Response to a "Neutral" Observer

[ReligionInTheBin]

Ghaha, standard fallacies and made up definitions...it's the only way theists can convince themselves of having actual arguments, pathetic!

[tampa76]

Jesus saves! your a heathan and will burn in hell

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

@tampa76

So I'm frequently told.

[logoth80]

i think 'adaptation' as it stands for, is what opponents of evolution tought of.

as in creatures adapt to their surroundings by positive ways, not by negative selection.

for example hipothesis that humans got stronger jaws becouse they chew more, not becouse those with weaker jaws kept dying.

that is ofcourse exactly how world does not work. and i think thats what he meant.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

It doesn't matter. He didn't even know what he was talking about, let alone convey his thoughts coherently. Even if what you say is true, you're simply alluding to natural selection, which as you probably know is a mechanism of evolution.

[logoth80]

i probably werent clear.

many ppl (wrongly) belive that 'adaptation' is not selective proces.

for example: if i go to gym for 2years after having first child, my second child will be stronger. thats how ppl still think we 'progress'

so he saying 'adaptation' probably didnt mean 'by natural selection'.

that shows him as even less educated.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Maybe, but he said science has "only" proven adaptation, so I assume he acknowledges that organisms change under environmental pressure. Of course, as one might infer from his latest stint here, in which he snapped and removed all his comments, he could very well be every bit as ignorant as you suggest.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I've never driven anyone into a psychotic rage before. First time for everything, I guess.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Dude, nobody "dragged" you into anything. You inserted yourself into an extant discussion that had nothing to do with you, then you made a series of harebrained proclamations you couldn't defend. Let's not rewrite history here.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Nope, you were here six days ago, in reply to dave28lax, and that's why I replied to you this evening.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Too bad, lamar. I thought you were quite the riot.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Yes, to work with. That happens in the alphabet soup of comment wars.

You really are an angry bastard, ain't ya?

By the way, it's "semantics."

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

The only reason I'm responding is because you won't go away. This is my video after all, and you remain here two weeks after the fact, still insulting my viewers. Project much?

I'm not sure how you're defining arrogance. Willingness to refute bullshit? I've already said yes, guilty as charged if that is the criteria.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

There are thousands upon thousands of transitional forms (which creationists call "missing links," even though they aren't missing). Would you care to point out which missing transitional form invalidates the cornerstone of modern biology? I don't think there is one.

Where is the "arrogance" in the video I made to NVP? That I dared refute false claims? Well, if that's it, call me arrogant then, and I'm glad to be.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

The law of gravity is the result of observational data, and even that is assume to be universal (making it not really a "law" right?). You let go of the fork in your hand, and it falls toward the center of attraction. Fact. How and why that happens is explained by the theory of gravitation and, on larger scale, the theory of general relativity.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

'Known Phenomena has no missing links.'

What? We don't even know if gravitons exist. We don't yet know what comprises gravity, only what it does.

The Higgs boson has been predicted but not yet discovered.

Plasma (ionized gas) remains highly researched, including but not limited to a possible basis for alternate cosmology.

So what are you talking about?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

It has everything to do with the issue.  The aforementioned subjects are not without "missing links" (e.g. gravitons). Nonetheless, gravity still exists and its theory works quite well. Ditto for atoms, electricity and evolution.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Yet you do argue, constantly, then block and insult people when things get hairy.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

You're arguing (poorly) right now.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

'No iam done arguing..'

Well, at least you can implicitly admit that you were.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Six days ago, you told dave28lax to "grow up," after declaring him devoid of anything "intelligent to say."

Remember now? I replied tonight because it was the first time I saw it. I don't check YouTube every day. Now you know.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Hey, you're not only an angry bastard, but one strange duck, too!

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

No, you don't have to prove anything to me at all. But if you're going to address one of my videos, especially in a critical context, I'm going to respond and expect you can logically defend your position. If you can't or won't ... well, as I said in my last response, we don't have much work with.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I refute falsehoods, and I like to argue. If refuting bad arguments is an "attack," you're just going to have to suck it up and deal. I have no intention of changing my ways any time soon.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I wasn't trying to get NVP to agree to anything nor is that my modus operandi in addressing theists. I was refuting falsehoods, and I like to argue. Aside from amusement, those are almost always my reasons for responding to theists. So again, you swing at straw.

And that still doesn't explain why anything I said is "absurd," even it was.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

I can only assume you meant to type "I don't care what science calls theory. Look it up."

Unfortunately, if you are going to criticize the concept of "scientific theory," then what a theory is in the context of science happens to be somewhat relevant. In science, a theory is the highest form of proof and often appeals to laws, or explains them.

"...a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena."

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

This is why electricity, gravity, germs, atoms, light and evolution are all explained by theories.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

What "absurd comments" would that be? Additionally, you should also explain WHY these heretofore unidentified "comments" qualify as such.

[Scrapheap71]

this guy is using the tired old "Neutral agnostic ploy. They claim neutrality, then procede to take a theistic position.

Same old tire bullshit we've heard before.

[EsotericThrone]

That summary at the end was pretty soul crushing. Kudos.

[roentgen571]

I hope you guys were taking notes, cuz Eugene just gave a classic lesson in intellectual pwnage. :-)

[MechanizedFantasy]

Indeed raging. Brother sent me a hearty a hearty "fuck you" and then invited me to be friends.. I'm unsure of his intentions.

[KagarBeardtooth]

Hahaha, lamar is raging.

[nailo1]

god reminds me of my myspace experiment, this guy told me it was a religion not to believe bigfoot is real

[xoxgodofgodsgodxx]

Not collecting stamps is a hobby, too.-

[Truthisnonexistant]

Good work

[MaikUniversum]

well, yet another good video and a response :)

[justicecallicles]

This series of exchanges... has been unproductive.

I get the gist of what he wants: he wants the vindictive, petty behavior of votebotting and false flagging to end, along with the endless battle that he believes is the cause.

But he goes with a "do as I say, not as I do" strategy. He argues for positions on the atheism/agnosticism and evolution issues, arguments right out of the debate he wants ended. Then he just abuses people along the way - insulting, deleting, banning...

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

..."has been unproductive."...

After seeing his first response, I expected nothing less ... or more, and haven't been disappointed. I even got blocked for my efforts.

As for everything else, yes, hence the title of this video. I have no plans for another follow-up.

[MechanizedFantasy]

Attaboy, Liberty. Killem' with cold hard facts.

[arknihil]

if christianity can be destroyed, then it is false, and therefore should be destroyed

[hurrrrrrrrrrr]

troll

[dave28lax]

@lamarridley2: I guess your definition of an education doesn't include learning to capitalize, punctuate, or spell correctly.

[dave28lax]

"you bastard"

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated.

"in text, one doesn't always follow normal punctutation"

Indeed, or spell it correctly, apparently. However, when one is questioning another's education it is generally wise to show one actually is educated, otherwise one ends up looking like a complete arse.

"you continue to prove your stupidity"

I made one reply to you. This is the only interaction we have had. In order to "continue" to do anything you must have done it more than once.

[Kbiomech]

don't know about dave... but, Bring it, Bitch. If you REALLY think that LING is ignorant and uneducated, then I too am a fool.

I'd gladly let the audience vote on that proposition. And I only block spammers.

[dave28lax]

"i'll put my education up against your's anyday."

Your education may have been top notch, it's just s shame none of it appears to have stuck.

"yours" has no apostrophe, and "any day" is TWO words.

With so many simple mistakes seemingly designed to invoke ridicule, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are some kind of weird masochistic troll. Either that, or incredibly stupid. In either case, for my part this conversion if over. TTFN

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"Grow Up!" screams the petulant child who insults and blocks anyone who challenges his broken world-view.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Just as your disagreement with a given position does not constitute a logical argument, neither do your insults and denial (though the latter is admittedly amusing).

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

Nah, you're a creationist in "neutral" clothing. I think that fact was exposed with ease, and you blocked me for it (reinforcing your creationist tendencies).

And again, disagreeing != rebutting. For that matter, I don't think you even know what it is you disagree with.

[Mjhavok]

Consepts

lulz

[AnarchoSolipsist]

If a person in a dream says "I don't exist" then I think that statement is actually true.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"If a person in a dream..."

^^^

I can't tell if that's meant to be serious.

[Mjhavok]

50% less dumb than your mom?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

So "dumb," perhaps, that you had to block me to stop the systematic disassembly of your world-view?

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

"that's right mother fucker"

I thought so. Jesus loves you.

[wjkaiser65]

Enjoyed your video - will be looking for more of them trom you

[Textra1]

It's a common mistake on these self avowed 'agnostics', who by the way often don't understand the meaning of the word agnostic, to think that theism and atheism are analogous to 1 and -1. Theism and atheism are more analogous 1 and !1. Atheism is not a belief and it's simply absurd to call it a religion.

[Censeo]

It is not that simple. Rocks aren't atheists, just like they aren't bald, blind or illiterate. Atheists are a set which are part of a larger set where some of these contain theism. This is why I'd say newborns are atheists because no newborn is a theist. Atheism must be about being unconvinced of the concept of theism as valid world view.

[Censeo]

correction: newborns **aren't**

[Textra1]

Of course it's not that simple. But the comments section doesn't have room dissertorial theses. ^^

At its simplest, atheism is a lack of belief, but of course one must first be capable of believing a proposition before they can reject said proposition. Axiomatically, we infer that we're talking about sentient and thinking beings when we talk about atheism being a lack of belief. Rocks cannot believe anything, so obviously we're not talking about rocks.

[Textra1]

"Atheism must be about being unconvinced of the concept of theism as valid world view."

Which is why atheism is a rejection of of theistic belief and can be said to be a lack of belief in the theists god. Or if you will, to be without-theism.

It's might be academically interesting to discuss the state of belief of a rock or to contemplate one's navel, but clearly we're talking about conscious and thoughtful entities when we discuss atheism.

[Censeo]

"Which is why atheism is a rejection of of theistic belief and can be said to be a lack of belief in the theists god."

No, it is a conscious rejection of the concept theism holding merit enough to believe in. To not believe in Santa Claus, you have to know about Santa first. To be an atheist, you need to understand what gods mean. All people who know what a god is and isn't worshipping any gods or fear any of them doesn't believe in gods, rather than lack belief in them, which rocks do as well.

[Textra1]

"it is a conscious rejection of the concept theism holding merit enough to believe in."

No, not always. Not every atheist rejects belief in gods through a conscientious process. Ignorance is sufficient for one to be considered a non-believer of X. An A-Xist.

[Censeo]

well, I wouldn't think ignorance of theism gives you any capability to believe in gods, and as we both have agreed is the case, capability need to be present.

[Textra1]

"To not believe in Santa Claus, you have to know about Santa first."

No, you don't. On the hypothetical planet Zargon, there may well be a tribe of aliens who believe in some god called Xanthor. I don't need to have heard about this god to not believe in it. The default state is one of non-belief. I am a-Xanthorist, whether I've heard of Xanthor or not.

[Textra1]

If one does not have a belief in X, they necessarily lack a belief in X. Whether they have heard of it or not. If one have never see or heard or oranges, they lack oranges. If one has never see or heard of belief X, they lack belief X. It's simply not within them. Martians lack a belief in Santa Claus. Zargonians lack a belief in Santa Claus. We only decide to give it a label when people who lack a certain belief are the extreme minority.

[Textra1]

You can speak of rocks all you like, but as I said before, we are only talking about that which is capable of believing. By the strictest definition, rock are atheists, but clearly we don't include them in a discourse on atheism/theism since they are incapable of thought or belief to begin with.

[Censeo]

yes, and in the strictest sense, rocks are illitterate. But that is unorthodox language, and I'm pointing out what atheism must mean generally, which is not merely lack of belief in god, just as illitterate is not merely lack of capability to read and write.

[Anon1696]

DESTROYER!

[modelmark]

I atheism is a belief, bold is a hair color, non stamp collecting is a hobby, off is a tv channel.

youtube: sGT25Oj-6rc

[TheBigHo111]

*****

[Censeo]

this was intellectual pwnge on master level.

[draagon66]

Yet another fruitcake. They keep popping out of the woodwork. We do need a spray of some sort to eliminate their effects. maybe just to stop them breeding.

l really feel sorry for the US and its adherence to the desert dogmas. It is stifling your progress.

[x0TheJackal0x]

lol, tell me about it, how do you think we feel?

[overmind25]

LING=a terrific thinker and comedian.

[ILYIAB]

Well spoken.

[RaymondDundas]

You are awesome. You need to go on Stickam.