Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi guys,
I swear I wanted my last video to be the last on this character Hamza Tzortzis. He really
does not deserve or warrant so much attention.
But he is so much fun. He manages to put together all these long words and sentences and hopes
nobody will notice the vapid and utterly monotonous line of arguing. So I reacted to his vacuous
claims and made some video responses.
Instead of doing the honest thing and apologising or the obvious thing and keeping quiet, I
was informed by someone that Hamza had left a reply or a reaction or whatever you want
to call this on his Facebook page, choosing the stupid thing.
His latest oevre, a justification piece, very quickly had me in tears. I always have this
picture of a little boy stomping his feet, when I read something from him. He is such
an angry person. So frustrated with the world, democracy, freedom and the establishment.
Oh and in the beginning, when I first read his reply I did not even see the reference
to me and my videos on him, as there is no logical or topical development, just this
rant. But then I noticed the references to Craig and he was parroting my vocabulary,
so, yeah, I guess, this is about me. So let’s take a look what he has to say.
Erm question mark. Always a good and intellectually stimulating way to start a conversation or
essay. I could well imagine him starting a dissertation with the words: Hi, my name is
Hamza. It also reminds me of one of my all-time favourites, where in the movie Arthur, Dodson
the Butler comments: Yes, I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.
Then we have the philosophically tinted, epistemologically based, psychologically sound statement: This
guy is very stupid. Do we learn what guy? Why? How? No, come on, that would require
actual data, facts and a functioning brain. And I think Hamza has a bachelor in psychology.
Well if he shows them this, maybe they’ll settle for a refund.
When he then says he feels for me, what does he feel? Pain, remorse, admiration, disdain,
pity, contempt? Come on man, be specific for once. You’re not writing a 2nd Koran but
a real text in Facebook, so there’s no need to be vague and ambiguous.
Hamza now claims that "Science has always been a supprtive" or supportive argument.
Being only a supportive argument he sure uses it a lot.
And he claims he only uses it in a supportive way when "using" cosmology. Cosmology is the
scientific study of the origin, evolution, status and fate of the Universe we live in.
It is all about data, measurement and observation. And theories and models, based on this data,
measurement and observation. Hamza tries to remove cosmology from this realistic physical
cosmology and push it into metaphysical cosmology - without ever defining it. He uses nebulous
terms and hides behind vagueness.
He labels the debate a debate, where in the debate he calls it a conversation.
So in the debate he takes scientific expressions and scientists and tries to show that his
particular god exists. This is neither scientific nor philosophical, but mythical.
He tells us that he uses logics, for example when talking about the differentiated infinite.
The what? I admit I have never heard this expression, so I looked it up. Google had
67 hits, but only 1 in the area of religion, where Georg Hegel proposes it as a speculative
element for the universalities and determinateness within a god, the supreme being. If Hamza
calls that absurd, so be it.
Now he turns to my comparing him with Dr. William Lane Craig.
He says he does not copy or take his materials from him, but acknowledges his existence.
His strongest argument: In THIS debate he used no notes, and Craig does. Well, if my
eyes did not deceive me, Craig was NOT in this debate Hamza called a discussion.
Oh dear, look ma, no notes.
And now, hold the presses, Hamza says he uses the Koran, which Craig does not do, to explaing
- I suppose that’s explain - the beginning of the Universe. Sheer brilliance.
Hamza next informs us that Craig is a Christian, thanks for that useful information, which
- for once - is actually correct, and then carries on to say that it’s ok to parrot
someone as long as you understand what you are parroting. But, come on, Hamza does not
understand in the least what "come into being" and "begin to exist" really mean. All we get
is "how the universe began". At least he never explained the concept and when he applies
it, it is horribly wrong.
Now we finally get to what he calls the main point: what these atheists do. Atheists. All
of them.
We atheists expose ourselves. What? In public?
He says "the create" - I suppose that’s they - create a strawman. Does he know what
that is? Does he show anyone where the argument is and where the strawman is? No, that would
require actual data, facts and a functioning brain.
He then accuses all atheists of waffling. Does he provide an example? No. Is this logically
possible? Only with difficulty. I don’t speak for others, but I react to claims. Which
means I don’t make stuff up. Hamza does. Which is why he can waffle - and he does - and
I just take his point and answer it.
Oh he does love to flatter himself, our Hamza, doesn’t he. He calls his childish tripe:
scientific supportive evidence. And says if you removed it the argument would still stand.
Let me be more benevolent and merciful than a god and pretend that there is something
scientific about his arguments, I would love to see what would be left. If I take his what
20 page pamphlet and remove the descriptions of reality I would be left with 3 paragraphs
from the Koran and the title. If I leave out his arguments from Valenkin, Valenkin he,
or Hawking he, or Polkinghorne he in his example of quantum physics there would be nothing
left.
He then contradicts himself by taking someone like me serious enough to write about it on
his Facebook page, but then says why take - hahaha - soothsayers - seriously. Soothsayers?
Seriously? Does Hamza know that a soothsayer is "a person who professes to foretell events"?
Have I just been promoted to prophet? Wow, gee, thanks man.
Here Hamza flatters himself again by claiming he "exposed Professory Hoodbhoy" I suppose
that’s Professor.
Is Professor Hoodbhoy really an arrogant man? I don’t think so. Does anyone else find
him arrogant for a reason? Not that I know of. Does Professor Hoodbhoy really not understand
basic logics? No, I think this is a childish lashing out at anything and everything in
sheer frustration and rage.
Ignoring an argument one has little knowledge of is not an agenda. It is wisdom. Which Professor
Hoodbhoy has.
Did the professor belittle Islam? No, he merely pointed out that Muslims have little to show
for themselves in the last 1000 years when looking at scientific applications. He smiled
at Hamza trying to merge the Koran with quantum physics. And the same as almost every non-Muslim,
people don’t understand where the claims for a Koran with scientific miracles pre-dating
the 7th century come from.
And no, Professor Hoodbhoy ignored only the stuff he did not understand or know anything
about. He killed Hamza’s arguments where he did have knowledge. What more can anyone
expect? Hamza has a standing invitation to call in to the Jinn & Tonic Show to discuss
his issues with people who have more knowledge about the Koran, but he’s been too afraid
of that, ever since he got badly burnt on the Magic Sandwich Show.
I don’t know if that offer by the J&T Show still stands, after his atrocious behaviour
in Pakistan.
Finally, Hamza closes his rant with the next lie:
who clearly show there agenda and fail to engage in positive discussion on important
matters
who clearly show there agenda - I suppose that’s their - what IS the agenda? For my
part it is to expose lies and show the truth.
fail to engage in positive discussion Oh really? How can I if I am blocked everywhere by you,
Hamza? So I don’t fail, but am unable to because of your arrogance. I am allowed to
post on your Facebook page if I beg and apologise. For your ignorance and mistakes?
And what exactly is a positive discussion? Only one where everyone agrees with you?
on important matters - such as what? If religious humans would keep their religion to themselves,
which has largely happed 20 years ago, we would not have all this hatred and fighting.
Remember something please: atheism is an -ism which reacts. It only reacts. Atheists react
to claims.
And in the end you bring forward another lie: no, I don’t want monologues - I am forced
into them. By you. When you still had a blog I tried to communicate and was blocked. On
Facebook I tried to communicate and was blocked. On the Youtube channel I tried to communicate
and was blocked.
And you hypocritical zealot tell others they don’t want to engage? I am the one who fails?
You are a dreamer, Hamza, time to wake up and face reality.
I suppose that’s presume. And yes, Islam has no rational basis. The basis is the Koran.
Is the Koran rational? Hardly? You claim it is of divine origins. Can you prove it? No.
And the next lie. No, I do NOT intellectually belittle Islam. I intellectually belittle
stupid and ridiculous claims by Muslims regarding reality and their book.
Yes, shame on me for daring to criticise.