What a horribly unpleasant condescending man..

btw spam, when I was a kid it was a sharp stick and you'd be told to poke into any soft squishy part of your body.. except your anus, that would be going too far.

If you find Dawkins too soft, you might want to look into Christopher Hitchens. I just finished reading his book, "God Is Not Great." You can probably accurately deduce his beliefs from the title.

Dawkins is trying to NOT scare people away. I believe Dawkins is very much as ardent about the subject. Hes just going about it with tact.

How teens should go about coming out is a difficult question. A lot depends upon their parents' religion. "apostates" be shunned, which intentionally causes a teal dilemma for both parent and teen.

The truth be known, I would wager that many, if not most "religious" individuals are, and realize on some level that they are, role playing and don't truly buy into the "god delusion." Fear keeps them from admitting it to others and possible even themselves.

I agree. You should send $30 to J.R. "Bob" Dobbs and his Mighty Church of the SubGenius immediately! Not only do we promise eternal salvation (or triple your money back) but we specialize in the casting out of false prophets.

Help support us in our important work as a fellow true believer! We're the best of all the ONE TRUE RELIGIONS.

I agree, his is guilty of doing exactly what religions do: crafting a well reasoned argument in order to convince the listener of his perfectly reasonable conclusion. What he does is just like how christianity says "There is an all powerful invisible man in the sky watching you masturbate and he disapproves greatly!" Then when you ask christianity to prove it, they say "It says so in this here book which is infallible because it says it is infallible." EXACTLY the same. This man is a hypocrite.

The difference is he's asking you to think. He's not asking you for money (unless they cut that part out) or asking you to kill anybody.

I don't think arrogant is the word you want to use.

I respectfully disagree with your estimation of this man's motivations. I don't think he'd have any problem with your father's faith; if asked, I'm sure he would agree that faith, when used as a personal tool in leading a charitable life and enduring suffering, is a wonderful thing. What he seems to take the greatest issue with is the proselytization and aggression that many true believers (of all religions) use to force their way of thinking on others, and their smug conviction that those who don't believe as they do are subhuman and worthy of derision, persecution, and undue suffering. (Cue the "but Christians are being persecuted" rebuttal.) Essentially, his message seems to be "You're a Christian. Great. Whatever. Just don't insist that -I- should be a Christian, too, or I'm a-gonna have to start pointing out some stuff."

A "Hard-liner Agnostic"???

How can a persons indecision be a hard-lined one? doesn't make sense.

Would you also suggest that a dying scientists views should be respected even though they are patently wrong? (a bit like Einstein's death-bed view of quantum mechanics - he said it was all rubbish, he was wrong).

Even so, i think you've unwittingly proved his point. Religion is stuffed full of these kind of phylosophical taboos.... "dont dispute our beliefs - THINK OF THE CHILDREN!/FLUFFY KITTENS!/DYING PARENTS!/TAY ZONDAY!"

But the thing is, they're not there to protect you and your dignity - they're there to protect themselves [religion in general] from any kind of reasonable, logical discussion about it.

"Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten" - ridiculous yes?

although, its quite similar to "Every time you doubt Gods existence, you make a dying person cry"

Per-lease!

...wtf is a "hardliner agnostic"? Last I checked agnostic basically meant "don't know, don't care" - which are you more hardcore about and why are you even bothering to reply if you are a true hardliner agnostic, or even a hardline hardliner agnostic?

"Showing a lack of common sense" is the definition of foolish. As a hardliner agnostic, if obeying your own belief you should recognize that your father's faith was, by definition, foolish. It was a coping mechanism much the same as deathbed resolutions and the outrageous "cures" people in late-stage cancer try. (My own father passed away last year. Mother in 2003. I'm speaking from personal experience.) I'm not saying you should disrespect your father. I'm saying that you should understand the validity of the argument that seems to be Condlin's response to all the people who DO believe in god and have in turn been belittling his belief. Is Condlin (or are you for that matter)any less worthly of respect than your father?

If you are the same religion as your parents or gardians then you were forced. Not out of malice they taught the same bullshit they were forced to learn. Just like you were forced to learn English.

Did they give you a choice?

Are you circumcised?

Were you given a choice about that?

Do any of us really have a choice?

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! ;)"

Hmmm... yes, it is.

For everything that happens there is something that is left behind that tells us what took place. By your logic, if something never took place, then that's evidence that something must have taken place? Your statement shoots itself in the foot.

For everything that occurs, evidence must be present or suggested by a reaction to the event in question.

I have known alot of people who have absolute faith that they are fucked and nothing they do or anyone else does is going to help them. And yet, most of them turned out ok.

I have also know alot of people who have had absolute faith that their life was going to kick ass, and yet someof them ended up in some pretty shity places.

If I go to the gym and I lift weights, whether I have faith or not, I will soon be able to lift a heavier weight.

If I get cancer, faith isn't going to cure me. Unless I make sure no one puts a hat on the bed or mentions the word "cancer" in front of me, then I am ok.

However, I personally have absolute faith that I can walk through walls. And yet somehow the walls don't comply. They are the non-believers.

That is the problem with religions today.

Point in case, Islam. Not many people know that Muslim scientists and mathematicians work predated those of the Europeans and greatly influenced Western societies' great thinkers.

Islam used to be an open religion, open to the free flow of ideas. Now, they have become dogmatic, misconstruing the words of the Qur'an into something that inevitably leads to the loss of human life.

Faith should not be a tool used to divide people. If anything, faith should bring people together, not because they all agree on the same thing, but faith in the fact that whatever you believe in, all people will be provided for in the end.

But of course, no one thinks like that. It reminds me of this one kid who didn't want to go to church, and his mom threatened to not give him Christmas gifts.

ugh.... i spelled "the" wrong.........

well stated. glad to know there are folks like yourself out there.

I think you are terribly, terribly naive. Your "Frank Religion" does in fact exist, and in terrifying numbers. Here are some examples of the terrifying things all the "Frank Religions" have done in the past: The Crusades, suicide bombings, the Inquisition. So on and so forth. On the other hand,"Henry Atheism," the snide, irritating guy who just likes to crap on everyone's faith exists just the same. It's not that everyone falls into these categories, but there are lots and lots of people who do, and to simply say that every person out there is just wandering around "trying to figure out what the hell they're doing" is simply off-base.

I think you are wrong to believe that people deserve respect simply because they have feelings and emotions. By that logic, whoever has the most feelings and most emotions deserves the most respect, which means the emo scene wins. Moreover, I'm sure Hitler had lots of feelings, emotions, and opinions too, and I'll be damned if anyone tells me to respect him or any of his opinions.

Love and respect for all people? That's cute, but I won't love or respect rapists, murderers and pederasts, and if you do, I probably won't respect you either.

What would you say to me if I told you that I truly believed that one can only attain true Enlightenment by having sex with as many children as possible? Would you respect my opinion? If you say no, then there clearly needs to be something more than just belief to deserve respect.

I think you're perhaps missing the point of Condell's dialoge. He's asking people of faith why faith itself deserves respect. He's asking why faith should automatically be held aloft to not be joked about, or argued, or even questioned enough to be discussed openly. He's asking why a person who wants their own faith to be respected (without question) can in turn feel free to belittle others (name one religion that does not see itself as correct above all others) who simply have a different faith or choose not to follow one.

You commented that, "No one philosophy deserves respect in itself." It's important to note that religion and philosophy are not the same thing. Organized religion includes religious dogma which has been the source of suffering on our planet since man first decided he could say, "God made me do it," and get away with it. Philosophy is a study defined by dictionary.com as "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" it's an investigative process that adapts as knowledge adapts, and it does not include a set of life rules (such as killing non-believers or even just making it difficult for them to fit into their hometown or get along with their family).

As to the statement about F.Religion that, "He spends his time demanding money of other people, ordering the deaths of others, all with his hands over his eyes and ears." Well, there is one and he's a scary guy. I've seen people cowed into putting money they couldn't afford into a collection plate because they couldn't be seen as having "less faith" than the person to their left who dropped a fiver in. Some of the bloodiest periods in history were the result of church actions, and just ask the Los Angeles diocese whether or not anyone was molested. There's a problem in that religion is a wonderful way to control people (you can't prove it's wrong after all), and churches know that. Life is difficult, and yes, personal faith ("I can do it!") can be a wonderful aid, but in the hands of religion (especially when combined with politics) it becomes twisted into something that could put an individual into a psych ward for spouting off about. (One of the defining hallucinations of psychosis is that an unseen being is telling a person to act.)

Then your statement about "Henry Atheism, walking around with a self-satisfied grin on his face, enjoying nothing more than telling you how wrong you are and how constantly, consistently, absolutely correct he is, without listening to a word you have to say." It's also true that there are athiests with that attitude. Most have probably been putting up with people doing just the same to them for years. An atheist in our current society has to be as brave as an openly-gay man was in the 1960s. They're severely in the majority, isolated, and attacked. It's very easy to get defensive when that's the standard position you're put into.

Did you notice that of your two generalizations one was a genuine threat and the other was just an unpleasant guy to be around? Don't you see the imbalance here? You've evidenced it yourself by drawing on stereotypes.

Mr. Murrow was right in his statement, but it's not really apprpriate for this discussion unless you understand that it's in agreement with Condell. His complaint is that he's put into a position of defending his logic from people who need to push their faith at him - because he simply isn't good enough unless he's willing to join the flock. Condell never once said, "If you're a believer in god don't talk to me in the supermarket or come to my barbecue." THAT would be disagreeing with Murrow.

"Love and respect for all people is a philosophy that can lead to many strong, long-lasting relationships and experiences." is quite true. Also true is that, "Love and respect for all people is a philosophy." Philosophies are conceptual and are not necessarily realistic. There are many forms of love (one of them being honest to others) and respect must be earned, not granted. That is Condell's complaint.

As a brit, i have to say you Swedish ARE awesome!

Bring back Sven Goran-Er... oh he's back already... never mind.

And if Thor exists, then all our unbelief can't kill him, too. Same goes for the Boogeyman, Unicorns and Supertramp fans.

You complain about condescension and then tell me that you only have pity for me in the next sentence? Give me a break.

Anyways, as to the content of your second post: Let's start with the beginning. You say that you "have seen [your] share of over-zealous, unsympathetic believers," and then act like they're an endangered species, two sentences later. I mean, your first paragraph is completely incoherent if read in the context of the second paragraph of your first post, in which you said that these kinds of people don't exist. Bust out the white-out, you've got some revising to do.

I could go point by point, but these posts are getting exponentially longer. I'm more than happy to continue this in private, but I'm sure people are getting sick of these ridiculously long statements.

And by the way, I'm sorry, but if McNamara actually believes that it was compassion that kept the Cold War, well, cold, then I think he's simply flat out wrong and is completely out of touch with reality.

I must say Mr. Smith your comments made me laugh the hardest, albeit not as much as Mr. Condell's.

Your first comment was truly an elucidating example of a seemingly intelligent christian, who just happens to be a hypocrite.

And i say seemingly with the upmost derision possible. You say, "Well, I think he's missing the point". No, Condell is the one making the point, that would be why he created the video in the first place, you are the one that is missing it. Catgrin did a fine job of pointing out how you missed the point, just as you did a fine job of pointing out why you are a hypocrite. Your opening line about "exhausting" betrays your condescension from the very beginning (the opening line, i mean come on!) then there is of course the infamous use of "pity". Frankly, the pity sentence didn't really surprise me because i felt that your self-righteous attitude was already kind of exposed in you previous statements and wasn't to be unexpected.

If i had a nickel for every time a person of faith said he felt sorry for me...ala the pity statement.

The funniest aspect of your first comment was the words that you were putting into Condell's mouth and I was honestly wondering if there was another video i was missing. I'm not defending everything that Condell said or denying the derision that he shows towards people of faith but he was defending his point and you were trying to paint him as a hate-monger, akin to a klan member or neo-nazi or do I even dare pick out a historical religious leader.

BTW, most atheists do not base their views on believers upon stereotypes anymore than holocaust survivors base their beliefs on the Nazis as a stereotype. Its based on experience. You essentially sound like a white guy saying that all other minorities are lying or exaggerating about the racism they've experienced in their lives.

Oh here's another negative stereotype, "believe that we are alone and must fend for ourselves." That should sound familiar since they are your words. Sorry to break it to you but atheists don't really spend all their time thinking that nor is it the central dogmatic foundation of atheism. But it has a more negative connotation than "people believe in a God that loves us and cares for us", ouch! You almost had me converted on that one Mr. Smith.

That is why you are here Mr. Smith isn't it? To proselytize. Believe it or not atheists spend less time doing that than christians. I'm sure Mr. Condell created his video for his fellow atheists rather than he did trying to convert anyone. We generally are less concerned about other peoples' beliefs about the metaphysical, so long as they don't interfere with our own, which is easier said than done when it comes to people of faith. Yes, Mr. Condell IS guilty of bonding with his fellow atheists through the use of a commiserating and ridiculing humor, much like Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle. I doubt he'll receive the money or accolades they ever will though, considering atheism's status, along with maybe homosexuality among men(or maybe less so), as an unacceptable segment of our society to be considered as sub-human or unamerican.

If you wonder why some atheists, such as Mr Condell, react the way they do then analyze the actions of your fellow believers and if you can't recognize the overwhelming evidence of disrespect that is shown towards atheists in society then you are severely out of touch with reality, more so than the christians that condell talks about in his video. Frustration and disgust are not emotions limited to one segment of society.

Saying all that, your love for mankind is obvious and admirable, albeit is not representative of everyone, Christian or otherwise. However, your "respect" for everyone is belied by your own words.

People are not born with respect so they do not lose it, they earn it. Respect is not a natural scientific law of the universe. But if that is part of your belief system then I can at least "respect" that. As "silly & incorrect" as that may be.

I for one never demanded people deserve respect and actually neither did Condell. In fact, he mentioned something about that but you probably missed that when you were listening to your imaginary version of his video.

I can say, Mr Smith, YOU are not making christians look good. Think about your own biases when you decry other christians and put yourself upon that pedestal as an example of what it is to be a christian. You call Mr. Condell's existence a sad one (again with the condescension!), even though most of the negative things were implied by you, in fact he did a better job of making the argument you thought you were trying to make.

Of course, anyone can sit down and analyze to death something someone has written down and expose them for what they truly feel. Now, if all of us could only get paid for the time we've all spent here on these diatribes, much like any op-ed journalist. Yeah, then maybe someday i'll win the lottery and dust off the old manuscript and finish writing my great american novel.

I'm calling it "Futility: the uselessly, acrimonious and never-ending debate between believers and non-believers." I think i can truly do it the justice it deserves then again maybe thats my abnormally huge ego talking. I'm going to have Rodney King do the foreword since I think he was the true master of being succinct, unlike myself, when it came to disputes between people.

I agree. Most people who abandon Christianity do so for the same reason that so many are scared away from it in the first place, namely OTHER CHRISTIANS.

DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!

EIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEI!!!!!