Look Who it Was Random video

Condescending and rude? Me? Or Veritas48, a hypocrite?

2,527 views · Published 4 March 2010 · 8:06 · Indexed 17 October 2026

Channel: zarkoff45 · 2010 · People & Blogs

Watch on YouTube

Here is insightnew's vid on same subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e28gUlx7dJ0

Veritas48 audio tracks are from these videos:

"The Nostalgia Project."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bHFnPfOHs8

In the Nostalgia Project Veritas notes that he will block (censor) people for "not respecting him as a person." (He insists that you think him intelligent.) A few days prior to that he posted this video:

5 Answers for DavidJohnWellman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwZM86OgpU

In that vid Veritas says he doesn't think censorship works and that he thinks it is a bad thing. And yet, he has blocked me. Is Veritas48 a hypocrite? A liar? Does he not think blocking me is censorship?

There is only one comment I am certain that Veritas removed and that was a comment I made on his video "5 Questions for Atheists":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m932p6YraHI

I called Veritas48 an "epistemological cripple" in a comment on that video because of the 5th question. There is no such thing as accepting a supposed "true" belief, a proposition, that doesn't automatically necessitate identifying far more "false" beliefs that you can no longer accept. Just as knowing 2+2=4 means you know it doesn't equal 5, the alternative propositions will appear absurd and impossible once you actually believe a proposition. 

Another comment Veritas might have removed, though it is possible that the comment failed to post, is one I made to theowarner in the comments section on Veritas48's video, "The Leap to the Upper Story":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmwQJ2W7Wwg

Theo had told Veritas this: "You're imposing teleology onto the atheistic comments. No wonder it's absurd to you."

I tried to point out: word "teleology" might not mean the same thing to him as it means to Veritas. I had this problem in the comments section of my video, "A new epistemological tool more powerful than falsifiability and Occam's razor":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuP3NhDu6Hk

Someone tried to tell me: a "teleological" explanation was not an explanation that assumed motivation and "intentional" causes, and insisted that teleological explanations were about "final causes" that things have "apart from" anybody's intentions. I thought that was just wrong. I got my definition of teleology from Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" were Hawking used the example of buttered toast falling buttered side down most of the time because that's what will frustrate us most as an example of a teleological argument. Such an explanation claims the toast, or the universe, intend to frustrate us. It attributes motivation to the toast.

I couldn't say he was wrong because his definition was in the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14474a.htm

Talk about assuming your conclusion. And load that into a definition of terms. You'll spend lots of time talking past each other if you're not sharing the same definitions.

More from this channel