Comments on: Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens – cranky, bitchy atheists http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/ A daily cup full of reality. Forget that Starbucks shit; drink this. Tue, 15 May 2012 02:15:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: James http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-4157 James Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:07:25 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-4157 TO POINT NUMBER 7 RIGHT ABOVE This comback really serves to show how incredibly biased you actually have to be, because its so confused it doesnt even comprehend the meaning of God. This isnt a space time, cause and effect, analogy. This isnt like someone LOOKING FOR THE ORIGIN OF A TOASTER--a toaster is a spacetime object that must have a cause. We are looking for very Origin of spacetime existence. God is the origin of EVERYTHING in the spacetime, cause and effect universe. So this is soooo missing the point and so devoid of logic I almost find myself embarrassed for you that I have to explain this. One of the very definitions of God is he is self existent. He is not IN space or Time. The only possible answer to why there is something instead of nothing in a cause and effect universe HAS to be someone who is self existent..hello? So talk about being dishonest?--It is painfully obvious to even atheist physicists now that the creation is too designed, as so improbable they have introduced infinite universes. So we not just looking for a cause of a blob of vomit--which demands a mouth to be projected from. We need the cause of this insanely awesome, intricately designed universe. God's very definition is the ANSWER to the impossibility. Reasoning the ANSWER, God, makes it even more impossible when it solves it --is Not reasoning...its bias destroying logic. Science is just your excuse. Your so lost in your own worldview you cant even understand the difference between Mechanism and Agency. Nowhere does it occur to you that understanding *How things work doesnt explain who designed them or why they are there in the first place? You cant be that dense. I took apart my computer and realized its just parts working together to put a picture on the screen--so my conclusion is it created itself? The problem for many is the outcome, in your minds it dooms you into paying for all the mocking you have done to God and those who follow him. I understand, its a powerful incentive---but just for a moment consider you have nothing to lose--no stakes whatsoever. Be completely objective and disconnected to the question and think through it logically and you'll see why all your points are wish making and not logic based. You guys practice the exact opposite of what your claiming. You dont want to turn to God--fine. But your reasons are better than the drug addicts, the porn fiends, the mass murders, and the all the rest who dont want a boss. You'll accept a trillion to the trillionth power improbability--so lets not pretend your using science for anything but an excuse. TO POINT NUMBER 7 RIGHT ABOVE
This comback really serves to show how incredibly biased you actually have to be, because its so confused it doesnt even comprehend the meaning of God.

This isnt a space time, cause and effect, analogy. This isnt like someone LOOKING FOR THE ORIGIN OF A TOASTER–a toaster is a spacetime object that must have a cause. We are looking for very Origin of spacetime existence. God is the origin of EVERYTHING in the spacetime, cause and effect universe. So this is soooo missing the point and so devoid of logic I almost find myself embarrassed for you that I have to explain this.

One of the very definitions of God is he is self existent. He is not IN space or Time. The only possible answer to why there is something instead of nothing in a cause and effect universe HAS to be someone who is self existent..hello? So talk about being dishonest?–It is painfully obvious to even atheist physicists now that the creation is too designed, as so improbable they have introduced infinite universes. So we not just looking for a cause of a blob of vomit–which demands a mouth to be projected from. We need the cause of this insanely awesome, intricately designed universe.
God’s very definition is the ANSWER to the impossibility. Reasoning the ANSWER, God, makes it even more impossible when it solves it –is Not reasoning…its bias destroying logic.

Science is just your excuse. Your so lost in your own worldview you cant even understand the difference between Mechanism and Agency. Nowhere does it occur to you that understanding *How things work doesnt explain who designed them or why they are there in the first place? You cant be that dense. I took apart my computer and realized its just parts working together to put a picture on the screen–so my conclusion is it created itself?

The problem for many is the outcome, in your minds it dooms you into paying for all the mocking you have done to God and those who follow him. I understand, its a powerful incentive—but just for a moment consider you have nothing to lose–no stakes whatsoever. Be completely objective and disconnected to the question and think through it logically and you’ll see why all your points are wish making and not logic based. You guys practice the exact opposite of what your claiming. You dont want to turn to God–fine. But your reasons are better than the drug addicts, the porn fiends, the mass murders, and the all the rest who dont want a boss. You’ll accept a trillion to the trillionth power improbability–so lets not pretend your using science for anything but an excuse.

]]> By: Zaki II http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-4128 Zaki II Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:27:42 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-4128 1. The idea that quantum mechanics proves free will is erroneous unless by free will one mean statistical probability. This reduces free will to a metaphorical roll of the dice. One can presuppose that quantum mechanics supports free will, but only on the assumption that “minds” exists, but this is also in question. Zaki must sneak something into his premises which he is yet prove. Zaki’s argument is thus completely circular. Quantum mechanics proves free will because minds exists that implement quantum principles according to free will. 2. Zaki tries to explain one mystery (conscious states) by an appeal to another mystery (the underlying mechanisms of quantum mechanics. Zaki’s metaphysics goes beyond what is justifiable from an empirical standpoint. 3. Neuro-biology shows that consciousness cannot be anything like the traditional conception of a mind that is unitary and independent of the body. Whatever consciousness is, it requires a complex neural-chemical system to exist (as far as we know) and is affected directly by the chemistry of the brain. Various elements of consciousness can be lost by damage to the brain, and consciousness can be “split” as demonstrated by experiments involving patients whose corpus callosum has been dissected. Thus, there is nothing like a mind that is both both unitary in nature and exists independent of the brain 4. Zaki uses vague terms like “probability.” It is never clear if he means empirical probability or logical probability. 5. Zaki uses arbitrary arguments like anything does not display harmony is a “deviation” from God’s plan. Some of the most non-harmonious things in the universe (exploding stars) lead to incredibly complex phenomena (new solar systems). 6. Zaki’s understanding of biology is extremely primitive. Biology is complex chemistry! At least this is what biology has demonstrated (DNA, a real chemical composition, not the totally inexplicable “life force”) Apparently Zaki wants to ignore the last sixty years of biology. 7. Zaki appeals to the law of cause and effect as it applies to the universe and claims there must be a First Cause, i.e. his version of God. But why his God? And why should God not have a cause, etc. without special pleading. If God just is the First Cause, one could assume the same for any other host of ontological entities. Since there is not empirical tests between these various entities (unless Zaki can show us what could possibly give empirical verification to his theory and how his theory could give us new information about the universe, then we are just playing an empty game of words) The best scientists can tell us is that the Big Bang occurred, and why it occurred is beyond human knowledge until experiment and evidence can be brought into play. Otherwise a whole host of possible explanations exists that are just as possible (or impossible) as Zaki’s explanation. (Zaki’s claim that Hawkins explanation is “cyclic causation” could apply to Zaki’s explanation. Zaki has to put his First Cause apart from the universe itself and make his god subject to different rules-a being who causes but is not caused—At least Hawkins ideas are tied to a theory that is being developed mathematically and may someday be subject to empirical verification. ) When asked what brought about the universe, the scientist’s best and intellectually honest response is that he doesn’t know. This is exactly how one should respond when one doesn’t know; not just make up stuff that fits your own presuppositions. This is what Zaki does. He reads his ideas into science and philosophy and draws the conclusions he wants while ignoring the science that does not confirm his own pressupositions. This is intellectually dishonest. Science has developed over centuries by constantly questioning basic presuppositions. It will continue to evolve because it demands evidence for its claims. 8. Zaki’s vengeful, monstrous and comical God makes the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli look like a pussy cat. 9. Zaki doesn’t understand that a truism can be meaningless. Truism by its nature is something so obvious that it barely needs to be expressed. Zaki = Zaki. This is true but meaningless especially if I don’t know the meaning of the terms, because this true statement has provided no knowledge new knowledge about the world. 10. Metaphysics is fun! It’s fun to speculate, but to pretend that metaphysics gives us absolute knowledge is to return to the days when philosophy went on language holidays and philosophers generated philosophical systems like artists created paintings. This is the value of Hume and Kant (as well as the latter Wittgenstein). They demonstrated the difficulties of philosophical systems in giving us true knowledge. Zaki ignores Hume and Kant at his peril. 11. Science, in spite of all its explanatory power and ability to generate wonderful technology that improves the lives of billions, constantly changes. Science is tested, peer reviewed, and constantly revised. Perhaps what we believe today will be disproved tomorrow! Socrates said that he was wiser than anyone because he knew that he didn’t know. Zaki confuses skepticism against his ideas as dogmatism. Skepticism makes us humble. Zaki could use some humility. 1. The idea that quantum mechanics proves free will is erroneous unless by free will one mean statistical probability. This reduces free will to a metaphorical roll of the dice. One can presuppose that quantum mechanics supports free will, but only on the assumption that “minds” exists, but this is also in question. Zaki must sneak something into his premises which he is yet prove. Zaki’s argument is thus completely circular.
Quantum mechanics proves free will because minds exists that implement quantum principles according to free will.
2. Zaki tries to explain one mystery (conscious states) by an appeal to another mystery (the underlying mechanisms of quantum mechanics. Zaki’s metaphysics goes beyond what is justifiable from an empirical standpoint.
3. Neuro-biology shows that consciousness cannot be anything like the traditional conception of a mind that is unitary and independent of the body. Whatever consciousness is, it requires a complex neural-chemical system to exist (as far as we know) and is affected directly by the chemistry of the brain. Various elements of consciousness can be lost by damage to the brain, and consciousness can be “split” as demonstrated by experiments involving patients whose corpus callosum has been dissected. Thus, there is nothing like a mind that is both both unitary in nature and exists independent of the brain
4. Zaki uses vague terms like “probability.” It is never clear if he means empirical probability or logical probability.
5. Zaki uses arbitrary arguments like anything does not display harmony is a “deviation” from God’s plan. Some of the most non-harmonious things in the universe (exploding stars) lead to incredibly complex phenomena (new solar systems).
6. Zaki’s understanding of biology is extremely primitive. Biology is complex chemistry! At least this is what biology has demonstrated (DNA, a real chemical composition, not the totally inexplicable “life force”) Apparently Zaki wants to ignore the last sixty years of biology.
7. Zaki appeals to the law of cause and effect as it applies to the universe and claims there must be a First Cause, i.e. his version of God. But why his God? And why should God not have a cause, etc. without special pleading. If God just is the First Cause, one could assume the same for any other host of ontological entities. Since there is not empirical tests between these various entities (unless Zaki can show us what could possibly give empirical verification to his theory and how his theory could give us new information about the universe, then we are just playing an empty game of words) The best scientists can tell us is that the Big Bang occurred, and why it occurred is beyond human knowledge until experiment and evidence can be brought into play. Otherwise a whole host of possible explanations exists that are just as possible (or impossible) as Zaki’s explanation. (Zaki’s claim that Hawkins explanation is “cyclic causation” could apply to Zaki’s explanation. Zaki has to put his First Cause apart from the universe itself and make his god subject to different rules-a being who causes but is not caused—At least Hawkins ideas are tied to a theory that is being developed mathematically and may someday be subject to empirical verification. ) When asked what brought about the universe, the scientist’s best and intellectually honest response is that he doesn’t know. This is exactly how one should respond when one doesn’t know; not just make up stuff that fits your own presuppositions. This is what Zaki does. He reads his ideas into science and philosophy and draws the conclusions he wants while ignoring the science that does not confirm his own pressupositions. This is intellectually dishonest. Science has developed over centuries by constantly questioning basic presuppositions. It will continue to evolve because it demands evidence for its claims.
8. Zaki’s vengeful, monstrous and comical God makes the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli look like a pussy cat.
9. Zaki doesn’t understand that a truism can be meaningless. Truism by its nature is something so obvious that it barely needs to be expressed. Zaki = Zaki. This is true but meaningless especially if I don’t know the meaning of the terms, because this true statement has provided no knowledge new knowledge about the world.
10. Metaphysics is fun! It’s fun to speculate, but to pretend that metaphysics gives us absolute knowledge is to return to the days when philosophy went on language holidays and philosophers generated philosophical systems like artists created paintings. This is the value of Hume and Kant (as well as the latter Wittgenstein). They demonstrated the difficulties of philosophical systems in giving us true knowledge. Zaki ignores Hume and Kant at his peril.
11. Science, in spite of all its explanatory power and ability to generate wonderful technology that improves the lives of billions, constantly changes. Science is tested, peer reviewed, and constantly revised. Perhaps what we believe today will be disproved tomorrow! Socrates said that he was wiser than anyone because he knew that he didn’t know. Zaki confuses skepticism against his ideas as dogmatism. Skepticism makes us humble. Zaki could use some humility.

]]> By: Zaki Aminu http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-2702 Zaki Aminu Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:11:14 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-2702 Atheists - ALL atheists HAVE TO avoid the application of the strict rules of logic and the demands of facts in ALL their arguments to appear even minimally credible. After all what is Atheism arguing for but the absurdity that EFFECTS can manifest - WITHOUT CAUSES! All you have to do is wait long enough! Or, in a different version, they think that the ridiculous of "cyclic causation" - such as Hawking's idea of a universe which "creates itself from nothing" is a viable explanation for how things fundamentally come to be and continue to exist. These are such absurd and utterly dense ideas that only the most strenuous efforts at mental contortion-ism and gymnastics can succeed in disguising - at least partially - their utter vacuity as a logical premises. Unless it is intellectual and moral depravity that leads one to believe such notions make eminent sense. Atheism is defeated - and EASILY defeated with simple commonsense! Insist on commonsense in ANY debate with atheists and you will EASILY put them to the sword intellectually. Concede even the slightest ground to them - such as like tolerating the idiotic concept of "Chance" as a genuine causal agent and you will have them buzzing incessantly around you like invisible and invulnerable mosquitoes. Atheists – ALL atheists HAVE TO avoid the application of the strict rules of logic and the demands of facts in ALL their arguments to appear even minimally credible. After all what is Atheism arguing for but the absurdity that EFFECTS can manifest – WITHOUT CAUSES! All you have to do is wait long enough! Or, in a different version, they think that the ridiculous of “cyclic causation” – such as Hawking’s idea of a universe which “creates itself from nothing” is a viable explanation for how things fundamentally come to be and continue to exist.

These are such absurd and utterly dense ideas that only the most strenuous efforts at mental contortion-ism and gymnastics can succeed in disguising – at least partially – their utter vacuity as a logical premises. Unless it is intellectual and moral depravity that leads one to believe such notions make eminent sense.

Atheism is defeated – and EASILY defeated with simple commonsense! Insist on commonsense in ANY debate with atheists and you will EASILY put them to the sword intellectually. Concede even the slightest ground to them – such as like tolerating the idiotic concept of “Chance” as a genuine causal agent and you will have them buzzing incessantly around you like invisible and invulnerable mosquitoes.

]]> By: esther http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-2098 esther Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:16:59 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-2098 yeah, i heard a quote from Douglas Wilson, who debated Hitchens (and was so nice and laid-back, Hitchens again came off as a cranky bitch). "There are are two basic tenets to Atheism: 1. there is no God. 2. i hate Him." :P dawkins and hitchens are definitely two to whom that quote applies. all i keep thinking is that dawkins' sunday school teacher must have humiliated him when he was like, 7 years old, and he's never gotten over it. i've had negative experiences at churches and with Christians, but you know what, i agree, the world is poisoned by assholes, not religion. yeah, i heard a quote from Douglas Wilson, who debated Hitchens (and was so nice and laid-back, Hitchens again came off as a cranky bitch).

“There are are two basic tenets to Atheism: 1. there is no God. 2. i hate Him.” :P

dawkins and hitchens are definitely two to whom that quote applies. all i keep thinking is that dawkins’ sunday school teacher must have humiliated him when he was like, 7 years old, and he’s never gotten over it.

i’ve had negative experiences at churches and with Christians, but you know what, i agree, the world is poisoned by assholes, not religion.

]]> By: Mike http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-1830 Mike Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:13:32 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-1830 Amos, I think you got Hitchens and Dawkins switched. Dawkins actually presents intellectual arguments, whereas Hitchens' arguments are usually a variation of the form: "God is mean." Amos, I think you got Hitchens and Dawkins switched. Dawkins actually presents intellectual arguments, whereas Hitchens’ arguments are usually a variation of the form: “God is mean.”

]]> By: Edison Grimwald http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-1796 Edison Grimwald Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:53:56 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-1796 I've met a few of the "professional atheists" when I went to those seminars and whatnot, (I was an atheist, but, meh, not anymore, more like a theist). But yeah, I have more important things to worry about Dawkins is a douche. Hitchens was a retard (He's not so bad anymore now that he doesn't drink as much). And Dennet... okay, I met Dennet before and he's actually a nice guy, but his work is lame. But I brought Dennet up. Anyways, I agree 100%, Dawkins makes atheists look bad. I’ve met a few of the “professional atheists” when I went to those seminars and whatnot, (I was an atheist, but, meh, not anymore, more like a theist). But yeah, I have more important things to worry about Dawkins is a douche. Hitchens was a retard (He’s not so bad anymore now that he doesn’t drink as much). And Dennet… okay, I met Dennet before and he’s actually a nice guy, but his work is lame. But I brought Dennet up. Anyways, I agree 100%, Dawkins makes atheists look bad.

]]> By: Amos http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-1511 Amos Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:37:43 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-1511 Hitchens is not do bad, but Dawkins is a vicious, ignorant asshole, and I say that as a fellow atheist who hates his kind of hateful ashiest douchebag Hitchens is not do bad, but Dawkins is a vicious, ignorant asshole, and I say that as a fellow atheist who hates his kind of hateful ashiest douchebag

]]> By: Mark http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-715 Mark Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:57:38 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-715 While I can see your point, I would like to point out that he is converting some people. I am one of them. While I can see your point, I would like to point out that he is converting some people. I am one of them.

]]> By: catlebrity http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-609 catlebrity Mon, 05 May 2008 08:01:18 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-609 Nice! I think you capture pretty well what is so irritating about both DAwkins and Hitchens. I mention your post on my blog: http://dawkinsdouche.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/pablo-picasso-was-never-called-an-asshole/ Nice! I think you capture pretty well what is so irritating about both DAwkins and Hitchens.

I mention your post on my blog:

http://dawkinsdouche.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/pablo-picasso-was-never-called-an-asshole/

]]> By: Pablo Picasso Was Never Called An Asshole « Richard Dawkins is a Douchebag http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-608 Pablo Picasso Was Never Called An Asshole « Richard Dawkins is a Douchebag Mon, 05 May 2008 07:31:30 +0000 http://dailycandor.com/richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-cranky-bitchy-atheists/#comment-608 [...] this guy, who thinks Dawkins and Hitchens are cranky [...] [...] this guy, who thinks Dawkins and Hitchens are cranky [...]

]]>