Fumble on a Statue of Liberty Play

Our resident pinhead replied to his own comment.

Has anybody scientifically observed and evolving specie? If nobody can observe it then it is not a proof of science.

Rather than walk you through all the various experiments demonstrating the principles of evolution on a scale that coincides with the longer timelines needed to see the full effect, let’s talk about how this reflects on your alternative hypothesis of a divine creator entity. By your own logic, you cannot prove the existence of God because you’ve made no direct observations that would indicate his presence. You speak of “evidence all around” in some of your other comments, but apart from citing mythological sources like the Bible, hearsay at the very best, your alleged evidence is no more proof positive of the God of the Abrahamic religions than those many gods of Greek tradition. Even if we take your premise of observation as read, you’re offering to trade one arbitrary assertion for another with the only advantage of yours being, as you’ve said, it’s easy. As a meme once said, you cannot pray rockets into space. Fortunately, science is not an arbitrary assertion, thanks in part to predictions proven true by observations of past phenomena.

Can you repeat the synthesis of life similar to a chemical experiment? If you cannot reproduce life from a non-living molecule then you do not have a proof.

What do you think happens in human reproduction? As for reproducing life from a non-living molecule, just because a process is beyond our means to recreate in a laboratory setting doesn’t nullify the observations we make in the natural world. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated complex organic molecules forming on their own under the right conditions, including the majority of the amino acids necessary for life.

I could say that the statue of liberty in New York evolved without any human intervention. The rocks and metals inside the statue arrived to NYC via a volcanic erruption and the wind simply shaped it that way as you would say according to the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a biological process, not a geological one. Rocks and metal don’t breed.

But a simple explanation, that every peice of the statue of liberty was designed and build by a human creator is not acceptable to you.

It took several people to build and the statue (with at least three individuals credited with the design), so your simple explanation isn’t adequate by any standards. Moreover, it puts your monotheism in question. Doesn’t our cooperative behavior as a species speak more to a collaborative effort than a singular endeavor? A man and woman are necessary for reproduction but there’s no Goddess with whom God created life?

You can keep on thinking other possible ways how the statue of libery came into NYC and thaf is how is a theory is made. But the simple fact and easiest explanation is the what logical people would accept.

I suppose it’s to be expected that as long as you don’t understand what a theory is, you’d think Occam’s Razor is some kind of ultimatum. Occam’s Razor, also called the Principle of Parsimony, is defined as

The scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference to alternative evolutionary pathways.

USUALLY, typically, commonly, habitually, traditionally… these aren’t sounding like absolutes, are they? In terms of theism, I’d ask what’s simpler than polytheism? When I look out at the natural world, I don’t see a harmony. I see a delicate balance of conflict, opposing forces, and incompatible powers. I see many species and locales and regions and cultures and environments. I see division, not unity. There’s cooperation, but cooperation responds to diversity, otherwise it’s redundant (how do you compromise homogeneity?). None of this indicates a single-minded design, but a committee, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in opposition.

The truth exists and you can’t twist the truth even with a million theories you can have.

Demonstrating once again you don’t understand what a theory is. No one purports a theory to be anything more than an interpretation of facts and observations put to the test through rigorous experimentation and peer review. If all these observations of reality and nature and humanity cannot yield a consistent interpretation of an all-powerful, singular deity, then your monotheism is not truthful, but hypothetical at the very best.

A million lies does not, can not and will not change the truth.

How many versions of the Bible are there? How many religions has it borrowed from or otherwise appropriated through socio-political strife to become the amalgamation that it is today?

The truth will set you free as they say…

How many gods will you be adding to your prayers? Why are you so ungrateful?


Crocodidn’t, didn’e?

Following an answer about the burden of proof as it relates to theism and atheism:

I think you do not know anything about proving a theory.

I think someone needs a refresher course in what a theory is and how the scientific method works. Scratch that, I know someone needs a refresher course in what a theory is and how the scientific method works. Of course, that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that you once learned it but otherwise forgot or denied it due to reasons that will become apparent the more we proceed in identifying what informs your belief.

According to the National Academy of Sciences:

“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”

A theory exists as a result of proof. The reason the term theory is used has to do with the peer review process more than anything, the notion that new information may come along that requires the theory to be dropped in favor of a more accurate one. Thus far, no compelling evidence has been presented to validate the existence of any deity or pantheon thereof from any religion. Those kinds of changes usually involve wars.

Your theory of evolution is so full of flaws.

If evolution is flawed, then creationism is fabricated. This is our first real inkling, besides your inability to understand the burden of proof being on the positive claim, that you are in fact building up to an argument from ignorance. In short, because you don’t fully understand something, you would just as soon deny it in favor of something else. The irony of this is that in other answers you talk about human knowledge being limited, which is true of absolutely everything, including supernatural claims such as werewolves, Enlightenment, dragons, Valhalla, spirit animals, wendigos, chakras, ghosts, the gods of Olympus, reptoids, hidden prophetic messages in Helter Skelter, and God, among many other equally unsubstantiated claims believed by some as the absolute truth. When your platform for an argument is that human knowledge and observation is limited, you actually undermine your own points in the very same process as literally everything you know about God was told to you by other people, thus informing the very outlook by which you observe and correlate all the world’s contents. Had you been raised in a polytheistic culture, and took that information as the absolute truth, you would adjust your outlook to accommodate this point of view with equally legitimate results.

As we said, if we’re grading on a curve, evolution being “flawed” puts creationism on the level of wishful thinking.

Missing links: where are the transitional creatures? no bones of the walking fish ?

Every organism that isn’t the last in its line is transitional. Asking where the transitional creatures ARE (present tense) is like asking when the future arrives. The only reason homo sapiens aren’t considered transitional is that there hasn’t been a species to come after us in our line, though there are many transitional species between us and the common ancestor we share with our fellow apes like the gorillas and the chimpanzees.


An example of a transitional organism where homo sapiens are concerned is Australopithecus Africanus, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus. It’s also worth noting that the term “missing link,” coined in 1851 by Charles Lyell, was never used by Darwin in his Origin of Species.

As for walking fish, do you mean lungfish? There’s no shortage of bones for those. Speaking of bones, there are also snakes with both remains of legs as well as the genes for developing them, we have tailbones despite lacking tails, and while it’s not a fish, Ambulocetus has a very impressive presence in the fossil record (because bones fossilize over millions of years, in case you didn’t know).

Survival of the fittest: why did the crocodile did not get extinct and never evolve?

You technically answered your own terribly-worded question by prefacing it with “survival of the fittest.” The crocodile is aptly suited enough to its environment that any radical mutations or other new traits have not yielded any advantage that may improve its odds of survival. Necessity is the mother of invention, and it’s also the mother of evolution. Similarly, sharks are apex predators, and this position at the top of the food chain has resulted in very few evolutionary changes over the past several epochs.

Dinasour dates: How did you measure the age of the Dinasour?

How did you verify Jesusfeeding of the 5,000, Muhammad splitting the moon in half, Poseidon creating the horse, the Air-Spirit people crossing over from the second world to the third world…?

Our ability to determine the age of things is rooted in many different scientific disciplines, including radiology, geology, and biology. We know the age of the earth due to radiometric dating, specifically Lead-Lead dating; determining the ratio of different isotopes of Lead along with the measured decay creating these isotopes in the first place determines how old a sample of a given material is. Geologists use core samples, either of rock or ice, and use the layers of settled and compacted rock and ice as a timeline of events in the distant past. On a lesser scale, dendrochronology applies the same principles of layers as a measure of time to trees. There are trees that, according to more literal interpretations of the Bible, should have died in Noah’s Flood, yet live to this day.

Auto genesis of life is imposible mathematical probabilities can prove this yet you accept it as a fact.

I’d ask for a citation, but you’d probably ask me why I’m bringing up whales again.

Anyway, equations themselves aren’t proof, but a means of interpreting and collating data, much like theories. If this were that simple, i > u would be all I’d have to say to undermine your position.

As for the mathematics of probability of life from nothing, I’m going to let this do the talking:


Facts: Long before science insisted the world was flat the bible mention the world was a spherem

I don’t know what a spherem is. You probably mean “hemisphere” which is a half-sphere, in case you need a refresher course in geometry. In Biblical terms, the half-sphere would have been the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below (Gen 1:6-8).  Also, the Bible mentioned the moon producing its own light and being below the clouds along with the sun (Gen 1:16-18). The Bible also describes at one point a tree that can be seen from anywhere on earth (Daniel 4:10-11), which is impossible on a sphere. Granted, this is described as being in a dream, but why would an all-powerful cosmic super-being show a flat earth in a vision?

Furthermore, the Bible isn’t even consistent in whether this flat earth is circular or square. The very expression, “The four corners of the earth” originated in the Bible (Isaiah 11:12), and spheres don’t have corners. Running counter to this paradigm and in the very same book (Isaiah 40:22), the earth is described as “circular,” never once using the word kadur, the closest word in the Hebrew language for sphere. Is it worth asking how the Jews couldn’t have had a more specific word for the shape of the earth?

As for science insisting the world was flat, you may have noticed this isn’t the case anymore, yet no one has bothered revising the Bible to update its inaccurate portrayal of the earth’s form. Rather, we get apologists who don’t know the difference between a sphere and a circle trying to apply medieval revisions of Bronze Age folklore to the modern, connected, and diverse world we live in today.

Fact: Divine intervention/Creator is the easiest explanation

Easiest? That’s not exactly a mark of merit when it comes to making a compelling argument. Rather, it’s the basis for a cop-out, an acceptance of blissful ignorance over facts and truth. It’s literally an argument from ignorance: you find evolution complicated, but “God did it (magically)” easy, so you go with that one. You do know that Gregor Mendel and Isaac Newton both believed in God yet made vast contributions to genetics and physics, respectively, right? They had all ideas that the universe was designed, but rather than simply leave it at the “easy” solution, they sought to find out how it was designed. You speak of how it’s illogical to say something came from nothing, but isn’t that exactly what happens in Genesis 1:1, or did God have some raw materials to work with? Did he create those out of nothing? Are stacked turtles going to enter this model of yours anytime soon?

It’s also important to distinguish nothing/something AT ALL from nothing/something LIVING. No self-respecting physicist will tell you there was nothing before the Big Bang. Per the laws of conservation of energy and mass, all the matter and energy that exists in the universe currently was present at the start, only it was compressed into a singularity. The subsequent expansion is not only going on right now, but also accelerating towards an inevitable state known as heat death. As for life from non-life, I certainly hope you’re not saying evolution is built on abiogenesis, because that’s a completely different field that evolutionary biologists overall have very little to say about. Abiogenesis is in the field of organic chemistry. It’s a very fascinating field. You should look into it. At the very least, you should look up the difference between something that’s alive and something that’s merely organic.

but you refuse to accept it for no valid reason.

You think, “It’s easy.” is a valid reason to accept a certain point of view? Refusal to accept simple explanations that dismiss facts to the contrary is perfectly valid reasoning.

you cant explain a superior being with your inferior brain. wby cant you accept that.

Now that I’ve finished laughing my ass off at watching someone who can barely spell and string sentences together call someone else stupid for being skeptical of mystic woo, let’s consider the portrait you’ve painted of God as a superior being. You say he’s the creator of the universe, but that evolution could not possibly have been the means by which he sculpted life on earth? How do you know what God was thinking when he set all this in motion? Do you really think he sculpted man from clay as you would a piece of pottery? Don’t you think he’s capable of something more elaborate and befitting his power? Think of the “days” of creation and how many creationists take that as symbolic for some other measurement of time that’s so beyond our comprehension we need simple metaphors for us to understand. All that, yet you’d prefer an “easy” explanation?

Why do you think so little of God?

I Gnosis Something You Don’t Gnosis


Another day, another question on Quora from an anonymous theist showing how they don’t understand what atheism is. The only thing that’s of any substantial interest is the sheer arrogance of someone who in all likelihood is the anonymous OP in his own wishy-washiness of what exactly his position is. In other replies, he plays the “not all” card with both atheists and theists, which again would lack any substantial interest were it not juxtaposed to him also saying that atheism is simply another religion.


“I have had personal experience with God that gives me the reason I say I know.”

Charles Manson would say as much about the hidden messages in Helter Skelter. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you have evidence to differentiate yourself from anyone else you’ve effectively given the same license to by declaring personal experience to be undeserving of criticism, no one has any reason to take your claim seriously, and you haven’t a leg to stand on in demanding it.

“Can I relate that experience to you in a way that you could not come imagine or construct some other reason for the event?”

The whole personal experience angle is a pretty clear sign that you can’t.

“Nope, Thats the nature of Gnosis- it is subjective.”

(long, gravely sigh) I really, really, really hate that word for how much it bores me to tears. I honestly wish theists would stop using it, because they’ve loaded it with so much baggage it’s smashed through the bottom of the barrel and lost what little meaning it had at the start. It’s a textbook example of pretentiousness, this notion that there’s a special kind of knowledge that’s unaccountable yet absolute. “I don’t just believe in God, I really, super-duper, extra deluxe believe in God, so there!” is what these kinds of arguments amount to. Having extensive knowledge of the Star Wars extended universe does not make the events of Star Wars literal history, so why would extensive knowledge of God make God real?

“I take umbrage at your wildly illogical stance that Theists cannot know.”

Umbrage? Umbrage! Sir, you forget yourself. There are children present. I suggest you take a moment to compose yourself, lest you say something you regret and make things worse for yourself. In all seriousness, the assertion may sound wildly illogical, but isn’t an unverifiable, unaccountable anecdote of a supernatural experience indistinguishable from total fabrication presented as anything more especially illogical? Think about it, if someone else who also claimed to have personal experience with God, but your accounts did not match up to the point of full contradiction, do you assume the other person is lying? It would be useless to try to match up your accounts with scripture for verification due to the piecemeal and varied nature of the text, heavily-edited collection of letters and essays transformed beyond recognition via cultural bias that it is.

Moreover, if they truly knew, they could prove it. What’s the difference between a god you cannot prove to exist and no god at all?

“Have you experienced everything?”

Have you? If I said I had, would you take my word for it?

“Do you have more than a forward facing cone of sensory perception and a filament wormhole through time?”

Do you? If I said I did, would you take my word for it?

“Do you think that everything has been discovered or that our instruments will not provide more refined observational ability?”

Do you think that was really God you had a personal experience with? Did you take his word for it?

“Oh wait I get it, you just have faith that there is no God. Well, I have personal experience so good luck to you- I hope you find your peace.”

Ah, behold the awesome magic of self-delusion.

Going back to the “haves” and “dos” we breezed through before, I won’t bore anyone with a dissection of how the burden of proof works, except to say that there is equal probability for not only the existence of our Salty McSaltington from Saltsburg‘s own personal God, but for every other deity that humanity has ever conceived, as well as any that we haven’t. Maybe all religions are wrong and there’s another awesome cosmic architect who’s the true superbeing… and nothing torques her divine ass off more than people misattributing her works to other gods.

Look, Salt Lake City, do you or do you not want your beliefs, your alleged personal experience with God, taken seriously? If you do, then you need to prove it. If you can’t, then you have to accept the criticism as willingly and gracefully as you would expect others to listen to you. If you don’t think it’s important, then why resort to straw man arguments and equate atheism to a religion despite it being the polar opposite of one? You can’t possibly be so intellectually dishonest that you do want people to take your supernatural claim seriously on nothing more than your word alone, right? Say it ain’t so, Salar de Uyuni. Say it ain’t so. Actually, scratch that; I’ve got a better idea.

Prove it ain’t so.

LOLing Around at the Speed of Sound…

In response to my advice to an up-and-coming YouTuber on Quora:

“Harsh much?”

If you think I’m harsh, you clearly haven’t spent that much time on the platform. Think about all those people who disliked your video but left no comment on it. What’s the story there? They’re happy to let you know how terrible a first impression you made but can’t be bothered to tell you why, ultimately leaving you to not only guess for yourself but literally go to Quora to ask for feedback directly? Where’s the damn line for you?

Wait until someone calls you a retarded pedophile faggot who should kill himself, or makes the offer to save you the trouble and throws in your family for free, then you can talk about harshness. Grow a spine.

Do you want advice or do you want your ego stroked? Don’t ask how you can improve if all you want is praise. Again, grow a spine. That video isn’t your puppy and you practically admit to it as much (and even kick it yourself), so the only reason for you to take what I had to say so personally is that the truth hurts.

“This is legit my first attempt at a video.”

It shows, I don’t care, and it doesn’t matter. Like I asked, why should someone look past your early missteps despite the platform being around for years when others are ahead of you? Amateurism isn’t an excuse. I dare you to find me a YouTuber who legitimately enjoys watching their very first video, who thinks that was their best stuff. Caddicarus literally had a video making fun of his Rascal Racers review. He’s improved in the years since that video, and if you’re already making that call on the first video of yours, then you’ve rendered any feedback moot, making your asking all the more redundant.

“I do not plain on doing league of legends videos.”

Yet called yourself the best because… chasing views? QED in 3… 2… 1…

“That was kind of a proof of concept thing.”

You mean a bait and switch. You’re using labels and tags to boost yourself up in a community you don’t intent to cater to. If you’re seeking improvement, why not put your best foot forward? Why not make a video closer to what you intended to devote your channel to in order to make any feedback you would seek all the more relevant and applicable? You don’t make an aircraft out of bread, then say it’s a proof of concept for your automotive design project when someone tells you bread is a terrible thing to make a plane out of. Why does this self-sabotage feel so ad hoc? It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face while denying the damage control.

You realize you’re basically admitting to devoting more time and effort into manipulating metrics than producing quality content that you’d produce anyway regardless of any potentially-sized audience. Why are you stuck at a dozen subscribers right now? Because you’ve just proven you don’t care about them. You’d rather sit and defend your failure while lionizing your laziness than put forth a legitimate effort into making quality content for your viewers to invest in. All that, and you have the nerve to call me harsh for saying so?

Fucking pathetic ingrate.

“With the tags I used (after days of research) where able to rank my video very high on several of the keywords/searches associated with that video.”

DAYS? Days of learning how to game the system to briefly inflate your views? Imagine what else you could have done with that time and energy instead of turning your audience into a numbers game. Why should any audience respects a content creator who only cares about watching view counters tick up? Why should they come back to that? Any dick-brained loser can work out how to manipulate data to suit their needs, but there’s a reason why the successful content creators earn their audience. When you work hard on your videos (as in, not fixating on their fucking metrics) and work to earn your audience, you’ll find not only is your audience more engaged in what you’ve got to offer (actually commenting on the video and not asking what music you use, whenever they’re not ignoring you altogether), but they’ll keep coming back for more.

“As for sounding bored I just come across as very emotionless when I talk, not sure why but something I definitely want to take a look at going forward.”


“Audio not sure what you mean about bad quality of audio. I have a snowbal,l not the best but a far cry from a generic dollar store headset.”

It sounds heavily compressed and noisy, as if the frequency range has been narrowed to only what’s deemed adequate by the telecommunications industry. As for your equipment, if someone with a generic dollar store headset can produce better sounding content than you, it means you’re not making the most of what you have. Think about it, if cheap tat sounds better than your specialty mid-range gear, what does that tell you about the kind of environment you’re trying to throw your lot in with? If you’re being outdone by those with less, you need to step up your game. As I keep asking, why should people care about what you can’t do for your own content?

“None the less I shall endeavor to learn something about editing audio. Although I expect it had something to do with the software that I did use. Video pad for league of legends videos and filmora for the warfare video.”


“The warfare had much better audio quality in my opinion.”

I agree. It’s better, but only marginally. You’re still not making the most of what you have and that’s essential to producing quality content, not how much cash you chuck at the issues.

“Any way thank you for your very harsh, possible rude comment.”

Possibly? Either you find it rude or you don’t. Sort out your feelings and commit to them. I’m not demanding gratitude for my advice, and I’m not even angry or offended you called it harsh. If anything, and the only reason I don’t think it’s hilarious in how pitiful it is, it’s sad is because the joke got old a long, long time ago. YouTube is a mature medium, with many content producers jumping ship to more specialized platforms such as Twitch or Vimeo or even Amazon Prime. It’s a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll, even longer if you dig yourself a hole at the start by thinking you can be the raindrop blamed for the flood.

Your work is amateurish and boring, and you’ve literally now made it so you have to start over and even take a few steps back for all the time you wasted on your “proof of concept” horseshit.

The Good Advice You Just Didn’t Take

I get a lot of questions on Quora about YouTube, namely the annoying ones about how to get more subscribers (and/or how much money will I make off this very small subscriber statistic). As much as I’m annoyed by these questions, I think they’re still valid as it’s often easy to overlook what exactly attracts you to a YouTube channel in the first place. One of the best litmus tests I ever heard came from the now-infamous Nostalgia Critic, Doug Walker, “What are YOU looking for?” This advice is hardly exclusive to the Shouting and Remembering Guy, but it’s the most direct take on it and gives the best jumping off point for moving forward with your own YouTube endeavors. While many of these Quora questions are just thinly-disguised spam, every now and again someone is looking for legitimate feedback on why their fledgling channel is struggling to leave the nest. I took one of these on at great, unapologetic length, as is often my way on these things. In my defense, however harsh, blunt, tactless, condescending, or even outright mean you think I come across as, the entertainment consuming audience as a whole is far, far worse. Think about it, they don’t have to give you feedback. They can give you the silent treatment and walk out the door at any time to leave you wondering what you did wrong. Now tell me who’s harsh and mean and all that jazz. I’m not asking for a parade or a medal, only that you trust the purity of my intentions when I tell someone bad at what they do that they’re bad at what they do.

The question in… well, question, read:

Why is my YouTube video getting low views and very low subscribers? What am I doing wrong?

This was followed by a link to a YouTube channel with maybe about 30 or so subscribers and a handful of views and dis/likes on some videos. What follows is my answer, near as makes no difference to verbatim:

Shortest, simplest answer: because whenever you’re not being boring, you’re being annoying.

Still reading? Good, that means you’re either a glutton for punishment or legitimately willing to gracefully accept criticism. Either way, we’ll get into what I mean by annoying and boring. I’ll be focusing on your Ghost Rider/Mad Titan video primarily; a little bit goes a long way.


Visuals. There’s nothing wrong with using a slide program to make your videos. It’s actually very efficient… if you know how to do it right. There is a problem with using a slide program to make your videos when you do it poorly. Firstly and most obviously, don’t show us that it’s a slideshow. Trim the part of the video that shows the slide program before you go full screen.


I don’t show my iMovie timeline at the start of every video, and even the most budget-conscious smartphone can trim the starts and ends of video clips (so we don’t have to see you reach to and from the phone to start and stop recording). You want your videos to look like polished, finished products, not tech demos for “tech” that gives cave paintings a run for their money in terms of antiquity and obsolescence in the telecommunications field. Second, let’s talk aesthetics:


What am I looking at, highlighter on typing paper? Why don’t you just use Comic Sans and have done with it? I mean, you’re already talking about comic books, why hold back now? A plain white background? Watch almost any movie ever and tell me if the end credits are black text on a white background or white text on a black background. The eye, being lazy, is drawn to white space, so by framing your comic panels with nothing but bright white space, you’re actually distracting from what you want to be the focus. White absorbs colors, and I can promise you your panels will look more colorful and striking against black (why do you think some sites and devices have “night modes”?).

The sound. Good grief, the sound. Did you build your microphone yourself in the dark, with your eyes closed, wearing oven mitts, and with little to no understanding of how a microphone works? How many tin cans went into its construction? Are you using wet strings instead of wires? Now, before you go telling me about what you can or can’t afford, how you’re just a poor boy from a poor family and that I should spare you your life from this monstrosity known as open market capitalism, take a moment to look at the walls of your room, and then look in your closet.

My point is unless your microphone is welded onto your 1998 Compaq Presario’s CRT monitor, you need to take that recording operation into your closet and use the clothes on hangers as baffles.

Baffled? Compare the hanging clothes to “professional-grade” sound dampening acoustic foam. See the similarities?

Closet too small and/or packed with crap? Have only the clothes on your back to be baffles? Two words: Blanket fort. I’m not even joking. You’d be surprised how well towels work for sound dampening.

Now comes the hardest part to change: you. I can talk your ear off about acoustics and mixing, blind you with details on lighting and editing, and even direct you through scripting and writing, but I can’t make you a more charismatic, engaging, and insightful person. You’ve got to do that on your own. Let’s start with delivery: I counted about a dozen “ums” and “uhs” in a span of about 30 seconds in your video, your video that you yourself wrote on a subject you yourself decided to elaborate on.


Your script is right in front of you, isn’t it? Better question, you did write a script, didn’t you? Bear in mind, by script, I’m talking about something as minimal as bullet points, an itemized list of talking points to help keep you on track and from going off on unnecessary tangents. Hell, draw a picture if it helps you.


See how I can use black text on a plain white background if there’s more to the composition than black text on a plain white background?

I said I would only talk about your Ghost Rider vs. Thanos video, but I checked your “iPhone screen recording” that was your earlier Thanos video, and you’ve got many of the same problems with opening that video as you do with Ghost Rider:


If you’re in that much of a hurry to get through your own videos, what’s to stop someone from taking it a step further and not watching them at all? If you’re just going to read some Wiki pages while fumbling through some screenshots, why should anyone stick around for that instead of looking up the information themselves? If the presentation is boring, the quality of the content doesn’t matter.

If you care more about your metrics than your content, you’re doing it wrong.

That’s the end of the answer proper. It was followed up by a comment from the aspiring YouTuber thanking me for the feedback and providing me a link to a new video (on a new channel of his) to ask if this improved on the previous videos.

The sound was even worse. (turn your volume down before clicking the link).

I asked, along with why a new channel would be necessary, if he was being annoying and irritating on purpose. The comment has since been deleted.

I can’t help you if you’re going to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Pee-Pee-Soaked Heck-Hole

This is what we call a Freudian Slip, or parapraxis:


Oh, wait, he’s dead bloody serious because his faith is based on judging people:


He agreed it was, but didn’t bother reconciling the notion of judging people versus respecting them regardless of whether they were convinced by the argument or not (not at the time of this writing, anyway). I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this point, but he made it abundantly clear his faith is indeed rooted deeply in judging people.


Proof denies faith. Seriously, it’s like he has to qualify his own steadfastly-stated convictions (Ha!) by reducing proof to merely something he chooses to believe as truthful. It’s like he knows that his faith is simply a belief and that his belief is nothing more than an opinion he wants to be true. Could he really be that self-aware and that’s why he’s such a judgmental asshole who’s so paranoid about looking the part he has to use minced oaths? Fuck if I know, and damned if I can bring myself to care. It’s all still good for a laugh.

It’s Just A Bit Sad (A Quora Story)

When asked, “What moral was God teaching when He worked against human unity (Genesis 11)?

One answer was, “To rely on God, and not on men, basically.”

I replied that this wasn’t much of a moral. Here’s what follows.

But it is. Think of being a parent (a good one, not just someone who has children) Your children should be getting most of their advice and training from you, and not their classmates.

What if their advice is bad and the training is ill-suited? Why take someone at their word rather than ascribing to the notion that an argument stands on its merits? Qualifying parenting with “good ones” doesn’t really help anybody because there’s no way to tell someone is good or bad in their thoughts alone (hence actions speak louder than words and an argument stands on its merits). If you’re a good parent, you should respect your children’s choices and discuss what they learn with them rather than shake a fist at them and demand they rely on you. That’s called Munchausen Sydrome by proxy in the worst case, a parent deliberately hobbling someone in order to keep them dependent.

Okay, the parent example has its limitations, though I would still say that a GOOD parent is superior to a child’s playground friends. Think of God as the all-knowing, and loving parent, and man’s classmates as at best being limited in their knowledge, and at worst deceitful. Now, who should you trust?

“I would still say that a GOOD parent is superior to a child’s playground friends.”

Agreed, but if you’re a good parent, you shouldn’t have to force that point. You wouldn’t have to. You’d be able to reason your position.

“Think of God as the all-knowing, and loving parent, and man’s classmates as at best being limited in their knowledge, and at worst deceitful. Now, who should you trust?”

Except God isn’t asking who you should trust, he’s just stopping an endeavor dead in its tracks without explaining his position. Moreover, it’s rather stopgap, isn’t it? Does he expect people will never be able to work out what the others are saying? If God’s all-knowing, why did he wait so long to stop the construction? How does that fit in with respecting free will per the eating of the apple and inciting the exit from Eden?

To rely on God is to rely on whims. That’s what makes it not much of a moral. Relying on God is really just relying on what you want to believe as opposed to what’s true regardless. I mean, you can’t consult with God on something, get his approval, and check back with him later. All you’ve got to go on is intuition (which is unreliable) and hearsay-by-committee in the form of religious texts, edited beyond recognition from its original form, which was little more than a product of its era.

“To rely on God is to rely on whims” is totally incorrect. “Relying on God is really just relying on what you want to believe as opposed to what is true regardless,” is also totally incorrect. You are assuming, there, that God may be incorrect, which in itself is an incorrect assumption. You may as well state that relying on two and two being four is relying on what I want to believe. The preponderance of evidence shows the texts to be reliable. That, of course, is another debate entirely.

“The preponderance of evidence shows the texts to be reliable.”

The Bible is full of contradictions and couldn’t even fulfill certain prophecies within its own narrative, resulting in a lot of ad hoc backpedaling by apologists whenever sheer editorial bias was insufficient. Just look at Marcionism, the very reason why the Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments.

God has no accountability and no means of falsifiability. There’s nothing to rely on but the word of others on the matter of God‘s existence.

“You may as well state that relying on two and two being four is relying on what I want to believe.”

Principles of multiplication can be practically demonstrated. The feeding of the five thousand cannot.

Again, you are dead wrong. I keep hearing this “full of contradictions” and have yet to see anyone come up with anything legitimate. But you can believe you are a great cosmic accident if you want. That’s your business.

You don’t follow the Bible to the letter; such a venture is impossible due to the contradictions alone, much less the hotly-debated lines between literal and symbolic by which the majority of Biblical passages are distinguished. For example, if Genesis is literal, then following it would make you a flat-earther who believes the earth to be older than the sun. If this not literal, then how about the rest of Genesis? Is the ark still a boat? Were Adam and Eve a singular couple or a small population of mating pairs? Was the Tower of Babel an actual structure or some kind of symbol of human solidarity? Where do you draw the line between myth and history and how do you support such arguments?

The fact is you have to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you do and do not follow, and if you can do that, then you cannot uphold it as an absolute source of moral authority. You’re only laying out your own personal beliefs and using the Bible to bolster them ex post facto.

I wonder what you’d say instead of your nihilistic reductionist rhetoric if I were a Buddhist, Pagan, or Muslim.