This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Drizzt Do'Urden

Go to: Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by Drizzt Do'Urden

A little off topic, Did anybody else notice there is an ogre head hanging on the back wall?

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:18:43 UTC | #896671

Go to: Ignorance is bliss?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Drizzt Do'Urden

I think happiness and intelligence are non overlapping magisteria.

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:02:40 UTC | #859793

Go to: A Current Scientific Thought Repository

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 8 by healthphysicist :

Well said on "actually".

Scientism is serious...as Marios points out, science has nothing to do with atheism/theism.

Theists try to point that out to scientismists, and now I'm trying to do so.

And your manner of response was anticipated, actually...err, in my opinion.

Science deals with learning about reality. The books that describe gods also describe other things about reality that aren't true. We know that these books have inaccuracies because of science. If a book can't get the basics of reality correct, why should we believe what it has to say about it's origins?

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:42:48 UTC | #848686

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 181 by Drizzt Do'Urden

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration"

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 03:25:08 UTC | #844235

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 161 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 157 by Seashore :

"Well flesh out your views. What are your views? How do you go from not knowing where matter came from to get to those views?"

Thank you for asking. I was a member of a fundamentalist religion. I woke up and left not only the religion but the Bible as well. I started all over again. I read all that I could and kept an open mind.

One day I was looking out my kitchen window and looked at the trees and birds and all the living things out there and wondered; could all these things have come about on their own? Could the bird who was building her nest and cared for her young, as I also did for mine, be only the product of evolution? Is love, what I felt for my children, the product of evolution? Also, why did other animals have hair all over their bodies but besides having hair all over my body I had hair that kept growing on my head? How nice it was that I am able to comb my hair into various styles. But...

What evolutionary advantage did my ancestors have because the hair on their head kept growing? Why do I enjoy music, dance, the stars, and all manner of learning but my little counterparts in the field do not? The unanswered questions kept coming...finally:

Why am I so different? I came to only one conclusion: my existence resulted from a different path than theirs.

Actually you are similar to every other animal. Four limbs, a head with a face and ears, connected to a trunk. The cellular structure and organs in your body are pretty much all the same as other animals. The main difference is our brains. Many other creatures have better versions of organs than we do, eyes, ears, noses etc, we lucked out with brains.

I almost forgot to mention that we are all coded by the same language, DNA.

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:39:51 UTC | #844198

Go to: Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Drizzt Do'Urden

If there was a God that created life on Earth why would there need to be perfect physical constants for that life to exist. It seems a God created life would be able to survive on the power of God and every little thing wouldn't need to be just right.

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:22:48 UTC | #844190

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 151 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 150 by Seashore :

Comment 147 by Quine :

Seashore, I have given you what you need. You need to be looking into Cosmological Physics, not Evolutionary Biology for questions about the origin of matter. The latter is about origin of species. Try to keep those straight. P.S. Watch out for the all caps key; it is a slippery slope to troll status.

Slippery slope to "troll status"? I get the message. Perhaps I should shut up? I use caps in one post and you give a "troll status" warning? Okay, I understand. You know what I also understand? Here I'll tell you: agree with the majority or leave! When I can no longer post here I will leave. Until then, you must tolerate my posts. lol

I've learned that fanatical Christians and fanatical atheists have much in common: no tolerance for the views of others.

Well flesh out your views. What are your views? How do you go from not knowing where matter came from to get to those views?

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:24:56 UTC | #844164

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 148 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 145 by Seashore :

" It doesn't make sense to ask how evolution explains the origin of matter because they are completely different subjects."

Ten years I've been on the Net and ten years I've asked the same question. And for ten years I've been given the same answer! LOL Give me a break! Don't give me a stupid answer, give me a factual answer. Do evolutionists have an answer for the origin of matter or not?!!

From what I have read they do not! The Big Bang started with matter. WHERE DID THAT MATTER COME FROM? Is there no evolutionary scientist that has a viable answer? What does Richard Dawkins say?

Evolution has to do with organisms. You have some sort of misconception about what evolution is. Anyways what is the point you are trying to make? Nobody knows how the universe began. Now what? Where do you go from there? Lead us to enlightenment.

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:04:35 UTC | #844152

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 134 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 129 by Seashore :

Comment 119 by frax71 :

Comment 118 by Seashore :

It is not physically possible for a "virgin" to be impregnated? Please, any virgin today can have a child without sexual intercourse.

Now please explain how that was possible 2,000 years ago........ no wait!!!!! I know, goddidit

The point was that what we can today do without too much difficulty (impregnate a virgin), God can also do. But I recognize that the concept of a higher thought process, or entity, than humanity is not something recognized among atheists/evolutionists. They speak of "parallel universe"s etc, but prefer to not recognize the fact that the spirit world is exactly what they are seeking and speak of. Yes, there is a parallel universe but it suits them not.

How do you know about this spirit world? Please elaborate.

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:44:27 UTC | #844131

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 126 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 121 by Seashore :

Comment 117 by Drizzt Do'Urden :

Comment 109 by Seashore :

What is evolution's answer to the origin of matter itself? The Big Bang is one thing but from where did the matter of the "Big Bang" come from?

I look forward to some logical and factual answers:

Evolution doesn't involve the origin of matter. Evolution begins after we have living creatures so asking how it answers the origin of life or the origin of the universe doesn't make sense.

Yes, I know. To explain what cannot be explained is best left unexplained. This is what evolutionists do with regard to the origin of matter because they do not have a logical answer. Therefore it is best left unanswered and that inability to provide an answer is accepted by the followers of those who teach evolution. Not too different from religion, imo.

I didn't mean to imply that there wasn't an answer to the origin of matter. I only want you to realize that evolution falls within biology and the origins of the universe fall within physics. It doesn't make sense to ask how evolution explains the origin of matter because they are completely different subjects.

Like asking how does computer programming explain how a tree grows.

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:20:32 UTC | #844117

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 117 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 109 by Seashore :

What is evolution's answer to the origin of matter itself? The Big Bang is one thing but from where did the matter of the "Big Bang" come from?

I look forward to some logical and factual answers:

Evolution doesn't involve the origin of matter. Evolution begins after we have living creatures so asking how it answers the origin of life or the origin of the universe doesn't make sense.

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:46:32 UTC | #844102

Go to: What would it take?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Drizzt Do'Urden

If the universe had been a different kind of universe. One where the idea of science has no clear meaning. Where if you looked into a microscope at your hand, you only saw a sea of whatever color your hand is. A universe where there is no need for dna because we are conceived by the power of God. If the laws of the universe were indeed of a supernatural sort and people were raised from the dead, walked on water because they had the power of the holy spirit. If a God actually interacted with us in a real substantial way that was obvious to everyone, although I'm not sure exactly what that way would be. That would be evidence that would have made me less likely to question the existence of God.

Our universe is more mysterious and amazing than the type of universe that would make me believe in God.

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:53:58 UTC | #843888

Go to: [Update-YouTube] The Big Questions - Series 4 - Is the Bible Still Relevant?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 108 by Drizzt Do'Urden

I can not understand why anyone would think a divine being dying would be much of a cost. It seems to be pretty much the same thing as when my video game character dies to save the princess. If I was God I wouldn't mind sending an incarnation of myself to live and die and come back to myself all the time. I don't think anything was really paid in the gospel story at all.

Sun, 08 May 2011 22:49:18 UTC | #624729

Go to: Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 115 by Drizzt Do'Urden

I know I'm far from alone in not seeing what Harris is delivering, so if I am being thick, I'm probably not being THAT thick!

I think he just wants to have a framework for saying saying things like throwing acid in a girls face is bad. He wants to make the woman, that said it was okay to pluck an eye for religious reasons, realize that she holds a ridiculous position.

Sat, 07 May 2011 15:46:14 UTC | #624199

Go to: Atheist Billboard in Fresno Vandalized After Only Three Days

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by Drizzt Do'Urden

@ war critic

News of atheist billboards normally comes up here.

Now, do theists deserve condemnation and mockery because of an act of graffiti? I do not see why they deserve it because of one kids act of vandalism. They certainly deserve it for believing in fairy tales though. So, condemnation and mockery is reasonable on almost all occasions.

Fri, 06 May 2011 21:13:50 UTC | #623976

Go to: Why Multiverses don't help with Fine Tuning

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by Drizzt Do'Urden

I do not think anyone takes the multiverse very seriously and if they should they shouldn't since there isn't any evidence for it.

I think you are hung up on being able to decide if our universe is rare or not. The multiverse idea just illustrates a mechanism for the generation of different constants. With creation of multitudes of universes some would have the constants that we have. Not being able to see the whole library of possible universes does not detract from this idea.

Also, I highly doubt it will be easy to visualize the ultimate structure of reality so I wouldn't use people's inability to imagine a structure as evidence against a certain structure.

Tue, 03 May 2011 16:35:02 UTC | #622568

Go to: Yes, we do have free will, and here's why

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 260 by Drizzt Do'Urden

I think free will was made up by religions to explain evil and suffering. We should probably just do away with the word and come up with a better word, that is closer to reality.

When I was a little kid I assumed I did not have free will because I was created by external forces and had no choice in deciding how I would be.

I feel like I am getting really close to woo land when I think about free will. It almost seems like I am the embodiment of the external forces and that I should be held accountable for my actions, even with classical free will being dismissed, because those external forces have worked through my body in an unacceptable manner. It may then be possible to exert other forces on myself that could lead to better behavior.

I think the biggest problem with pretty much every philosophical question comes down to the nature of language. It is really hard to pinpoint down exactly what it is you are talking about and then explain it in a way that other people can understand.

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:29:26 UTC | #620013

Go to: God and grounding

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by Drizzt Do'Urden

@BackwardAlien

We live in a society that discusses god. Did you have a point in raising the question?

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:15:49 UTC | #620006

Go to: Yes, we do have free will, and here's why

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Free will is when we are where the causes happen, even if the causes are predictable.

Wait, I thought you always argued that there wasn't a we in the first place.

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:15:43 UTC | #616316

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 484 by Drizzt Do'Urden

@nashenvi

So my question is two-fold: 1. How can we maintain that Krauss' knowledge of science utterly demolished >Craig's arguments? None of us seems to understand them and they only seem to even be applicable to >one of Craig's five points (Point 2) 2. How can we really claim that Krauss won the debate? If he only >even potentially refuted one of Craig's points, is it possible to claim that he won much less that he >demolished Craig? That doesn't make any sense to me. -Neil

I am not sure of the point of debating very much about who won the debate.

In point 2, where it says if the universe has a cause it is God, that is the problem. It seems that God is nested in the premise as the explanation and then somehow that is then turned around and used as an argument for God being the cause of the universe.

We do not really know the cause of the universe and I think the most we can say about it is that we do not really know and could possibly never know.

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:12:07 UTC | #612466

Go to: Dealing with William Lane Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by Drizzt Do'Urden

The problem is like trying to out sale a snake oil salesman and maintaining your honesty and integrity. So if anyone asks you what it does you say "Oh nothing really" and don't sale anything.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:37:40 UTC | #612346

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 481 by Drizzt Do'Urden

You know how time goes nuts at the event horizon of a black hole? That's nothing as to what happens at >or below the Planck Length. Probably, wormholes form spontaneously, so causality breaks down. Do you >know what that means? It means we can't tell what caused what. It may even mean that things need no >cause. Get lots of energy down at the Plank Length and BANG a new universe? Perhaps. We don't know. >Neither does Lane Craig. This is where his logic fails. This is where causality doesn't work. This is where >effects may follow causes. This is where there may be uncaused causes due to wormholes.

I think I can predict the Czar's reply. Well, that is not nothing because nothing doesn't have any properties and you just described a lot of properties. So you didn't really describe nothing. I think it will go like that forever.

Oh and a snarky remark like.

So you did drop your Humian argument. Like he is owning you now.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:20:11 UTC | #612175

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 450 by Drizzt Do'Urden

@nashenvi

I will be honest and tell you that apologetic type arguments make no difference to me. I will tell you the beginning of my disbelief.

As a christian I read the Bible everyday and I read this :

John 14 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

I have never seen a believer do greater things than Jesus. I am not even sure if that makes sense because Jesus died for people's sin's and saved them from eternal torment. What could possibly be greater than that? Not to mention that I asked things in his name and they rarely happened. This produced a nagging doubt in me that has simply never gone away.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:47:57 UTC | #611871

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 447 by Drizzt Do'Urden

@nashenvi

While reading your posts I thought you almost seemed objective and sincere. After looking at your site it seems that I have been duped.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:31:55 UTC | #611865

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 442 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 445 by nashenvi :

Quine, The quantum vacuum can be described by a wavefunction. Don't wavefunctions only describe "things" like particles and fields? Can a wavefunction describe something that isn't a "thing"? -Neil

This makes me think whenever nothing was described, you would say well that is a thing. So any description of nothing will be like describing something.

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:05:24 UTC | #611857

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 361 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment Removed by Author

Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:50:09 UTC | #611131

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 360 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 360 by MauricXe :

I looked at Craig's facebook page. His fans clearly didn't understand Krauss. I agree that Craig won but Craig's fans don't even know why Krauss lost. I love how they are congratulating each other but misrepresenting Krauss' arguments left and right.

They even linked to this page and are poking fun at the comments. Ofc, you won't see any of them here because they know they would be over their heads.

Basically they just said that everyone over here is really mean and "atheistic" philosophy is just ridiculous. I am currently listening to Richard Morgan talk about how the RD.net forum turned him into a christian.

Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:49:15 UTC | #611130

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 339 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 341 by bendigeidfran :

Ooooh we mustn't clutter now he's just been Zara'd. All his logic's just gone kaput/inapplicable. 'knock board over' best move now. Or start again on another thread...

It cracks me up so much whenever someone is losing at a game and they get mad and scatter all the pieces.

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:51:44 UTC | #610964

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 337 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Czar Bernstein, why do you think God exists?

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:27:42 UTC | #610949

Go to: Lawrence Krauss debates William Craig

Drizzt Do'Urden's Avatar Jump to comment 335 by Drizzt Do'Urden

Comment 337 by a_mbeeson@yahoo.com :

On Krauss' multiverse view, anything that is possible is required. It is possible to have a universe created by a God out of truly nothing (not "nothing" defined as "something"). It is also possible that that God reveal Himself through a crucified and resurrected Son. Thus, such a universe is required, which is what Krauss unwittingly argues. Why is this not that universe?

We do not know if God is possible.

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:30:21 UTC | #610922