bit disillusioning for me since i like russell brand to find that when it comes to religion his views, the way they're flaunted, are the same as one of the stupider atheist experience callers
Normally I like your videos but this one was poorly conceived. Russel Brand is a comedian and an entertainer who cares far more about getting a laugh then theology. He sets himself up as a ridiculous character intentionally. In this interview he performed marvelously as a foil for Dawkins to play off of. I thought his performance in this interview was brilliant and portrayed a very finely nuanced satire. Everything he said was deliberately lobbed up for Dawkins to hit out of the park.
@OMGSEASALT I really don't think Russel Brand could possibly care less about religion and beliefs about the supernatural. As an anti-theist myself I think it's pretty bad form to attack a comedian doing a bit. There are so many apologists and preachers to confront about this kind of thing. Russel Brand was just after a laugh and I thought he treated Dr. Dawkins quite charitably and respectfully. How hard is it to see he was doing shtick? Why not make a video dubunking Edward Current next?
This seems kind of odd. Russell Brand doesn't seem to be very religious at all. Why he would defend religions is beyond me. If I had to guess what he believed, i'd say he is agnostic.
Of course, I appreciate this for being your logical critique of something uttered by a vaguely atheistic man, but really I think you're on the same side, he's just playing devils advocate and ultimately this leaves me feeling like academia has absolutely no soul or sense of poetry in the beauty of the universe. Which is all I think Brand is trying (albeit bombastically) to uphold, and which is, after all, a perfectly worthy and enriching way of viewing life.
I think there is some credibility to being cynical and scientifically motivated. But you are quite erroneous in asking someone to prove a lack of evidence for say the divinity of life. If we were seeded by beings from another world or products of a supercivilisation from around 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago, then at this stage there would be no evidence left. Has anybody even seen the doco, life after humans? It clearly shows our own relics would turn to dust before the first 10,000yrs.
not a religious bloke really but this is a radio interview said off the cuff. to sit and over evaluate a non scripted piece really means someone has far to much time on their hands. i hate preachy people religious or not, your all the one, ruining life for everyone by forcing your opinions down on people through what ever crude method you can. let russel brand have his opinions and respect them, even if they are a bit post modern and hippyish! i suggest you get out the house and get to the pub.x
Forcing my opinions down on people . . . so, some guy broke into your house and made you watch this at gunpoint?
Or . . . did you happen across it of your own volition, watch it, and then leave a comment saying that I forced my opinions?
Ah, the old "you need to get out more". Only according to the arbitrary social values you've chosen to adopt, matty. If it's a choice between fucking about in the pub or being intelligent in my room full of guitars, I know exactly where I am every day.
Well no1 forced you 2 listen 2 Russell brand with Richard Dawkins.i just wanted 2 c wat this was listen out of interest sake. Realised it was not fair and much like yourself voiced my opinion. The term "get out more" was meant in the general terms of relax and don't be such a zealot, taking time out of your life to scathe someone's beliefs.mayb i shud have made that more clear for u 2 understand sorry.Moreover i have a tele, les paul, burns, sameck, recording king and a little pink ukelele
@Jyotinanda108 Funny how THAT argument comes up when no-one has a better one, as well. Fortunately myself and my virginity have long since been repeatedly, and colourfully, separated.
Oh . . . and respect Brand's opinions. Why? Why should any opinion be respected? Still, it's funny that you think his opinions should be respected but you're clearly not respecting MY opinions as expressed in the video, aye?
Moreover, I have respect for your opinion, and fine have it thats great! At no point have I said your outlook and what you have said is wrong. My issue is the way you have done it.
Religious beliefs comes from an area of faith, if Russell Brand had written this down and considered it, maybe even published it, fine pull it apart
But its a 5 min non scripted interview, where he is just trying to say he feels like he is part of some bigger "plan". Rather than going ok Russell I dont quite think you have voiced this well you have spent what I can only imagine to be a good amount of your life pulling apart every line he has said. As Oscar Wilde said A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
@mattyjwilson21 Russell is entitled to his opinion, but I am not obliged to respect them. Any more than I am obliged to respect the views of homophobes, racists or sexists. Would you respect my views if I claimed that the Space Monkey told me to kill everyone called Keith? Why not? My opinion is equally valid and has just as much evidentiary support as Brands.
This is what people forget. NOBODY has the automatic right to have their beliefs respected.
Finally someone debunking all these Eastern... things. They irritate me as much as religion. "Energy..." "There is something...", how many times I have heard this!
You, sir, are a genius, and an intimidating one at that!
I think 7:50 really sold me to Russell's side. "Why can't feelings be as good as thoughts?" What makes one nastier than the other? If beauty is just a human construct what's wrong with that? We are humans, really.
I liked the video. I like Russel Brand most of the time too. He can be a bit of a dickhead, I think his history proves that, but he really did open himself up to getting shot down and I think you did a good job. Made me laugh anyway ;)
what a pile of irrelevant total bollocks. thats just russell brand going on 1 of his ad lib rants for ENTERTAINMENT purposes and you the supposed interviewer has edited what he's said into some fucked up self glorifying interview that shows you putting him in his place on the subject to make you feel better cus you dislike him and what he said. you've got problems man,it says alot about ya mental health. i thought this sort of spin was for politics,i didnt realise religion uses it too.
Why not check out the original and see to what extent I've "edited what he's said into some fucked up self-glorifying interview?"
It's funny how many people are trying to use his status as an entertainer as an excuse. He's still talking bullshit. As if being an entertainer means everything you say is automatically for the purposes of comedy. Still, it's nice to see how many Brand fans are ranting fucktards incapable of writing properly.
My mental health? Honestly! That's the best you can say?
whats a fucktard? you made that up didnt ya? i aint a brand fan, i think he's funny and i relate to who he is but i aint no fanboy that cant handle someone having a dig at him, thats what he wants alot of the time, why he says these things. he aint no activist, its whats in his head, people dont believe what he says, he aint no cult.its just rants, a mans thoughts. all god believers and worhippers have mental health problems, they believe in something that dont exsist, its false reality.
so what im saying is, dont say people are talking bullshit when religion is total bullshit on a global scale. god dont exsist and never will, theres no proof, nothing logical about something that might be, its not reality. the bible is a fictional book written a long time ago for controlling the people and its still doing that today. religion is just another thing that seperates ppl and causes more shit than anything else,its dying with every generation,ppl are finding their own spirituality.
So you're telling me that you didn't just edit out all the surely deep and profound and intelligent things this prat said only to leave us with this mindless new age twaddle that we've heard others spew a million times before? Why, piffle and poppycock, I say! (5 stars)
I skipped through most of what you said just to listen to him speak. I found you to be rude. Do you really care if he believes in a Divine Force? He isn't hurting anybody. He can FEEL his "proof" and you have yours... or lack there of. Who is to say who is right? Just stop the hate and let in the love and everybody will live a much better life regardless of their beliefs or non beliefs in God. I think he has a lovely and intelligent person :)
Oh, cripes. "Who is to say who is right?" You really think there is an equal case for and against? This is how it works - anyone can be challenged on what they think. Notice how I'm not asking you to stop challenging me, but rather responding to it? Exactly!
Apparently it's "pigeonholing" to have to justify your intentions as either scientific or personal.
This guy is obviously just a massive mong, sucking from the teet of Dawkins' hypocritical belief systems. He even tries to sound like him in debate. *rolls eyes*
You need to be clearer. This guy . . . that would be me?
I don't try to sound like anyone in debate, of course. But if that helps validate whatever point you're making, go for it. And you'd have to explain how Dawkins' beliefs are hypocritical . . ? I don't see that working at all.
I notice you replaced Dawkins' voice with your own, because he made an absolute pig's ear of his answers.
I don't think Brand was trying to instigate any type of debate, his show was clearly no kind of issue-lauding soapbox, and instead it was a form of entertainment.
It seems you've taken this opportunity to air a personal dislike of the guy, rather than making any kind of point. No-one's patting you on the back for dismantling a self-confessed idiot's thinly-expressed points.
Are you trying to say, "now look here, what a momentous berk Brand is, here are the reasons I dislike his personality", because if so the issue extends further than his scientific shortcomings.
Or, are you trying to discredit a comedian's debate, because if so you should scientifically, without letting your pent-up feelings colour your argument. Surely you realise this "not one thing nor the other" reaction discredits you more than the person you're talking about.
Fortunately for us all, this is Youtube and I can make semi-serious videos about dickheads if I feel like it. I also don't have to neatly fit into an un-nuanced pigeonhole of your creation. My points remain valid whatever my feelings (pent up? really? I felt I was fairly unequivocal in my airing of them) may be.
that was fucking terrible. what a patronizing cunt you are. as if you're superior because you're reading your prepared answers there. shouldn't we be glad that there ar people actually thinking about the meaning of life etc.? why is he stupid for speculating? i don't believe in a God in the bible but you can't prove that the whole concept of a higher being is wrong. i've definitely heard more stupid ideas than those russell brand mentioned
"you can't prove that the whole concept of a higher being is wrong"
You can't absolutely disprove a lot of things; how does that increase the validity of speculation? There is certainly no positive proof FOR God. He's stupid for speculating based on emotional response rather than proof or empiricism - THAT'S why he's stupid.
Personally, I'm more glad of scientists actually thinking and researching the matter as opposed to people like Brand wanking out pissy pseudo-philosophical nothings.
of course the scientists are important, but this was just speculation, he doesn't do this professionally and surely he's allowed to voice his thoughts on it. for some people the existence of a higher being or of some kind of "magic" is helpful, some people may just see it as a synonym for something we can't yet explain.
it doesn't increase the validity, but it doesn't decrease it either, in other words we just don't know yet, even if it is doubtful
I'm confused. You're saying it's "just speculation" yet "surely he's allowed to voice his thoughts on it", and I'm a "patronising cunt" for disagreeing?
Sure we don't know. We don't know a lot of things. But why is that reason to answer the unknown with something which can never, by its own definition, be explained? The historical precedent is that natural phenomena attributed to the supernatural end up being explained scientifically. Until positive proof arrives, it's nonsense.
no of course you can disagree, but it's the way you talk about him calling him stupid etc. when his thoughts are totally legitmate. In fact listening to your video you seem to have just as little proof of him being wrong as he has for being right. As long as we don't know we can specualate all we want. it just gets dangerous when we deny facts in the face of scientifical evidence, which he never did
How are they totally legitimate when there's no proof?
Let's make this clear - an inability to disprove something is not proof FOR it, otherwise you'd have to take all of the following as equally likely: EVERY god ever conceived or worshipped, every supernatural claim, homeopathy, astrology, life after death, spirits, djinn, fairies, trolls, dragons . . .
Listen to what he's saying. It comes down to "we need religion/God to be good people". And we know that's bullshit.
it's a legitmate thought, the fact that there is no proof against it makes it legitimate. he's not even saying thats how it is, just thinking about it. You're right there is also no proof against those things you mentioned, maybe they do exist, even if it is unlikely.
i don't think he meant it like that, i think he meant more that people need something like the belief in a higher force exist, like a substitute for something we can't yet quite grasp, perhaps for a scientifical explanation
i really like the video, and the way you disprove Russell, but i think its a shame that you actually wasted time on destroying his points, i mean, we all know Russell brand is a tit and he doesnt have a clue what hes on about.
From a number of the comments here, it's obvious that WAY too many people share Brand's kind of muddy-headed "thinking" (I use the term loosely). People step in bullshit all the time-- It's never a bad thing to point it out.
You really must try harder with these insults, because currently by spending time ripping me you're no better than you perceive ME to be for ripping on Russell. Ironic, no?
What is it with moronic twats like yourself always saying "get a girlfriend" to people who disagree with you. Seems rather like the work of a neanderthal to me. Trying to make triumph seem more pathetic and his position on the matter invalid simply because he didn't have a chain with breasts attached to his wallet (ignoring for the moment that he does) is by definition an ad hominem.
However I do agree Russell is pretty funny but, I'm disappointed to know he's a mildly insane deist.
youre only saying that cos you dont have a girlfriend.
AND THAT FACT THAT HE WILL LIVE AS WE WILL OBVIOUSLY DIE - ALONE - CLEARLY MAKES HIM MORE CYNICAL ABOUT THE WORLD AND CLOUDS HIS JUDGEMENT AND AFFECTS HIS VIEWS AND ARGUMENTS......
making what you said about me being "ad hominem" nothing but a vulgar display of vocabulary that you clearly had to look-up before you knew 100% what it meant.
I don't really care if I have a girlfriend or not. I do not need to validate myself throught some else's existance. So really not a snappy come back.
WTF are you talking about?
An ad hominem is when you argue against some and not their opinion. You tried tyo make him seem pathetic and render him a non-valid sorce of informtion. Ergo, ad hominem. Perhaps you should learn what you're talking about before being a dick.
So simply because I showed you for the ridiculous and condescending twat you so clearly are makes me a prick. There's a pretty popular saying and I'm sure you've heard of it. "Don't feed the trolls" You good sir a troll. This marks the end of our unimportant "conversation".
troll = one who who intentionally redirects flow of productive conversation to force people to pay attention to them by saying genuinely idiotic or insulting things. (so yes I do know what I'm talking about)
I really like your videos, however I'm curious. Do you feel strongly that Deists are certainly wrong in their beliefs, or were you just attacking Russel because of how poorly he argues his points? I agree that it's downright silly, but I'm a Deist myself, and feel there is credibility to Deism. Not as a science by any means, but it seems to me to be a very valid concept. Btw, I don't intend this as a debate starter I know you'd win :P I just want your opinion.
Deism has credibility, but I don't think it has much, and is kind of a less absolute solution to all the things we don't know about yet. It's more likely than a theistic entity, but there's still no proof for it.
Do you argue against anyone with a scientific background or a leading theist ever? Brand is a comedian! This of course does not 'let him off the hook'. But surely you have better things to do with your time.
Most people who believe this nonsense are not leading theists. They should all be challenged, especially if they're on national radio arguing with someone like Richard Dawkins.
It really makes no difference if you're a "leading theist", of course. What legitimacy is lent to your arguments by such labeling? The arguments are the same from a "leading theist" or the kind of scum you find crawling the internet. No-one can prove their claims.
Russell Brand is a comedian, not a scientist! This of course does not mean that his comments are right. But to insult him for these comments is quite cowardly. Why not argue against a leading theist? For a man of your intelligence, self proclaimed or not, to argue against a man that you do not respect intellectually, just does not make sense. Maybe you are doing it for an ego boost, i don't know. BTW i am an atheist. But i just feel that you should put your knowledge to some use. No insult to RB
Russell Brand is a comedian, not a scientist! This of course does not mean that his comments are right. But to insult him for these comments is quite cowardly. Why not argue against a leading theist? For a man of your intelligence, self proclaimed or not, to argue against a man that you do not respect intellectually, just does not make sense. Maybe you are doing it for an ego boost, i don't know. BTW i am an atheist. But i just feel that you should put your knowledge to some use. No insult to RB
Then maybe you should hop along to the League of Reason and see what I'm doing there instead of judging me because I punched holes in a peacocking fool of a deist.
Well, you are someone who a) has a channel with everyone else's videos (but not any you created, of course) and b) thinks calling someone a dumb, smug fuck is a pretty good insult. Oh no, etc.
I'm smarter than you by some considerable margin, I warrant, and if smugness is the price for that I suppose I'll just have to live with it, hmm?
Alternatively you could try and convince me how Brand is right and I'm wrong. That would be interesting. Care to try?
the sad thing about this is that god can exist, and it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so we are at an impasse. I believe god exists as a personification of thought energy, the collective unconscious, and the soul or ethereal body. prayer is just focused thought, which does effect the world around us. For example, the placebo effect in medicine and psychology, and the experiments with water done by Emoto.
You can't dismiss what the ancient people believed out of hand, because things like acupuncture and the healing qualities of herbs are scientifically proven. The human mind only uses 10% of its capacity, and you mate are only using 5% because you deny the emotions that make up who you are. Thought is important as a topic in quantum physics, so god as a concept, as a personification of something that exists, is quite plausible. Just because lightning seems magical doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes yes, some things were right back in ancient times. And a lot of it was WRONG. The ancient greeks had some good ideas, and some really laughable ones. Does that mean I should give time to the concept of God? Prove it. Prove it now.
Also, you can't take the uncertainty of quantum physics and appropriate it for your God. That's not how it works.
Lightning doesn't seem magical. Not to me. Because I know what it IS. Historically, things once considered Godly all become explained by science.
Oh, come ON. Does that mean you believe in every single god and supernatural entity ever proposed? You can't prove they don't exist, therefore you should give serious thought to them? That is totally ridiculous. Its not an impasse when every single argument FOR god is refutable and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Do you believe in Jeff, the magic meat pie in space? Jeff is real (but undetectable through conventional means.)
" I believe god exists as a personification of thought energy, the collective unconscious, and the soul or ethereal body."
Then you'll have to provide some kind of proof for this hypotheses, otherwise it's meaningless. And how can you possibly take the placebo effect and use it as proof for prayer? Prayer doesn't effect ANYTHING except the mind creating it. Again, support your claims with research.
I think the selfishness of parents to provide their offspring with little more than fairy tales for answers due to their own need for feel good solutions is disgusting.
Three comments were neccesary, couldn't fit everything into 1
Prayer does affect things. People choose to pray and feel better about themselves, more stable, grounded, part of a community. The majority of people in the world pray, they are affected by it and so the world is affected by it.
Most importantly, none of what Russell said were ARGUMENTS for God. you keep referring to that but he doesn't. He was just generally discussing the nature of spirituality. He wasn't trying to PROVE anything
That's a psychological effect, and kind of a given. There's no proof that prayer does what the faithful CLAIM it does, which is result in a divine intervention of some kind.
He may not have been debating it fiercely, but he was pretty insistent that there was "something". That was certainly my impression from the original show. He at least seemed aware that his arguments wouldn't constitute proof, but he was fervent about it nonetheless.
You just use the word "abstract" in a sneery tone at the end of every segment. You automatically dismiss everything with any romantic or ideolistic overtone, for some reason. Its not even cynicism its just willfull idiocy! I'm sure you would have been equally adept at deriding Keates or Shelly. You just ignore anything that requires human thought or feeling.
You keep goin back to "proof of god" even when not reffered to by your "guest"
"You automatically dismiss everything with any romantic or ideolistic overtone, for some reason."
I will dismiss anything offered without proof that masquerades as a legitimate argument. Also, Brand isn't a poet. Far from it. His arguments are vague and emotionally loaded, and as such are completely open to question.
"The sad thing is that I'm not even taking anything he said out of context." How can that not be out of context?! You directly ask Russell questions then pick a suitable soundbite in answer! At one point you imply that he is stumped for an answer with silence!
"Prayer is self imposed hallucination". Belief in Religion is "your brain going wrong".once again dismissing billions of people
"As you sentimentally put it" Hypocritical verbose git
If you can prove that prayer affects things, or that God exists, you have a point. Until then, belief in God is as valid as belief in a magic flying hat.
Haha... I gotta agree some there. (The flying hat part)
But the video, well. If you where a deeply religious guy, you could just as easily made this vid gods own commercial.
My own view on religion is that it's something made up to ease the minds of all those people that can't handle the thought that they might not be important to the universe and that at the end, it really is "the end".
I thought your points were very good, even though I'm not fond of the format of your "video". I didn't enjoy the end, the "idiot" comments and what not. That being said, I agree with you. Just one question...why Russell Brand?...or is it anyone with those beliefs you dislike?...Just curious as to your motivation.
I don't know who Russel is, but that's no excuse for him being really stupid and trying to negate all the things we can now explain, and frankly the more we can explain the more amazing things become, the divine is such a lame concept, mostly just because it takes so little imagination to conceive it, and then it takes the opposite of the awe of discovery to believe an abstract term that describes how gullible the fucking twat is.
Please, don't let my fondness for full stops, punctuation and capitalization stop you from responding in the manner to which you are accustomed. Go on. Give it your all.
You shouldn't need fondness for such proper use of English language, grammar and the use of correct syntax. I am an English student after all. The fact that you chose to highlight what is a SMALL SMALL part of my music taste to use in an altercation based on a completely unrelated topic shows weakness in your argument.
There wasn't much else I could say to "wtf dude get a life", hmm? That's not even an argument in itself, so you're hardly in a position to attack my response. And to be honest I didn't go delving into your channel; a plenitude of McFly covers was all I needed.
So, are you going to do any better than "wtf dude get a life" in your criticism of my video?
Erm.. well no I'm not going to do any better because, well it's the internet, and I have a life other than to verbosly argue over it as there is no real need for it. And just like the special olympics even if you win, you are still retarded.
I think you've hit upon an interesting point; there are hundreds of thousands of people who speak in the same woolly 'spiritual' terms.
What people like Brand are trying to do is actually reject their indoctrination. They simply can't believe the bronze-age nonsense any more. However, instead of being able to reject it outright, it is testimony to the power of childhood indoctrination that they feel they have to believe in 'something else' and end up talking like Brand does.
Yeah, he doesn't go for the whole God thing, but he can't believe there isn't any kind of higher purpose or meaning. A lot of people can't. So this fear tends to get clothed in abstracts and undefined concepts of "beauty" and "truth", which makes me throw up in my hand.
Well, in a way it is good, because it is a sign that more people are questioning what they were indoctrinated with (ever since they were children) by the organised churches.
It is also good that these alternate beliefs are 'woolly' and undefined - the current problem isn't with personally ignorant beliefs, but with organisations (churches) which have enough 'support' to interfere with societal development based on those beliefs.
Eclectic, personal belief weakens the church, which is a win!
Yes, I'm not going to say that belief in organised religion is better than belief in whatever notions you have personally. However, I view the difference to be as narrow as that between eating your shit and eating some shit you found on the ground. It's still an affront to hear Brand burble on like that, but I know what you mean at least.
> However, I view the difference to be as narrow as that between eating your shit and eating some shit you found on the ground
lol... nice ANALogy. Let's continue it...
In a perfect world, non-one would eat shit. But you can't stop people eating their shit if they want to. However, the church found some shit on the ground and tries to make other people eat it - now *that* is something we could/should stop.
Well, yes. But people who habitually eat their own shit would probably be viewed as mentally disturbed. They need . . . educating. In a cool, white room. It's less acceptable, in a way, than eating the church's shit. After all, they've been telling people to eat it since birth, so you can't be entirely blamed, but to realise the church shit is no good only to begin chowing down on your own fudge dragons is . . . odd.
lmao... now why can't I have conversations like this with the fundies? They NEVER come out with lines like that.The most amusing thing they ever do is quote scripture.
Fundies are unable to have a sense of humour. To truly believe in that kind of thing, you have to have a certain mentality - quite a primitive one, in general. Certainly, the champions of creation science are all complete morons, and stupid people are seldom funny except by accident.
If you think your winding me up, by all means carry on.
I'll leave you the challenge of persuading me of how your original reply was not an assumption. Or the difference between your one liner and my mocking of the video in my own personal fashion(mocking being the key word).
Or how your comment was not from a platform of ignorance to your incorrect assumption and arrogance.
Well, you have previously said that you're not going to say anything else, but still you carry on. Presumably to try and put me in my place or something similar. And let's face it, if you weren't wound up you wouldn't have commented on this video in the first place, or carried on to such an extent.
I made no assumption. I made an assertion that the joke was not funny and that you couldn't write well. What assumption did I make?
I normally don't mention the quality of writing if it's got nothing to do with the point being made, it falls into the realms of adhom. But I find it's hard to be funny when sorting out the rambling joke from the damaged words. At which point, the bad writing becomes worthy of criticism. Oh, and the joke itself. Which sucked.
Anyway, yes. I'm smart and an excellent writer. Not sure how I'm lacking the assertion, but you do seem a bit out of your depth.
'seem' being the keyword there. But you sensed it well. I admit i am loitering on the surface. Which is why i can just walk away. Because of my experience i immediately grasped your format and actually quite disrespectfully have been given your argument glancing attention, just toying to reveal your defiance and arrogance.
Who can be bothered to go the whole hog, when both is as stubborn as the other. Language is nothing compared to experience.
Ah, experience. That nebulous quality often levelled in a debate. "Well, I have experience, that means all the shit I'm no good at doesn't matter." Experience of what? Is it a finite, measurable substance? Can you collect it? Do you get more as you get older? You'll find that most people have experience, if not all.
Yup. The shame of me calling myself clever when folk like you are raping the english language on my comments whilst trying to put me in my place. I guess I should just sit back and let it happen, hmm?
Language does, of course, evolve over time. That's certainly no kind of excuse to write like a child. There's no expression, accent or dialect I can detect in your writing, you're just not very good at it. You need to know the rules before you can break them.
I'm choosing a roughly formal (robotic?) style of address because it's appropriate, and also because it seems to be irritating you to some extent.
"There's no expression, accent or dialect I can detect in your writing"
That would be some feat through this medium.
"you're just not very good at it"
Not anymore no. You'll find that as life goes on, you become more efficient. It very much depends on your field. You certainly do not need it be succesful in the majority of fields. Actually i got a B grade for A-level English, but a waste of time unfortunately and long forgotten.
I did somewhat better than a B, if we're going to fling grades around. And whilst you may not need excellent linguistic skills for every job, it's never frowned upon. I worked at Vodafone for a short while, and my boss would get me to write his emails. What does that prove? Fuck knows. You can become the manager of a Vodafone store without needing any real linguistic skills, it seems. Or a soul.
You will do better in any field requiring writing, if you can write WELL.
I'll leave you alone, i'll consider it a mistake that you stepped on my toes, since i understand where you we're coming from in the first place, with all these celeb wannabee's floating around.
That's nice backtracking, there. One of your rebuttals hinged on the fact that I don't get laid. I state that I do, magnificently and on a regular basis, and you tell me it doesn't matter! Are you a Christian?
No, but your showing all the signs of somebody being brainwashed.
There is a possibility that your part of the 'argumentalist' groups. Even if your not, you potentially could be.
But its a low existence, despite any presumed intelligence. It serves no progression other than for personal satisfaction, which funny enough leads me back to suggesting you should get laid.
I won't take any further part in your post defeat defiance to continue an argument for the sake of
This isn't the first time you've said you won't say anything further, but you just can't get enough.
As for the getting laid thing, how would that be relevant even if I'd not got any for months? It's a bit sad if you think our highest goal is to plough flesh.
Still, moot point. Hot girlfriend = hot sex. But you're not willing to even accept the chance that I might have one, or that I break the mould that you've doubtless imagined for me.
If you think that everyone should be like yourself or that people who haven't taken the time to perfect their grammar or are of higher academic intelligence are lesser than yourself, you truly are not as smart as you think. Go and learn some :)
"You wanted approbation"
No, you assume based on your experience. You follow a template. Much like a lifeless robot,example..
This is my point. "Go and learn some :)" . . . learn some what? That suggestion makes no sense.
The insistence that "imperfect grammar and spelling doesn't make me less intelligent!" is only ever insisted by people who can't write in the first place. A lot of people end up attacking the words I use, as if that's any kind of weakness! You'll not find many professional writers as slovenly as yourself.
It may not be the key to everything, but it's certainly not a negative.
"The insistence that "imperfect grammar and spelling doesn't make me less intelligent!" is only ever insisted by people who can't write in the first place"
Its language, it isn't intelligence. Language is something that can be installed. Your brains processing power and memory,altough can be slightly improved, is not something you can learn.
And what do you need to "install" this language? Yes. Intelligence!
It was indeed the basis of my argument, if you recall. I said that your joke was unfunny and poorly written, and poor writing will damage the comedy of any given joke.
Oho! Stung by my words, you tracked me back and actually commented on one of my videos, just so I would know exactly how much it didn't matter to you.
None of what you're saying makes sense in any case. Maybe you should watch my other videos and work out what my target actually is, and why I attacked Brand in the first place. It's not difficult.
If everyone was like me, the world would be full of sensible, rational, intelligent people. It would be fucking awesome, so it would.
"just so I would know exactly how much it didn't matter to you."
What mattered is you. Im not sure which direction to point you in, eg. get a life, grow up, stop being so arrogant, etc, but you make yourself look like a impotent little dickhead when you get that urge to be a presumptious smart alec, get into 'fights' and then get it completely wrong.
What makes it even more humorous, is that, not only we're your presumptions wrong, you complained about a joke with joke that was even worse !?
"Impotent little dickhead". This is 2008, you'll have to try a mite harder than that.
I wonder what the general public would think of my simple one-liner compared to your three-comment, mis-spelt abortion, hmm? The point is moot anyway, because I wasn't trying to make people see I was funny. but you, now . . . you WERE.
THIS isn't the general public. The comments field of my video which is going to be seen by very few people. A featured video, on the other hand, will be seen by pretty much everyone visiting Youtube. Hence general public.
My spin would be that you need to find some new words. Simple, really.
I think you'll find a child reacts somewhat differently to this kind of situation.
4. Have you not noticed that I have a reasonably decent number of subs and a lot of positive feedback on everything (except the video where I challenged Brand)?
I hate to break it to you, but "coming" is entirely acceptable. "Cum" colloquially refers to semen, "coming' is the act of orgasm. "Cumming" is clumsy as hell.
Yes, you mocked the video. With comedic intent, otherwise you'd just have flat-out said what you thought was wrong with it. You wanted approbation.
"If everyone was like me, the world would be full of sensible, rational, intelligent people. It would be fucking awesome, so it would."
Yes because then..and ONLY then.. would you have a remote chance of getting laid.. if your lucky.. and then maybe.. say if there was a catastrophe and all that was left was you and your "sensible, rational, intelligent" clone.. you just might possibly.. but nah i doubt it.
no -I saw r brand doing a whole stand up against religion and god, I've been trying to find it now....can't...sht...it was hilarious!
beastshawnee 6 months ago
bit disillusioning for me since i like russell brand to find that when it comes to religion his views, the way they're flaunted, are the same as one of the stupider atheist experience callers
Nilaikx 1 year ago
Normally I like your videos but this one was poorly conceived. Russel Brand is a comedian and an entertainer who cares far more about getting a laugh then theology. He sets himself up as a ridiculous character intentionally. In this interview he performed marvelously as a foil for Dawkins to play off of. I thought his performance in this interview was brilliant and portrayed a very finely nuanced satire. Everything he said was deliberately lobbed up for Dawkins to hit out of the park.
jklarson66 1 year ago
@jklarson66 I thought he was an Atheist,
OMGSEASALT 1 year ago
@OMGSEASALT I really don't think Russel Brand could possibly care less about religion and beliefs about the supernatural. As an anti-theist myself I think it's pretty bad form to attack a comedian doing a bit. There are so many apologists and preachers to confront about this kind of thing. Russel Brand was just after a laugh and I thought he treated Dr. Dawkins quite charitably and respectfully. How hard is it to see he was doing shtick? Why not make a video dubunking Edward Current next?
jklarson66 1 year ago
this is just Th1sWasATriumph's (lolz for Portal reference) answer to Russell Brand's questions to Richard Dawkin's interview.
yct1337 1 year ago
This seems kind of odd. Russell Brand doesn't seem to be very religious at all. Why he would defend religions is beyond me. If I had to guess what he believed, i'd say he is agnostic.
yct1337 1 year ago
this interview is fake
dizyootum 1 year ago
@dizyootum duh
calebhagancaleb 1 year ago
@dizyootum the sun is also hot
calebhagancaleb 1 year ago
Of course, I appreciate this for being your logical critique of something uttered by a vaguely atheistic man, but really I think you're on the same side, he's just playing devils advocate and ultimately this leaves me feeling like academia has absolutely no soul or sense of poetry in the beauty of the universe. Which is all I think Brand is trying (albeit bombastically) to uphold, and which is, after all, a perfectly worthy and enriching way of viewing life.
ursie1986 1 year ago 2
I think there is some credibility to being cynical and scientifically motivated. But you are quite erroneous in asking someone to prove a lack of evidence for say the divinity of life. If we were seeded by beings from another world or products of a supercivilisation from around 100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago, then at this stage there would be no evidence left. Has anybody even seen the doco, life after humans? It clearly shows our own relics would turn to dust before the first 10,000yrs.
marcopolo3001 1 year ago
O_o, who's Russel Brand? *pokes head out from under rock*
sciencemile 2 years ago
back up from the microphone
Hydromorphism 2 years ago
Russell Brand is a complete Tossy Woss!
dave28lax 2 years ago
not a religious bloke really but this is a radio interview said off the cuff. to sit and over evaluate a non scripted piece really means someone has far to much time on their hands. i hate preachy people religious or not, your all the one, ruining life for everyone by forcing your opinions down on people through what ever crude method you can. let russel brand have his opinions and respect them, even if they are a bit post modern and hippyish! i suggest you get out the house and get to the pub.x
mattyjwilson21 2 years ago
Forcing my opinions down on people . . . so, some guy broke into your house and made you watch this at gunpoint?
Or . . . did you happen across it of your own volition, watch it, and then leave a comment saying that I forced my opinions?
Ah, the old "you need to get out more". Only according to the arbitrary social values you've chosen to adopt, matty. If it's a choice between fucking about in the pub or being intelligent in my room full of guitars, I know exactly where I am every day.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago 4
Well no1 forced you 2 listen 2 Russell brand with Richard Dawkins.i just wanted 2 c wat this was listen out of interest sake. Realised it was not fair and much like yourself voiced my opinion. The term "get out more" was meant in the general terms of relax and don't be such a zealot, taking time out of your life to scathe someone's beliefs.mayb i shud have made that more clear for u 2 understand sorry.Moreover i have a tele, les paul, burns, sameck, recording king and a little pink ukelele
mattyjwilson21 2 years ago
@mattyjwilson21 How much of your life did you save be typing "2" instead of "to?"
mathew2283 1 month ago
@Th1sWasATriumph You don't need God in your life my friend, you need to loose your virginity. This video is a bit sad on your part
Jyotinanda108 7 months ago
@Jyotinanda108 Funny how THAT argument comes up when no-one has a better one, as well. Fortunately myself and my virginity have long since been repeatedly, and colourfully, separated.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
Oh . . . and respect Brand's opinions. Why? Why should any opinion be respected? Still, it's funny that you think his opinions should be respected but you're clearly not respecting MY opinions as expressed in the video, aye?
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago 5
I think when most people say "respect others' opinions" they more mean, "Respect their right to give their opinion."
CuriousMoth 2 years ago
Why should people opinions be respected!!! Read Il Principe by
Niccolo Machiavelli!!! (take it to the pub with you)
mattyjwilson21 2 years ago
Moreover, I have respect for your opinion, and fine have it thats great! At no point have I said your outlook and what you have said is wrong. My issue is the way you have done it.
Religious beliefs comes from an area of faith, if Russell Brand had written this down and considered it, maybe even published it, fine pull it apart
mattyjwilson21 2 years ago
But its a 5 min non scripted interview, where he is just trying to say he feels like he is part of some bigger "plan". Rather than going ok Russell I dont quite think you have voiced this well you have spent what I can only imagine to be a good amount of your life pulling apart every line he has said. As Oscar Wilde said A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
mattyjwilson21 2 years ago
@mattyjwilson21 Russell is entitled to his opinion, but I am not obliged to respect them. Any more than I am obliged to respect the views of homophobes, racists or sexists. Would you respect my views if I claimed that the Space Monkey told me to kill everyone called Keith? Why not? My opinion is equally valid and has just as much evidentiary support as Brands.
This is what people forget. NOBODY has the automatic right to have their beliefs respected.
mathew2283 1 month ago in playlist Religion, And Other Curious Beasts
why are there missing parts?
CristianApostol 2 years ago
great impression
IFE10M 2 years ago
Finally someone debunking all these Eastern... things. They irritate me as much as religion. "Energy..." "There is something...", how many times I have heard this!
You, sir, are a genius, and an intimidating one at that!
dewonthegrass 2 years ago 2
I think 7:50 really sold me to Russell's side. "Why can't feelings be as good as thoughts?" What makes one nastier than the other? If beauty is just a human construct what's wrong with that? We are humans, really.
richardthethree 2 years ago
hahaha this was pretty funny and smart.
hiimfamous 2 years ago
I liked the video. I like Russel Brand most of the time too. He can be a bit of a dickhead, I think his history proves that, but he really did open himself up to getting shot down and I think you did a good job. Made me laugh anyway ;)
Brascofarian 2 years ago
what a pile of irrelevant total bollocks. thats just russell brand going on 1 of his ad lib rants for ENTERTAINMENT purposes and you the supposed interviewer has edited what he's said into some fucked up self glorifying interview that shows you putting him in his place on the subject to make you feel better cus you dislike him and what he said. you've got problems man,it says alot about ya mental health. i thought this sort of spin was for politics,i didnt realise religion uses it too.
deanopks 2 years ago
Why not check out the original and see to what extent I've "edited what he's said into some fucked up self-glorifying interview?"
It's funny how many people are trying to use his status as an entertainer as an excuse. He's still talking bullshit. As if being an entertainer means everything you say is automatically for the purposes of comedy. Still, it's nice to see how many Brand fans are ranting fucktards incapable of writing properly.
My mental health? Honestly! That's the best you can say?
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
whats a fucktard? you made that up didnt ya? i aint a brand fan, i think he's funny and i relate to who he is but i aint no fanboy that cant handle someone having a dig at him, thats what he wants alot of the time, why he says these things. he aint no activist, its whats in his head, people dont believe what he says, he aint no cult.its just rants, a mans thoughts. all god believers and worhippers have mental health problems, they believe in something that dont exsist, its false reality.
deanopks 2 years ago
so what im saying is, dont say people are talking bullshit when religion is total bullshit on a global scale. god dont exsist and never will, theres no proof, nothing logical about something that might be, its not reality. the bible is a fictional book written a long time ago for controlling the people and its still doing that today. religion is just another thing that seperates ppl and causes more shit than anything else,its dying with every generation,ppl are finding their own spirituality.
deanopks 2 years ago
So you're telling me that you didn't just edit out all the surely deep and profound and intelligent things this prat said only to leave us with this mindless new age twaddle that we've heard others spew a million times before? Why, piffle and poppycock, I say! (5 stars)
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
I skipped through most of what you said just to listen to him speak. I found you to be rude. Do you really care if he believes in a Divine Force? He isn't hurting anybody. He can FEEL his "proof" and you have yours... or lack there of. Who is to say who is right? Just stop the hate and let in the love and everybody will live a much better life regardless of their beliefs or non beliefs in God. I think he has a lovely and intelligent person :)
lykeohmahgah 2 years ago
Oh, cripes. "Who is to say who is right?" You really think there is an equal case for and against? This is how it works - anyone can be challenged on what they think. Notice how I'm not asking you to stop challenging me, but rather responding to it? Exactly!
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
Apparently it's "pigeonholing" to have to justify your intentions as either scientific or personal.
This guy is obviously just a massive mong, sucking from the teet of Dawkins' hypocritical belief systems. He even tries to sound like him in debate. *rolls eyes*
gaqliveshere 2 years ago
You need to be clearer. This guy . . . that would be me?
I don't try to sound like anyone in debate, of course. But if that helps validate whatever point you're making, go for it. And you'd have to explain how Dawkins' beliefs are hypocritical . . ? I don't see that working at all.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
I notice you replaced Dawkins' voice with your own, because he made an absolute pig's ear of his answers.
I don't think Brand was trying to instigate any type of debate, his show was clearly no kind of issue-lauding soapbox, and instead it was a form of entertainment.
It seems you've taken this opportunity to air a personal dislike of the guy, rather than making any kind of point. No-one's patting you on the back for dismantling a self-confessed idiot's thinly-expressed points.
gaqliveshere 2 years ago
You "notice"? And there was me thinking I'd fooled everyone into thinking I'd actually had an interview with Brand.
It was a genuine debate with Dawkins. You can try and dilute this if you like, but it lessens the truth not one bit.
"It seems you've taken this opportunity to air a personal dislike of the guy, rather than making any kind of point."
I DO dislike him. I also dislike Stein, Hovind, Ham and Craig. Would you be so irritated if I'd responded to them similarly?
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
Well, then, which is it?
Are you trying to say, "now look here, what a momentous berk Brand is, here are the reasons I dislike his personality", because if so the issue extends further than his scientific shortcomings.
Or, are you trying to discredit a comedian's debate, because if so you should scientifically, without letting your pent-up feelings colour your argument. Surely you realise this "not one thing nor the other" reaction discredits you more than the person you're talking about.
gaqliveshere 2 years ago
Fortunately for us all, this is Youtube and I can make semi-serious videos about dickheads if I feel like it. I also don't have to neatly fit into an un-nuanced pigeonhole of your creation. My points remain valid whatever my feelings (pent up? really? I felt I was fairly unequivocal in my airing of them) may be.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
that was fucking terrible. what a patronizing cunt you are. as if you're superior because you're reading your prepared answers there. shouldn't we be glad that there ar people actually thinking about the meaning of life etc.? why is he stupid for speculating? i don't believe in a God in the bible but you can't prove that the whole concept of a higher being is wrong. i've definitely heard more stupid ideas than those russell brand mentioned
sidsings000 2 years ago
"you can't prove that the whole concept of a higher being is wrong"
You can't absolutely disprove a lot of things; how does that increase the validity of speculation? There is certainly no positive proof FOR God. He's stupid for speculating based on emotional response rather than proof or empiricism - THAT'S why he's stupid.
Personally, I'm more glad of scientists actually thinking and researching the matter as opposed to people like Brand wanking out pissy pseudo-philosophical nothings.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
of course the scientists are important, but this was just speculation, he doesn't do this professionally and surely he's allowed to voice his thoughts on it. for some people the existence of a higher being or of some kind of "magic" is helpful, some people may just see it as a synonym for something we can't yet explain.
it doesn't increase the validity, but it doesn't decrease it either, in other words we just don't know yet, even if it is doubtful
sidsings000 2 years ago
I'm confused. You're saying it's "just speculation" yet "surely he's allowed to voice his thoughts on it", and I'm a "patronising cunt" for disagreeing?
Sure we don't know. We don't know a lot of things. But why is that reason to answer the unknown with something which can never, by its own definition, be explained? The historical precedent is that natural phenomena attributed to the supernatural end up being explained scientifically. Until positive proof arrives, it's nonsense.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
no of course you can disagree, but it's the way you talk about him calling him stupid etc. when his thoughts are totally legitmate. In fact listening to your video you seem to have just as little proof of him being wrong as he has for being right. As long as we don't know we can specualate all we want. it just gets dangerous when we deny facts in the face of scientifical evidence, which he never did
sidsings000 2 years ago
How are they totally legitimate when there's no proof?
Let's make this clear - an inability to disprove something is not proof FOR it, otherwise you'd have to take all of the following as equally likely: EVERY god ever conceived or worshipped, every supernatural claim, homeopathy, astrology, life after death, spirits, djinn, fairies, trolls, dragons . . .
Listen to what he's saying. It comes down to "we need religion/God to be good people". And we know that's bullshit.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
it's a legitmate thought, the fact that there is no proof against it makes it legitimate. he's not even saying thats how it is, just thinking about it. You're right there is also no proof against those things you mentioned, maybe they do exist, even if it is unlikely.
i don't think he meant it like that, i think he meant more that people need something like the belief in a higher force exist, like a substitute for something we can't yet quite grasp, perhaps for a scientifical explanation
sidsings000 2 years ago
lol @ the Brand's wanker fans on here. He's not even a funny guy; his comedy is piss poor, and he's clearly not as clever as he thinks he is.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Holy crap the votebotting is nuts on this video.
Russel is an psuedo-intellectual who is admired by other psuedo-intellectual simpletons who know nothing of any importance.
nurikosguardian 2 years ago 2
It is on this entire series.
JodaSFU 2 years ago
i really like the video, and the way you disprove Russell, but i think its a shame that you actually wasted time on destroying his points, i mean, we all know Russell brand is a tit and he doesnt have a clue what hes on about.
Tommy2er 2 years ago
From a number of the comments here, it's obvious that WAY too many people share Brand's kind of muddy-headed "thinking" (I use the term loosely). People step in bullshit all the time-- It's never a bad thing to point it out.
GoblinXXX 2 years ago
I'm glad we agree.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
Lovely! :-)
Brands argument is just so appalling woolly. Nicely skewered.
Semperdendron 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
boooooooooooooooooo boooooooooooooooooooooo booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
you're a WANKER
russel is a LEGEND!
and YOU are less intelligent than POND SCUM!!!!
robgeorge87 2 years ago
So original! Bravo! Tell me, how can you call me less intelligent than pond scum when you can't even spell your hero's name correctly?
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ever considered getting a girlfriend and getting over yourself?
robgeorge87 2 years ago
watch?v=TIMITchkyCQ
Well, there's me . . . and there's my girlfriend.
You really must try harder with these insults, because currently by spending time ripping me you're no better than you perceive ME to be for ripping on Russell. Ironic, no?
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
What is it with moronic twats like yourself always saying "get a girlfriend" to people who disagree with you. Seems rather like the work of a neanderthal to me. Trying to make triumph seem more pathetic and his position on the matter invalid simply because he didn't have a chain with breasts attached to his wallet (ignoring for the moment that he does) is by definition an ad hominem.
However I do agree Russell is pretty funny but, I'm disappointed to know he's a mildly insane deist.
LogicIsDying 2 years ago 6
youre only saying that cos you dont have a girlfriend.
AND THAT FACT THAT HE WILL LIVE AS WE WILL OBVIOUSLY DIE - ALONE - CLEARLY MAKES HIM MORE CYNICAL ABOUT THE WORLD AND CLOUDS HIS JUDGEMENT AND AFFECTS HIS VIEWS AND ARGUMENTS......
making what you said about me being "ad hominem" nothing but a vulgar display of vocabulary that you clearly had to look-up before you knew 100% what it meant.
ya dig?
robgeorge87 2 years ago
I don't really care if I have a girlfriend or not. I do not need to validate myself throught some else's existance. So really not a snappy come back.
WTF are you talking about?
An ad hominem is when you argue against some and not their opinion. You tried tyo make him seem pathetic and render him a non-valid sorce of informtion. Ergo, ad hominem. Perhaps you should learn what you're talking about before being a dick.
LogicIsDying 2 years ago
i used to know someone like you, right little tit he was....
robgeorge87 2 years ago
So simply because I showed you for the ridiculous and condescending twat you so clearly are makes me a prick. There's a pretty popular saying and I'm sure you've heard of it. "Don't feed the trolls" You good sir a troll. This marks the end of our unimportant "conversation".
troll = one who who intentionally redirects flow of productive conversation to force people to pay attention to them by saying genuinely idiotic or insulting things. (so yes I do know what I'm talking about)
LogicIsDying 2 years ago
I really like your videos, however I'm curious. Do you feel strongly that Deists are certainly wrong in their beliefs, or were you just attacking Russel because of how poorly he argues his points? I agree that it's downright silly, but I'm a Deist myself, and feel there is credibility to Deism. Not as a science by any means, but it seems to me to be a very valid concept. Btw, I don't intend this as a debate starter I know you'd win :P I just want your opinion.
ScissorHand26 2 years ago
Deism has credibility, but I don't think it has much, and is kind of a less absolute solution to all the things we don't know about yet. It's more likely than a theistic entity, but there's still no proof for it.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
Nice!!! i love it! i'm going to check out your channel and subscribe. I hate Russel Brand so much!
vince19811981 2 years ago
"say enegy if you dont understand it"
lol,so true, psychics ,ghoust hunters and Religious people do it all the time
15963256 2 years ago
Do you argue against anyone with a scientific background or a leading theist ever? Brand is a comedian! This of course does not 'let him off the hook'. But surely you have better things to do with your time.
kelso7070 2 years ago
Most people who believe this nonsense are not leading theists. They should all be challenged, especially if they're on national radio arguing with someone like Richard Dawkins.
It really makes no difference if you're a "leading theist", of course. What legitimacy is lent to your arguments by such labeling? The arguments are the same from a "leading theist" or the kind of scum you find crawling the internet. No-one can prove their claims.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russell Brand is a comedian, not a scientist! This of course does not mean that his comments are right. But to insult him for these comments is quite cowardly. Why not argue against a leading theist? For a man of your intelligence, self proclaimed or not, to argue against a man that you do not respect intellectually, just does not make sense. Maybe you are doing it for an ego boost, i don't know. BTW i am an atheist. But i just feel that you should put your knowledge to some use. No insult to RB
kelso7070 2 years ago
Russell Brand is a comedian, not a scientist! This of course does not mean that his comments are right. But to insult him for these comments is quite cowardly. Why not argue against a leading theist? For a man of your intelligence, self proclaimed or not, to argue against a man that you do not respect intellectually, just does not make sense. Maybe you are doing it for an ego boost, i don't know. BTW i am an atheist. But i just feel that you should put your knowledge to some use. No insult to RB
kelso7070 2 years ago
Then maybe you should hop along to the League of Reason and see what I'm doing there instead of judging me because I punched holes in a peacocking fool of a deist.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
haha you are a dumb, smug fuck
terists 2 years ago
Well, you are someone who a) has a channel with everyone else's videos (but not any you created, of course) and b) thinks calling someone a dumb, smug fuck is a pretty good insult. Oh no, etc.
I'm smarter than you by some considerable margin, I warrant, and if smugness is the price for that I suppose I'll just have to live with it, hmm?
Alternatively you could try and convince me how Brand is right and I'm wrong. That would be interesting. Care to try?
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
props on the portal themed name though!!
KepiLayla 2 years ago
the sad thing about this is that god can exist, and it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so we are at an impasse. I believe god exists as a personification of thought energy, the collective unconscious, and the soul or ethereal body. prayer is just focused thought, which does effect the world around us. For example, the placebo effect in medicine and psychology, and the experiments with water done by Emoto.
KepiLayla 2 years ago
You can't dismiss what the ancient people believed out of hand, because things like acupuncture and the healing qualities of herbs are scientifically proven. The human mind only uses 10% of its capacity, and you mate are only using 5% because you deny the emotions that make up who you are. Thought is important as a topic in quantum physics, so god as a concept, as a personification of something that exists, is quite plausible. Just because lightning seems magical doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
KepiLayla 2 years ago
Yes yes, some things were right back in ancient times. And a lot of it was WRONG. The ancient greeks had some good ideas, and some really laughable ones. Does that mean I should give time to the concept of God? Prove it. Prove it now.
Also, you can't take the uncertainty of quantum physics and appropriate it for your God. That's not how it works.
Lightning doesn't seem magical. Not to me. Because I know what it IS. Historically, things once considered Godly all become explained by science.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
Oh, come ON. Does that mean you believe in every single god and supernatural entity ever proposed? You can't prove they don't exist, therefore you should give serious thought to them? That is totally ridiculous. Its not an impasse when every single argument FOR god is refutable and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Do you believe in Jeff, the magic meat pie in space? Jeff is real (but undetectable through conventional means.)
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
" I believe god exists as a personification of thought energy, the collective unconscious, and the soul or ethereal body."
Then you'll have to provide some kind of proof for this hypotheses, otherwise it's meaningless. And how can you possibly take the placebo effect and use it as proof for prayer? Prayer doesn't effect ANYTHING except the mind creating it. Again, support your claims with research.
Th1sWasATriumph 2 years ago
I think the selfishness of parents to provide their offspring with little more than fairy tales for answers due to their own need for feel good solutions is disgusting.
VitalApparatuz 2 years ago 2
why bother making this... noone is taking russells word as 'god'. pun intended
blaiseperce 2 years ago
Three comments were neccesary, couldn't fit everything into 1
Prayer does affect things. People choose to pray and feel better about themselves, more stable, grounded, part of a community. The majority of people in the world pray, they are affected by it and so the world is affected by it.
Most importantly, none of what Russell said were ARGUMENTS for God. you keep referring to that but he doesn't. He was just generally discussing the nature of spirituality. He wasn't trying to PROVE anything
JackHearts123 3 years ago
That's a psychological effect, and kind of a given. There's no proof that prayer does what the faithful CLAIM it does, which is result in a divine intervention of some kind.
He may not have been debating it fiercely, but he was pretty insistent that there was "something". That was certainly my impression from the original show. He at least seemed aware that his arguments wouldn't constitute proof, but he was fervent about it nonetheless.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Please eveyone listen to the original conversation between Russell Brand and Richard Dawkins, not this sneering, idiotic little tit
JackHearts123 3 years ago
Oh lor', you've found me out! OH CRIPES
Three comments? I must have got to you. Awesome.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
You just use the word "abstract" in a sneery tone at the end of every segment. You automatically dismiss everything with any romantic or ideolistic overtone, for some reason. Its not even cynicism its just willfull idiocy! I'm sure you would have been equally adept at deriding Keates or Shelly. You just ignore anything that requires human thought or feeling.
You keep goin back to "proof of god" even when not reffered to by your "guest"
JackHearts123 3 years ago
"You automatically dismiss everything with any romantic or ideolistic overtone, for some reason."
I will dismiss anything offered without proof that masquerades as a legitimate argument. Also, Brand isn't a poet. Far from it. His arguments are vague and emotionally loaded, and as such are completely open to question.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
What a stupid smarmy little tit.
"The sad thing is that I'm not even taking anything he said out of context." How can that not be out of context?! You directly ask Russell questions then pick a suitable soundbite in answer! At one point you imply that he is stumped for an answer with silence!
"Prayer is self imposed hallucination". Belief in Religion is "your brain going wrong".once again dismissing billions of people
"As you sentimentally put it" Hypocritical verbose git
JackHearts123 3 years ago 2
"once again dismissing billions of people"
If you can prove that prayer affects things, or that God exists, you have a point. Until then, belief in God is as valid as belief in a magic flying hat.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Haha... I gotta agree some there. (The flying hat part)
But the video, well. If you where a deeply religious guy, you could just as easily made this vid gods own commercial.
My own view on religion is that it's something made up to ease the minds of all those people that can't handle the thought that they might not be important to the universe and that at the end, it really is "the end".
sketaful 2 years ago
I thought your points were very good, even though I'm not fond of the format of your "video". I didn't enjoy the end, the "idiot" comments and what not. That being said, I agree with you. Just one question...why Russell Brand?...or is it anyone with those beliefs you dislike?...Just curious as to your motivation.
dwinnell 3 years ago
I don't know who Russel is, but that's no excuse for him being really stupid and trying to negate all the things we can now explain, and frankly the more we can explain the more amazing things become, the divine is such a lame concept, mostly just because it takes so little imagination to conceive it, and then it takes the opposite of the awe of discovery to believe an abstract term that describes how gullible the fucking twat is.
UrinationNation 3 years ago
Kudos! That guy's a douche!
sandman83jmw 3 years ago 2
you made some good points, but towards the end you sounded very condescending which kind of ruined all the good work you had put in before.
19nathan83ok 3 years ago
Condescending? However could that have happened?
A point is still a point.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
wow this is shit.
anetchi 3 years ago
this is a waste of time and effort making and listening to it
omgu8mynewt 3 years ago
Your opinion is noted and discarded.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
I'm sorry, did you tell this guy who posts to get a life? LEast he has the brain cells to think and the balls to speak up..
you tell HIM to get a life? ha ha.. what a joke! go back to your nike's and coca cola you judgemental little pigeons. I THINK, THEREFORE I AM!
Russell Brand is a funny guy tho. Love the russ
nadiaminerva 3 years ago
Ah, thank you for your support.
I saw Brand in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and thought he was good, but mainly because he was a slander of himself.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Get a life u idiot....how sad r u??
bobby1234567890htp 3 years ago
wtf dude get a life
kinney1990 3 years ago
It's too good be true, you being a McFly fan. I thought it was a joke at first. It kind of negates anything you'll ever say to me on any subject
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
what a well constructed argument *sarcasm*
kinney1990 3 years ago
What a poorly constructed response *fact*.
Please, don't let my fondness for full stops, punctuation and capitalization stop you from responding in the manner to which you are accustomed. Go on. Give it your all.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
You shouldn't need fondness for such proper use of English language, grammar and the use of correct syntax. I am an English student after all. The fact that you chose to highlight what is a SMALL SMALL part of my music taste to use in an altercation based on a completely unrelated topic shows weakness in your argument.
kinney1990 3 years ago
There wasn't much else I could say to "wtf dude get a life", hmm? That's not even an argument in itself, so you're hardly in a position to attack my response. And to be honest I didn't go delving into your channel; a plenitude of McFly covers was all I needed.
So, are you going to do any better than "wtf dude get a life" in your criticism of my video?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Erm.. well no I'm not going to do any better because, well it's the internet, and I have a life other than to verbosly argue over it as there is no real need for it. And just like the special olympics even if you win, you are still retarded.
kinney1990 3 years ago
But you don't have quite enough of a life to stop yourself from arguing badly in the first place.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
I think you've hit upon an interesting point; there are hundreds of thousands of people who speak in the same woolly 'spiritual' terms.
What people like Brand are trying to do is actually reject their indoctrination. They simply can't believe the bronze-age nonsense any more. However, instead of being able to reject it outright, it is testimony to the power of childhood indoctrination that they feel they have to believe in 'something else' and end up talking like Brand does.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
Yeah, he doesn't go for the whole God thing, but he can't believe there isn't any kind of higher purpose or meaning. A lot of people can't. So this fear tends to get clothed in abstracts and undefined concepts of "beauty" and "truth", which makes me throw up in my hand.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Well, in a way it is good, because it is a sign that more people are questioning what they were indoctrinated with (ever since they were children) by the organised churches.
It is also good that these alternate beliefs are 'woolly' and undefined - the current problem isn't with personally ignorant beliefs, but with organisations (churches) which have enough 'support' to interfere with societal development based on those beliefs.
Eclectic, personal belief weakens the church, which is a win!
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
Yes, I'm not going to say that belief in organised religion is better than belief in whatever notions you have personally. However, I view the difference to be as narrow as that between eating your shit and eating some shit you found on the ground. It's still an affront to hear Brand burble on like that, but I know what you mean at least.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
> However, I view the difference to be as narrow as that between eating your shit and eating some shit you found on the ground
lol... nice ANALogy. Let's continue it...
In a perfect world, non-one would eat shit. But you can't stop people eating their shit if they want to. However, the church found some shit on the ground and tries to make other people eat it - now *that* is something we could/should stop.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
Well, yes. But people who habitually eat their own shit would probably be viewed as mentally disturbed. They need . . . educating. In a cool, white room. It's less acceptable, in a way, than eating the church's shit. After all, they've been telling people to eat it since birth, so you can't be entirely blamed, but to realise the church shit is no good only to begin chowing down on your own fudge dragons is . . . odd.
I wonder how far I can extend this metaphor?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
> chowing down on your own fudge dragons
lmao... now why can't I have conversations like this with the fundies? They NEVER come out with lines like that.The most amusing thing they ever do is quote scripture.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
Well, I did sort of steal that from south park.
Fundies are unable to have a sense of humour. To truly believe in that kind of thing, you have to have a certain mentality - quite a primitive one, in general. Certainly, the champions of creation science are all complete morons, and stupid people are seldom funny except by accident.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
If you think your winding me up, by all means carry on.
I'll leave you the challenge of persuading me of how your original reply was not an assumption. Or the difference between your one liner and my mocking of the video in my own personal fashion(mocking being the key word).
Or how your comment was not from a platform of ignorance to your incorrect assumption and arrogance.
The insults we'll leave as part of your package.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
Well, you have previously said that you're not going to say anything else, but still you carry on. Presumably to try and put me in my place or something similar. And let's face it, if you weren't wound up you wouldn't have commented on this video in the first place, or carried on to such an extent.
I made no assumption. I made an assertion that the joke was not funny and that you couldn't write well. What assumption did I make?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Anyway Happy New Year !
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
Bit early, isn't it?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
So, are you parading yourself with an authority based on your 'intelligence' to make assumptions, criticise, mock and insult people ?
Yet lack the assertion to uphold your self concluded postition ?
You did mention your comedy value..
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
I normally don't mention the quality of writing if it's got nothing to do with the point being made, it falls into the realms of adhom. But I find it's hard to be funny when sorting out the rambling joke from the damaged words. At which point, the bad writing becomes worthy of criticism. Oh, and the joke itself. Which sucked.
Anyway, yes. I'm smart and an excellent writer. Not sure how I'm lacking the assertion, but you do seem a bit out of your depth.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"but you do seem a bit out of your depth."
'seem' being the keyword there. But you sensed it well. I admit i am loitering on the surface. Which is why i can just walk away. Because of my experience i immediately grasped your format and actually quite disrespectfully have been given your argument glancing attention, just toying to reveal your defiance and arrogance.
Who can be bothered to go the whole hog, when both is as stubborn as the other. Language is nothing compared to experience.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
Ah, experience. That nebulous quality often levelled in a debate. "Well, I have experience, that means all the shit I'm no good at doesn't matter." Experience of what? Is it a finite, measurable substance? Can you collect it? Do you get more as you get older? You'll find that most people have experience, if not all.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Yup. The shame of me calling myself clever when folk like you are raping the english language on my comments whilst trying to put me in my place. I guess I should just sit back and let it happen, hmm?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"raping the english language"
Expression, accent, dialect. No one is re-writing the books.
We cannot all sound like a robot.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
Language does, of course, evolve over time. That's certainly no kind of excuse to write like a child. There's no expression, accent or dialect I can detect in your writing, you're just not very good at it. You need to know the rules before you can break them.
I'm choosing a roughly formal (robotic?) style of address because it's appropriate, and also because it seems to be irritating you to some extent.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"There's no expression, accent or dialect I can detect in your writing"
That would be some feat through this medium.
"you're just not very good at it"
Not anymore no. You'll find that as life goes on, you become more efficient. It very much depends on your field. You certainly do not need it be succesful in the majority of fields. Actually i got a B grade for A-level English, but a waste of time unfortunately and long forgotten.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
I did somewhat better than a B, if we're going to fling grades around. And whilst you may not need excellent linguistic skills for every job, it's never frowned upon. I worked at Vodafone for a short while, and my boss would get me to write his emails. What does that prove? Fuck knows. You can become the manager of a Vodafone store without needing any real linguistic skills, it seems. Or a soul.
You will do better in any field requiring writing, if you can write WELL.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
And of course, i need a third part. This way you at least have something to hold against me !
Um..let me recap, needs a life, check, needs to stop being so 'clever' and then getting it miserably wrong, check, oh wait..
"Oh, also . . . "smart alec"? Wow."
You feel you deserve a better term ? Oh sorry. Oviously you have a better one to use.
Attempting to criticise what you presumed was a crafted joke with another bad joke, check.
"Super hot and amazing girlfriend"
Delusional, check.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
"Delusional, check"
If you only knew. This is hilarious.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"If you only knew. This is hilarious."
Even if i did 'know' it still wouldn't matter.
I'll leave you alone, i'll consider it a mistake that you stepped on my toes, since i understand where you we're coming from in the first place, with all these celeb wannabee's floating around.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
That's nice backtracking, there. One of your rebuttals hinged on the fact that I don't get laid. I state that I do, magnificently and on a regular basis, and you tell me it doesn't matter! Are you a Christian?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"Are you a Christian?"
No, but your showing all the signs of somebody being brainwashed.
There is a possibility that your part of the 'argumentalist' groups. Even if your not, you potentially could be.
But its a low existence, despite any presumed intelligence. It serves no progression other than for personal satisfaction, which funny enough leads me back to suggesting you should get laid.
I won't take any further part in your post defeat defiance to continue an argument for the sake of
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
This isn't the first time you've said you won't say anything further, but you just can't get enough.
As for the getting laid thing, how would that be relevant even if I'd not got any for months? It's a bit sad if you think our highest goal is to plough flesh.
Still, moot point. Hot girlfriend = hot sex. But you're not willing to even accept the chance that I might have one, or that I break the mould that you've doubtless imagined for me.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
you winning an argument.
If you think that everyone should be like yourself or that people who haven't taken the time to perfect their grammar or are of higher academic intelligence are lesser than yourself, you truly are not as smart as you think. Go and learn some :)
"You wanted approbation"
No, you assume based on your experience. You follow a template. Much like a lifeless robot,example..
"Yes, you mocked the video. With comedic intent"
No, in a personally comedic fashion.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
This is my point. "Go and learn some :)" . . . learn some what? That suggestion makes no sense.
The insistence that "imperfect grammar and spelling doesn't make me less intelligent!" is only ever insisted by people who can't write in the first place. A lot of people end up attacking the words I use, as if that's any kind of weakness! You'll not find many professional writers as slovenly as yourself.
It may not be the key to everything, but it's certainly not a negative.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"learn some what?"
Read before that line.
"The insistence that "imperfect grammar and spelling doesn't make me less intelligent!" is only ever insisted by people who can't write in the first place"
Its language, it isn't intelligence. Language is something that can be installed. Your brains processing power and memory,altough can be slightly improved, is not something you can learn.
"It may not be the key to everything"
But it appears to be the basis of your argument.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
And what do you need to "install" this language? Yes. Intelligence!
It was indeed the basis of my argument, if you recall. I said that your joke was unfunny and poorly written, and poor writing will damage the comedy of any given joke.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Commendation not required. Thanks.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
"One of your rebuttals hinged on the fact that I don't get laid"
Spin.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
No, it's not spin. In fact you're STILL bringing it up as one of your main points. Erroneously, of course.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
Is it just me or does Russell Brand look like he spends 12 hours a day to make it appear like he spends no time on his looks?
brutus149 3 years ago
Th1sWasATriumph..
Why do i get the feeling that was the absolute opposite of what your parents said the day you turned 18 ?
Its no use hiding, we can smell you a mile away.
Your lack of social strengths have forced you to become the 'not so clever' clever person you are today.
I mean Russell Brand ? Is that your target ?
Mwuahaha, maybe we should all be like you.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
Oho! Stung by my words, you tracked me back and actually commented on one of my videos, just so I would know exactly how much it didn't matter to you.
None of what you're saying makes sense in any case. Maybe you should watch my other videos and work out what my target actually is, and why I attacked Brand in the first place. It's not difficult.
If everyone was like me, the world would be full of sensible, rational, intelligent people. It would be fucking awesome, so it would.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"just so I would know exactly how much it didn't matter to you."
What mattered is you. Im not sure which direction to point you in, eg. get a life, grow up, stop being so arrogant, etc, but you make yourself look like a impotent little dickhead when you get that urge to be a presumptious smart alec, get into 'fights' and then get it completely wrong.
What makes it even more humorous, is that, not only we're your presumptions wrong, you complained about a joke with joke that was even worse !?
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
"Impotent little dickhead". This is 2008, you'll have to try a mite harder than that.
I wonder what the general public would think of my simple one-liner compared to your three-comment, mis-spelt abortion, hmm? The point is moot anyway, because I wasn't trying to make people see I was funny. but you, now . . . you WERE.
Oh, also . . . "smart alec"? Wow.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"This is 2008, you'll have to try a mite harder than that"
Your an impotent little dickhead, this isn't what you seem to be implying a 'slanging match'. I use words i see fit.
"I wonder what the general public would think of my simple one-liner"
Ok my advice which is so cliche but you leave me no choice is, get a life, since..
1.You consider this the general public.
2.You feel the need to impress them.
3.You feel as if everyone is focused on you.
continued in 'three' parts..
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
1. Actually, this isn't the general public. This is aimed at my subs.
2. . . . yes? Some of them like what I do. So I do more.
3. Well, that's just wrong.
I just think the words you use are pretty limp, but that's simply my personal opinion.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"Actually, this isn't the general public"
Thats right, a mistake to suggest it.
"I just think the words you use are pretty limp, but that's simply my personal opinion."
Ok, but that means 'what' to me ?
(insert your spin here)
My issue was with the assumptions and insults.
So intelligent, yet displays the emotional defence mechanism of a child.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
THIS isn't the general public. The comments field of my video which is going to be seen by very few people. A featured video, on the other hand, will be seen by pretty much everyone visiting Youtube. Hence general public.
My spin would be that you need to find some new words. Simple, really.
I think you'll find a child reacts somewhat differently to this kind of situation.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"I think you'll find a child reacts somewhat differently to this kind of situation."
Your shown defence mechanisms are no different.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, I'm responding to your points coherently. A child would not.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
4.Have you not noticed that no one is viewing your channel !?
"my simple one-liner"
Which involved a dwarf 'coming' in your mouth. Each to his own.
"mis-spelt abortion"
Your one of those are you ? Heres one of your own.. "coming" as opposed to the slang term "cumming".
"because I wasn't trying to make people see I was funny. but you, now . . . you WERE"
Mine was a comment mocking the video, as some people understood. But as you've told me, you have issues with the internet.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago
4. Have you not noticed that I have a reasonably decent number of subs and a lot of positive feedback on everything (except the video where I challenged Brand)?
I hate to break it to you, but "coming" is entirely acceptable. "Cum" colloquially refers to semen, "coming' is the act of orgasm. "Cumming" is clumsy as hell.
Yes, you mocked the video. With comedic intent, otherwise you'd just have flat-out said what you thought was wrong with it. You wanted approbation.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
"If everyone was like me, the world would be full of sensible, rational, intelligent people. It would be fucking awesome, so it would."
Yes because then..and ONLY then.. would you have a remote chance of getting laid.. if your lucky.. and then maybe.. say if there was a catastrophe and all that was left was you and your "sensible, rational, intelligent" clone.. you just might possibly.. but nah i doubt it.
DonJuanDeMarco2 3 years ago