As always, Pat is bang-on. He has more common sense than any of our so-called leaders. I'd love to see him on network TV!

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at April 1, 2008 7:49 AM

I like Pats fireside chats, but I question the character of anyone I agree with most of the time...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 1, 2008 8:08 AM

Pat, they will laugh at us because atheists, marxists, liberals, and many conservatives have spent their time trying to whitewash islam, and spread the multicultural nonsence that permeates the leftist mind.
The atheistic (and not only) belief that all religions are the same, whcih Pat endorses, is what makes people not be aware of the danger we
face with islamo-nazism.

But of course, Pat being an atheist has no real moral ground to condemn anyone. I's jsut his subjective opinion basedo n his own whims and wishes.

Posted by: Crusader at April 1, 2008 8:38 AM

Razer sharp as always! The wit of the cartoons on video: Priceless! Phrases resonate like--"Egg free omelet", "Hall of mirrors", "Fanatical bigots", "Civilization phobia", and, of course, "Violent primitive dickheads".

Speaking of omelets, I am off for breakfast with some atheist friends as today is, of course, their only holiday of the year.

LOL and Peace.

Posted by: guide inside at April 1, 2008 8:40 AM

Pat Condell certainly has a way of poignantly expressing the absurdities that we see in Islamic behavior, and the wimpy and easily intimidated responses that come from the dhimmis'politicians who are suppose to honor their commitment in defending are freedoms, and our foundations.

Posted by: Mackie at April 1, 2008 8:41 AM

But of course, Pat being an atheist has no real moral ground to condemn anyone. I's jsut his subjective opinion basedo n his own whims and wishes.
-----------------

I'm a bit tired of this accusation of atheists being moraly wrong or that we have no moral ground.

If I may suggest, watch his other videos, which he will explain everything, including what he thinks about christianity and islam...

He said, I dont remember which video, that christianity receives a big bonus for no being islam...

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at April 1, 2008 9:02 AM

Pat, they will laugh at us because atheists, marxists, liberals, and many conservatives have spent their time trying to whitewash islam, and spread the multicultural nonsence that permeates the leftist mind. Crusader.

“Many conservatives”? You mean religious leaders and church goers?

Posted by: pong at April 1, 2008 9:05 AM

"But of course, Pat being an atheist has no real moral ground to condemn anyone. I's just his subjective opinion based on his own whims and wishes."

By Crusader above

Your kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Since when did an atheist lose his right to be considered moral?

Condell was raised an Irish Catholic and educated in church of England schools. Demonstrating decency, and moral character does not require a badge of approval from a religion.

Posted by: Mackie at April 1, 2008 9:14 AM

Nabi ZK thinks some of you sound a bit like the Taliban yourselves.

ZK out

Posted by: zonie kafir at April 1, 2008 9:15 AM

But of course, Pat being an atheist has no real moral ground to condemn anyone. Crusader.

On youtube a mullah says the same thing about atheists. Congratulations, you are in a good company.

Posted by: pong at April 1, 2008 9:16 AM

Believing something doesn't make it true and disbelieving something doesn't make it false. Indeed the fool has said in his heart that "reality must conform to my beliefs". The nabi tells the mohametans exactly the same thing and they don't get it either. Funny that.

ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at April 1, 2008 9:23 AM

I'm so glad there's Pat Condell, and I'm so glad he makes videos on youtube. Bravo Pat! (As usual).

New good word directed at Islam: "civilizationphobia."

As good as "IslamoRealism."

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 9:26 AM

People, in England, a white convert to Islam who drives a bus told his passengers to get off so he could pray.

And they did.

Not kidding.

Check it out:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article976258.ece

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 9:36 AM

"...female homosexual Jew....."
Classic Condell.

Posted by: Kevin at April 1, 2008 9:38 AM

Pat talked about being ashamed to live in the 21st century due to the rise of Islam and the West kowtowing to the "violent 7th-century desert dogma that wants to take over the world, remove our freedom, subjugate women, brainwash children, persecute Jews and homosexuals, and drag us back one thousand years."

Me, too. I'm ashamed of the dhimmis of the West.

I'm ashamed that a Dearbornistan KFC offers "halal" chicken, which means facing the chicken toward Mecca before killing them in a merciless manner.

Michelle Obama has proclaimed, "I've never been more proud of my country."

Yeah? Well, I've never been more ashamed of it.

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 9:43 AM

Too many delicious quotes to choose from to highlight - for those with dial-up connections or limited web access on the job - here is a transcript for Condell's "The Religion of Fear"

Hi everyone. Well, now that the FITNA furor has died down somewhat, it's interesting to see how many people are condeming the film and how few people are condeming the thuggish intimidation that forced LIVE LEAK to remove it.

What happened to all those people who keep telling us "I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it ." Where have they all gone? Maybe they're on vacation.

No shortage of politicians, however, lining up to accuse the film of falsely equating Islam with violence, which is a bit like falsely equating Walt Disney with Mickey Mouse.

I'm sure anyone who follows the news would also equate Islam with violence. I know I certainly do because anytime anybody criticises Islam, they're usually threatened with violence. Islam without violence is like an egg free omelet.

The religion is predicated on violence and the threat of violence. It's a 'religion of peace' in the same way that North Korea is a People's 'Democratic' Republic. But we're not allowed to say that, because if we do, we'll be threatened with violence.

When the film was actually removed - under threat of violence - some muslims had the nerve to congratulate LIVE LEAK ' for promoting tolerance' on the internet.
I'll tell you, whenever I think about this stuff now, I think I'm in a hall of mirrors . . .don't you?

To be fair, Dutch muslims do deserve some praise because they could've reacted violently and probably gotten away with it . . .we all know that. So, all credit to them for not exploiting the situation.

But the very fact that we are greatful to them, pretty much proves the point of the film. Because, let's be clear about this, it was the threat of muslim violence that caused the Dutch government to grovel in such abject dhimmitude and to run around apologising like headless chickens before and after the event.

A spectacle which I'm sure many muslims enjoyed - and why shouldn't they enjoy it? After all, it sends out a clear message to the entire muslim world that in Europe, we won't stand up for what we believe in. . .or what we 'say' we believe in and we will be intimidated into silence. All you've got to do is shake your fist and we'll do exactly as we're told.

So, Islam in Europe now enjoys the best of all possible worlds. It's a religion when it wants to be. It's a culture when it wants to be. And it's a race when it wants to be. It gets full rights on all three counts - demanding and getting respect wherever it goes while giving absolutely none. Hence, we were treated recently to the spectacle of the Swiss Foreign Minister degrading herself and her country by putting on a head scarf before she was allowed to meet the homicidal leadership of
Iran. In a cheap betrayal of all the brave women who have been murdered by these violent criminals in the name of Islam.

The Iranian government were among the first to criticise the film too. Taking time out from executing children, again - in the name of Islam, to denounce it roundly. But I'm sure most people realize that this fake outrage is in no way genuine. It's all part of a cynical campaign of intimidation by the Islamic world to force unwanted Islamic values into Western society. And that's why, in every free country they're now aggressive Islamist pressure groups, usually funded by the Saudis, who claim to speak for all muslims, but who actually speak only for a small band of fanatical bigots like themselves - and who are very quick to insult our culture and our values as degenerate and immoral while being themselves ultra-sensitive to any perceived criticism - portraying themselves as victims, as oppressed rather than as the oppressors they are. Knowing that if you repeat the lie often enough people will start to believe it. Mr. Goebbels taught us that little nugget of wisdom and the would be authors of the next hollocaust have learned their lessons well.

Now luckily for me I don't get insulted easily on a personal level, not even if being called a racist kafir as some idiot called me recently. When somebody attacks my culture, well, that's a little different because that's an assault on my values . It diminishes my sense of self worth. I believe it violates my human rights and I think he should be prosecuted as a hate crime. It's irrational, its paranoid and really I think there is only one word to describe it - and that is civilizationphobia.

This is a word I like to use as kind of like umbrella word for a host of different phobias that manifest themselves in Islam. Including elestherophobia (sp?)- fear of freedom. Epistomophobia - Fear of Knowledge. Prosophobia - fear of progress.
Picatophobia - fear of sinning or imaginary crimes. Categeliphobia (sp?)- fear of being ridiculed. Senophobia(sp?)-fear of new things and ideas Keraphobia - fear of gaety (big fear of gaety) and the biggest fear of all of course, gynophobia - fear of women. Islam is terrified of women and thats why all over the internet, you'll find clips from Arab television where along with all the rampant Jew hating and other propaganda aimed at turning children into murderers, you'll find clerics calmly explaining under what circumstances a man may beat his wife in the religion-of-peace. That's right, a man may beat his wife. And they wonder why we don't want this stuff in Europe. If you lay a violent hand on a woman. you're not a man - you're an animal and I don't care how many so called scholars tell you that cowardly brutality is the will of god. Chances are, you've never been on the receiving end of the kind of punishment you like to dish out so freely.

So, I hope the Hindus have it right because if there is any justice you will be reincarnated as a female homosexual Jew and then you'll find out what a pain it is having to deal with violent primitive dick heads like you.

You know, when I was growing up I never thought I would be ashamed to live in the twenty first century. I thought it was going to be a new golden age. The space age. An age of knowledge and discovery and we'd have shaken off the shackles of superstition by now. Surely we have the technology to reach for the stars. Maybe we can even create paradise right here on earth.

I remember looking forward to it. Well, here we are and what have we got? We've got Islam, a violent, seventh century desert dogma that wants to take over the world, remove our freedom, subjugate women, brainwash children, pursecute Jews and homosexuals and drag us all back a thousand years. And all we can do is make excuses for it for fear of causing offence.

We really are pathetic - aren't we?

You know, I think people living five hundred years from now will look back on this period of history and they'll laugh at us.

Well, wouldn't you?

PEACE.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at April 1, 2008 9:47 AM

>>You know, I think people living five hundred years from now will look back on this period of history and they'll laugh at us. --Pat Condell

I do have a small problem with this statement as I doubt there will be people living 500 years from now.

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 9:57 AM

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 9:36 AM

Darcy,

Ahem.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020496.php#comments

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 10:18 AM

You are right, awake. Should have checked over at DW first. Now I'm going to click on your link and read the comments.

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 10:23 AM

Just three questions.
who is this guy.
why do i love him .
And why is this guy RUNNING FOR PESIDENT.
PAT WHAT EVER MONEY I HAVE MY HOUSE RUN FOR PRESIDENT BRO ITS YOURS .
FINNALY A GUY WITH BALLS

Posted by: spcbat at April 1, 2008 10:24 AM

SORRY NOT RUNNING WHY WE NEED THIS GUY EXCUSE ME I WAS EXCITED THIS GUYS GREAT

Posted by: spcbat at April 1, 2008 10:26 AM

It's a great speech.

We all need to consider our "talking points." There is so much to hate/abhor in islam that most of us can get confused just trying to express it simply to others.

Well the Fitnah video does a great job of making the case (what't the big deal?) -- and this video provides some great talking points for us all to remember.

If we have friends and family who fallen prey accede to the noble value of "tolerating islam" (that is they think it is noble to be tolerating the religion of intolerance/oppression/murder)....

WHAT EXCUSE DO WE HAVE?

Posted by: BB at April 1, 2008 10:54 AM

Crusader is perhaps one of those Islamic plants who post to cause strife and blacken the name of Christians, bets anyone!!!

Posted by: Daffersd at April 1, 2008 10:57 AM

You are right, awake. Should have checked over at DW first. Now I'm going to click on your link and read the comments.

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 10:23 AM

To which I've added 4.

No way I would get off that bus. Here's what I would say to the arrogant Mohammedan: "I'm not getting off the bus. You can pray on your own time, not your company's time."

People were scared, that's why they got off. Certainly understandable.

Posted by: darcy at April 1, 2008 10:58 AM

Posted by: Daffersd at April 1, 2008 10:57 AM

I don't think so, but of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 11:06 AM

"But of course, Pat being an atheist has no real moral ground to condemn anyone. I's jsut his subjective opinion basedo n his own whims and wishes."

Ok, I'll play along:

And your belief in a big daddy in the sky makes you just as childish and backward as the muslims.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 11:12 AM

Finally the truth coming out of Europe! God Bless Pat Condell!!

Posted by: SureHowDoYouKnow at April 1, 2008 11:48 AM

lol - swamprat on LGF says:

As a christian, I'm not sure that I would every want this man to convert; because if he ever came to know Christ, I seriously doubt he would be such a smug, self-assured condescending asshole, and therefore, not nearly as much fun to hear.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 12:15 PM

Uh-oh! Looks like non-croyant got up on the wrong side of the bed, again.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 12:35 PM

"Islam is terrified of women..."

My favorite part.

Posted by: Abscedere at April 1, 2008 1:14 PM

How come he hasn't yet:
1) Been murdered?
2) Been prosecuted for racial hatred?

He's spot on of course, but bearing in mind the stupidity of the Labour government, I'm surprised he hasn't been arrested for something yet. I'm sure they could make something stick.

Posted by: Celsius at April 1, 2008 1:15 PM

Wrong side of the bed? Maybe.

I have to bite my tongue a lot in response to the comments that imply that Jihad Watch is a site for proselytism and not a site for anyone who is counter-jihad.

I save my criticism for the common enemy - Muslims.

When others break that suit I will follow suit if I'm in the mood.

Out of one side of the mouth so many ask "where are all the liberals, atheists, and agnostics?" Then out of the other side of the mouth they question their validity in criticizing Islam.

Do you want freethinkers as allies or not? Regardless of your answer I am putting you on notice that I will not be YOUR dhimmi any more than I will be THEIRS.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 1:28 PM

I think YouTube just took the video down.

Is it online somewhere else?

Posted by: joeblough at April 1, 2008 1:37 PM

Posted by: joeblough at April 1, 2008 1:37 PM

It's working for me.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 1:39 PM

Ooh, did I touch a nerve? You're the one who appears to only want freethinkers, no Christians allowed. Well who cares what you want? You came a little late to this party to be dictating how the rest of us think, feel and speak.

You don't like Christians or Christian sentiments? Tough. You'll get over it. If reading Christian rhetoric laced posts gives you the drizzles, here's a little advice...hit the next button and none of that nasty Christianity will blemish your lily white non-believin' sensibilities.

First things first, though. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 1:39 PM

Before this gets out of hand, let me say that 'Crusader' misspoke earlier in this thread. He attempted to justify Condell's sentiment by blaming many parties for whitewashing Islam. Fine.

Where he erred is to insinuate that Condell has no moral ground to condemn anyone because he is a professed atheist.

'Non-croyant' responded in kind, unnecessarily in my opinion, as several posters already admonished 'crusader' for his loose statements.

In all reality, atheists as well as Christians and the likes of others can and should share common ground in the anti-jihad movement. Like all other froups, some atheists have been counter-productive to the cause but that does not belie that atheism itself is counter-productive.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 1:49 PM

Isabellathecrusader -

You're projecting; non-croyant simply responded to a derogatory comment by Crusader. I also have noticed that certain posters on this site never miss an opportunity to attack people who do not need a sky fairy in order to exist. Considering Crusader stated that anyone not daft enough to blindly believe has no morals non-croyant was extremely restrained.

Posted by: Xeno at April 1, 2008 1:54 PM

non-croyant, At least one atheist has been posting on this site since before the Iraq war - me...call me evil, soul-less etc. etc- but holy crap don't ever peg me as a liberal!

I know what you mean about questioning the validity of "atheist" criticisms of Islam. I keep saying that Allah is a myth and that there is no reason to respect mythological Islamic beliefs that encroach upon my life. I suppose stating that Allah is the imaginary construct of a half starved desert thug is also an invalid statement from an "immoral" atheist like myself. Muslims have no proof but they act as though they have a universe full of proof for Allahs existence. Muslims have nothing and no-one is calling them on this obvious bullsh*t.

Without proof against the demand for rational evidence as to Allahs existence, the faith of Islam collapses. What are you waiting for people? Burquas for your daughters?

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at April 1, 2008 1:56 PM

So Crusader calls into question the morality of Pat Condell - a man who is much more intelligent and eloquent than someone like Crusader could ever hope to be, and the morality of atheists in general - and I am supposed to sit quietly like a good dhimmi and not object?

Sorry, I refuse to not speak up for myself in the face of criticism someone who is so uncreative to actually create the handle "Crusader."

I won't be quiet when someone spouts idiotic and vapid poppycock in regard to the morals of atheists when atheists are DISPROPORTIONATELY UNDERREPRESENTED in America's prisons.

I AM going to assert the moral superiority of atheists by pointing out that when atheists are moral it is NOT out of fear of the punishment of a tribal sky god.

Humans are social animals. It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of wit whence come our morals. If they weren't hardwired in our species would have already gone extinct. Wolves don't have believe in a god in order to cooperate for mutual benefit, do they?

It's only through ideologies - religions prominent among them - that humans short circuit their intrinsic morality.

Islam happens to be the most extreme of those ideologies, and that is why we are here on this site.

If we are here to proselytize then I missed the memo. Robert?

Express your religious beliefs all you want, but if you are going to attack mine I WILL respond.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 1:57 PM

Posted by: Xeno at April 1, 2008 1:54 PM

"Sky fairy"?

Now do you think that comment was helpful?

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 1:57 PM

I subscribe to Pat on You Tube, so I'm notified whenever he releases a new comment. Be aware that he takes on the Catholic Church and other religions as well. His best comments are on Islam, of course.

Posted by: Bingo at April 1, 2008 2:03 PM

Oh one more thing, since we're are all in the same boat (one and all dirty kafirs) - Islam still exists and this April fools day joke is on all of us.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at April 1, 2008 2:05 PM

I tell ya', Pat my sides are aching ALREADY from laughter...

It was a really a total howl when two ARABS tried to chop my head off in Glendale, California six years ago...

Posted by: pythagoras at April 1, 2008 2:11 PM

'Sorry Xeno, but I'm not projecting.

I've read non-croyant's posts over and over again for the last several weeks, dissing Christians and making fun of people who believe in God, and enough is enough. If NC wants to spout atheistic rhetoric, it is his choice to do so. But when he starts stepping on the toes of Christians on this sight who have just as much right to offer their opinions and beliefs in what will counteract the onslaught of Islam, then he and I are going to tangle. And his constant condescension and contradicting what other people he disagrees with say is just simply obnoxious.

But please, non-croyant, run to Robert. Maybe he'll even protect you from the big, bad Christians on this site. Just remember he's the brains behind this operation, and a Catholic man to his very soul.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 2:17 PM

If I had a nickel for every Christian I heard say that faggots deserve to be shot I would be able to live quite comfortably.

Thankfully our enlightened secular, and superior, culture doesn't allow such sentiments to be acted upon (for the most part), but knowing that those sentiments exist makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth every time I see some obviously conservative Christian using feigned concern over gay rights as a weapon with which to attack Islam.

Raise your hand if you believe that Judge Roy Moore is as bad as any mullah - worse, actually, because he was raised in a culture that should have made him know better.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 2:21 PM

Awake - No it wasn't and I stand ready to be corrected upon receipt of proof of existence and definition of what said creature actually is...

However, I didn't comment in order to be helpful but to put the point of Crusader, and the like, into context. I am sure that there are many on here who believe in God (any God) who could care less that I called their god a sky fairy and I know I could care less when called a godless heathen who is on his merry way to hell; that is just banter.

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at April 1, 2008 2:21 PM

But, Xeno, you do have some inkling that calling God a sky fairy might be hurtful to some of your fellow anti-jihadists on this site. So why would you?

And non-croyant, please provide some evidence that you've heard millions of Christians call homosexuals faggots and call for them to be shot. Otherwise, at best, you're painting with a broad brush or, at worst, you're totally lying.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 2:33 PM

I've read non-croyant's posts over and over again for the last several weeks, dissing Christians and making fun of people who believe in God, and enough is enough.

Really? That's what I do on this site?

I thought I was the one who sent Robert the Network Solutions WHOIS and nslookup information.

I thought I was the one who notified that the Fitna site was hacked.

I thought I was number 7 on the petition that Robert informed us about today.

And under the name non-croyant I have been criticizing muslims since 2002 - just check Beliefnet.

Yes, if a Christian slams liberals or atheists I might respond in kind, but I am content to let you express your beliefs sans comment if you don't attack mine.

Just look back through the comments for just about every article on Jihad Watch and you will find some insipid statement about saving the ummah by telling them about Jesus Christ.

Did I roll my eyes when I read those statements? Yes.

Did I make a post mocking them?
No.

The comments section of this site is plastered with Christian sentiment. Don't pull that bogus Christian-persecution routine here. I bet you think there is a war on Christmas, too, don't you? It's an insult to Christians world-wide who are truly being persecuted: in Iran, Afghanistan, and, as we recently discussed, Indonesia.

I am here because of what Robert says in the FAQ:

I envision Jihad Watch as an opportunity for all the actual and potential victims of jihad violence and oppression -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims, atheists, whatever -- to join together to defend universal human rights. There are many things about which we all disagree, but at this point we need to unite simply in order to survive. We can sort out our disagreements later.

This is not an expressly Christian site. Stop acting like it is.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 2:37 PM

And non-croyant, please provide some evidence that you've heard millions of Christians call homosexuals faggots and call for them to be shot.

Point to where I said "millions." Of course I was exaggerating by implying that I would be rich, but I grew up as a, and among, Southern Baptists in East Tennessee, and I can't count how many times I have heard that sentiment or similar. There is my brother, for one. And I gave a Google search on Judge Roy Moore - a JUDGE for chrissakes.

Don't tell me you have never heard the sentiment yourself from a Christian - via the media if nowhere else (Judge Roy Moore just now via the Web, in fact).

And as for not having "moral ground" from which to criticize Islam: while many are here because they believe Islam to be a competing and false relgion - do you deny this?

People like me are here because we deny the right of anyone to restrict our freedoms, or to threaten our well-being, on the basis of unverifiable beliefs.

Does that mean we can't be allies? It's a serious question.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 2:44 PM

Crusader and Non-Croyant--

Relax. With all due respect, you're both wrong.

Crusader:

This is a non-sectarian site. All are welcome, and it is both counterproductive and just plain illogical to denigrate someone's work just because he doesn't believe the same things as you do. The man's right. And if he's right, he's right. You claim that Condell, as an atheist, has less authority to speak on moral subjects. On the contrary: The more people, from the more belief systems (or non-belief) we have speaking out against jihad and sharia law, the stronger we are.

Non-Croyant--

If I ever saw the sort of talk you mentioned on this site, it would be promptly removed and the commenter banned. It is acting in extremely bad faith (no pun intended) to browbeat people here over sentiments they have not expressed and which you cannot assume they have.

Posted by: MarisolJW at April 1, 2008 2:46 PM

Posted by: Xeno at April 1, 2008 2:21 PM

Your words do not match your repsonse. Non-croyant, and I assume you as well since you rose to his defense, did take offense to crusader's banter.

you wrote:
"Awake - No it wasn't and I stand ready to be corrected upon receipt of proof of existence and definition of what said creature actually is..."

Here you commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

This is not a defense of crusader's statements as they are generally defenseless and based on the same logical fallacy.

That being said, what I do find odd is to criticize proselytization by the use of the very same tactic.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 2:46 PM

Non-Croyant--

If I ever saw the sort of talk you mentioned on this site, it would be promptly removed and the commenter banned.

Marisol,

Sorry, but I don't know which "talk you mentioned" that you are talking about. Do you mean the homophobic talk? I was saying that I experienced it in real life, not here.

It wouldn't be here because those who are homophobic are also disingenuous enough to not admit it. Using gay rights to brow beat muslims is too easy to self-sabotage.

I wish it would be used more often so more of my fellow liberals - the self-hating dhimmi ones - would wake up to the fact that they should be the ones who hate Islam more than anyone else.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 3:03 PM

"That being said, what I do find odd is to criticize proselytization by the use of the very same tactic."

Hugs and kisses to you, Awake! That was my point, exactly.

"Point to where I said "millions." Of course I was exaggerating by implying that I would be rich..."

You just answered your own question.

"Don't tell me you have never heard the sentiment yourself from a Christian."

It's not that I've never heard it in my entire life. But the people that go to my church don't talk like that. The friends I hang out with don't talk like that, most who were brought up Christian, even if they aren't still practicing. And in my circle of friends/business associates there are eight homosexual men, so, no, we don't talk about shooting faggots, probably because we don't believe in it but mostly out of deference to them and their feelings.

"And as for not having "moral ground" from which to criticize Islam: while many are here because they believe Islam to be a competing and false relgion - do you deny this?"

I don't know what you are talking about. I can't recall bringing the subject up of moral ground in this thread. You must mean somebody else.

"People like me are here because we deny the right of anyone to restrict our freedoms, or to threaten our well-being, on the basis of unverifiable beliefs."

Then why do you make fun of what Christians say here? I've read many of your posts on other threads and they drip with covert hostility towards Christians.

Does that mean we can't be allies? It's a serious question.

No; I'd love to be an ally with you, but it will be difficult to do so if I perceive you are constantly trying to knife me or mine in the back. Prove to me that you mean no such harm and we'll talk.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 3:11 PM

I don't know what you are talking about. I can't recall bringing the subject up of moral ground in this thread. You must mean somebody else.

Why are you assuming that my entire post was devoted to responding to you?

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 3:21 PM

Oh, silly me. You presented my quote at the top of the page and then continued talking with the words, you, you, you. Now why do you think I would assume that?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 3:31 PM

Then why do you make fun of what Christians say here? I've read many of your posts on other threads and they drip with covert hostility towards Christians.

Now you're the one exaggerating. You have a selective memory. Yes, I have been even overtly hostile to Christians, but I'll wager that in every case that you are selectively remembering the expression of that hostility was prompted by an attack on the part of a Christian.

No; I'd love to be an ally with you, but it will be difficult to do so if I perceive you are constantly trying to knife me or mine in the back. Prove to me that you mean no such harm and we'll talk.

It goes both ways. There is no denying the fact that these anti-Jihad Web sites are dominated by Christians and conservatives.

If you want to know what it is like to have to constantly look over your shoulder, whether on this site or in real life, then try living as a non-believer and not hiding the fact.

Here are the facts as far as this thread goes:
someone makes the incredibly ignorant and offensive assertion that atheists have no moral foundation.

An atheist responds, in kind and with implied intent ("Ok I'll play along: "), that religious believes are childish and backward.

Yes, it was quid pro quo. One side expresses contempt for the other (and, I will remind you, does it first), and the other side responds with like contempt.

I see you as the defending the original aggressor, and I assert that that defense comes out of your own biases.

What you're basically saying in answering my question is that you don't mind being my ally as long as I don't complain when I am insulted by you.

No dice.

As heirs to the enlightened West I am sure we share enough beliefs to attack Islam with a united front, but if you and yours choose to engage in friendly fire I will fire back.

And if they eventually win this will be the reason why.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 3:36 PM

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 1:49 PM

Please read if you did not already, and if you did, please re-read.

This argument is pointless.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 3:43 PM

You know what's funny, I didn't even read Crusader's post until about ten minutes ago. My issue with you is your vileness when talking to other people on this forum. It always sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder or a point to prove, and it also sounds like you have a serious persecution problem. Why, pray tell, would you tell Darcy in another thread today that she was wrong to boycott the Danish when it is the Dutch who make Havarti cheese? Who cares? Do you get some kind of sick pleasure in contradicting people and making them wrong?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 3:56 PM

You know what's funny, I didn't even read Crusader's post until about ten minutes ago.

Then you didn't even read my whole post because I quoted the relevant content in my reply. Are you admitting that you went off half-cocked in your attack on me - or defense of Crusader - however you view it - based simply on a dislike of my personality?

I'll admit that my post earlier wherein you thought I was addressing you when I suddenly switched my address to the topic of "moral ground" in general was admittedly ambiguous.

You can't, however, claim that I was addressing you in the post where I responded to Crusader. Why did you feel the need to butt in?

My issue with you is your vileness when talking to other people on this forum.

And my issue is with the Christians and conservatives pissing on every comments section of every article as if they are their territory. I guess it makes sense so they approach everything in the US with the same attitude. I hold my tongue much more often than I respond - so you were right about "wrong side of the bed."

It always sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder or a point to prove, and it also sounds like you have a serious persecution problem

As an atheist and bisexual I have much more grounds for feeling persecuted in this country than ANY Christian, so maybe you are right.

Why, pray tell, would you tell Darcy in another thread today that she was wrong to boycott the Danish when it is the Dutch who make Havarti cheese? Who cares? Do you get some kind of sick pleasure in contradicting people and making them wrong?

Are you serious with this? Maybe I didn't want her to boycott the wrong country. Could that maybe be it? After all, the Danish have been great about not backing down in the face of Jihadi threats. They deserve our support.

I guess you didn't notice the fact that I was self-effacing in my post to her in an attempt to make it clear that she shouldn't feel embarrassed - we all make such mistakes.

Really, why drag her into this anyway? Does darcy need your protection as much as Crusader does?

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 4:13 PM

... when it is the Dutch who make Havarti cheese?

At the risk of making you feel belittled neither darcy nor I said the Dutch make Havarti cheese. The Danish do.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 4:19 PM

"It always sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder or a point to prove, and it also sounds like you have a serious persecution problem

As an atheist and bisexual I have much more grounds for feeling persecuted in this country than ANY Christian, so maybe you are right."

Oh, now I see where you are coming from. So when you're an ass, or a victim, like the Muslims, we should all just put up with it, right?

I've got some things I have to do now so I've got to go. I'll let you have the last word, though.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 1, 2008 4:49 PM

500 years from now the Earth's population will be about 5 million wretched, starving, irradiated mutants.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 1, 2008 4:53 PM

Herroyalwhyness,

I found these at: http://www.phobialist.com/

Eleutherophobia- Fear of freedom.
Epistemophobia- Fear of knowledge.
Prosophobia- Fear of progress.
Peccatophobia- Fear of sinning or imaginary crimes.
Catagelophobia- Fear of being ridiculed.
Xenophobia- Fear of strangers or foreigners.
Cherophobia- Fear of gaiety.
Gynephobia or Gynophobia- Fear of women.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 1, 2008 5:37 PM

Prince Hassan of jordan bbcnews24 now

Posted by: anonymous at April 1, 2008 6:51 PM

Concerned Citizen - Thank you!!

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at April 1, 2008 8:02 PM

Another reminder: non-sectarian site.

Non-Croyant--

You've disrupted this thread far more than Crusader; it has wound up being all about you.

If you have a problem with belief in general, this is not the place to air your grievances.

Posted by: MarisolJW at April 1, 2008 8:08 PM

I see - responding to attacks makes it all about me.

I accuse you of bias for not having said the same thing to Isabella.

Ooh, did I touch a nerve? You are so full of shit, non-croyant. You're the one who appears to only want freethinkers, no Christians allowed. Well who cares what you want? You came a little late to this party to be dictating how the rest of us think, feel and speak.

(with vulgarity to top it all off)
Can you read that, Isabella's first post to me, and her subsequent posts to me, and honestly say - sans hyprocrisy - that Isabella's posts where more disruptive than mine? Really?

I DARE you to honestly follow the thread of the conversation and continue to single me out for fault.

I was even content to let her have the last word despite her snarky invitation to let me have it.

Well, I invite all of you to have the last word. If the moderators of this site have biases that affect their judgments then why bother anyway?

Posted by: non-croyant at April 1, 2008 8:41 PM

I missed that, but I'm getting it now.

However, you probably missed two comments I did delete.

There's nothing I can do if you think I'm biased (some deeply held beliefs can be intractable like that), but it fits the larger pattern in the thread of your accusing people of holding opinions we don't (homophobia).

Your posts have been disruptive particularly in number, and you're not doing much to alleviate that.

I'm asking you to stop.

Posted by: MarisolJW at April 1, 2008 9:08 PM

Pat Condell, fantastic job.

Maybe our leaders will take a lesson in straight talking.

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at April 1, 2008 9:30 PM

I just looked at these arguments re atheism, Christianity, etc. When I read that someone wrote an atheist has no moral basis for judgment I mentally noted it, disagreed, and moved on. Relentless personal postings have no place on this site. You can be right in every argument, but still wrong if you abuse this site in this way.

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at April 1, 2008 9:46 PM

Well, Im back from breakfast and much else and I see where most of the post was a rage-fest amongst ourselves. If the Jee-hadies that moniter see much of this stuff they will know we are push overs; too busy 'killing' our own to take the wall with any unity. This house falls with that kind of disss-unity. Excuse please my joke-post about April first being the atheists only holiday.

Cant we all get along!!

Remember,The enemy of my enemy is my friend.(hopefully)

You know, most of this 'stuff' gets really boring after awhile. My policy as an ordained Minister and Counseler has always been: Admit it, QUIT it, and forget it. Lets try it. WE MIGHT ALL LIKE IT!

Posted by: guide inside at April 1, 2008 10:26 PM

non-croyant is guilty of overposting. That much is true.

The whole victim status that he is driving for is, most assuredly, lost on the majority of the community here. This is a general tactic of, and frankly, indicative of what Islamists try to take solace in...false persecution.

You are a bore Mr. Christopher Nicholson, and I look forward to your inevitable banning, at least under that moniker.

Marisol is a beautiful, intelligent and patient woman, but she, like everyone else, has limits.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 10:30 PM

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at April 1, 2008 9:46 PM

Agreed, 100%.

Posted by: awake at April 1, 2008 10:52 PM

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

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 12:28 AM

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 12:28 AM

So what? Trying to use Condell in your continued failed position of self-absorbed arrogance?

You cannot disprove the existence of a god no more than anyone can prove one.

Like I said many moons ago in this thread, a pointless argument on your part.

Although lessons are obviously learned with difficulty by yourself, even you have learned one tonight. Be respectful of people of faith in a divine deity and expect the same respect in your belief of the absence of one.

That being said, your value in the anti-jihad movement is vital as I made explicitly clear earlier today.

Please, for all's sake, don't let your pride get in the way.

Posted by: awake at April 2, 2008 12:50 AM

Non-croyant, My favorite Pat Condell rant is 'why debate dogma"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at April 2, 2008 1:58 AM

I like very much what Pat says in this clip - and on a number of his other clips which I have seen. I think the simplicity of his video picture is fantastic/powerful. I think the tightness and colourfulness of his script, and the manner of his presentation is great. I have learnt some important lessons from him.

But it is indeed ironic that a person who puts together such well thought out, reasoned, humourous, and articulate material, cannot see the inconsistancy of all of this with his professed atheism.

If there is no God as such atheists profess, then it is an evolutionary world without meaning and morality - because there is nothing to give the world meaning, or to say things should be one way and not another. You do not get meaning or morality out of bangs no matter how big. As a cause they are totally insufficient.

So in reality, Pat when he speaks as he does, and gives us courage, and makes us laugh, is in fact not speaking as a consistent atheist, but as a crypto-creationist presupposing a world of both meaning and morality.

Posted by: Sonshine at April 2, 2008 2:53 AM

The Buddha gave, in his first sermon, a list of questions for which he had no answers. Was the universe finite or infinite in extent or duration? Did it have an origin or was it from everlasting to everlasting? What happens after death? He did not, for example, assert that reincarnation was a fact. What about the existence of deities and their actual nature? And so on. He said he didn't know. He advised those seeking answers to such questions to choose another religion because the doctrine he wanted to expound did not address such concerns.

However he placed compassion for all self aware beings as the highest value. He said all forms in this world are transient. In effect he said, "life is short so play nice". As I see it, this is more or less equivalent to to the golden rule. Yet he did not invoke any divine authority to reach this conclusion. His was an agnostic philosophy which did not make untestable claims about unseen things. Yet his teachings do convey a highly developed sense of morality.

Let us compare with the teachings of mohamet, who did assert emphatically the existence of exactly one God. Not zero and not two or more, except for when he mentioned the additional presence of those exalted cranes, the three daughters from the Satanic Verses. OK, he kind of blew it there as far as Tawhid goes but whatever. In any case, his moral code was and is execrable.

With these examples the nabi seeks to show that it is possible to have a good moral code without belief in God and it is possible to believe in God an be a devil. Even the demons believe in one God. And they shudder. Right?

$.02 from ...

nabi ZK

...and peace people... but not with the mohametans...ever...

Posted by: zonie kafir at April 2, 2008 6:33 AM

The atheist says, "I know" and with proud arrogance refuses to see.

This is a complete misrepresentation of what most atheists think.

Atheist don't claim to "know" that there is no god. They don't believe in god. There is a big difference.

I think even Condell in his video admitted that he didn't know if there was a God or not.

On the other hand, it is the religious who claim to know. What about you, champ? Do you know that God exists and and Jesus is the savior? Do you know that? I would assert that you merely believe it, much in the same manner that I don't. But you don't KNOW.

Don't try to act like it's not the atheists who fail to approach the question in a Socratic way when it's really the opposite.

Atheism is my default "official" position because I have never seen compelling evidence of the existence of a god, but sometimes I think in a way that I think would make me what I would call a "theistic agnostic."

In any case, if god does exist I hardly think he would be anything like the monsters known as Yahweh and Allah.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 12:04 PM

Awake - It was an argumentum ad ignorantiam only in that no one knows God. Which was the point of referring to this God as a sky fairy.

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at April 2, 2008 12:17 PM

But it is indeed ironic that a person who puts together such well thought out, reasoned, humourous, and articulate material, cannot see the inconsistancy of all of this with his professed atheism.

It's a high-school-level of intellectual sophistication that would try to make the claim that meaning and morality cannot be found in a godless universe.

Read Cosmos by Carl Sagan cover to cover (or watch the series if you can find it) and tell me that he didn't find meaning in the world. I've had far more transcendent experiences contemplating his, on other scientists', insights into the nature of the universe than I have found in anyone's holy book, and I have, as I said, a degree in religioius studies, so I had to examine several holy texts.

You don't find meaning in the simple fact that we ARE the universe, a part of the universe that is aware of the universe? That our bodies are composed of elements that can only be forged in the hearts of stars, or some even in the event of supernova explosions?

As for morality - as I mentioned before all social animals have hardwired morality. Compare the culture and politics of humans to chimps. It's remarkably similar, and I don't see chimps going to churches and mosques.

Being "immoral" is counter to evolutionary fitness.

Maybe a god does have something to do with all this meaning and morality, but it nauseates me to think that god might be the bloodthisty thug named Yahweh or Allah.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 12:24 PM

regarding Why Debate Dogma?

I like this quote:
"Too many people have been too diplomatic for too long."

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 12:50 PM

non-croyant:

You missed what I said, or intentionally diverted from it.

I wasn't commenting about whether or not you, Carl Sagan, or Pat Condell find meaning, or function in terms of meaning and morality, in the world today.

I was commenting about how you and these others, as atheists have no philosophical grounding for the meaning and morality you find and assert.

It is elementary that a river doesn't rise higher than its source. And the 'source' for atheists of most shades, is matter/energy, not mind.

Matter/energy cannot give rise to meaning and morality - the river would have to run uphill. However, the mind of a personal, moral, meaning-giving being does - and the fact the world is stuffed full in the present of both meaning and morality, indicates it has derived from the latter not the former.

As you, and Sagan and Condell live your days in terms of a meaning and morality which cannot derive from your professed philosophical base (well Sagan did till he died), you must be living in terms of these things derived from an 'unprofessed' base. Thus I called Condell - and you by extension - a crypto-creationist. He, and you, have flogged capital from a worldview which has meaning and morality as inherent parts of it - and which you both oppose, to argue for your worldview which has neither.

Posted by: Sonshine at April 2, 2008 3:44 PM

Some comments have been lost/deleted?

Posted by: Xeno at April 2, 2008 3:55 PM

Some comments have been lost/deleted?

Marisol said she deleted at least two of Isabella's comments, and I know she edited one of them.

Still, non-croyant is charged with being disruptive.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 3:58 PM

Yes, I noticed my reply to Sonshine was removed whilst Sonshine's was left unmolested.

Why not remove the lot that are OT?

Posted by: Xeno at April 2, 2008 4:00 PM

It is elementary that a river doesn't rise higher than its source. And the 'source' for atheists of most shades, is matter/energy, not mind.

More pseudo-philosophical dreck.

Tell me, what difference does it make whence the source one finds meaning? What difference does it make to existential questions if God DOES exist? eh?

I am supposed to find meaning through spending 70 - 100 years in this existence only to end up praising some egoist for eternity or to suffer eternal torment? ... or to be annihilated if your theological interpretation goes that way ...

Adding the god variable to the equation does NOTHING to answer existential questions. Nothing.

And what kind of Bronze-Age mentality is it that claims that something is only morally right because some Supreme Being says so?

If I believed in Yahweh or Allah as supreme beings I would have to call myself a maltheist.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 4:12 PM

And the same argument that destroys the simple-minded observation "if there is no god then where did the universe come from?" can be used for the question of meaning:

Question: If god created the universe then where did god come from?

Answer: He has always existed.

Response: If god has just "always existed" then the same can be said for the universe.

Is god supposed to be the source of meaning merely because god has always existed?

And if so, then why can't the universe itself be a source of meaning?

Does "meaning" even have meaning? Or is it an illusion? Does it matter?

I assert that theists have no more claim to "meaning" - whatever that is - than atheists have.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 4:20 PM

Xeno,

Marisol removed a sentence in my post from 1:39pm yesterday because I told non-croyant he was full of shit. That was after he went whining to her in his post of 8:41pm last night and included this little nugget:

"I accuse you of bias for not having said the same thing to Isabella...(with vulgarity to top it all off)"

But what have we here:

From "Geert Wilders Satan" at JW April 2, 2008

'Yep, just like driving a car with a "Defeat Jihad" bumper sticker.

I already have a baseball shirt with the word "kufr" in Arabic script across the front, but I want something truly offensive to Muslims to wear.

I'll need help though; I need to know what the current insults are in Arabic idiom. I want to know that the worst insult I can make on martyrs is, and I need to know how to express it in unstilted Arabic.

Something like "I shit on the graves of all shuhada."

Anyone have any tips? I know a little Hebrew, so that helps in examining learn-Arabic sites, but I am having trouble finding the exact phrasing for the what I want to express. Any native speakers here?'
Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 12:59 PM

Non-croyant, you just proved my point, beautifully.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 2, 2008 4:24 PM

I wouldn't expect someone of your limited capacity, Isabella, of being able to grasp the difference between addressing another reader here with vulgarity and addressing terrorists in general, people who celebrate the deaths of people (shuhada) who blow themselves up in order to kill innocent men, women, and children, with vulgarity.

And for the record, I don't think anyone's posts should be deleted or edited (especially without a note saying that they have been edited).

I am a free speech absolutist. The only valid reason to censor someone's posts in my opinion is to protect someone's privacy or safety.

I don't need, nor desire, moderators to tie my opponents' hands behind their backs.

But I don't make the rules here. Robert et al make the rules, and they see fit to delete and edit posts.

If there is going to be official moderation, however, I think it should be applied with the least amount of bias possible.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 4:31 PM

Thanks Isabellathecrusader but I was pondering more on why my two posts had been removed. They weren't rude or slanderous (unless you are a very thin skinned theist) and simply addressed a comment of another poster. I would have thought that someone removing my posts might also have wanted to remove the post I was addressing also, which is why I was wondering if some had been simply 'lost'.

Regards

Posted by: Xeno at April 2, 2008 4:32 PM

No problem, non-croyant. Vulgarity is vulgarity, whether it is addressed at someone who is a hypocrite or a terrorist. I'm just going by what you said. If you are really so concerned about vulgarity, to top it all off, one would wonder why you would turn around and use it less than 24 hours after complaining to Marisol about it.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 2, 2008 4:59 PM

Oh and BTW, in your arrogance, you neglected to protect yourself when you went bragging about being one of the first to sign the petition for Geert Wilders yesterday. Everyone who posted there now knows you name and probably some nasty jihadis too. It would behoove you to go back to that thread and ask Marisol or Robert to remove your post so no one in the future will know your real name.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 2, 2008 5:02 PM

Enough. I'm deleting anything from this point that isn't on-topic.

Posted by: MarisolJW at April 2, 2008 5:46 PM

So, yeah, I agree with Pat Condell. In 500 years humanity will look back on this time in history and laugh at us.

They laugh at us not only for our lack of will in the face of Islam, but also for the persistence of ridiculous beliefs across the planet.

Sure, not everyone can have the benefit of going to university on full scholarship like I did (and thank god for that since my parents are lower middle class), but there is no excuse for not applying critical thought to all those old obsolete ideologies such as Islam and Creationism considering the resources we have in the West for finding sources of knowledge and information.

Yes, Pat, we risk going backward in the progress of civilization, but I, like you as you imply by saying that there will be humans 500 years from now who will laugh at our backwardness, have faith in the indomitable spirit of humankind.

We'll respond to Islam and all the other atavisms in an appropriate manner eventually.

Posted by: non-croyant at April 2, 2008 5:58 PM

Everyone:

Please stop the off-topic bickering.

Let us hang together, or we shall assuredly all hang separately.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 2, 2008 6:06 PM

FINALLY!! Someone has come out in defense of women and how Islam treats them! I can't for the life of me understand why the so called feminists are not outraged about how they are treated?? This man cares more then they do. Bravo to Pat for saying any man who treats a woman like they do is NOT a man. We need more voices to echo this.

Posted by: kay at April 3, 2008 1:14 AM

Pat and his hall of mirrors certainly reflects things the way I see it ....lol!

Posted by: champ at April 3, 2008 3:33 AM

Hoping to hear more voices of reason like Pat's coming out of Europe. I noticed his website is down, recent mischief?

Posted by: PraiaFlamego at April 3, 2008 5:18 PM