KinglyNumbaOne

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

In this commentary, I'd like to introduce the readers to yet another,
youthful member of the YouTube community who seems to enjoy the
trolling of atheists and who, at the same time, has issues with
supporting claims made.

It seems to be my unhappy lot that I keep running into the young in
these situations. Josiah is right around 20 or so, Anna is 19, and
KinglyNumbaOne is allegedly 18.

I say "allegedly" because I have already seen situations in which the
person states that he or she has posted a younger age than he or she
actually might be - for reasons that are not always clear.

I encountered KinglyNumbaOne when viewing these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sq-aMXHeCg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4

And, for the record, I agree completely with Christopher Hitchens's
assessment of Jerry Falwell and his right to speak it, especially
given that he was invited to do so.

Those who take issue with that may start a debate thread on the
subject.

Here are the exchanges, as much as I was able to capture, of the
banter between KinglyNumbaOne and me:

KNO: I like Hannity, but he just doesn't have the intellectual
astuteness to debate Hickens. Someone with a little more intelligence
and his nonsensical arguments, like say, Ann Coulter or Dinesh
D'Souza, will tear this guy to pieces in a quick second.

Me: Coulter? ANN Coulter?

How could anyone think that Ann Coulter would...no, ever mind...this
must be a New Year's joke.

D'Souza is also an intellectual lightweight; and he and Hitchens have
met.

tinyurl(.)com(/)5vvktz

See how many logical fallacies in D'Souza's arguments tht you can
identify...

KNO: Hitchens isn't exactly an intellectual heavyweight either, but
I'll watch that video.'

Believe it or not Ann Coulter is a very sharp mind, and an excellent
writer. Read her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, to see her
debunk Darwinism, and expose it as nothing more than mere tautology.

Me: I'm afraid that your 19 years on the planet won't be considered
significant enough to qualify you as a judge of intellectual
heavyweights or lightweights, and no, Coulter is an idiot.

I run a Google Group called Debating YouTube Theists, and we can
debate this, at length, if you like. I've seen her argumetns against
"Darwinism" and other nonsense, and no, it's not a tautology.

I suspect that you have no idea what constitutes a tautology.

KNO: It's not surprising that you take the classic Liberal, pseudo
intellectually superior route of telling me that my age disqualifies
me from deciphering sense from nonsense.

Oh yes, I have no understanding of what constitutes a tautology, I
just randomly throw the word into discussion without knowing what I am
talking about -- do I look like an atheist to you? That's YOUR stock
in trade...

Me: I could reply that it doesn't surprise me that the arrogance of
youth and your obvious conservative background would cause you to
react in such a way, but I won't, because it is possible that I am
wrong and you will show that you have more than the normal youthful
lack of acumen that I have decades of experience encountering.

The fact that you are not demonstrating a temper tantrum doesn't give
me much hope, though.

Now, of course, you are welcome to tell me exactly how it is that I am
a "classic Liberal" or that declaring Coulter is an idiot and D'Souza
an intellectual lightweight is, somehow, "pseudo intellectually
superior" behavior (even though I did offer to debate it - an offer
that got no reply from you).

If I really was dismissing you because of your youth, I'd have done
so. I'd have simply ignored you.

Me: (Apparently out of order in the sequence on the page, but placed
back in order, as part of my reply, here) You claim that it is my
"stock in trade" to toss words into a discussion without knowing what
I am talking about.

If that is so, you should be able to give us one example.

KNO: LOL. I am watching this video, and D'Souza is an incredibly
sharp mind, and even Hitchens admits it. All Hitchens does is try to
debunk God's reasoning with a faulty understanding of scripture, as
opposed to actually proving Christianity wrong, what D'Souza does is
actually show how Christianity is at genesis of morality in modern
society.

Me: Does he, really? That's odd, because, even with my ThD, I don't
see it that way. D'Souza engages in one logical fallacy after another,
including straw men and ad hominem. But I suspect that you're a
partisan religious person, so you won't see that.

KNO: A Columbia and Harvard graduate doesn't understand the importance
of context in English?

Looking at what I said IN CONTEXT, you'd understand that I was talking
about athiest's stock in trade is to throw words into discussion, you
just happen to be one. So I wasn't singling you out.

Me: You may attempt to twist in the wind, but I have no problem with
context. If you wrote something other than what you meant, the problem
is that you did not communicate it clearly enough.

"I just randomly throw the word into discussion without knowing what I
am talking about -- do I look like an atheist to you? That's YOUR
stock in trade..."

Be careful when presuming to correct your intellectual betters,
child.

By the way, I think I am still waiting for an example of a
misunderstood word that is tossed into the mix by atheists, randomly,
without the atheist knowing what he or she is talking about. If it's
that common that you would comment, surely you can provide an
example.

I'm also still waiting for you to explain just how I am a "classic
liberal" simply by declaring Coulter to be an idiot and D'Souza an
intellectual lightweight. You see, it does seem that, whether you know
what they mean or not, you do toss pretty much whatever into the mix
without giving it much thought. I could comment that such knee-jerk
reactions are common to conservatives with an immature intellect, but
the fact is that it's a human reaction.

[Apparently out of order, me, again:] It isn't uncommon for people to
use words improperly. I have two doctorates and I still do so quite
often. No one is immune from making human mistakes, child, so you can
drop the youthful arrogance. Either you do not understand what
constitutes a tautology or you do not understand whatever it is you
are calling "Darwinism," because Darwin's theories are well-
established and not tautological. Again, we can debate that if you can
quit whining long enough.

KNO: [Commenting on a typographical error made during a rant against
atheists] *atheist. I typed too fast.

Me: On the other hand, no one will concern him or herself with the
occasional typo. Simply make your argument or, better still, come to
the Google Group, Debating YouTube Theists. You and I can debate
without the inherent restrictions of YouTube comment sections.

[Continued] I'm also still waiting for you to tell me what you think
"Darwinism" is and what it is that you think constitutes a tautology -
followed by why "Darwinism" is a tautology.

You made lots of claims. You gave no answers.

I also asked about how D'Souza shows that "Christianity is at genesis
of morality in modern society" and, I can't help but notice, you
didn't answer that, either.

You haven't asked me, yet, why I think Coulter is an idiot, and it is
my contention to support (not yours to disprove), but I think it's
quite obvious that your only defense seems to be that she's a lawyer
and a graduate of an Ivy League school. Somehow, to you, that means
that she can't be an idiot. As I explained, it doesn't follow. Then
again, that depends on the definition of "idiot" being used.

At the very least, she's superficial. That's why you like her. You're
superficial, too.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how Coulter debunked
Darwinism.

In looking through this thread, you've made a lot of assertions. Did
they ever teach you to back up assertions when you were in school,
especially when you are asked to do so?

Apparently, you never learned about rational, objective investigation,
and can't engage in critical thinking, which involves examining your
own beliefs and evaluating the basis for them.

KNO: [Obviously withdrawing] LOL...you amuse me. XD

Another pseudo intellectually superior Liberal.

I'm not intimidated, or bothered by you and your lamentable playground
ad hominem attacks.

Shoo. I am done with you.

Me: Yes, child, I'm sure you're quite amused. I'm not going anywhere,
anytime soon.

You made a series of claims, and then you ducked them. Are all
Christians as cowardly as you? It would seem so.

The questions won't go away because you run from them. But remember
that this is not a simple email exchange between you and I, it's
appearing in a YouTube comment section, where it can be read by anyone
with a mind to read and comment.

I'll be posting about it in the Google Group, as well.

[End, so far, as of January 3, 10:18, US Central Time]