carlin. He starts the piece with two religions but about half way through I began to wonder about his agenda since he seemed far more fixated on the religion that is not dominate in America. Merely another shill promoting hatred against people whose stuff americans covet.
@ NS
Yes, agreed.
2dawall, with the "sacred twin towers" comment, rightly pointed out the irony in this fellow's attacks. I doubt this comic would appreciate any jokes about the things he finds near and dear.
I doubt it too. Easy to miss these biases though on first glance. I'm more or less an athiest now too (I maintain an interest in religion and mysticism and happily retain some personal superstitions) but I am wary of some of our anti-religious allies, least till I know them better.
Uh go back up; that was Erik Redburn's quote.
he opposes building a Mosque anywhere near where the sacred twin towers fell.
So he's not actually all that irreligious.
Yeah, it was. But that guy obviously felt it had such special significance that it overrides the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, and what we 'liberals' naively assume means equal treatment under the law. Something even infidels, heretics, heathens and sundry non-believers should respect.
Ooops. Sorry 2dawall
Back to the Orwell/Pound observation: this is discussing the poet, not the poem. It is still (on its own) a damn fine rant.
Back to the Orwell/Pound observation: this is discussing the poet, not the poem. It is still (on its own) a damn fine rant.
I agree with that but I avoid many artists if I think they are racist or misogynist even if some of their pieces are well done.
Well, since I am in the mood for sharing... here is a lovely bit on the correct biblical intepretation of the American Constitution and its amendments.
First Amendment does not apply to any "non-Christian" religion.
I guess the culture warriors are moving beyond that whole Judeo-Christian thing they used to talk about.
Back to the Orwell/Pound observation: this is discussing the poet, not the poem. It is still (on its own) a damn fine rant.
I agree with that but I avoid many artists if I think they are racist or misogynist even if some of their pieces are well done.
The best example is Mordecai Richler, lot of people still aplaude this writer but for all french canadian, not only Quebecer it was a really racist and xenophobic guy.
Back to the Orwell/Pound observation: this is discussing the poet, not the poem. It is still (on its own) a damn fine rant.
I agree with that but I avoid many artists if I think they are racist or misogynist even if some of their pieces are well done.
The best example is Mordecai Richler, lot of people still aplaude this writer but for all french canadian, not only Quebecer it was a really racist and xenophobic guy.
Well in the highly unlikely event there is a just afterlife (or even an unjust one) we can all derive a certain amusment from the possibility of M. Richler and Y. Beauchemin sharing eternity exploring their mutual deep appreciation of any culture other than their own.
ROTFLMAO
I can say a few things and get Christian evangelists (whether Latter Days, Jehovas Witlesses, or various and sundry others) to run. I tell them that Jesus was the illegitimate son of the roman emperor and a princess from the house of David. As the roman emperor was considered God (in fact nasty things happened to you if you did not recognize the deity of the emperor) that is why Jesus was known as the Son of God.
Saying that Christianity or Islam are the 'worst' religions implies that there is a 'best' religion. In reality they are all Taurean Scatology.
I can say a few things and get Christian evangelists (whether Latter Days, Jehovas Witlesses, or various and sundry others) to run. I tell them that Jesus was the illegitimate son of the roman emperor and a princess from the house of David. As the roman emperor was considered God (in fact nasty things happened to you if you did not recognize the deity of the emperor) that is why Jesus was known as the Son of God.
Saying that Christianity or Islam are the 'worst' religions implies that there is a 'best' religion. In reality they are all Taurean Scatology.
Me the way i see it, there is no best religion, only worst and less worst.