Another TheAtheistAntidote Failure (and some thoughts on Plagiarism)

[omegadoom37]

The first slave owner in America was a black in massachusetts which he got as indentured servants and when they escaped 1was given life for breaking contract by the courts the other extra time

[nelliediddle]

Bulimic! beautiful analogy!

[BillKiernan]

I guarantee Brock still plagiarizes everything he does; he's just getting better at mixing up the sentences and adding in a different word to make it less detectable.

[jouljert]

Ok. Brock was dishonest. Agreed. But what is really ironic is this idea of 'honesty' being appealed to. How do atheists argue for honesty? Whose standard of honesty is this? According to logic, why should Brock be honest?

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert How is it ironic? We're members of a socially integrated species that depends on each other for the individuals survival and the survival of offspring. Honesty solidifies the bonds that strengthen the whole. It's both selfish and altruistic (which are not mutually exclusive).

Honesty is part of the underlying moral compass that is from our evolutionary heritage. Brock damages all of us with his dishonesty weakening us as a species (slightly).

There is no irony in this.

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist well,you mentioned a moral compass.Where would you say this moral compass came from?Just an evolutionary tool for survival of the species?Then would it be conceivable that what Brocks done might be deemed desirable 100years on? interesting you mentioned a sort of moral code.begs the question of the basis to which we appeal to a standard of morality.Brocks 'wrong'.Wrong according to whose standard?Why does Brock have to admit wrong & not 'Lassie' for stealing a dog biscuit?

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert Where is this moral compass from? I did answer that in my original statement and you reiterated it in you most recent question. So you had the answer yet still asked the question, that I don't understand.

As for question 2, I cannot think of a time where dishonesty would be beneficial to a population as a whole in regards to evolution and the nature of human social interactions. Perhaps you could spin this yarn.

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist 1)well, you just said its underlying. So...where did it get underlied from in the first place? So, it's a heritage that we inherited from...? Sea-crawling microbes? 2)Well, my point is that the idea of Brocks' having to be honest is just an evolutionary thing doesn't quite cut it. Right has to be right in and of itself, doesn't it? Otherwise, 'do the right thing' becomes utterly meaningless.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert Sea-crawling microbes? lol. There's quite more in our evolutionary heritage than just microbes. Right is right in and of its self? If that is true then it would be a innate property of existence, like the force of gravity or the number e. There's then no reason to account for "right is right" than as a natural law.

Or perhaps what is "right" is more of a historical happenstance regarding our evolutionary heritage like our morphology. Neither of which is meaningless to us.

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist Would you care to elaborate on what 'our' wonderful evolutionary heritage consist of? From what and whence did it originate? I am simply saying that right does not become so simply because we say it's so. Surely, you would agree with that. The more imortant question then is how and why do we judge truthfully that something is right and good versus something being wrong and deplorable? How do atheists do that?

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert Moving the goal posts are you. How far back do you want to move them so we can save a lot of time? BTW, life on Earth originates on Earth.

And I know exactly what you're saying regarding the "right is right" thing. I've seen the argument thousands of times. The theory of evolution gives us a explanation why we have a moral compass. But like "why is the sky blue" we can only derive explanations, not some mythical ultimate reason or purpose. Claiming otherwise is....dishonest.

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist I thought you wanted to link morality to evolution.I still do not see how evolution explains morality.Though you did say it is 'one' explanation.You took offence at Brock's action because it violated a standard of morality of yours.Guess that is pretty much how it works?What makes your standard or mine THE standard?Could it be that we have to give an account of our lives to an ultimate standard bearer?Just like how it works in a court of law?That's only FAIR?

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert I have linked morality to the theory of evolution (and I'm not the only one, it's a hot topic in evolution). It's not my standard, its our species standard trend as derived via our evolutionary heritage as social animals (especially complex social animals).

Honesty has been selected for, dishonesty selected against. It's not 100% but nothing is.Try a thought experiment: How long would a population remain viable if dishonest was not seen as a negative moral trait and selected against?

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist think the issues are more complex here.First,morality's incompatible with evolution.If I'm no different from the swinging ape & the savage lion,why do i feel guilt, shame, or righteous anger?Humans are the only creatures who see the need to have a court of law,build places of worship,clothe their private parts.From whence comes the need to ensure viability of our species if we were just apes of a higher order?The dodo never looked at it in those terms, obviously.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert Yes, the issue is complex. But even the ape and the lion have emotions, have innate behaviors that relate to interpersonal (to use a anthropomorphic term) interactions. Lions are not "savage", they actually have a complex set of behaviors.

As for the emotions, who are you to say they don't experience some level of those you mentioned? Apes, especially, share many of our emotional characteristics. Cont....

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist To put it simply, would you go to sit next to a lion? I hope not. But if a lion mauled you to death. It gets shot, maybe. But it does not have to feel guilty. It does not need to be tried. That's the evolutionary heritage that you were talking about. Now if a man does the same, all kinds of philosophical questions pop up. Like... Why? The victims don't deserve this... What kind of a monster is he?...

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert You're right, the lion probably doesn't "feel" guilty. Neither do sociopaths (their neurology prevents them from having a strong emotional response to the suffering of others).

Of course a human hunter also has very little guilt over killing their prey. So it actually looks like the human hunter and the lion have something in common regarding their emotional attachment to their prey. Kin selection actually deals with this type of issue.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert Not all cultures have a court of law (think small aboriginal tribes). And most of us have no need of it for most, if not all our lives. But it is a product of our social complexity (which is greater than other organisms). However, this is just a matter of degree.

As for our species viability, again the theory of evolution provides the explanation. If we didn't have such a drive to exist we would be extinct. Basically, the ancestors that worked hard to survive and reproduce is why...

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert we as a species, and all other species on the planet, have a drive to survive and reproduce because of history of our evolutionary heritage. There's no ultimate or absolute why we do so, only the fact that we inherited that drive, like our eye color or blood type.

As for us being apes of higher order, that's false. All existing species are at the same level on the evolutionary bush. We're all survivors.

But true, 99+% of all organisms that ever existed have gone extinct.

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist That's exactly why evolution doesn't quite cut it for me. "There's no absolute or ultimate why we do so" We are reduced to a bunch of reflexive electronic impulses. Ok. we're all from the same bush. All's equal. We're all on the same level. The lion with the squid, with the earthworm with the squirrel, with the man.Equals. How sad is that? Man has a need for the transcendant that evolution cannot account for.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert Hm, you're speaking of the theory of evolution as though it's some alternative religious story to be picked at the whim of ones emotions. It isn't. It's a descriptive, explanatory model like relativity, or quantum mechanics, or Bohr's atomic model. Your emotional dislike for it has no impact on it's validity or the truths that we can derive from it's application.

Also; no it isn't sad that all organisms are at the same evolutionary level. No more sand that we live on the same planet.

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist ok. Here's an alternative model. see ?v=seAHybCIBzk

I don't dislike it emotionally. It just does not work for me at an intellectual level. Yes, we do live on the same planet and I do think that all life is to be respceted and cared for. But that is definitely different than saying that at the end of the day, i am no different from an earthworm.I do believe that of all the creatures on the earth mankind has a calling to manage and care for creation.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert One can derive objective moral trends that are derivatives of process (evolution) but one can never derive absolute morality. It simply does not exist. If you make the claim that absolute morality exists in some form, then you need to provide demonstrable evidence (and not emotional arguments) of it. Otherwise you're just arguing for invisible pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert The final point, re: begging the question. Again, I've essentially answered this one in my original response to you (I did so because I foresaw such responses). It's not a "whose" standard. It's what has been driven into our species over the last several million years by a natural process (evolution if you need a name). Indeed, elements of this moral code is seen in all social species to one degree or another. cont....

[jouljert]

@SoCalAtheist 'It's not a whose standard'. It is. If you determine that Brock is wrong and Brock doesn't think so, Another thinks Brock is the scum of the earth while his wife thinks Brock is not that bad, just a tad dishonest...who's to say Brock is not 'right' after all? In the first place, how did we get the idea that anything must be right or wrong? Do dogs have this?

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert It's not about what I or Brock thinks, it's about the outcome. It's about what it would mean to humanity as a whole (for this issue at least, not necessarily for smaller ones). As for the scum comment, that's opinion regarding character, not a moral issue.

Actually dogs do have a sense of "right" and "wrong". Though it is species centric and we cannot apply our species centric views to the dogs. Though we can learn theirs. In fact training dogs exploits those traits.

[SoCalAtheist]

@jouljert And this leads us to lassie. It's the degree of morality in humans that do make us different from other species like a dog. Dogs do cooperate and are social, however, they are not as socially complex as we are. They do have a moral compass as well, just not as complex as ours. Dogs don't have the moral intelligence to consider stealing in a larger context. We do have this moral intellect as virtue of our unique evolutionary lineage.

[warriorscholar]

Wow, the line about bulimia was really good. As was the rest of the video. And you clearly didn't insult his wife. You even suggested she might be beautiful.

[keithmoslak]

Din-esh D-soo-za. A Repug ass-kisser for years.

[338dmac]

It pisses me off that people don't realize this; Southern slave-holders used SCRIPTURE to JUSTIFY their owning slaves. Brock is just a walking, plagarizing fail.

[ggab7768]

Well done!

And to those who seem to think that calling him on this is a wrong move... since when is calling out dishonesty wrong?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Shut it out and shout it out.

[zebraone100]

Plagiarism is a losing argument. It is a lazy argument. Why? Because it is blatantly ad hominem, and the people we want to reach know it.

When we argue substance, we ALWAYS win. We may not convince Brock, but he isn't the target audience anyway.

If he is reading these sources, then others are reading it as well. We need to show why his sources are wrong, not why regurgitating is wrong.

Arguing plagiarism instead of the argument itself makes us look like we are dodging the issue.

[SoCalAtheist]

True, and most of my videos deal with the issues brought up. This one was specifically about Brock's plagiarism.

[agentssith]

Plagiarism is not a losing argument. A salesperson rises or falls with his ad hominem ability to sell. This idiot is a christian salesperson who wouldn't buy his own product (steals it instead). IOW, he doesn't think it is worth purchase; why should anyone else?

This @sshole's credibility is in question. Therefore the 'passion' that he has 'found' as a former 'atheist' is entirely phony. He is no more 'former' atheist than Kirk 'bananaman' Cameron is..

[TheIllegit]

If you care about plagiarism and you aren't a school teacher grading an assignment then you are stupid. Ideas are ideas and there are hardly any original ones anywhere... accept or reject them based on their merits, not based on their source of origin.

[SoCalAtheist]

His (their) arguments don't have merit. And I care about out right plagiarism (he certainly could have taken their work and worded it of his own accord, but he didn't) because it is dishonest. It's also an example of the type of tactics commonly used by those like Brock and it should be exposed.

[TheIllegit]

"His (their) arguments don't have merit" - then attack/rebut those. And forget about plagiarism because no one cares

[SoCalAtheist]

I have. As for "no one cares", that is inconsistent with the number of people (and yes, they are mostly atheists, but not all) that have voiced their concern over his plagiarism.

I have to ask, do you not care about honesty? That's the crux of the issue here.

[TheIllegit]

"I have." - no not rly. You may have rebutted Brocks poor representation of a GK Chesteron argument (for one example), but you haven't rebutted the argument. And I've seen most of your vids

[SoCalAtheist]

You're right, I didn't deal with the whole "no atheist stood against slavery" claim from D'Souza. Or that atheists are absent from national disasters (from same author), or any others.

How could I have missed that one.

Of course, most of Brock's borrowed arguments straw man atheist positions, and hence are not really arguments as much as empty rhetoric. Kind of like your last comment.

[TheIllegit]

"I have to ask, do you not care about honesty? That's the crux of the issue here." - no... in my personal life, yes. Or when the dishonesty is in some way harmful to me. Bu

[SoCalAtheist]

Oh, so it's kind of a selfish thing for you?

Sorry, but I'm more concerned about honesty. And given the motives behind Brock, it is dishonesty that's directed at atheists, such as myself. So I have a personal interest in it as well as a more universal interest in it.

[LordMalice6d9]

Actually there were atheists and also secularists who opposed slavery.

Thomas Paine was a founder who could definitely not be considered a christian and spoke often of belief in the abolishment of slavery. Also Robert Ingersoll known as the "Great Agnostic" and "The Great Emancipater" among many other secular individuals who were opposed to slavery.

When people like Dinesh 'Dishonest' say that atheism did nothing to opposes slavery, it's nothin more than complete BS.

[LordWhorfinX]

Here is the problem with you cowardly atheists... you will do ANYTHING to discredit or get rid of someone you are really afraid of, namely AA.......you guys are a joke...

[SoCalAtheist]

Cowardly? How so? I'm not hiding behind the words of someone else. I'm not lying to have a reason to block someone. I don't group all christians into one category. Brock, and the people that he plagiarizes, does. There is nothing to be afraid of coming from him.

However, IMHO it is a moral imperative that one expose a demonstrable liar and fraud, such as Brock is.

If you don't like honesty winning out over dishonesty, do me a favor and don't watch my videos.

[LordWhorfinX]

He isn't dishonest. He used someone else's words to describe his feelings...big deal. If the only thing you have to call him on is this, then you already lost that argument.

[SoCalAtheist]

He didn't credit that person, or admit that those words were not his. He presented those words as if they were his own. That is dishonesty.

He also claimed that I insulted his wife when I've done no such thing. See videos in side bar.

He also misrepresents atheists and atheism (well he doesn't, the people that he plagiarizes do). Lies about science (see: 2nd law argument). And others too numerous to mention. But look, there are videos detailing his dishonesty.

You fail here.

[LordWhorfinX]

What are you the fucking TRUTH police?! So what if he did?! If you don't like it move on. And I think he sums up atheism a little lightly. Atheism is pure danger when wielded by the militant atheist. It's selfish, cold, calculating and dangerous.

You could call me on what I said but you cannot STOP me.

[SoCalAtheist]

Not the "truth police" just someone that can't stand liars like Brock. Why would you defend such a person?

Christianity is a pure danger when wielded by the militant Christian (see how easily that is turned around?)

I don't need to stop you. You can hang yourself with this rope if you want.

[LordWhorfinX]

You failed at spinning that one. There is not such thing as "militant Christianity" because at that point those people are not truly Christians. And Brock is no liar, but it is comical how you atheists will do ANYTHING to discredit him.....you really are afraid of him aren't you.....

[SoCalAtheist]

No such thing as militant christianity? Nice "No True Scotsman" fallacy there. I could use the same by saying that they weren't really atheists, they were believers in a god but chose to ignore that god.

Brock isn't a liar, yet his lies (plagiarized as they are) are demonstrable.

Stick to verifiable facts. Not your wants.

[artestra]

you told a internet christian to stop lying??? lol

[TheFallibleFiend]

Also disturbing that anyone would be sufficiently insane to consider Dinesh D'Souza worth plagiarizing.

[mattyabsley]

"Dinesh D'Souza" plagiarizes every known human atttibute in the name of his delusional space daddy character anyway. Amazing that anyone actually listens to the turnip, let alone plagiarizing him.

[bobble12221]

Actually in England, slavery was made illegal in 1102, over 700 years before the United States

[pirbird14]

When I first heard this argument from d'Souza, it took me about 1/2 hr on the internet to debunk it. The anti-slavery movement started in England when a slave escaped from a ship and appealed to the courts. The court decided that the concept of slavery no longer existed in English law - the institution had died a natural death.

The cause was taken up by freethinkers, deists, and Christians.

The first anti-slavery groups in the US were started decades later.

[queenboxi]

how funny . . . Brock is recycling his little speeches

i love how on the ball you guys are, nice work!

[TheraminTrees]

I love the bulimia metaphor.

[FUCKYOURGODINTHEASS]

Just a thought.

MTCstrength is Brocks brother.

I wonder if he too dabbles in plagiarism?

[antybu86]

Indeed, he does: /watch?v=ZfPDSu7ZWok

[SoCalAtheist]

Great, it runs in their family. Hopefully they're sufficiently inbred to be sterile, though I very much doubt it.

[Libertarianist]

Lincoln, a secularist, single handedly, freed most of the slaves. One of the few major political actions that can accurately be attributed to a president.

[riversonthemoon]

Wow. I checked out those articles in the description. They are, literally, the scripts for a number of his videos. And so many people were complementing him on his expression! I read some of the comments on those articles and, not surprisingly, many of the same points were raised there in rebuttal as appeared in the comments section of his vids. Bullshit is bullshit in any medium.

Ah, the wonders of the modern search engine. Good job.

[orange146]

Brock always resorts to childish tactics when beaten. He refused to answer h8uall66s challenge in a similar way.

I've gone from finding brock annoying and offensive to feeling a bit sorry for him. No original ideas, forced to steal from others etc. Its kind of pathetic.

I wonder if anything about him is genuine.

[orange146]

This video is great! Awesome job exposing this lying fraud.

5 stars.

[TheAtheistAntidote]

Martyr yourself in your own mind if you wish.

Find me another Christian that gives people like you as much freedom to attack openly on his or her channel.

I said you can repost when you apologize and omit my wife from your video.

I have a line you crossed it. Just say youre sorry and all is water under the bridge my friend. If you think I fear you, your pride is worse than I first presumed.

[hydroids]

Way to cop-out Brock.

[TheDarkKnight987]

If you remove the video, how can anyone tell if you're telling the truth? You just come out as a liar and a coward. It amuses that you can act all smug, arrogant and superior when most people already know how full of shit you are.

[Arkanix]

His pride? Have you listened to your own Videos?? You Brock are solidly pretentious and really offensive.

[99minerkc]

Your a Plagiarist and you shouldn't be taken seriously!! You need to delete your videos or you will be reported!

[rokth]

"Find me another Christian that gives people like you as much freedom to attack openly on his or her channel. " You certainly love deleting comments that make you look bad from your channel. How is that supposed to be freedom? Why Brock. You just told a lie. Breaking your rules yet again it seems.

[TheAtheistAntidote]

I thank you for your video

however, I will delete it because of what you said about my wife.

If you re-edit out the disrespect I will allow you to post again.

As a side note: I am glad I am getting to you. Seems if is your lack of education that proves to prick your pride.

[SoCalAtheist]

Really? Hm, did I say anything negative about you wife? No. I did indicated that she could have been the origin of the anonymous poem or could have gotten her inspiration from that poem, or that you plagiarized the original poem. But I said nothing negative about your wife.

What this appears to me is you grasping at straws for an excuse to remove this video. Cowardly.

[TheAtheistAntidote]

say what you will.

Re-edit the video leaving my wife out.

And you can repost.

I warn you I am not in any way kidding about this.

[SoCalAtheist]

I said nothing about you wife in a negative fashion in this video, Brock. I only question your integrity, such as it is. And now you're using a fictitious excuse to attempt to censure me. Brock, I've been on YouTube long enough to not care much about creationists censuring me. It stands as evidence against their position. That they (you) fear that they (you) will be found out as frauds.

The Apple Tree story is in the links in the discription. Look at it yourself.

[h8uall66]

Dude, come on, he didn't say anything negative about your wife.

[SoCalAtheist]

At least my video is still at the top in the related video section. So nice attempt at censuring me, but you fail. You should be getting rather use to that.

[jmsimpson11]

whoa! this seems like a big chunck of win! hope he makes a reply to this.

[mar8les]

Nice video mate.

[EVHisgodyoumuppet]

I can't believe he claimed to have more formal education than you!

So what if he has? Look at theamazingatheist, he dropped out of high school, but he could out-argue almost anyone.

It's such a snobbish view that your performance on youtube could be affected by someting like that.

It doesn't matter what education he has, he still believes in an invisible man that lives in the sky that sends us to hell if we don't do what he says - which is pretty fucking stupid.

[artemisfair]

He loves misinformation. I mean, how could the slaves have turned to Hume or Voltaire for solace, even if they did offer it? When does he think that the Christian slave-owners taught the slaves about Hume and Voltaire? They weren't allowed an education!

Furthermore, first generation slaves rejected Christianity and worshipped the Orishas and the folk-gods. Second and third generations might have accepted Christianity because it was the only school of thought they were allowed to.

[artemisfair]

"it's a misrepresented argument"

That's the only kind Brock has, unfortunately.

[Danmill23]

Great work! Hmpf....

[SoCalAtheist]

Glad to hear from you. I've missed your videos.

And thank you.

[OdysseusUnicornis]

Not only did he plagarize D'Souza, Brock couldn't even get that right! He attributes a Micheal Shermer quote, clearly stated in the article, to Sam Harris. I'm assumng it's because he doesn't know who Shermer is.

That is too funny!

Great video!

[bewarethelizards42]

Loved. Every. Single. Second. Of. This.

:D

[AncientAtheist]

"Christians" both held and fought against slavery. But it was a secular government that ended slavery.

[SoCalAtheist]

Very good comment. Very true. Thank you.

[AncientAtheist]

All we can definitively say about "Christians" and "slaves" is that there is no biblical prohibitions against having a slave. It's not just the Old Testament either. Jesus spoke on slavery, only to inform his followers the "proper way" of treating one's slaves. If you believe Jesus actually "spoke"about anything....

[ThoughtfulAtheist]

Whew...you've pinned him pretty good here socal...plagiarism? never crossed my mind till now. lets wait and see if he has a response

great vid man!

[SoCalAtheist]

I've been updating the description with more evidence of his plagiarism. I'll be making another video in a day or so talking about this even more.

Thank you for the comment.

[hogtiechamp]

Brock said, "[Early USA] anti-slavery movement was dominated by Christians." Umm... Weren't there a LOT of Christians back then?? Wasn't every moment dominated by Christians? Every town hall, every state legislature, every bowling team... (or cricket or whatever...)

I would be more surprised if someone made the claim that even ONE slave owner was NOT a Christian.

Moot.