My dad owns done of thoes belts my family got raided the body of a dead luftwaffe pilot when he crashed in a field near my grandfathers farm. Apparently there was a luger and stuff which would be awesome to have.
What is wrong with ZERO POPULATION GROWTH btw? I personally think that population control via birth control is ethical. I hope that religious guy starts to use his brain, so he starts to think about reality so it will cause his brain to collapse into itself.
you are too bright to be wasting your time bashing on a single person.
though i do agree on the things that were said and pointed out in this video, i don't like the fact that it is attacking someone. i am of no religious group or church but i do come from the human species from which it is kind to be respectful of others' views. as crazy as "making a human from another human's rib" or "god created the universe because god created the universe."
TheAtheistAntidote keeps referring to the left secular, and then goes on to point the finger at Hollywood... I don't think he has ever really looked into the "leftist" position, much less encounter an actual Tovarisch. Sovietsky Soyuz almost always used the excess of Hollywood to depict the "evils" of capitalism, so I really have no idea which "left" he is really referring to, other than the one he constructed himself.
I started as a fervent Christian immersed in the bible. I realised my mistake when I was around 20. In the intervening 46 years I've read lots of books from both sides including the bible. I'm still an atheist.
In fact I recommend all Christians to thoroughly read there bible from cover to cover.
Isaac Asimov said:-
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
How is reading history off of a website different than.... "reading history"? Does he realize that to "read" history you'd have to find artifacts such as scrolls, drawings etc.? And even then it's all based on interpretation. How do you expect to read some sort of 'true' history?
tooltime: queer as folk may have "originated in england but "Queer as Folk is an American and Canadian television series co-production, produced by Showtime and Temple Street Productions which was based on the British series of the same "
Many people would find those shows distasteful. And it is a small example of the decline of popular culture in the West
why does AA refer to us as "the atheist?" sounds like one hell of a sweeping generalization. and don't even get me started on the strawmen he constantly presents
@steinarrexfaroensis You are perfectly right. Both sides have a tendency to generalize. However, that doesn't make it right when it happens. The Atheist Experience handles this the best by asking the callers their own ideas of god, and then addressing those.
@creepyoldman2 The Atheist Experience hosts are idiots. They have build up illusionary net of what they call "logic" as a way to deflect arguments from callers in a very baseless way. They never address the real issues, and the only deal with the push-over ideas that callers bring up. If I was a caller on that show, I could convert Matt Dillahunty into a Buddhist.
Oh yes, Brock. It`s Feminism that`s holding America back. It`s birth control and planned parenthood that are hurting us. We should teach our girls to squeeze out as many babies as they can just for the hell of it and devote their lives to raising them all with no other career options just because they`re female. Because it shouldn`t be a choice. Because a woman is nothing but a walking uterus and has accomplished nothing in your precious opinion if she doesn`t make babies? You great person you.
I have some moderate Muslim friends, and they actually love American culture, they just hate the militarization and appearance of colonialism coming out of the west.
There is no time that you should stop asking "How come". That is ridiculous. If you stop asking, how can you learn anything? AT what point does this guy think the right time is to stop asking questions? Is it when you get up to a point of ignorance? If that is the case, you will never learn anything.
A depressing low number of Christians have read the Bible, and even fewer have truly studied it. My studies of the Bible were what turned me atheist, specifically the entire book of Joshua.
True. I hope he doesnt go as far as stealing from sick children though. Also, he seems less interested in full blown devotion. For Shawn, it wasnt enough to be praised or admired, he had to be financially supported by his followers
I read the bible, and that is why I cannot be Christian, as is the same with most of my friends (except those who are Christian) and I agree with your numbers. I've quoted more from the bible than those who are trying to change my opinion. I agree with you one hundred percent :)
@pranays Its the teachers of Christianity that are in general the most ignorant of the true meaning of which they teach.There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible,to most who read it it is as incomprehensible as the Zohar or BookOfMormom. To any non-Christian reading the Bible theres no way they would come up with the observances and tenets of RomanCatholicism,including the Trinity,Millenarianism,Eschatology.
@pranays So why do you atheists have a heart attack when we try to hand out Bibles? Don't you want peoples mind to be freed from this "evil"? Don't you want their eyes to be opened? The truth be known, the Bible scares the shit out of you atheists that's why you try to remove it from everywhere.
XD The bible is just a piece of bronze age shit. The scary thing is what some christians make of it. It also is a pity how many trees had to die to print all those useless books. :(
HA! Brock is an idiot. I marvel at the beauty of the universe and life BECAUSE of its improbability. Just because math can prove the improbability of an event doesn't mean it can't occur. If he knew anything about probability he'd know that given enough time any outcome is possible.
Finding a $20 bill on the street is highly improbable as well, but it happens.
true. and furthermore brocks calculation have no actual basis beyond his chosen assumptions. frankly no one can accurately calculate some of those numbers.
I've never really understood why people think that knowing/questioning how the universe works somehow prevents you from feeling a sense of wonder and awe for nature. It's like saying that the only way you can marvel at the universe is by remaining ignorant of the world around you.
Around the 2:48 mark, Brock says something about atheists wanting to be God or like God. This is not new. I've heard many other pop-apologists use this sort of projection argument.
I find this most ironic coming from Brock, seeing as he paints himself as a superhero in his own video introductions.
(continued from previous post) Any scientist, who is honest, and is not motivated by a religious incentive to evangelize, will tell you that God is not an explanation of anything. All God does is compound the mystery of our existence. God illuminates nothing. Saying "God did it", as an explanation for why the universe exists, is NOT applying the brakes when needed, but is instead pushing the car into the abyss of ignorance.
Brock's asserts, in minute 1:58 - 2:20, that many well qualified individuals, with scientific credentials, assert that the universe is improbable without a God. Really. Like who? Brock is probably referring to the Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents that he credulously subscribes to. Most scientists when faced with inexplicable facts about our universe, "apply the brakes", to use Brock's terminology, by saying "We don't know yet." They don't say, ARROGANTLY, that God did it (continued).
I love how he directly associates atheism, with "anti-family" and hollywood (his way of saying "hedonism") and feminism.
I'm not sure I agree that only fundamentalist muslims blow themselves up, unless you are asserting that to kill for your religion (or at least in part), by definition makes you a fundamentalist by definition.
What Brock says about wonder makes no sense at all. That's like saying more wonder and awe comes from going to a movie and knowing exactly what's going to happen, than seeing one you don't know.
But then again, of course Brock finds wonder in being told that it was "God". He only likes to listen to views that agree with him. Why would he want to have his views challenged?
Also "Zero population growth" is a bad thing? There are over 6 billion of us, and we are far more resource intensive than any other single species on the planet. There are more than enough humans. Zero population growth is where ALL human populations should be. Anything else is ridiculously irresponsible.
Holy rusted metal, Batman, every other word out of Brock's mouth directly condemns his own actions. Plagiarism, check, lying, check, ad hominem attacks, check.
Okay, when the fuck did population growth become a good thing? I think there's another reason people like to insult him... The more I watch these, the more I just want to send him a message telling him backhandedly what a stupid asshole he is.
I just like to point out how ironic it is that proponents of biblical-literalism tend to own property, when their god-man specifically told them to give it all away to the poor and live in poverty.
How is 0 population growth radical? Does he think it's good to have negative or positive population growth? If he thinks positive population growth is positive...well all I can say then is holy shit he's an idiot. 6 billion people is already too many to be living here and we'll probably reach 10 to 12 billion within my lifetime.
Christians don't say that Jesus is wise because he said wise things, rather they believe everything he said is true because he is God.
In the words of Judge Mills Lane once said from the bench: "I don't say it because its true, its true because I say it." (this is an example of what Zizek refers to as the obscenity of law)
Funny thing is, when everything Jesus said can't be true it speaks volumes to the gullibility of christians, and they have the audacity to declare I haven't read the bible. lol! Reading the damn thing, really studying it, is why I stopped believing the shit in the first place.
Lol. That Brock guy sounds like a complete idiot to me. And yeah ... I've read the bible which was a gift itself from a pastor. And I find it repulsive.
What exactly is wrong with 0 population growth? There are 6.6 billion motherfuckers on a planet capable of sustaining less than half that. It doesn't seem to be an unreasonable stance, at least not to me.
Well, at least from a theoretical standpoint. Practically, such a thing is probably impossible without curtailing people's civil liberties, among other drastic measures. :(
I try so hard to avoid rants but I feel I can possibly pull off a quick one.
You might be able to see the correlation between what you just said and the generalized world-view of atheism. Along with atheism comes an overall lack of respect for human life. After all, according to most atheists, we are completely insignificant. So whats the difference between population control and genocide in your eyes?
STRAW MAN!!! Atheism is not a world-view but a lack of a belief in a god. Being a theist does imply a world-view either. What i think you are refering to is nihilism or existentialism. These are world-views. Just to humor you, most atheists that i have become aquainted with are either humanists or utilitarians. Both of which have a high respect for human life, life and non life. Sentience is the universe dreaming, giving itself a chance to reflect on it.
cnt Belitting all that is in the universe from a quark to super-massive red giants and everything inbetween to the snap of the fingers to a tyranical genocidal patrecidal megelomaniac jealous sick fuck of a main character, who could easily replace jigsaw in the saw series, in a twisted fable where by if u dont follow the rules he knew you were going to break and migh i add that there is absolutely no positive credible testable evidence to the existence of this fuck is disrespecting. FOAD!!!!
In my experience, atheists have more respect for human life because we realize how fragile and temporary it is. You religious zealots only care about humanity when it suits your needs and purposes.
Furthermore, nobody mentioned genocide. Funny how that's the first place your mind went when I said "drastic measures." You're a real fucking sicko. By "drastic measures" I meant like mandatory family counseling and such.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A Christian having less respect for human life? I REALLY don't know where you're getting that from. Quite possibly from the idea that Christians have their minds set on the afterlife. That DOES NOT mean that we don't cherish this life.
Atheism is grounds for a lot of other beliefs, so to say its not a world-view is untrue. Almost everything goes into the equation of "world-view".
I'd like to know the difference between genocide and advocating population control. Degree?
Atheism is not a world-view, claiming it is just plain simply lying.
Difference between genocide and advocating population control? That's like asking what's the difference between murdering alot of people and not murdering alot of people.
You're really going to make an argument that discouraging people from having 20 kids in a row is the same thing as ruthlessly murdering innocent people? I'm usually pretty good at playing devil's advocate, but there is no twisted labyrinthian avenue towards making sense out of that absurdity.
Furthermore, what's your answer? We're already straining the Earth beyond its limits, let alone the damage we're doing to other lifeforms. Your answer is just, oh well? Too bad?
And who tells people how many children they can have? Bureaucrats I'll assume. What I'm saying is that it's no ones business how many children anyone has.
I will admit the reasons why I compared genocide and population control only make sense in possibly one aspect. They are different kinds of control, but control none-the-less. I think that's what I was aiming for.
Say we have a bunch of people piling onto a ship. The ship is already way past its maximum capacity but the people are still piling on. Your answer is to just let them keep piling on? Not even so much as make a tentative suggestion that they might want to slow down?
And before you attack the analogy, know that according to NASA, we've cultivated 83% of the Earth's arable land surface. That includes space other living beings need to live.
I don't know if you've ever driven across America before, or perhaps flown over it. There's plenty of land available. I'm not an expert on the matter. My first-hand experience is that there is plenty of space. It's my belief that population numbers are overinflated due to certain cities with incredibly dense populations. The numbers don't tell the whole story.
I'm no expert either but I've researched the matter.
The semblance of there being plenty of space belies the fact that there ISN'T. A vast portion of it is dedicated to crop and grazing land. Much of it is uninhabitable and/or non-arable. Anything left over belongs to wildlife and vegetation.
Besides, even if it looks like there is a lot of space, that doesn't change the fact that we've cultivated 83% of the Earth's arable land surface.
Bottom line: Population growth is not sustainable.
@fredjk351 I looked in the dictionary and America may both mean the United States and the land of the land of America or Americas (North America And South America continents as you said). But the problem stays the same. In Europe no nation calls itself Europe. So why would it be different for America? For the people living in this continent outside the United-States, this may be interpreted as arrogance.
we call ourselves "America" because we are the United States of America. we have America in our name. no one else on the American continent does.
"American" is known to refer to a citizen of the U.S. is that wrong too tho? since Canadians/Cubans/Chilians/etc are, by your statement, also Americans.
should we be calling ourselves United States-ians?
no country on the Americas has ever tried to challenge us on our right to be what people refer to when they say "America". guess they don't care.
@kukulza I don't mind that you are calling yourself American when we are with your relatives. But at the international level it would be more appropriate to say United States-ians, Yankee, citizen of USA. I don't want to challenge but I would like to see some comprehension. All the people living in America or Americas are feeling like me. I live in Canada of America. Or may the word as two meaning?
i do consider the idea of having to refer to myself in a way that no other group in the world does (And i'm pretty sure many other Americans would agree), sounds a bit fucked up and annoying.
no other country has to refer to themselves as "citizen of [country]". they have a word like American, German, Russian, Chilean, Australian.
and United States-ian could refer to other things than a citizen of the United States.
True but is it arrogant for the Democratic Republic of Congo to be just called Congo? The answer is no, your particular veiw makes it seem like arrogance, when simply it's to shorten a lengthy name of a country in my veiw. Intrepretation has to many variables... Everyone may interpret things in a different way. I believe the way you see U..S.Americans (Americans) using this word in this context as arrogant because generally U.S.A is arrogant
Btw People from the Democratic Republic of Congo are also called Congolese (Just like American way (leaving out a lot of the country's name)) not Democratic Republic of Congolese, None of these names seem arrogant although United States of Americans And Democratic Republic Congolese definitely sounds stupid
I have to say, you might have missed out on the most important part of this: That's not actually how the world views America, or at least in Britain anyway. Most of us see America as extremely religious and very traditionally conservative or right wing compared to the UK, not as leftist. It sounds more like Brock is not such a fan of the new administration, and wants to blame that instead.
I find it impossible to believe that people like Brock don't know that they are lying. So I wonder, what exactly are they getting out of doing what they do? If they don't really believe what they are preaching, what are they doing it for?
It's a means to an end. If someone really wants people to live their lives the way that person does, they will say or do anything to achieve that goal, no matter how unethical.
I think it's hilarious that he mentions people expressing concern about this godless anti-family view of life coming from the US, when in the rest of the western world the belief in god is much lower or atleast seen as less important.
That is the case indeed. Where I live (Norway), most people view the US as the exact opposite of Brock's charaterisation: backwards, ignorant and religiously fanatical. Even a lof of Western muslims seem to think that. If anything, that statement shows that he has more in common with Bin Laden, Ahmedinejad and Al-Zawahri than anyone else.
A really good video, I was with you all the way until you described the most progressive parts of the Middle East as Victorian, and by implication culturally primitive (in relation to I assume the US, which is 21st Century?), then bizzarely switch to the 'ide-attitude' of 'much of the Middle East'. I'm interested in knowing what you feel this is? Or how The Lebanon resembles Yemen?
Such statements distract from what is incisive critique.
I beg to differ, Origen305. I don't necessarily agree with the time period as such but comparing the present social norms in other parts of the world to past situations in western history is quite legitimate.
Yes, the US is in 21st century western history and the middle east is in 21st century middle eastern history. The comparison is between 21st century middle eastern history with Victorian Era western history. I would argue that the 16th century of Shakespeare would be more accurate.
As to your first point I never questioned the legitimacy of the comparison, but rather the substance.
i.e. That the most progressive elements of parts of the Middle East are not comparable to Victorian values (note lack of reference to the legitimacy of such a comparison).
eg - Algeria/lebanon have universal adult suffrage, property rights for women, minimum wage, accessible divorce laws etc.
Quite different from Victorian England on the germaine points as isolated by tooltime.
Ah, ok. You object on the grounds that there are exceptions such that the characterisation doesn't hold universally or uniformly. Fair point but I expect that there would be more examples supporting the comparison than refuting it. But that's only an expectation. I couldn't make a firm statement without further investigation.
My own view is that where a culture denies rights to and/or persecutes women, homosexuals, foreigners or other faiths then it is justifiably deemed primitive.
The problem is the Middle East does not comprise the homogenous 'culture' which you would like to ascribe to it. Perhaps you would profit from further inquiry into the scocio-political and historico-cultural nature of the various distinct regions of the area is question.
'Primitive' is a highly loaded and subjective comparator, not to my mind best suited as a concept that leads to the understanding of culture. There are many epistemological approaches that might serve you better.
As with most words, 'primitive' has multiple senses. I'm using it in the sense of "archaic: little evolved from or characteristic of an earlier ancestral type" and when I apply it to a society in the form "primitive society" I mean precisely a society which has yet to recognise the self-harm and harm to others done by the local norms. In truth, every society has things to wake up to but some societies are more self-aware and self-critical than others which boils down to tolerance of dissent.
Oh, and also I'm not interested in touchy-feely-softly-softly approaches which skirt around truths in order not to offend. In contests of facts versus feelings, I'm afraid facts win out.
Certainly it's interesting to learn about cultures but no amount of indulging in British art and culture can distract from the moral primitiveness of the society before 1833 which endorsed slavery. A refined aesthetics doesn't justify or excuse ignorance. It's not history or culture, it's attitudes to people.
Okay, facts it is then, though your lack of interest in 'touchy-feely-softly-softly' begs the question, what are you talking about? What is 'not history or culture...but attitudes to people'.
Do you agree with the 'fact': The Middle East is primative?
The ground in question isn't whether a society has an interesting history or culture but whether that society endorses a primitive or progressive attitude to people.
I'd argue that a good indication of social primitiveness is the number human rights violations wilfully perpetrated by that society against both it's own members and against outsiders.
UN reports don't indicate that middle-eastern countries are the worst offenders but they do appear to be up there. Algeria is the fourth offender.
Ok. Go ahead and explain why Algeria is the fourth worst violator of human rights and why this is actually acceptable. This better be good...
Btw, as far as I can tell, we're still on point. You took issue with tooltime's idea that the middle east can be described as primitive. I contend that there is an important sense in which he is right. If anything it appears you wanted to stray off point by conflating culture with ethics.
I took issue as to how tooltime made the jump to a generalisation about the ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse Middle East. I contended that there are countries is in the middle east that are not compatatively 'primitive' to Victorian Britain (eg - womens rights, social equity, religious tolerance etc).. That is there are secular states with universal adult suffrage, free press etc. Victorian Britain exhibited non of these qualities.
Sure, it might help first if you think militant Islam is in any way responsible for what renders the Middle East 'primitive' in your estimation? as posed above.
Are you deliberately avoiding the question? If there is any substance to your claim of 'surprising contradiction' then it would be a lot simpler for you to present the substance so that we can scrutinise it and then we can move on to your question.
You've just made four posts which have not addressed the question. I'm afraid I'm now going to have to be categorical in my request. Your next comment, should you choose to comment, will be ignored if it fails to address the question. Sorry *shrug*.
Do you agree with the 'fact': The Middle East is primative?
Not answered by 4 of your posts but that would be petty.
The contradiction is that if you knew anything about the Middle East you would know that Algeria has recently emerged from a decade long struggle, costing 100,000 lives (that's 30 9/11s!) to maintain its secular government. One that guarantees Women's rights, minority rights, a free press, secular education,
economic development etc in the face of an Islamic insurgency which was happily beheading women in the street, and then seeking and finding political asylum in the 'civilised' West or joining Al Quaida.
If Algeria is number four in the UN report you quote then the US and the UK must surely beat it to first and second place?
Does that satisfy your lack of interest in 'touchy-feely-softly-softly'??
Well, you appeared to be avoiding a simple question by asking one of your own. Not sure why you did that because you have an interesting observation. That's something I didn't know about Algeria. Funny that my Algerian friends have never mentioned it.
re: UN report.
Not US or UK. The first three were Congo, Rwanda and Burundi.
Is the middle east socially primitive? Yes.
Is militant islam responsible for this? Yes.
Should we support secular movements in the middle east? We can't afford not to.
the Kaiser LIVES!!! :D - i haven't seen the video in which he states this moronic statement but it shows yet again that he knows absolutely nothing of history - not even recent history
i bet he thinks the Kaiser had a swastika tattooed on his back .... moron...
i have a list of people that if i ever get to meet, im going to castrate them so they cant spread their genes(even thought we still have not found a gene that deals with intelligence), brock is now on my list. all the world needs is more stupid people.
another good vid lol, it's funny watching brock trying to pass off the christian nazis as not really nazis, when in fact as he said a few seconds of google image search is enough to disprove him.
He also makes the claim that we should never have sex, a statement that seems to render Christianity as obviously insane. But also a statement I wish more fundies would take to heart.
I point this up because for instance Catholics do not longer take Genesis as something literal. For instance they now believe that the first man "Adam" was the one in which God put the first soul after humanity evolved. At least that is what my Catholic friends have told me.
The focus of Christianity is not the creation story, and some Christians make it that way and it's not the central idea of Christianity. Simple as that.
As I see it the Catholics are one step closer to the change of the paradigm. When a paradigm start to shatter is normal to make amendments to hold the system until that system is no longer viable and replaced with a new paradigm. Most of the fundamentalist christians are still one step behind on the denial of any contradictory evidence trying to avoid any damage to their paradigm... Is really interesting if you start analizing it from the perspective of how paradigm shift work.
My dad owns done of thoes belts my family got raided the body of a dead luftwaffe pilot when he crashed in a field near my grandfathers farm. Apparently there was a luger and stuff which would be awesome to have.
MoMember88 3 months ago
Oh man. Pure fucking pwnage. Brock is such a douchebag.
oneiros666 4 months ago in playlist TheAtheistAntidote getting pwned
That guy looks like he could be venom's dad
yackon4game 6 months ago
What is wrong with ZERO POPULATION GROWTH btw? I personally think that population control via birth control is ethical. I hope that religious guy starts to use his brain, so he starts to think about reality so it will cause his brain to collapse into itself.
vmorgun 6 months ago
to the maker of this video:
you are too bright to be wasting your time bashing on a single person.
though i do agree on the things that were said and pointed out in this video, i don't like the fact that it is attacking someone. i am of no religious group or church but i do come from the human species from which it is kind to be respectful of others' views. as crazy as "making a human from another human's rib" or "god created the universe because god created the universe."
adonayp 7 months ago
Does Brock make any other statements?
seeker6789 8 months ago
Did anyone go WTF when Brock's rant at the start went on?
NUTCASE71733 10 months ago
What's so bad about zero population growth. If it was up to Brock we'd all probably just have standing room for every person in the US.
MacabreManifesto 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Opposite sides of the same coin.
goatman257 1 year ago
TheAtheistAntidote keeps referring to the left secular, and then goes on to point the finger at Hollywood... I don't think he has ever really looked into the "leftist" position, much less encounter an actual Tovarisch. Sovietsky Soyuz almost always used the excess of Hollywood to depict the "evils" of capitalism, so I really have no idea which "left" he is really referring to, other than the one he constructed himself.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
I started as a fervent Christian immersed in the bible. I realised my mistake when I was around 20. In the intervening 46 years I've read lots of books from both sides including the bible. I'm still an atheist.
In fact I recommend all Christians to thoroughly read there bible from cover to cover.
Isaac Asimov said:-
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
How right he was.
HonestMan395 1 year ago
How is reading history off of a website different than.... "reading history"? Does he realize that to "read" history you'd have to find artifacts such as scrolls, drawings etc.? And even then it's all based on interpretation. How do you expect to read some sort of 'true' history?
slayerrules114 1 year ago
yeah Im pretty sure that Brock is a closet homosexual anyway. Come on. His face. He would like that..see what i did there?
EnergonCubed 1 year ago
tooltime: queer as folk may have "originated in england but "Queer as Folk is an American and Canadian television series co-production, produced by Showtime and Temple Street Productions which was based on the British series of the same "
Many people would find those shows distasteful. And it is a small example of the decline of popular culture in the West
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
why does AA refer to us as "the atheist?" sounds like one hell of a sweeping generalization. and don't even get me started on the strawmen he constantly presents
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 Well, to be fair atheists (including myself) like to generalize christians too. It is simply made for ease of debate.
steinarrexfaroensis 1 year ago
@steinarrexfaroensis You are perfectly right. Both sides have a tendency to generalize. However, that doesn't make it right when it happens. The Atheist Experience handles this the best by asking the callers their own ideas of god, and then addressing those.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 The Atheist Experience hosts are idiots. They have build up illusionary net of what they call "logic" as a way to deflect arguments from callers in a very baseless way. They never address the real issues, and the only deal with the push-over ideas that callers bring up. If I was a caller on that show, I could convert Matt Dillahunty into a Buddhist.
Hanahleia 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hanahleia so why don't you call?
adonayp 7 months ago
Wow, he's got a really generic, horrible Nickleback like theme song.
resincoatedlungs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@resincoatedlungs
Oh, that was your own choice of music.
Shame on you.
resincoatedlungs 1 year ago
brock's argument is essentially insane clown posse's "miracles" song.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
''Apply the breaks''?!?! He's telling us to stop being curious - curiosity being the best thing about humankind.
HorridDreams 1 year ago
"So much for Hollywood being the Cess pool"
Oi! xD I'm British and we're mild-mannered...fuck it, we're the most vulgar bunch of twats on the planet.
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
Oh yes, Brock. It`s Feminism that`s holding America back. It`s birth control and planned parenthood that are hurting us. We should teach our girls to squeeze out as many babies as they can just for the hell of it and devote their lives to raising them all with no other career options just because they`re female. Because it shouldn`t be a choice. Because a woman is nothing but a walking uterus and has accomplished nothing in your precious opinion if she doesn`t make babies? You great person you.
shrikechan 1 year ago 2
I have some moderate Muslim friends, and they actually love American culture, they just hate the militarization and appearance of colonialism coming out of the west.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no time that you should stop asking "How come". That is ridiculous. If you stop asking, how can you learn anything? AT what point does this guy think the right time is to stop asking questions? Is it when you get up to a point of ignorance? If that is the case, you will never learn anything.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
A depressing low number of Christians have read the Bible, and even fewer have truly studied it. My studies of the Bible were what turned me atheist, specifically the entire book of Joshua.
SaigeCounsul 1 year ago
Joshua fought the battle of Jericho.
jdb44303 1 year ago
@jdb44303
Joshua's battle of Jericho never happened.
It had been deserted about 150 years before the biblical account says the battle occurred.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
Brock should be our new Posterboy for Creationist Stupidity, now that Shawn is out of the picture.
orgixvi3 1 year ago
True. I hope he doesnt go as far as stealing from sick children though. Also, he seems less interested in full blown devotion. For Shawn, it wasnt enough to be praised or admired, he had to be financially supported by his followers
darkhyena 1 year ago
@darkhyena I hope whatever help Shawn's getting is working
orgixvi3 1 year ago
TheAtheistAntidote ! your eyes are real close to each other ! like a down syndrome guy !
coffee396 1 year ago
@coffee396
He does the Pokemon Brock proud
tomatooverlord 1 year ago
Less than 10% of Christians have read the bible.
I think far more atheist have read it; in fact that is usually the reason people who are atheist say they stopped believing in god.
pranays 1 year ago 16
@pranays
I read the bible, and that is why I cannot be Christian, as is the same with most of my friends (except those who are Christian) and I agree with your numbers. I've quoted more from the bible than those who are trying to change my opinion. I agree with you one hundred percent :)
recita1717 1 year ago
@pranays
According to a recent poll on Religious Knowledge in the US by Pew, atheists/agnostics score the best on religious knowledge overall...
and atheists/agnostics scored better on the Bible and Christianity knowledge questions compared to the Christian demographic overall.
Evangelicals and Mormons scored better than atheists/agnostics on questions on the Bible and Christianity, but scored much worse on world religion.
Redfingers 1 year ago
@pranays it was a good story. so was the halo stories, the da vinci code, to kill a mocking bird
adonayp 7 months ago
@adonayp Yes your right it is more like the Iliad or the Odyssey it mixes facts with fiction to make a believably story!
pranays 7 months ago
@pranays Its the teachers of Christianity that are in general the most ignorant of the true meaning of which they teach.There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible,to most who read it it is as incomprehensible as the Zohar or BookOfMormom. To any non-Christian reading the Bible theres no way they would come up with the observances and tenets of RomanCatholicism,including the Trinity,Millenarianism,Eschatology.
PAULOcbi 3 months ago
@pranays So why do you atheists have a heart attack when we try to hand out Bibles? Don't you want peoples mind to be freed from this "evil"? Don't you want their eyes to be opened? The truth be known, the Bible scares the shit out of you atheists that's why you try to remove it from everywhere.
YesYou123333 3 months ago
@YesYou123333:
XD The bible is just a piece of bronze age shit. The scary thing is what some christians make of it. It also is a pity how many trees had to die to print all those useless books. :(
MsHyde1 1 month ago
HA! Brock is an idiot. I marvel at the beauty of the universe and life BECAUSE of its improbability. Just because math can prove the improbability of an event doesn't mean it can't occur. If he knew anything about probability he'd know that given enough time any outcome is possible.
Finding a $20 bill on the street is highly improbable as well, but it happens.
TheHomelessCripple 2 years ago 3
true. and furthermore brocks calculation have no actual basis beyond his chosen assumptions. frankly no one can accurately calculate some of those numbers.
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago
'Tis true, you can get away with more on TV in the UK. And guess what? Unlike the US, the UK is NOT a secular country, it's a christian country.
The Queen is head of state and head of the Church of England.
DeeDemonwitch 2 years ago
@DeeDemonwitch US is secular in constitution only. n reality it is a theological country.
SaintDL 2 years ago 2
You are tooling on the creeper Brock
shilohsummers 2 years ago
I've never really understood why people think that knowing/questioning how the universe works somehow prevents you from feeling a sense of wonder and awe for nature. It's like saying that the only way you can marvel at the universe is by remaining ignorant of the world around you.
lovecraftslovechild 2 years ago 2
5:45 godless anti family perversion?
Last I checked the US was the most religious country of the industrial world So much for your godlessness being the cause of the perversion.
Snoot501 2 years ago
Am I the only one that thinks Brock might be a troll?
roboticterror 2 years ago 24
@roboticterror
No, I don't think so. He doesn't approach the limits of Poe's Law. He is the standard brainwashed fundie.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
DAMN good video man!!
DisforDubby 2 years ago
I hate to hear the religious babble coming from them. Story telling. Talking about invisible beings.
abbasmith123 2 years ago
This Brock guy is a complete and total fool.
colonelkentucky81 2 years ago
Fuck yeah for British TV
TheWELSHGUARD 2 years ago
Around the 2:48 mark, Brock says something about atheists wanting to be God or like God. This is not new. I've heard many other pop-apologists use this sort of projection argument.
I find this most ironic coming from Brock, seeing as he paints himself as a superhero in his own video introductions.
Neilsama 2 years ago
brock is so creepy
blackstonewielder19 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) Any scientist, who is honest, and is not motivated by a religious incentive to evangelize, will tell you that God is not an explanation of anything. All God does is compound the mystery of our existence. God illuminates nothing. Saying "God did it", as an explanation for why the universe exists, is NOT applying the brakes when needed, but is instead pushing the car into the abyss of ignorance.
alphacause 2 years ago
Brock's asserts, in minute 1:58 - 2:20, that many well qualified individuals, with scientific credentials, assert that the universe is improbable without a God. Really. Like who? Brock is probably referring to the Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents that he credulously subscribes to. Most scientists when faced with inexplicable facts about our universe, "apply the brakes", to use Brock's terminology, by saying "We don't know yet." They don't say, ARROGANTLY, that God did it (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
Listening to that motherfucker literally makes me sick. Physically sick. What a scumbag. I'm willing to bet 80% of this shit is plagiarized.
agnosticman77 2 years ago 3
I honestly would much rather listen VFX than this fucktwad any day! Thats how much TAA annoys the hell outta me.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
yeah his eyes are so fuck'n stupid looking
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago
That fundie guy looks like a monster from a Jack Chick tract, in all his rabid glory.
HDuyNguyen 2 years ago
Poor Brock, he seems like a guy who would have a total nervous breakdown if he accepted that his religious affiliation may not be real.
DevilintheMachine 2 years ago
Brock's been convicted of plagiarism?
Graffight 2 years ago
I love how he directly associates atheism, with "anti-family" and hollywood (his way of saying "hedonism") and feminism.
I'm not sure I agree that only fundamentalist muslims blow themselves up, unless you are asserting that to kill for your religion (or at least in part), by definition makes you a fundamentalist by definition.
Wolfau5 2 years ago
What Brock says about wonder makes no sense at all. That's like saying more wonder and awe comes from going to a movie and knowing exactly what's going to happen, than seeing one you don't know.
But then again, of course Brock finds wonder in being told that it was "God". He only likes to listen to views that agree with him. Why would he want to have his views challenged?
bobble12221 2 years ago
We make then shit scared because they may hold the numbers, but man for man.........
A pretty boy face and a smiley delivery fool only the 16 year olds that make up that liars audience.
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
SO is AA loooosing his mind?
Abaharaki 2 years ago
Oh fugg Brock, source and fact checking is important.... Really? you went and tried to change history about the belt buckles?
Brock.... people are STILL ALIVE from the war so they can tell you right to your FACE how it went down. Geez! Incredible!
Fantastic Tooltime!
Paxmax 2 years ago
Also "Zero population growth" is a bad thing? There are over 6 billion of us, and we are far more resource intensive than any other single species on the planet. There are more than enough humans. Zero population growth is where ALL human populations should be. Anything else is ridiculously irresponsible.
Elitistb616 2 years ago
Holy rusted metal, Batman, every other word out of Brock's mouth directly condemns his own actions. Plagiarism, check, lying, check, ad hominem attacks, check.
Elitistb616 2 years ago
Excellent!
mousegeek 2 years ago
Featured on the Think Atheist Network! Keep it up ToolTime!
WeThinkAtheist 2 years ago
Brock needs to learn not to attack motivations and individuals, but rather attack peoples arguments.
Fallacious arguments are fallacious.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
Okay, when the fuck did population growth become a good thing? I think there's another reason people like to insult him... The more I watch these, the more I just want to send him a message telling him backhandedly what a stupid asshole he is.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
I just like to point out how ironic it is that proponents of biblical-literalism tend to own property, when their god-man specifically told them to give it all away to the poor and live in poverty.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
How is 0 population growth radical? Does he think it's good to have negative or positive population growth? If he thinks positive population growth is positive...well all I can say then is holy shit he's an idiot. 6 billion people is already too many to be living here and we'll probably reach 10 to 12 billion within my lifetime.
dieyou2000 2 years ago
I dont get the intro..
MagicCowWtf 2 years ago
Christians don't say that Jesus is wise because he said wise things, rather they believe everything he said is true because he is God.
In the words of Judge Mills Lane once said from the bench: "I don't say it because its true, its true because I say it." (this is an example of what Zizek refers to as the obscenity of law)
notonewhit 2 years ago
Funny thing is, when everything Jesus said can't be true it speaks volumes to the gullibility of christians, and they have the audacity to declare I haven't read the bible. lol! Reading the damn thing, really studying it, is why I stopped believing the shit in the first place.
mogulwraith 2 years ago 3
Not really adding anything useful to the discussion - But doesn't Brock have one of those faces that you just want to punch?
SnapAEng 2 years ago 2
agreed
Archael2 2 years ago
women are a minority?
did u mean they are under-represented ?
ramanglass544 2 years ago
people like brock are a stepping stone in humanitys evolution
i wonder where we would be in terms of progress and science without those shitbrains
nekftw 2 years ago
Lol. That Brock guy sounds like a complete idiot to me. And yeah ... I've read the bible which was a gift itself from a pastor. And I find it repulsive.
itskelvinkkc 2 years ago
What exactly is wrong with 0 population growth? There are 6.6 billion motherfuckers on a planet capable of sustaining less than half that. It doesn't seem to be an unreasonable stance, at least not to me.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
@bobbiethejean
absolutely nothing. lol. I totally agree... XP
Agrajag11235 2 years ago
:3 I really don't know enough about the stance to form anything more substantial than a precursory opinion about it, but it seems reasonable.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
Well, at least from a theoretical standpoint. Practically, such a thing is probably impossible without curtailing people's civil liberties, among other drastic measures. :(
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
I try so hard to avoid rants but I feel I can possibly pull off a quick one.
You might be able to see the correlation between what you just said and the generalized world-view of atheism. Along with atheism comes an overall lack of respect for human life. After all, according to most atheists, we are completely insignificant. So whats the difference between population control and genocide in your eyes?
siekertr21 2 years ago
STRAW MAN!!! Atheism is not a world-view but a lack of a belief in a god. Being a theist does imply a world-view either. What i think you are refering to is nihilism or existentialism. These are world-views. Just to humor you, most atheists that i have become aquainted with are either humanists or utilitarians. Both of which have a high respect for human life, life and non life. Sentience is the universe dreaming, giving itself a chance to reflect on it.
praeposterus 2 years ago 4
cnt Belitting all that is in the universe from a quark to super-massive red giants and everything inbetween to the snap of the fingers to a tyranical genocidal patrecidal megelomaniac jealous sick fuck of a main character, who could easily replace jigsaw in the saw series, in a twisted fable where by if u dont follow the rules he knew you were going to break and migh i add that there is absolutely no positive credible testable evidence to the existence of this fuck is disrespecting. FOAD!!!!
praeposterus 2 years ago
In my experience, atheists have more respect for human life because we realize how fragile and temporary it is. You religious zealots only care about humanity when it suits your needs and purposes.
Furthermore, nobody mentioned genocide. Funny how that's the first place your mind went when I said "drastic measures." You're a real fucking sicko. By "drastic measures" I meant like mandatory family counseling and such.
Fucking monster you are.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A Christian having less respect for human life? I REALLY don't know where you're getting that from. Quite possibly from the idea that Christians have their minds set on the afterlife. That DOES NOT mean that we don't cherish this life.
Atheism is grounds for a lot of other beliefs, so to say its not a world-view is untrue. Almost everything goes into the equation of "world-view".
I'd like to know the difference between genocide and advocating population control. Degree?
siekertr21 2 years ago
Atheism is not a world-view, claiming it is just plain simply lying.
Difference between genocide and advocating population control? That's like asking what's the difference between murdering alot of people and not murdering alot of people.
mortensjoegren 2 years ago
You're really going to make an argument that discouraging people from having 20 kids in a row is the same thing as ruthlessly murdering innocent people? I'm usually pretty good at playing devil's advocate, but there is no twisted labyrinthian avenue towards making sense out of that absurdity.
Furthermore, what's your answer? We're already straining the Earth beyond its limits, let alone the damage we're doing to other lifeforms. Your answer is just, oh well? Too bad?
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
And who tells people how many children they can have? Bureaucrats I'll assume. What I'm saying is that it's no ones business how many children anyone has.
I will admit the reasons why I compared genocide and population control only make sense in possibly one aspect. They are different kinds of control, but control none-the-less. I think that's what I was aiming for.
siekertr21 2 years ago
Say we have a bunch of people piling onto a ship. The ship is already way past its maximum capacity but the people are still piling on. Your answer is to just let them keep piling on? Not even so much as make a tentative suggestion that they might want to slow down?
And before you attack the analogy, know that according to NASA, we've cultivated 83% of the Earth's arable land surface. That includes space other living beings need to live.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
I don't know if you've ever driven across America before, or perhaps flown over it. There's plenty of land available. I'm not an expert on the matter. My first-hand experience is that there is plenty of space. It's my belief that population numbers are overinflated due to certain cities with incredibly dense populations. The numbers don't tell the whole story.
Notice: I openly admit I'm not an expert.
siekertr21 2 years ago
I'm no expert either but I've researched the matter.
The semblance of there being plenty of space belies the fact that there ISN'T. A vast portion of it is dedicated to crop and grazing land. Much of it is uninhabitable and/or non-arable. Anything left over belongs to wildlife and vegetation.
Besides, even if it looks like there is a lot of space, that doesn't change the fact that we've cultivated 83% of the Earth's arable land surface.
Bottom line: Population growth is not sustainable.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
If I have to pay for them through my tax dollars, then it becomes my business how many children people have.
vcomp1960 2 years ago
you don't know the difference between genocide and advocating population control??? Go on, pull the other leg!
kendrawhisp 2 years ago
America is a continent. It is not a nation. If you want to talk about the United States use the right name. This is so arrogant.
tubetib 2 years ago
@tubetib North America And South America are continents there is no continent called America. This is so ignorant
fredjk351 2 years ago
@fredjk351 I looked in the dictionary and America may both mean the United States and the land of the land of America or Americas (North America And South America continents as you said). But the problem stays the same. In Europe no nation calls itself Europe. So why would it be different for America? For the people living in this continent outside the United-States, this may be interpreted as arrogance.
tubetib 2 years ago
we call ourselves "America" because we are the United States of America. we have America in our name. no one else on the American continent does.
"American" is known to refer to a citizen of the U.S. is that wrong too tho? since Canadians/Cubans/Chilians/etc are, by your statement, also Americans.
should we be calling ourselves United States-ians?
no country on the Americas has ever tried to challenge us on our right to be what people refer to when they say "America". guess they don't care.
kukulza 2 years ago
@kukulza I don't mind that you are calling yourself American when we are with your relatives. But at the international level it would be more appropriate to say United States-ians, Yankee, citizen of USA. I don't want to challenge but I would like to see some comprehension. All the people living in America or Americas are feeling like me. I live in Canada of America. Or may the word as two meaning?
tubetib 2 years ago
if Canada was actually called Canada of America by anybody, you'd have a valid point. (or any other country in the Americas)
Yankee? you can't refer to an entire country by a selective term. not every American citizen is a Yankee.
if you want to rally the American populous to adopt a new name other than American... be my guest. i'll even support it.
is it really a problem tho? are people going "stupid Americans" to Canadians? (not talking about if they mistake you for Americans)
kukulza 2 years ago
and yes... if you're wondering....
i do consider the idea of having to refer to myself in a way that no other group in the world does (And i'm pretty sure many other Americans would agree), sounds a bit fucked up and annoying.
no other country has to refer to themselves as "citizen of [country]". they have a word like American, German, Russian, Chilean, Australian.
and United States-ian could refer to other things than a citizen of the United States.
kukulza 2 years ago
True but is it arrogant for the Democratic Republic of Congo to be just called Congo? The answer is no, your particular veiw makes it seem like arrogance, when simply it's to shorten a lengthy name of a country in my veiw. Intrepretation has to many variables... Everyone may interpret things in a different way. I believe the way you see U..S.Americans (Americans) using this word in this context as arrogant because generally U.S.A is arrogant
fredjk351 2 years ago
Btw People from the Democratic Republic of Congo are also called Congolese (Just like American way (leaving out a lot of the country's name)) not Democratic Republic of Congolese, None of these names seem arrogant although United States of Americans And Democratic Republic Congolese definitely sounds stupid
fredjk351 2 years ago
I have to say, you might have missed out on the most important part of this: That's not actually how the world views America, or at least in Britain anyway. Most of us see America as extremely religious and very traditionally conservative or right wing compared to the UK, not as leftist. It sounds more like Brock is not such a fan of the new administration, and wants to blame that instead.
moraza 2 years ago
The worst part about this series is having to see and hear Brock. Other than that it is great.
theoriginalSkooby 2 years ago 5
I find it impossible to believe that people like Brock don't know that they are lying. So I wonder, what exactly are they getting out of doing what they do? If they don't really believe what they are preaching, what are they doing it for?
Theophage 2 years ago
It's a means to an end. If someone really wants people to live their lives the way that person does, they will say or do anything to achieve that goal, no matter how unethical.
TheGreaterSatan 2 years ago
But then again, I don't think "Brock" is interested in converting atheists, but rather, just turning everyone else against atheists.
TheGreaterSatan 2 years ago
The point that tooltime9901 makes at 3:48 can actually be attributed to many other Christians, especially Ray Comfort.
They try and act respectful, but they're really condescending and rude. Not to mention their "apologies" which actually come off even worse.
underpantssquirrel 2 years ago
I keep coming across your vids. I just might have to subscribe, get rid of this stalking feeling.
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
i hate brocks eyebrows more that anything
TheCakeAintNoLie 2 years ago 2
Even Sayyid Qutb had to shout; baby's got back!
sp00x 2 years ago
Great work. Pathetic that you have to do this.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
I think it's hilarious that he mentions people expressing concern about this godless anti-family view of life coming from the US, when in the rest of the western world the belief in god is much lower or atleast seen as less important.
yasuchika 2 years ago 3
That is the case indeed. Where I live (Norway), most people view the US as the exact opposite of Brock's charaterisation: backwards, ignorant and religiously fanatical. Even a lof of Western muslims seem to think that. If anything, that statement shows that he has more in common with Bin Laden, Ahmedinejad and Al-Zawahri than anyone else.
DeusMortemEst 2 years ago 4
The Bible is what led me down the path towards becoming an atheist. So riddiculous.
holyhell5050 2 years ago 2
i hate brock,i'm glad someone is giving him the ass kicking he diserves.
1metallica1 2 years ago 4
A really good video, I was with you all the way until you described the most progressive parts of the Middle East as Victorian, and by implication culturally primitive (in relation to I assume the US, which is 21st Century?), then bizzarely switch to the 'ide-attitude' of 'much of the Middle East'. I'm interested in knowing what you feel this is? Or how The Lebanon resembles Yemen?
Such statements distract from what is incisive critique.
Origen305 2 years ago
I beg to differ, Origen305. I don't necessarily agree with the time period as such but comparing the present social norms in other parts of the world to past situations in western history is quite legitimate.
Yes, the US is in 21st century western history and the middle east is in 21st century middle eastern history. The comparison is between 21st century middle eastern history with Victorian Era western history. I would argue that the 16th century of Shakespeare would be more accurate.
smhussain62 2 years ago
As to your first point I never questioned the legitimacy of the comparison, but rather the substance.
i.e. That the most progressive elements of parts of the Middle East are not comparable to Victorian values (note lack of reference to the legitimacy of such a comparison).
eg - Algeria/lebanon have universal adult suffrage, property rights for women, minimum wage, accessible divorce laws etc.
Quite different from Victorian England on the germaine points as isolated by tooltime.
Origen305 2 years ago
Ah, ok. You object on the grounds that there are exceptions such that the characterisation doesn't hold universally or uniformly. Fair point but I expect that there would be more examples supporting the comparison than refuting it. But that's only an expectation. I couldn't make a firm statement without further investigation.
My own view is that where a culture denies rights to and/or persecutes women, homosexuals, foreigners or other faiths then it is justifiably deemed primitive.
smhussain62 2 years ago
The problem is the Middle East does not comprise the homogenous 'culture' which you would like to ascribe to it. Perhaps you would profit from further inquiry into the scocio-political and historico-cultural nature of the various distinct regions of the area is question.
'Primitive' is a highly loaded and subjective comparator, not to my mind best suited as a concept that leads to the understanding of culture. There are many epistemological approaches that might serve you better.
Origen305 2 years ago
As with most words, 'primitive' has multiple senses. I'm using it in the sense of "archaic: little evolved from or characteristic of an earlier ancestral type" and when I apply it to a society in the form "primitive society" I mean precisely a society which has yet to recognise the self-harm and harm to others done by the local norms. In truth, every society has things to wake up to but some societies are more self-aware and self-critical than others which boils down to tolerance of dissent.
smhussain62 2 years ago
Oh, and also I'm not interested in touchy-feely-softly-softly approaches which skirt around truths in order not to offend. In contests of facts versus feelings, I'm afraid facts win out.
Certainly it's interesting to learn about cultures but no amount of indulging in British art and culture can distract from the moral primitiveness of the society before 1833 which endorsed slavery. A refined aesthetics doesn't justify or excuse ignorance. It's not history or culture, it's attitudes to people.
smhussain62 2 years ago
Okay, facts it is then, though your lack of interest in 'touchy-feely-softly-softly' begs the question, what are you talking about? What is 'not history or culture...but attitudes to people'.
Do you agree with the 'fact': The Middle East is primative?
Origen305 2 years ago
The ground in question isn't whether a society has an interesting history or culture but whether that society endorses a primitive or progressive attitude to people.
I'd argue that a good indication of social primitiveness is the number human rights violations wilfully perpetrated by that society against both it's own members and against outsiders.
UN reports don't indicate that middle-eastern countries are the worst offenders but they do appear to be up there. Algeria is the fourth offender.
smhussain62 2 years ago
The ground in question for whom? I think we're straying somewhat from my original point, which was a minor detail of the flow of argument presented.
If you want to say Muslims or Arabs are primitive, then why not cut to the chase?
You might also find a surprising contradiction to such ideas if you knew why Algeria is ranked 4th.
Origen305 2 years ago
Ok. Go ahead and explain why Algeria is the fourth worst violator of human rights and why this is actually acceptable. This better be good...
Btw, as far as I can tell, we're still on point. You took issue with tooltime's idea that the middle east can be described as primitive. I contend that there is an important sense in which he is right. If anything it appears you wanted to stray off point by conflating culture with ethics.
smhussain62 2 years ago
As for Algeria it is in no way 'primitive' compared to Victorian Britain using the criteria you invoke.
Would you agree that militant Islam is in any way responsible for what renders the Middle East 'primitive' in your estimation?
Origen305 2 years ago
I took issue as to how tooltime made the jump to a generalisation about the ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse Middle East. I contended that there are countries is in the middle east that are not compatatively 'primitive' to Victorian Britain (eg - womens rights, social equity, religious tolerance etc).. That is there are secular states with universal adult suffrage, free press etc. Victorian Britain exhibited non of these qualities.
Origen305 2 years ago
Nor have I ever conflated culture with Ethics as you contend (not that a cultural appraoch to Ethics is completely without merit).
Origen305 2 years ago
I'm still curious about this 'surprising contradiction' you mentioned. Can you address that before moving on? Thanks.
smhussain62 2 years ago
Sure, it might help first if you think militant Islam is in any way responsible for what renders the Middle East 'primitive' in your estimation? as posed above.
Origen305 2 years ago
Are you deliberately avoiding the question? If there is any substance to your claim of 'surprising contradiction' then it would be a lot simpler for you to present the substance so that we can scrutinise it and then we can move on to your question.
You've just made four posts which have not addressed the question. I'm afraid I'm now going to have to be categorical in my request. Your next comment, should you choose to comment, will be ignored if it fails to address the question. Sorry *shrug*.
smhussain62 2 years ago
I could say the same of my question -
Do you agree with the 'fact': The Middle East is primative?
Not answered by 4 of your posts but that would be petty.
The contradiction is that if you knew anything about the Middle East you would know that Algeria has recently emerged from a decade long struggle, costing 100,000 lives (that's 30 9/11s!) to maintain its secular government. One that guarantees Women's rights, minority rights, a free press, secular education,
Origen305 2 years ago
economic development etc in the face of an Islamic insurgency which was happily beheading women in the street, and then seeking and finding political asylum in the 'civilised' West or joining Al Quaida.
If Algeria is number four in the UN report you quote then the US and the UK must surely beat it to first and second place?
Does that satisfy your lack of interest in 'touchy-feely-softly-softly'??
Origen305 2 years ago
Well, you appeared to be avoiding a simple question by asking one of your own. Not sure why you did that because you have an interesting observation. That's something I didn't know about Algeria. Funny that my Algerian friends have never mentioned it.
re: UN report.
Not US or UK. The first three were Congo, Rwanda and Burundi.
Is the middle east socially primitive? Yes.
Is militant islam responsible for this? Yes.
Should we support secular movements in the middle east? We can't afford not to.
smhussain62 2 years ago
The facts about Algeria are true, but little known.
An interesting observation that's not so simple to convey, though I think you summarise it admirably.
The truth is not always as binary as we would like, I think that's the point I was trying to make.
It's been interesting debating this with you in an open and honest way.
Origen305 2 years ago
the Kaiser LIVES!!! :D - i haven't seen the video in which he states this moronic statement but it shows yet again that he knows absolutely nothing of history - not even recent history
i bet he thinks the Kaiser had a swastika tattooed on his back .... moron...
symelian 2 years ago
I really hate smarmy fucks like brock.
hal970fx 2 years ago 2
LOL METAL EATING MOTHS!!! lol
That would be something...
cant1be1original 2 years ago
what's wrong with zero population growth anyway?
It doesnt take much of a person to realize population growth not only is a huge problem but will be a gigantic apocalyptic problem in the future...
WiseWeeabo 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are so boring,... seriously!!!!!!!!!!!
vince19811981 2 years ago
Really love this series, keep up the good work :)
sotolf 2 years ago 2
i have a list of people that if i ever get to meet, im going to castrate them so they cant spread their genes(even thought we still have not found a gene that deals with intelligence), brock is now on my list. all the world needs is more stupid people.
TooTuffShuff 2 years ago
yes
ninjascroll6789 2 years ago
Really enjoying this video series TT.
khaynu 2 years ago 2
I fucking love that intro.
JasperAvi 2 years ago 3
another good vid lol, it's funny watching brock trying to pass off the christian nazis as not really nazis, when in fact as he said a few seconds of google image search is enough to disprove him.
seanthedonconsidine 2 years ago
"anti-family"???????
CLEARLY he has not read the New Testament
GBart 2 years ago
Luke 14:26 is just one blatant example of the New Testament's stance on the family.
fauyd 2 years ago
Yeah read the epistles, too, it gets worse. Paul is an anti-family, misogynistic fuck.
GBart 2 years ago
He also makes the claim that we should never have sex, a statement that seems to render Christianity as obviously insane. But also a statement I wish more fundies would take to heart.
fauyd 2 years ago 3
Completely misreading that passage. If you are reading it and taking it as literally true, you need to rethink it.
siekertr21 2 years ago
@siekertr21 When is a passage literal and when is metaphorical? is Genesis metaphorical or literal? and who decide it?
nyarlotep 2 years ago
That's something Christians can debate, but to claim Atheism and barge into Christianity and decide whats literal is not your duty.
siekertr21 2 years ago
I point this up because for instance Catholics do not longer take Genesis as something literal. For instance they now believe that the first man "Adam" was the one in which God put the first soul after humanity evolved. At least that is what my Catholic friends have told me.
nyarlotep 2 years ago
I know of that belief. It seems plausible. I just don't care about the creation story as much as other stories.
siekertr21 2 years ago
uh-oh! yera pick'n 'n' choos'n
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago
The focus of Christianity is not the creation story, and some Christians make it that way and it's not the central idea of Christianity. Simple as that.
siekertr21 2 years ago
a soul the existence of which has no basis in science. that religion will not have reconciled itself to science until it has self destructed.
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago
As I see it the Catholics are one step closer to the change of the paradigm. When a paradigm start to shatter is normal to make amendments to hold the system until that system is no longer viable and replaced with a new paradigm. Most of the fundamentalist christians are still one step behind on the denial of any contradictory evidence trying to avoid any damage to their paradigm... Is really interesting if you start analizing it from the perspective of how paradigm shift work.
nyarlotep 2 years ago