Atheism(Lonelygirl15) = AngryLittleGirl

She made a video "Proof I Am Not Fake" which contains an earlier video of the same two girls assing around when they were much younger (and before there was You-tube).

It is here: (hope the link works)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rIIn1250M&mode=related&search=

For the record, I have subscribed to her videos ever since she made her blasphemy challenge video(clearly the prettiest girl doomed to eternal damnation(and yes I'm a geek)).

Agnostic is clearly a conspiracy cook. This is the same old lame conspiracy arguments, finding anomalies(which really aren't anomalies) that is supposedly proof of her being an actor. Well, some people might just have a talent of video editing, or have done tons of research in the area of video editing, or practiced video editing so it looks professional.

Agnostic's arguments are incredibly lame. And even IF she really was an actor, so freaking what! But not one single argument of Agnostic's is more than speculation on the same level as the 9/11 conspirationists's.

Ahahahaha! Look at how quickly the atheist-skeptic jumps to defend his superstitious faith that this high school senior has enough time after her morning routine, school, homework for 4 or 5 AP classes, volunteering, leisure reading, socializing with friends (in person, online, or however), sleep, etc., to have mastered film editing, as well as having enough time to professionally edit her clips that appear almost every week!

And also like a true believer, he says that even if there is no substance to his faith, "so freaking what!" And charges of being a "conspiracy theorist" are always devoid of substance -- it's just what you call someone when you don't agree with them and can't say why. It's hardly a conspiracy that a group of people got together to stage a goof like AngryLittleGirl; it's just for giggles on their part, or to promote the actress' career, etc.

Also, there's a clear precedent that famously blew up not even 1 year ago (lonelygirl15), so pardon me if I view her videos skeptically. Incidentally, lonelygirl15's videos had the same gimmicky editing tricks, although again it's what any recent film school grad would think was a cool way to edit it. So yeah, go back to masturbating to the barely legal libertarian atheist, and nevermind that it's just a goof.

She may be fake. I don't care. But I must quibble with this:

Interestingly, the actress playing AngryLittleGirl is convincing due to her higher level of biological masculinity. She has a fairly masculine jaw-line for an 18 y.o. girl,

High level of masculinity??? Dude, she's damn hot. That, btw, is the most convincing evidence that she's fake: girls that hot just *don't* tend to be outspoken atheists.

You GNXP guys are way too harsh. That girl is pretty fine (in the top percentiles of hotness) and it would be hard to find better.

Ahahahaha! Look at how quickly the atheist-skeptic jumps to defend his superstitious faith that this high school senior has enough time after her morning routine, school, homework for 4 or 5 AP classes, volunteering, leisure reading, socializing with friends (in person, online, or however), sleep, etc.,

I certainly had time for similarly hardcore hobbies. Smart people often can allocate time well. It's not too uncommon to find valedictorians who are also varsity athletes, which is a huge time commitment.

so she isn't a fine feature chiseled southron assman, me thinks your personal aesthetic tastes are getting in the way of objective measurement ;-) you may be precise, but you are not accurate! in any case, the one video i've watched

1) her sister doesn't look like her

2) her sister is also an atheist

3) her sister is an attractive young women

life is full of rare events. natalie portman is an atheist. angelina jolie. so who knows? but like you said, spending this much time on videos & editing seems a bit strange if you are an attractive teen. she should get out more if she's not a fake. but perhaps kids today are different.

The idea that if she's reading a script it must be a fake is a bit unfair though (in general) - surely teenage girls in the US aren't all utterly illiterate, so the idea that one of them could write a script before recording the video isn't *completely* out of the question.

Not defending the video itself, as I can't be bothered to watch it.

I still think she defends herself adequately in "Proof I am not a fake". Lisa, her partner in the Bible video, seems to be in the film (much younger). Jessica, herself, only appears to introduce the sweater segment, and she too is much younger. The rest of the time Jessica (i.e. AngryLittleGirl) seems to be holding the camera. A third girl does most of the cutting up on film. But how would one answer the argument Jessica uses at the introduction of the film? She is actually quite logical.

Once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rIIn1250M&mode=related&search=

In addition, her evident youth (14?) in the video belies the actress scenario, and the song they use could be dated, although I am not up on that kind of music.

@Agnostic

I am well aware of the phenomenon known as lonelygirl15, however, that does not mean that she is fake too. That is like saying that all pretty girls that knows how think, and who are skilled with video-editing, is fake.

If angrylittlegirl shows to be a fake, so be it, I have no problem with that, but if you don't have any better evidence than straight out speculation like size of her index fingers, then you ARE a conspiracy cook, and should be ridiculed as one.

but if you don't have any better evidence than straight out speculation like size of her index fingers

How about you read my post that Razib linked to, where I spell the evidence out, you lazy jackass? And clearly I mean that the probability is infinitesimally small that she's more than just a persona -- obviously I don't know everything, and so there's a negligible probability that she's real. Combine this with the clear precedent of lonelygirl, though, and that probability shrinks even further.

I used to think that anyone with half a brain could tell when someone means "X is the most reasonable inference, and the other inferences are only infinitesimally reasonable," even if the text literally reads "X is the case." Obviously the latter is logical shorthand which is unambiguous in context, but when my interlocutor is an idiot or a nitpicking asshole (or both), I guess I have to spell these things out. All right, I'm done with your dumb ass.

I DID read your entire post! And I found your other "evidence" just as inane.

And about being lazy: "I'm not going to waste any more time watching those as well, since the evidence from her early clips is overwhelming."...Looks like you are the lazy one, not doing all the research before making a pretty big claim like that.

"overwhelming"!!! Oh my freaking god! What the hell are you talking about! You start off with a conclusion, and then try to back it up with one ridiculous speculation after another.

Your present the way she talks, where she is looking, how she looks, what is in the background, and her skills with video-editing software, as "overwhelming" evidence. You personal observations are completely stupid, and so are your personal interpretations of them. You are making almost every fallacy in the book, especially the argument from final consequence, i.e. "well, it could serve for this purpose, so it MUST have been DESIGNED for this purpose". You are not looking at all of the other possibilities for each observation. And just because something in your opinion looks a little too good to be true, doesn't mean that it is. You are talking about a crew and scripts before it with any certainty even has been established that these exists. The certainty that is in your writing has no foundation in your observations.

There are MANY MANY young smart and pretty people on youtube, who are highly skilled with videoediting software, who all could fit your description... (OMG, maybe ALL of them are paid actors in order to make youtube running!)

Until your can establish some connection between her an the "acting community" or likewise, and back it up with hard evidence and not just pure speculation, then I suggest that you stop writing lame stupid things like that.

If your article on angrylittlegirl is a spoof-article, and all of it was meant as a joke - in which case I would look really really stupid - I do sincerely apologize for my attack. If not, I suggest you join the conspiracy club.