1. Comment #172467 by scienceforsustenance on April 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm

OMFSM! Pat Condell? On DVD? Best thing I've heard all year!

Other Comments by scienceforsustenance

2. Comment #172468 by Devolution on April 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm

The perfect gift just in time for Summer Solstice!

Other Comments by Devolution

3. Comment #172469 by General Friit on April 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I stumbled across Pat's vid's on Youtube and now have him favourited on my Youtube account. Well worth a look.

General Fritt.

Is favourited a word?

Other Comments by General Friit

4. Comment #172475 by McLir on April 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm

If George Carlin and James Burke intelligently designed a baby...

Other Comments by McLir

5. Comment #172497 by GeneticNemesis on April 29, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Pat Condell is brilliant, but I am reluctant to buy an NTSC DVD which will likely be shipped from the US and therefore give the Post Office an excuse to charge me import duty (I learned that lesson the hard way when I ordered RD T-shirts and bumper stickers).

Any chance of PAL shipped from Europe?

Other Comments by GeneticNemesis

6. Comment #172500 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Comment #172475 by McLir

Codell is no Carlin. Not by a long way. I realise this is only a matter of taste, but I find his rants simplistic, and I have problem deciding what the purpose is and what the tone is supposed to be. Is it self-prompotion? Is it supposed to be funny?

I far, far prefer Carlin, or Lewis Black. I also really enjoyed and admired the Marcus Brigstocke rant posted on this site.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

7. Comment #172502 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I don't like Condell or Carlin (yes, I know - blasphemy... don't care, I find him boring, except for his piece on the "big man in the sky")...

Black on the other hand - very good.
The Brigstocke rant was also quite good, yes.

Other Comments by MPhil

8. Comment #172503 by cam9976 on April 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Carlin and Lewis Black are good, but Condell is a bit more intellectual about denouncing religion [as he is not doing stand-up].

Other Comments by cam9976

9. Comment #172507 by Steve Zara on April 29, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Condell is a bit more intellectual about denouncing

Condell intellectual?

Sorry, can't see it myself.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #172508 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Condell intellectual? O tempora o mores.

The only "comedy" I would really call intellectual is what we call "politisches Kabarett" in Germany. Volker Pispers, Georg Schramm, Hagen Rether...

It's not his best piece (I disagree with a small portion of it), but here is a five-part piece of Pispers on Youtube, with English subs (quite good, but not perfect translation):

(Part I)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo

Other Comments by MPhil

11. Comment #172511 by akado on April 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm

YES! XD
I love pat condell's vid! ^-^

Other Comments by akado

12. Comment #172516 by Thurston on April 29, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I realise this is only a matter of taste, but I find his rants simplistic, and I have problem deciding what the purpose is and what the tone is supposed to be. Is it self-prompotion? Is it supposed to be funny?

I never imagined I'd agree with Dinesh D'Souza, but I always get the impression that Condell's pretty pleased with himself.

Other Comments by Thurston

13. Comment #172518 by Frankus1122 on April 29, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Did you know that if you rearrange the letters in Pat Condell you get the word BOOORING!

Other Comments by Frankus1122

14. Comment #172521 by Mango on April 29, 2008 at 4:53 pm

He's a guy with a webcam -- why bother comparing him with Carlin? He's on YouTube, not his own HBO specials. Cut him a break.

Other Comments by Mango

15. Comment #172525 by Rational_G on April 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Condell's funny - and he makes some good points. I like his rants.

Carlin is a comic genius, up there with Richard Pryor.

Other Comments by Rational_G

16. Comment #172527 by Jack Rawlinson on April 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Condell's great; not because he's especially funny (although he is at times) but because he's uncompromising and accurate. And he's not in the least afraid to go after Islam hard - something we often get accused of being scared to do.

Those of you comparing him negatively with Lewis Black and George Carlin are being unfair. He's just an ex stand-up who was never big outside the London pub circuit (and not even that big on it)and who now makes entertaining, cutting anti-religious rants on YouTube. Comparing him with long-established, famous comics is as unfair as comparing OK Go with Radiohead. Cut the guy a break; he's a gem and an asset to our side.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

17. Comment #172538 by Wosret on April 29, 2008 at 5:22 pm

I like Condell enough to watch his videos, though I can't say I anticipate them or anything. I've considered ranting about stuff, but I don't know enough about anything to do that, I'd end up looking like an idiot to anyone who knew more about the subject than I do.

Other Comments by Wosret

18. Comment #172551 by Count von Count on April 29, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Whether you enjoy Pat Condell or not (I do), if you're an atheist with a bit of a sense of humor, it is hard to watch his videos without a few knee-slaps, fist-pumps, and "Yes!"'s. Is this the DVD to convert your fundie friends? Perhaps not. Instead, this is the DVD to bring out when it is just you and your hard-core atheist friends, especially if they need any cheering up or cheering on.

Pat, you've made my day many a time. To chime in with PZ Meyers, preach on brother!

Other Comments by Count von Count

19. Comment #172554 by Enlightenme.. on April 29, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Nah, I much prefer to see a Rev Wright sketch.

"If ya got some white.. friends, they'll be clappin' like this.. ya'all."

It's got a bit more 'edge' to it.

He speaks as a pastor, he says.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

20. Comment #172579 by ghuckin on April 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm

A proud subscriber to Pat's YouTube channel since almost the beginning. Living in Canada, where speaking from the heart is seen as some sort of hate crime, his candour adds a real charge to my day.

Other Comments by ghuckin

21. Comment #172666 by flibble on April 29, 2008 at 9:13 pm

I'm tempted, but why does the website of a British scientist have to offer a DVD of a British comedian on bloody NTSC ?

Other Comments by flibble

22. Comment #172688 by kNOw Religion on April 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Wow, Pat Condell is moving off the web and into the living room, or where ever your tv is.

Is the video quality going to be any better than YouTube? Granted it was shot from a webcam but still.

Other Comments by kNOw Religion

23. Comment #172699 by olegus on April 30, 2008 at 12:00 am

I think that level of intelectuality issue is pointless here, go listen to Sam Haris or whoever :)

What I like about Pat is that his humor is indirect and subtle, and it is more like satiric response than stand-up, especially to christians - witty, witty "...It's nice to know that I'm in your prayers".

Other Comments by olegus

24. Comment #172703 by riki on April 30, 2008 at 12:25 am

Pat's always good for a laugh. Though the UK seems to be messed up with funding cuts to science, the prospect of ID cards, biometrics face scans, lap-dog status to the US, the proliferation of surveillance cameras and now being colonised by third world countries. He has plenty of material to work with.

Other Comments by riki

25. Comment #172709 by gcdavis on April 30, 2008 at 1:02 am

Recognition at last for a brilliant polemicist and entertainer; many off us have suggested a prominent link on this site to Pat's videos, however RDFRS must have been working behind the scenes to produce this, well done to Pat and RDFRS.

Other Comments by gcdavis

26. Comment #172715 by Benjamin P. on April 30, 2008 at 1:16 am

MPhil: Err... Pardon. Rether intellectual? For him every criticism of Islam seems to be a form of racism or intolerance.

Other Comments by Benjamin P.

27. Comment #172717 by vesihiisi on April 30, 2008 at 1:36 am

Pat for the win!

And islam is not a race, like christianity, communism, nazism and atheism are not races.

Other Comments by vesihiisi

28. Comment #172718 by davorg on April 30, 2008 at 1:38 am

I'd love to buy this, but I'd much prefer it if it was available in PAL and I could pay in sterling.

The RDF operates in the UK as well doesn't it? Why does the shop side seem to be exclusively aimed at the US?

Other Comments by davorg

29. Comment #172721 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 1:46 am

Benjamin,

MPhil: Err... Pardon. Rether intellectual? For him every criticism of Islam seems to be a form of racism or intolerance.

Yes, I know... and I disagree with him strongly on this issue. That made me think less of him. But that doesn't detract from the fact that his style, his angle of approach and the points he makes (whether correct or not) are rather intellectual. His subtlety, his metaphors and allegories are at times absolutely brilliant, almost poetic... reminding me of Heinrich Heine.

I think "Vorzeigelinker" is in its subtle irony almost comparable to "Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen"... take the last line: "Beim rechtsabbiegen setz ich keinen Blinker" - absolutely brilliant.

Or take his Nazi-like armlet, only with the Arbeitsamt-symbol instead of the swastika.

Subtle and intellectual, yes... always right? No. Very wrong in his defense of Islam. But that is no contradiction.

My goodness - Craig, Plantinga and Swinburne are also extremely intelligent, and very respected intellectuals. I think they're completely wrong, but that has no bearing on the issue.

And besides, most criticism of Islam is a form of intolerance - justified intolerance of the dangerous and actually harmful.

Other Comments by MPhil

30. Comment #172724 by decius on April 30, 2008 at 1:59 am

@Steve Zara

I am with Jack Rawlinson on this, but I think I can understand what unsettles you about Pat Condell, correct me if I am wrong. You probably lean toward the left of the political spectrum -so do I- and your ideals of equality, tolerance and multiculturalism are challenged by some of Condell's rants on Islam, which, admittedly, sound creepily similar to certain right-wing rhetoric. Fortunately, this similarity is demonstrably superficial, as Condell doesn't originate his thoughts from a supremacist perspective. This is abundantly clear from his equally scorching attacks on his other targets, which are much closer home.

It is true that Condell has no second thoughts while he proceeds slaughtering the sacred cow of Political Correctness, removing its baroque contrivances from his verbiage. But since when directness and clarity are no longer virtues, and by whose decision?

Finally, multiculturalism is a great idea, but it cannot be left unbridled to the point of becoming a blank check issued to minority groups, allowing for primitive practices motivated only by preposterous metaphysics, thus undermining the far higher principle which states the equality of all citizens in front of the law.

(I shall leave it here and get ready for a major party, even though I had a few more points to make. See you all on Friday.)

Other Comments by decius

31. Comment #172729 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:20 am

Comment #172724 by decius

Condell doesn't unsettle me. I just don't much like what he does. It seems to me to be pandering to his audience - rabble-rousing. Now that can be fun to listen to, but I don't think at achieves that much.

It also don't think it achieves much. It alienates some who we might need or want as allies. Richard Dawkins has worked with religious people on occasion to help work against some extremes of unreason. Maybe some of us will want or need to as well.

It is true that Condell has no second thoughts while he proceeds slaughtering the sacred cow of Political Correctness, removing its baroque contrivances from his verbiage. But since when directness and clarity are no longer virtues, and by whose decision?

Be careful of what you slaughter. The same political correctness that is used to extremes to protect the religious from insults also helps shame racists and homophobes. Political correctness really only means good manners. Sure, it needs to be kept under control, but not abandonded unless we want to end up with a yobbish culture.

You see, this is why I don't like Condell, as he encourages such simplistic statements about political correctness. He has all the subtlety of a head-but. I think life is more complex than that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #172732 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

Not trying to be disparaging, but Pat Condell's videos have always struck me as being essentially well-articulated rants: entertaining to watch, but unlikely to convince many people on the "other side".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

33. Comment #172734 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:31 am

Well-articulated rants? The early work Dennis Miller (before something ate his brain) is what I would call well-articulated rants... I agree with Steve, and would like to add that I mostly find him just rather boring.

Btw, Steve... I hope my comments on your blog-entry meet with your approval :)

Other Comments by MPhil

34. Comment #172735 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #172734 by MPhil

Btw, Steve... I hope my comments on your blog-entry meet with your approval :)

How could they not? With reasoned debate, you have, over the months, definitely changed my mind on a major issue (consciousness).

The reply to Tennant is coming along... see, I get productive when I set deadlines.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #172737 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:42 am

Great, thanks Steve.

Say, will this be the last part of the debate (after all, you should get the last statement, since he got the first)?

I think it might be prudent to include a short paragraph on the impossibility of aseity plus personality and agency.

Man, I have gotten no sleep tonight and have to go to uni from 2 to 8... maybe I'll skip the 2-4 seminar... otherwise I guess I'll just fall asleep... which is kinda embarrassing when there's only 8-12 people in the room :)

Other Comments by MPhil

36. Comment #172738 by Benjamin P. on April 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

MPhil,
okay I can agree this way. I even liked Rether about the Pope. It's just hypocritical to defend Islam on the other hand. I mean, Islam is nothing foreign anymore. Just look at Pierre Vogel, our homegrown hate preacher.
On Religion I just would prefer Dieter Nuhr's Wers glaubt wird selig. That's balanced and very funny.

Other Comments by Benjamin P.

37. Comment #172739 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:50 am

Comment #172737 by MPhil

Last part of main debate. Then summing up (I get last word)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #172740 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:51 am

Benjamin,

Nuhr can be quite good at times, but he tries to compromise between low-brow comedy and high-brow politisches Kabarett, and I hate low-brow comedy.

I do like Pispers comments on religion:

You have to realize this. For a believing muslim, the stationing of infidel troops in the lands of Mohammed, where the holy places of Islam are, is like stationing Taliban in the Vatican for pious Catholics.

Ah, now you're laughing... well, I don't know... what do you believe? Do you fancy trinity, or virginity? Do you attend the Mass? What I mean is: Do you nibble on the body of Christ?

See, it's pretty easy to make fun of people's religions. Me, I believe that all of these people are just too lazy to think for themselves.

Other Comments by MPhil

39. Comment #172741 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:52 am

Thanks again.
Well, I'll try to get at least an hour of sleep now... talk to you guys later.

Other Comments by MPhil

40. Comment #172743 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:06 am

I'll be buying this (but only when it's in a different format). Condell's incendiary rants are a vent for some on our side to associate themselves with sentiments expressed as forcefully as they are that they themselves may feel unable to express.

There was an interesting mention of good manners earlier. My grandmother had a saying on manners in public;

"If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all."

Other Comments by AllanW

41. Comment #172747 by Matt H. on April 30, 2008 at 3:28 am

Pat Condell is hilarious, and makes excellent points.

Other Comments by Matt H.

42. Comment #172750 by PJG on April 30, 2008 at 3:32 am

There was an interesting mention of good manners earlier. My grandmother had a saying on manners in public;

"If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all."

Bollocks!

;o)

Sorry, this was just crying out for a response like this!!!

Other Comments by PJG

43. Comment #172752 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:36 am

PJG; LOL!

Other Comments by AllanW

44. Comment #172756 by Corylus on April 30, 2008 at 3:46 am

Not my style of humour, I have to admit, I go for silliness more than anything else.

However, I do note from the interview with Pat below (linked on his website), that this is a non-profit thing for the benefit of RDFRS, so I will say nothing further.

http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/02/27/laughing-religion-off-the-planet-an-interview-with-pat-condell/

I was also pleased to see Pat recommending that people in the UK join the National Secular Society and/or the British Humanist Society.

Other Comments by Corylus

45. Comment #172758 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:49 am

Re: comment #172756 Corylus

Exactly. I'd urge joining the NSS as well.

Other Comments by AllanW

46. Comment #172768 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #172765 by brian faux

But being an informer is pretty good.

I don't feel he is really a informer. It is just comforting to many to have someone who is a professional performer tell back to you what you already believe. Nothing wrong with that, but we need, I think, to realise its limits.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #172914 by Julius Morche on April 30, 2008 at 7:00 am

@ MPhil:
Rether is not a good satirist, regardless of how many funny lines he may have written in the past, for the simple reason that he has not adopted Tucholsky's important commandment that EVERYTHING should be subject to satirical treatment. It is certainly to be welcomed that he pokes fun at the pope, but the only reason he does it is because the Catholic Church is not protected by PC; not because he has a genuine point to make. He knows that treating Muslim bigotry the same way he treats Catholic peculiarities would cause him quite some trouble, so he keeps quiet about it and even tries to suck up to the very people who would deserve his satirical contempt much more than the pope. That is cowardice par excellence, and since H. Rether has mastered this attitude like no other representative of "POLITISCHES KABARETT" I can possibly think of, I don't believe he has any right to call himself a satirist at all. He should shut up for a good while and only return to stage once he has learned his lessons from the Danish Cartoon Crisis (I'm sure REAL political satirists, like Philippe Val, will be happy to help him with that).
Btw, it's nice to see the German community at RD.net growing...

@ Steve Z.:
Condell makes some very SERIOUS and IMPORTANT points. It doesn't really matter whether he is funny or not. He is certainly very eloquent and has a good sense of irony; granted, some of what he says is "simplistic", as you put it, but it does lie in the nature if ironic statements to simplify things. If you believe George Carlin is not being "simplistic" in what he says, you are fooling yourself (Brigstocke certainly is, to a far greater degree than Condell).
If you really want to know how necessary his rants against Islam really are, just listen to the response-videos posted on YouTube by some radical representatives of the religion of peace.
And just as a little disclaimer: I am neither "racist" nor "islamophobic" - I've got nothing against Islam* and I don't mind having mosques around. I just don't see the point of exempting Islam from satire.


*the kind of Islam practised by people like Ed Hussein or Bassam Tibi.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

48. Comment #172916 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 7:03 am

Condell makes some very SERIOUS and IMPORTANT points.

Very obvious ones too, which is why I don't see the point.

If you believe George Carlin is not being "simplistic" in what he says, you are fooling yourself (Brigstocke certainly is, to a far greater degree than Condell).

I never said Carlin and Brigstocke weren't simplistic. But at least they are funny.

If you really want to know how necessary his rants against Islam really are, just listen to the response-videos posted on YouTube by some radical representatives of the religion of peace

Sorry, but I don't consider back-and-forth response videos on YouTube to be representative of anything. It is a self-selecting group.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

49. Comment #172933 by Julius Morche on April 30, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #172916 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 7:03 am

Very obvious ones too, which is why I don't see the point.

Well, they might be obvious to you and me. The trouble is that many people don't see the obvious. All of R. Dawkins's main points in TGD were obvious to me; the problem is that there a folks out there to whom it's not obvious at all.

I, for instance, am very fond of what Condell says about Wilders's Fitna movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE

This is also obvious to me, but unfortunately it does not reflect mainstream reporting in the European media, which instead concluded that Wilders is a "racist", an "islamophobe" a "right-wing populist", a "rabble-rouser" and a "xenophobe" who should be "on trial". We live in a world in which a guy who dares to have an opinion on something lives in prison (Wilders de facto is in prison, requiring the toughest form of 24/7 protection) while the criminals who threaten him walk around freely. It is high time someone talks about that.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

50. Comment #172947 by Stephen Maxwell on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

I'm a fan of Condell. I can't help but laugh when I hear him say:

...and this is why there's daily Bible study in The White House, and in The Pentagon, because they're all experts on their Bible in those two places. They know all about who begat whom, and who smote whom, and who spake unto whom...but they're not quite sure where Italy is!

So many people in the world's most advanced country don't want evolution taught in schools because they believe that the Earth was formed six thousand years ago...shortly after the invention of the wheel!

I find his videos amusing and refreshing.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell