wow I have been asking myself this question a few days ago watching how someone like the preacher Richard Dawkins preach atheism and being constantly hateful toward Islam in specific
I never said God is a religion but Richard Dawkins said clearly many times that Islam is the foremost evil of all! Also, the problem with most atheists is that they mix the two (God & Religion), they usually won't accept miracles and the prophet stories or divine laws because they jump directly into them without grasping the Oneness of God which is very logical and very basic to understand. Now honestly when an arrogant person like Dawkins says that Islam is uttermost evil while neglecting all the evil-doings of the ideologies he promotes and preaches every day and even pride himself over them then it only tells me obviously a man like that will see in Islam as being uttermost evil, because Islam is the way to the Truth, because Islam is to submit to the Almighty Creator in every aspect of our lives, in every action in every thought, in every move like when we eat, work, sexual intercourse, sleep, waking up, in rejoice, in grief etc. So how can a person like Dawkins not see in Islam as an obstacle for his false empty religion that he preaches for!!
@@LebaneseNostalgia its not hate ... its concern. and with a good reason . thats not our fault that your neighbord's fault from the middle east. tell me all the evil things he promotes
@@TheMajorpk the middle east was set on fire by Europeans colonialism. You dont know much about it because they don't teach about it in schools properly. They divided and conquered people. Unfortunately the divided and conquered haven't yet woken up to it. So therefore they are also partly to blame.
*Brothers & Sisters take ur time to write to our brothers who give dawah to the people* Always keep Supporting them and make duaa for them. May Allah grant us all Jannah 🌿💚
Is there definite proof of organic evolution? Professor H.H. Newman of Chicago university answers this question. " Reluctant as he may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evoolution." He writes : The nature of the proof of organic evolution, then, is this: that using the concept of organic evolution , as a " working hypothesis, it has been possible to rationalize and render intellgible a vast array of observed phenomena, the real fact upon which evolution rests. In other words, the working hypothesis works and is therefore acceptable as truth untill overthrown by a more workable hypothesis. ' Evolution, Genetics & Eugenetics ' p.8, 57
MashaAllah May Allah reward you and protect you our beloved brother Ustadh Suboor always *Keep smiling* Your smile makes our heart melt from love *You have a precious charming calm peaceful face* ما شاء الله نحب وجهك الهادئ المسالم حفظكم الله كلما أراه أشعر بارتياح سبحان الله وجهك يبعث الراحة والانشراح وابتسامتك تدخل القلب وتنوّره 💛💛
Alhamdulillah great work brothers. A small thing, there’s a background humming noise which it quite distracting especially as a headphone user! Some constructive criticism for future productions inshallah
I believe that the development of seeking truth is better explained in the social evolution of humans. Remember, evolution isn't necessarily about surviving, it centres around reproduction which very often involves competition within a population. As for why atheists preach, this is often because the atheist in question takes issue with certain religious practices or doctrines. I'm not sure why that is so hard to recognise. We wouldn't suggest that someone protesting slavery is just does so to validate why they don't own slaves (to parody another's comment here).
Many of the evolutionary scientist, I have lesson to (non Muslim ) says " that this cell is unbelievable complex bit of missionary, unfaliable complex and we will never understand its complexity at all .If our goal is to explain the emergence of this complexity ? We will never be able to explain that from scientific point of view Cuz the more we have looked at it the more and more its complexity is increasing .yes always complexity increases whenever we look at it .So that goal to know the emergence of that complexity and also to understand the cell in it's real essence is a mission impossible Becuae the more we try the more that goal has receded from us and is receding from us not approaching but continuously receding .And its impossible to construct a theory in such scenario .They say " if there are million monkies and all are typing randomly ? We know that it will never produce a collective work of Shakespeare at certain amount of time .And think if u take in to account all other organisms that lived on this earth . So an intelligent designer, a grand mathematician, a supreme being is responsible for this indeed ALLAH is the creator and sustainer of everything.
I know you guys don't like me .. Lol , but I know the answer ! They preach because they play their role ; calling people to the blazing fire fire of hell . That is all I had to say ... I am going
Rod Veles Asura Let aside proving its existence to the end, it's not our topic, what I'm asking you is how do you know it doesn't exist? You put a claim which is hell fire doesn't exist, then prove it! Remember I didn't claim anything yet! So just be responsible for your claims and give the reason that makes you claim it doesn't exist!!
As an atheist i found this discussion interesting, however i am a bit disappointed of how easy i could break down every point you made, or agree with you. Nothing new to me here really. Nothing has universal value but as a human i was born to be biased, i see value in things that logically are no different than a lifeless rock. The only reason i value things, is because if i diddent i wouldn't be here... survival of the fittest. Its a necessary skill to have if you wanna live. I am simply a representation of cycling chemical reactions, controlled by the laws of nature, in a system known as evolution.
Assalamualaikum ..Brother subboor ahamed and Hamza ...please.. give an answer video to...David woods scientific errors in quran,and how quran leads to ISIS videos....please....my non muslim friends are asking...and I do wanna..replay them..in a very.. peaceful way...
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I can enjoy the ride even if I know that it doesn't matter in the far end? That upbringing, experiences, dopamine and oxytocin give things both value and meaning. The first explanation was actually quite good. Just remember that skeptics generally talk about things that MAY be true, or just things that seems interesting. Secondly I think atheists preach against religion because they see how atheists, girls and women, homosexuals, and people with some diseases or mental handicaps are treated in religious cultures. Atheists don't want to be treated that way themselves, and I know that many atheists have been mistreated in the name of religion, so they speak up against it. "What meaning do you find, in you believing that things have ultimate value, even though everything is really based on pitiless indifference" ?!?!? What meaning to I find in believing anything? I don't. I just believe it because I can't choose what I believe. I find no meaning in suffering, except possibly to learn from it, learning how to avoid it in the future.
Kalem Ullah not likely bro. It’s not the right environment for dawah, SC is far too argumentative and violent these days; proper discourses are hardly possible now that it’s become a circus there.
"Why would someone who believes there is no God spend so much time trying to show that there isn't a God." Most who do it think theistic religion is harmful. Some do it because they like the intellectual exercise and conversation. Some do it because they like to feel smart in front of others. There's a wide range of motivations, but the biggest ones are definitely perceived harm of theism and perceived absurdity of many theistic claims. Like, say 90% of your fellow countrymen believed in the Jedi religion and did random harmful things because they thought the force told them to do it - you'd start arguing against their assertions pretty quickly I assume. "Why would you argue against something that is adaptive?" I don't think it's adaptive anymore. The charitable way to see it is that religion is humankind's training wheels. Time to let go. "Does truth really matter or should we just focus on survival?" Careful not to commit the naturalistic fallacy here - just because evolution works on the variable of genetic reproduction, it does not mean we ought to value that the most. "Why are you assuming that the more I know the truth, the more I can survive?" Isn't that immediately obvious to you? Truth allows for accurate predictions about the surrounding world (through knowledge of where objects truly are and what they're truly doing), which increase your chance of survival by preventing the countless opportunities of you hurting yourself. The fact that you can construct extremely specialized counterexamples does not constitute a refutation of the (honestly, fairly obvious) idea that truth generally leads to a better life much more often than falsehood. I'm sure not many theists would disagree with that. "How does you valuing truth link to your own survival?" Basically the same answer as last question. Being closer to the truth allows for more accurate predictions that allow for better survival which is why valuing truth is itself adaptive as a cognitive trait. "Isn't the value of discovery and self-sacrifice in contradiction with valuing survival?" Discovery and curiosity are very important values for a hunter-gatherer species. As far as self-sacrifice is concerned, there are two points to consider: 1. Your genes aren't tuned to keep you alive but themselves. They can do that by protecting you, but they can also do that by making you sacrifice your life for your 3 children (because those are each 50% you genetically). So altruistic behavior is very readily explained (including why you are much more altruistic towards your family than outsiders). 2. This is the bigger point: Genes don't translate 1:1 to very particular behaviors or actions of individuals. They give you general character traits and behavior patterns, but the rest is learned during life and not passed on to the next generation in the genes. Thus it's perfectly compatible with natural selection that there can be individuals on the extreme end of the spectrum for these traits (maybe such as willingness to take risks) who would exhibit very atypical behavior that seems to go against the goal of reproducing. You would have a point if the majority of members of the species had traits that clearly must have been maladaptive during our evolutionary history. "If we adopt philosophical naturalism, then how can we claim ultimate value?" Not sure what you mean by "ultimate" value. If you mean intrinsic value, then I don't think it's a problem that we can't claim that, since even the notion of a value inside an object that is independent of any observer is quite absurd and clearly not how value functions in the real world. Values are always subjective or intersubjective (i.e. through implicit or explicit agreement of many subjects). But we as humans happen to have quite homogenous basic subjective values by nature, which makes agreement possible. So that works just fine. "What meaning do you find in your suffering from an atheistic point of view? What meaning do you find in you believing that things have ultimate value even when everything is really based on pitiless indifference? Tell me!" Some suffering is very meaningful by telling you about things you might do in order to alleviate it and to stay alive. Some suffering is just pointless, like when nothing you could possibly do would improve your situation in any way. So all in all, suffering teaches you lessons and sometimes reminds you that being unlucky is a thing, which might make you more compassionate with others. Note that I'm not saying that that is the given top-down purpose of suffering, but rather that suffering turned out useful in those ways. I don't think things have inherent value. I think that values are evaluations done by agents of external things and processes. As for pitiless indifference, it's a matter of perspective. "Pity" is not a useful concept on the level of quantum fields, sure. But pity is an emergent concept, and as such it is very useful and real pity exists in the world. So sure, nature is indifferent, but we are not. Also, how nice of you to decide on who the "honest" atheists are when nihilism (in the sense that you probably mean) is actually pretty rare. One could even more convincingly claim that the "honest" believers are those who think evolution in any respect is totally incompatible with their faith, because there's actually a fair amount of them.
We should be asking why people believe in God in a Darwinian framework to help you understand the concept of why people spend time preaching atheism. Both of these people are intelligent and thoughtful, and honestly, as a neuroscience major who works in genetics research, I'm quite pleased they grasp how the perception of truth doesn't make an individual better at surviving. The one in the white shirt even concedes that it could be the case that their beliefs are in fact not representative of the truth. However, I feel that their understanding of natural selection and genetic traits are somewhat laymen. Perhaps I can help. Natural selection favors whatever mechanism that enables an animal to survive/reproduce; if it sort of works or doesn't necessarily aid at all, it keeps it in the toolbox. I can go into the actual genetic reason's for this (reductionist approach) if someone wants to know, but for now, I'll just focus on the broader concepts (emergent approach). If the faculties of the mind that generate curiosity, investigation, experimentation, hypothesis making (religious or secular) allow creative solutions to problems that enable us to reproduce more, then evolution favors that trait even if it also produces some byproduct behaviors that seem to have no purpose. So a wide range of behaviors can come from a neurocircuit selected to be innovative, including creating a backstory for your creation. The existence of many religions is evidence of this. New religions are created all the time from the same process as the others (inquisitive people). To answer why religious people preach their religion to other religious people and atheist people now preach to other people: This can be explained easily by sociability, conformity, dominance, and other sociological behaviors that make us more successful. We are in direct competition for resources as individuals and as groups. It appears that evolution favors a mutualist approach to survival (do you want to DIY everything and fight each other, or have specialties and trade and benefit from everyone's amazing skillsets?). Natural selection also appears to favor characteristics that enable the identification (visual phenotype, which explains why racism exists; and culture, religion, beliefs, values, as cooperative behaviors, which leads to clans, tribes, and nations) of both a possible cooperative person (comrade, friend, etc) that enables a cohesive unit and potentially non-cooperative person (competitor, hostile, enemy, other, strange, weird, crazy, etc...). Religious people preach to increase their ranks or to enforce a culture on others to turn non-cooperatives into cooperatives. Atheists do the same, but historically from a defensive perspective. Historically, atheists have been met with violence and threats. Because religions permeate almost every aspect of every culture, many brave atheists are angry when they preach and are motivated to do so because they are competing for equal opportunity within the tribe without having to be in agreement of the backstory. They do not fit into the religious tribe and want to decrease its influence on their lives. The fearful majority of atheists want to survive or avoid negative social consequences so they do not go against the majority and remain silent. In our modern times of tolerance of other religions in many countries (because we recognize it is better for cooperation) you see many atheists who now feel comfortable arguing. It essentially comes down to the ego of the heard. Atheists threaten the cohesiveness of the religious tribe, which is why they have been oppressed historically. Now, in secular nations, extreme religions threaten the cohesiveness of the tolerance tribe, which is why they are being oppressed (mostly by other "moderate" religions though). I would also like to address the value question "How does an atheist philosophically assign value/meaning" from a Darwinian perspective. It is really quite simple and has already been introduced here. We value friends on mutual respect and values. If one person thinks like you, enjoys things with you, enjoys talking to you, etc you share a connection, a gang, and the seeds of a tribe and culture. If evolution favors tribe behavior, it must also favor the seeds of a tribe. Having a strong emotional connection with your neighbor usually results from identification of another's similar behavior or appearance, and the feeling is the manifestation of the first mutualistic relationship (the blissful, and loving feeling is selected for; its how you know). Friends help each other, so of course, you will value them. The same can be said of strangers. Atheists too understand the value of the golden rule. Atheists can feel the same way towards strangers in the same capacity as the most devout Muslim, Christian, and others because the mechanism is the same and the outcome is mutual benefit. Personally, I find meaning in being a father and a husband. I find meaning through my work, and by making my society a better place through my work. I find meaning because natural selection either has selected for it, or allowed it because some other trait which uses the same real-estate also enables it. That thought doesn't upset me or make me feel empty, it makes me feel privileged, amazed, and grateful. Our (Athiest or theist) meanings can have different stories (monotheism, polytheism, atheism), but they are the same mechanism under Darwinism. I hope I was able to help.
Sorry, but under the atheist world view, you ultimately have no value. If man is whom ascribes meaning to something, that meaning dies when he or the thing he ascribed it to dies. The great hypocrite is the atheist who rejects religion as man-made, yet turns around and makes his own meaning.
The one with the strong bengali accent here called subbooro, or whatever his name is, shouldn't be allowed to share the (virtual) stage with a strong Muslim like Hamza! His brain can't keep up!
From the atheist perspective, they preach truth from a materialist presupposition because they view faith and religion as the driving forces of genocide, manipulation, violence, and suffering. They preach because they believe the world would be a better place without those things and that their scientific methods are better for measuring survival outcomes than religion. I didn't see this point being made. Regarding the idea that humans were designed to discover, I'd like to point out that there's more to survival than what we consider our human life. Humans are meaning-making machines. At some point they break away from the survival of their life when they create a purpose that is greater than themselves. Honor and glory have a lot to do with that. We are capable of dying for a greater good, as long as it means everything to us.
Except genocide, manipulation, violence, and suffering have been driven more through capitalism, nationalism, and non-religious reasons. It's not brought up because it's a laughable position. It's a claim that atheists love to bring up as if it's a trump card. Making meaning does not mean it does. What meaning the atheist ascribes to anything is temporal and ultimately meaningless when they die. Even the greater purpose they die for will eventually die too. They live and die for nothing. The great hypocrite is the atheist who rejects religion as man-made, only to then make his own meaning.
@@MansMan42069 Well, I don't think their position is one of comparison, but rather that a lot of harm could be avoided if we dropped unfalsifiable beliefs. At least that's how they see it. They see a lot of unnecessary suffering and they see beliefs to blame for it. And I think one reason why there's sustained conflict is that the religious people they talk to don't acknowledge those troubled feelings and concerns. So they feel unheard, misunderstood, pushed aside, etc. This really disrupts the flow of communication. I just didn't see them talk about this in the video. It seems you can look up any atheist video and their immediate concerns about beliefs and reliability are an obvious reason why they preach.
@@bike4aday Why are they angry at something they don't believe in? Hypocrites. Emotional arguments don't work. Who are they to decide what is unnecessary or what is harm? And it's funny you bring up unfalsifiable beliefs. They assume rationality yet can't prove it. And again, they can blame religion all they want. History goes against it. They are clueless.
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf said *"The only people that remember God as much as the believers, are the atheists"*
Why do they take God so seriously ?
Two smart people having a highly interesting conversation.
True
Folie a deux
atheism nightmare
They're afraid to be alone in many aspects of life.
Thats why you believe in an imaginary friend..
@@sviquezz Your saying as if you dont believe in imaginary stuff.
Try to negate first principle behind everything that science proves.
@@h98_kk76 where is the scientific proof ?
Two greats togather!!! MashaaAllah! may Allah raise their strength, knowledge and may Allah protect them from every evil.
good too see hamza..he was always a very good speaker in the park....one off the best..will be really good to see u back in sc...keep well brother..
MashAllah. Two of my favorite speakers. May Allah increase your knowledge and wisdom.
luv u subboor 💗 luv u hamza 💗
Ma sh'Allah, they are very good brothers. Keep us all in your prayers, jazakumAllahu khair!
Dawah Digital luv u dawah digital :) 💗
May Allah love you more, ameen!!
Dawah Digital ty!
wow I have been asking myself this question a few days ago watching how someone like the preacher Richard Dawkins preach atheism and being constantly hateful toward Islam in specific
Lebanese Nostalgia Towards The Creator . God is not a religion .
I never said God is a religion but Richard Dawkins said clearly many times that Islam is the foremost evil of all!
Also, the problem with most atheists is that they mix the two (God & Religion), they usually won't accept miracles and the prophet stories or divine laws because they jump directly into them without grasping the Oneness of God which is very logical and very basic to understand.
Now honestly when an arrogant person like Dawkins says that Islam is uttermost evil while neglecting all the evil-doings of the ideologies he promotes and preaches every day and even pride himself over them then it only tells me obviously a man like that will see in Islam as being uttermost evil, because Islam is the way to the Truth, because Islam is to submit to the Almighty Creator in every aspect of our lives, in every action in every thought, in every move like when we eat, work, sexual intercourse, sleep, waking up, in rejoice, in grief etc. So how can a person like Dawkins not see in Islam as an obstacle for his false empty religion that he preaches for!!
@William Solia Are you talking about his hatred for God and Islam?
@@LebaneseNostalgia its not hate ... its concern. and with a good reason . thats not our fault that your neighbord's fault from the middle east. tell me all the evil things he promotes
@@TheMajorpk the middle east was set on fire by Europeans colonialism. You dont know much about it because they don't teach about it in schools properly. They divided and conquered people. Unfortunately the divided and conquered haven't yet woken up to it. So therefore they are also partly to blame.
*Brothers & Sisters take ur time to write to our brothers who give dawah to the people*
Always keep Supporting them and make duaa for them.
May Allah grant us all Jannah 🌿💚
Is there definite proof of organic evolution?
Professor H.H. Newman of Chicago university answers this question.
" Reluctant as he may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evoolution."
He writes :
The nature of the proof of organic evolution, then, is this:
that using the concept of organic evolution , as a " working hypothesis, it has been possible to rationalize and render intellgible a vast array of observed phenomena, the real fact upon which evolution rests.
In other words, the working hypothesis works and is therefore acceptable as truth untill overthrown by a more workable hypothesis.
' Evolution, Genetics & Eugenetics ' p.8, 57
MashaAllah May Allah reward you and protect you our beloved brother
Ustadh Suboor always *Keep smiling* Your smile makes our heart melt from love
*You have a precious charming calm peaceful face* ما شاء الله
نحب وجهك الهادئ المسالم حفظكم الله
كلما أراه أشعر بارتياح سبحان الله وجهك يبعث الراحة والانشراح وابتسامتك تدخل القلب وتنوّره 💛💛
Subbor Ahmad and Hamza both are really special.
جزاكم الله خيرا
Much respect and love for Hamza and saboor from 🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰
Alhamdulillah great work brothers.
A small thing, there’s a background humming noise which it quite distracting especially as a headphone user!
Some constructive criticism for future productions inshallah
My sentiments exactly... 🤔
brothers..may allah bless u..ameen
ameen, JazakumAllahu Khair
that is a great question. I was thinking of that..
0:13 damn hamza hand mashallah
HAmza you are the man. Subboor my pakistani brother love u
Jazakallah Brothers.
May your intentions remain good and pure. Ameen.
ameen, JazakumAllahu Khair
This life is never meant to be paradise. Depression and all this anxiety is masked by your misery
Well researched.
I believe that the development of seeking truth is better explained in the social evolution of humans. Remember, evolution isn't necessarily about surviving, it centres around reproduction which very often involves competition within a population.
As for why atheists preach, this is often because the atheist in question takes issue with certain religious practices or doctrines. I'm not sure why that is so hard to recognise. We wouldn't suggest that someone protesting slavery is just does so to validate why they don't own slaves (to parody another's comment here).
Many of the evolutionary scientist, I have lesson to (non Muslim ) says " that this cell is unbelievable complex bit of missionary, unfaliable complex and we will never understand its complexity at all .If our goal is to explain the emergence of this complexity ? We will never be able to explain that from scientific point of view Cuz the more we have looked at it the more and more its complexity is increasing .yes always complexity increases whenever we look at it .So that goal to know the emergence of that complexity and also to understand the cell in it's real essence is a mission impossible Becuae the more we try the more that goal has receded from us and is receding from us not approaching but continuously receding .And its impossible to construct a theory in such scenario .They say " if there are million monkies and all are typing randomly ? We know that it will never produce a collective work of Shakespeare at certain amount of time .And think if u take in to account all other organisms that lived on this earth .
So an intelligent designer, a grand mathematician, a supreme being is responsible for this indeed ALLAH is the creator and sustainer of everything.
I know you guys don't like me .. Lol , but I know the answer ! They preach because they play their role ; calling people to the blazing fire fire of hell . That is all I had to say ... I am going
Adriana Bonita Aziz sister you are free to comment whenever you like إن شاء الله
Dawah Digital Thank you . Salam to you .
Adriana Bonita Aziz وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته to you as well, dear sister
William Solia
Do you have a rationale reason makes us believe there is no fire hell? How can you know it doesn't exist?
Rod Veles Asura
Let aside proving its existence to the end, it's not our topic, what I'm asking you is how do you know it doesn't exist? You put a claim which is hell fire doesn't exist, then prove it! Remember I didn't claim anything yet! So just be responsible for your claims and give the reason that makes you claim it doesn't exist!!
Why do cancer survivors talk about cancer ?
@@person10 religion is a cancer , in fact many atheist choose not to talk about their atheism
@02:27 🌹
Where's hamza these days i haven't seen him speak in public recently
Finish his PhD
As an atheist i found this discussion interesting, however i am a bit disappointed of how easy i could break down every point you made, or agree with you. Nothing new to me here really.
Nothing has universal value but as a human i was born to be biased, i see value in things that logically are no different than a lifeless rock. The only reason i value things, is because if i diddent i wouldn't be here... survival of the fittest. Its a necessary skill to have if you wanna live. I am simply a representation of cycling chemical reactions, controlled by the laws of nature, in a system known as evolution.
Why do you believe that?
@@uthman2281 Is not the answer to that question self evident? Why does anyone believe in anything? Because it makes sense to them that’s why.
do u know what? in bangladesh people's became athiest only to go other country
England really won bro. Nice choice
This is simple: never heard of a guy who was broke and was struggling for food... was an atheist.
Assalamualaikum ..Brother subboor ahamed and Hamza ...please.. give an answer video to...David woods scientific errors in quran,and how quran leads to ISIS videos....please....my non muslim friends are asking...and I do wanna..replay them..in a very.. peaceful way...
are there any "religions" that does not preach?
Blind Spot
I think there are some religions which we are unaware of that don't preach.
Atheism doesn't define as a religion, yet its followers are in some cases - quite religiously motivated for atheism! Irony!
hamza zulfi
believe me brother, there are not, maybe you are never aware of it or never hear/see it or not aware that there are many ways to preach.
Dawah Digital
im 110% sure that that is religiously motivated but in reverse.
Judaism.
Buddhism
Hinduism (arguably)
Proselytism isn't really a thing in these religion.
Two masters! MashAllah
22:13 LOL
fajazaakallahukeyran
wa iyyak
Extremely useful talk .. jazakallah u khair
Fahad Fayaz check out the Darwinian Delusions playlist on our channel if you enjoyed this video إن شاء الله
Fahad Fayaz
"U" has no place in this sentence.
17:50
Why is it so hard for you to understand that I can enjoy the ride even if I know that it doesn't matter in the far end?
That upbringing, experiences, dopamine and oxytocin give things both value and meaning.
The first explanation was actually quite good. Just remember that skeptics generally talk about things that MAY be true, or just things that seems interesting.
Secondly I think atheists preach against religion because they see how atheists, girls and women, homosexuals, and people with some diseases or mental handicaps are treated in religious cultures. Atheists don't want to be treated that way themselves, and I know that many atheists have been mistreated in the name of religion, so they speak up against it.
"What meaning do you find, in you believing that things have ultimate value, even though everything is really based on pitiless indifference" ?!?!?
What meaning to I find in believing anything? I don't. I just believe it because I can't choose what I believe.
I find no meaning in suffering, except possibly to learn from it, learning how to avoid it in the future.
Why do atheist "preach" ?,obviously they're trying to help.
Atheists preach because theists preach.
But they make no claims !! They have nothing to preach !!
@@bouchrab2456 hey do not speak for me ! islam preaches hijab on womn we preach leg socks on women in this non-religious land atheism> islam
To make money. End le discussion
Hamza not come to speakers corner
Kalem Ullah not likely bro. It’s not the right environment for dawah, SC is far too argumentative and violent these days; proper discourses are hardly possible now that it’s become a circus there.
I dont have a response :D
"Why would someone who believes there is no God spend so much time trying to show that there isn't a God."
Most who do it think theistic religion is harmful. Some do it because they like the intellectual exercise and conversation. Some do it because they like to feel smart in front of others. There's a wide range of motivations, but the biggest ones are definitely perceived harm of theism and perceived absurdity of many theistic claims. Like, say 90% of your fellow countrymen believed in the Jedi religion and did random harmful things because they thought the force told them to do it - you'd start arguing against their assertions pretty quickly I assume.
"Why would you argue against something that is adaptive?"
I don't think it's adaptive anymore. The charitable way to see it is that religion is humankind's training wheels. Time to let go.
"Does truth really matter or should we just focus on survival?"
Careful not to commit the naturalistic fallacy here - just because evolution works on the variable of genetic reproduction, it does not mean we ought to value that the most.
"Why are you assuming that the more I know the truth, the more I can survive?"
Isn't that immediately obvious to you? Truth allows for accurate predictions about the surrounding world (through knowledge of where objects truly are and what they're truly doing), which increase your chance of survival by preventing the countless opportunities of you hurting yourself. The fact that you can construct extremely specialized counterexamples does not constitute a refutation of the (honestly, fairly obvious) idea that truth generally leads to a better life much more often than falsehood. I'm sure not many theists would disagree with that.
"How does you valuing truth link to your own survival?"
Basically the same answer as last question. Being closer to the truth allows for more accurate predictions that allow for better survival which is why valuing truth is itself adaptive as a cognitive trait.
"Isn't the value of discovery and self-sacrifice in contradiction with valuing survival?"
Discovery and curiosity are very important values for a hunter-gatherer species. As far as self-sacrifice is concerned, there are two points to consider:
1. Your genes aren't tuned to keep you alive but themselves. They can do that by protecting you, but they can also do that by making you sacrifice your life for your 3 children (because those are each 50% you genetically). So altruistic behavior is very readily explained (including why you are much more altruistic towards your family than outsiders).
2. This is the bigger point: Genes don't translate 1:1 to very particular behaviors or actions of individuals. They give you general character traits and behavior patterns, but the rest is learned during life and not passed on to the next generation in the genes. Thus it's perfectly compatible with natural selection that there can be individuals on the extreme end of the spectrum for these traits (maybe such as willingness to take risks) who would exhibit very atypical behavior that seems to go against the goal of reproducing. You would have a point if the majority of members of the species had traits that clearly must have been maladaptive during our evolutionary history.
"If we adopt philosophical naturalism, then how can we claim ultimate value?"
Not sure what you mean by "ultimate" value. If you mean intrinsic value, then I don't think it's a problem that we can't claim that, since even the notion of a value inside an object that is independent of any observer is quite absurd and clearly not how value functions in the real world. Values are always subjective or intersubjective (i.e. through implicit or explicit agreement of many subjects). But we as humans happen to have quite homogenous basic subjective values by nature, which makes agreement possible. So that works just fine.
"What meaning do you find in your suffering from an atheistic point of view? What meaning do you find in you believing that things have ultimate value even when everything is really based on pitiless indifference? Tell me!"
Some suffering is very meaningful by telling you about things you might do in order to alleviate it and to stay alive. Some suffering is just pointless, like when nothing you could possibly do would improve your situation in any way. So all in all, suffering teaches you lessons and sometimes reminds you that being unlucky is a thing, which might make you more compassionate with others. Note that I'm not saying that that is the given top-down purpose of suffering, but rather that suffering turned out useful in those ways.
I don't think things have inherent value. I think that values are evaluations done by agents of external things and processes. As for pitiless indifference, it's a matter of perspective. "Pity" is not a useful concept on the level of quantum fields, sure. But pity is an emergent concept, and as such it is very useful and real pity exists in the world. So sure, nature is indifferent, but we are not.
Also, how nice of you to decide on who the "honest" atheists are when nihilism (in the sense that you probably mean) is actually pretty rare. One could even more convincingly claim that the "honest" believers are those who think evolution in any respect is totally incompatible with their faith, because there's actually a fair amount of them.
yellowpeteLoL
May Allah guide you to the truth 🙏
Any substantial response to my points? Or just the equivalent of "I'll pray for you"?
@@yellowpetelol6417 any substantial evidence to support your claims? Or just the equivalent of "I'm bigoted"?
We should be asking why people believe in God in a Darwinian framework to help you understand the concept of why people spend time preaching atheism. Both of these people are intelligent and thoughtful, and honestly, as a neuroscience major who works in genetics research, I'm quite pleased they grasp how the perception of truth doesn't make an individual better at surviving. The one in the white shirt even concedes that it could be the case that their beliefs are in fact not representative of the truth. However, I feel that their understanding of natural selection and genetic traits are somewhat laymen. Perhaps I can help. Natural selection favors whatever mechanism that enables an animal to survive/reproduce; if it sort of works or doesn't necessarily aid at all, it keeps it in the toolbox. I can go into the actual genetic reason's for this (reductionist approach) if someone wants to know, but for now, I'll just focus on the broader concepts (emergent approach). If the faculties of the mind that generate curiosity, investigation, experimentation, hypothesis making (religious or secular) allow creative solutions to problems that enable us to reproduce more, then evolution favors that trait even if it also produces some byproduct behaviors that seem to have no purpose. So a wide range of behaviors can come from a neurocircuit selected to be innovative, including creating a backstory for your creation. The existence of many religions is evidence of this. New religions are created all the time from the same process as the others (inquisitive people).
To answer why religious people preach their religion to other religious people and atheist people now preach to other people: This can be explained easily by sociability, conformity, dominance, and other sociological behaviors that make us more successful. We are in direct competition for resources as individuals and as groups. It appears that evolution favors a mutualist approach to survival (do you want to DIY everything and fight each other, or have specialties and trade and benefit from everyone's amazing skillsets?). Natural selection also appears to favor characteristics that enable the identification (visual phenotype, which explains why racism exists; and culture, religion, beliefs, values, as cooperative behaviors, which leads to clans, tribes, and nations) of both a possible cooperative person (comrade, friend, etc) that enables a cohesive unit and potentially non-cooperative person (competitor, hostile, enemy, other, strange, weird, crazy, etc...). Religious people preach to increase their ranks or to enforce a culture on others to turn non-cooperatives into cooperatives. Atheists do the same, but historically from a defensive perspective. Historically, atheists have been met with violence and threats. Because religions permeate almost every aspect of every culture, many brave atheists are angry when they preach and are motivated to do so because they are competing for equal opportunity within the tribe without having to be in agreement of the backstory. They do not fit into the religious tribe and want to decrease its influence on their lives. The fearful majority of atheists want to survive or avoid negative social consequences so they do not go against the majority and remain silent. In our modern times of tolerance of other religions in many countries (because we recognize it is better for cooperation) you see many atheists who now feel comfortable arguing. It essentially comes down to the ego of the heard. Atheists threaten the cohesiveness of the religious tribe, which is why they have been oppressed historically. Now, in secular nations, extreme religions threaten the cohesiveness of the tolerance tribe, which is why they are being oppressed (mostly by other "moderate" religions though).
I would also like to address the value question "How does an atheist philosophically assign value/meaning" from a Darwinian perspective. It is really quite simple and has already been introduced here. We value friends on mutual respect and values. If one person thinks like you, enjoys things with you, enjoys talking to you, etc you share a connection, a gang, and the seeds of a tribe and culture. If evolution favors tribe behavior, it must also favor the seeds of a tribe. Having a strong emotional connection with your neighbor usually results from identification of another's similar behavior or appearance, and the feeling is the manifestation of the first mutualistic relationship (the blissful, and loving feeling is selected for; its how you know). Friends help each other, so of course, you will value them. The same can be said of strangers. Atheists too understand the value of the golden rule. Atheists can feel the same way towards strangers in the same capacity as the most devout Muslim, Christian, and others because the mechanism is the same and the outcome is mutual benefit. Personally, I find meaning in being a father and a husband. I find meaning through my work, and by making my society a better place through my work. I find meaning because natural selection either has selected for it, or allowed it because some other trait which uses the same real-estate also enables it. That thought doesn't upset me or make me feel empty, it makes me feel privileged, amazed, and grateful. Our (Athiest or theist) meanings can have different stories (monotheism, polytheism, atheism), but they are the same mechanism under Darwinism. I hope I was able to help.
Sorry, but under the atheist world view, you ultimately have no value. If man is whom ascribes meaning to something, that meaning dies when he or the thing he ascribed it to dies.
The great hypocrite is the atheist who rejects religion as man-made, yet turns around and makes his own meaning.
2:16
Too bad it didn't :(
you deserved it. Maybe in 2022 :)
England is gonna win bcoz of Lingard LMAO 😂
i hv with me bodyguard tzortzes would hv been better
The one with the strong bengali accent here called subbooro, or whatever his name is, shouldn't be allowed to share the (virtual) stage with a strong Muslim like Hamza! His brain can't keep up!
From the atheist perspective, they preach truth from a materialist presupposition because they view faith and religion as the driving forces of genocide, manipulation, violence, and suffering. They preach because they believe the world would be a better place without those things and that their scientific methods are better for measuring survival outcomes than religion. I didn't see this point being made.
Regarding the idea that humans were designed to discover, I'd like to point out that there's more to survival than what we consider our human life. Humans are meaning-making machines. At some point they break away from the survival of their life when they create a purpose that is greater than themselves. Honor and glory have a lot to do with that. We are capable of dying for a greater good, as long as it means everything to us.
Except genocide, manipulation, violence, and suffering have been driven more through capitalism, nationalism, and non-religious reasons. It's not brought up because it's a laughable position. It's a claim that atheists love to bring up as if it's a trump card.
Making meaning does not mean it does. What meaning the atheist ascribes to anything is temporal and ultimately meaningless when they die. Even the greater purpose they die for will eventually die too. They live and die for nothing. The great hypocrite is the atheist who rejects religion as man-made, only to then make his own meaning.
@@MansMan42069 Well, I don't think their position is one of comparison, but rather that a lot of harm could be avoided if we dropped unfalsifiable beliefs. At least that's how they see it. They see a lot of unnecessary suffering and they see beliefs to blame for it. And I think one reason why there's sustained conflict is that the religious people they talk to don't acknowledge those troubled feelings and concerns. So they feel unheard, misunderstood, pushed aside, etc. This really disrupts the flow of communication.
I just didn't see them talk about this in the video. It seems you can look up any atheist video and their immediate concerns about beliefs and reliability are an obvious reason why they preach.
@@bike4aday Why are they angry at something they don't believe in? Hypocrites.
Emotional arguments don't work. Who are they to decide what is unnecessary or what is harm? And it's funny you bring up unfalsifiable beliefs. They assume rationality yet can't prove it.
And again, they can blame religion all they want. History goes against it. They are clueless.
Lol. I tell you why: all the atheists are the people who never worried about their dinner meal.
Atheists don't preach!
Yeah right ..
And what they do.
Much respect and love for Hamza and saboor from 🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰