Atheist Debates - Debate Review, Is Islam True w/Hussein
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Full debate: • DEBATE Matt Dillahunty...
From DebateCon 3.1, I debated Hussein on whether Islam is true. He presented slides with versions of a contingency argument along with supposed scientific findings in the quran and evidence for Muhammed being a prophet.
During the Q&A, virtually every question was for him. Which would almost say more than I could say - but I had some important findings from this debate which I've included here.
Islamic debate formula: 1) make assertions 2) avoid questions 3) declare you're the winner
Sounds similar to the Canadian Liberal party
Oh, and "exterminate" critics
That's so real.
Aka playing chess aginst a pigeon.
You forgot “makeup alleged translations of Arabic words to suit your narrative”
there are no good Muslim apologists. They are all the same. They model themselves on Christian apologists - using the same arguments, but as you said, they don't bother actually trying to understand them. They reel off premises like slogans, but don't actually care if they even make sense, because they're preaching to the converted.
Every time Matt asked Hussein "what reason do you have to believe/how do you tell the difference/what's your justification? He responded with the equivalent of "cause. Duah."
"We have to investigate it."
How?
"We have to investigate it."
Sorry but who is Duah"? I am confuuuseda.
'If' is a powerful word to make anything look real. If goblins exist, then a goblin could be responsible for ailments. If Goblins cause ailments, then this would be an explanation as to why I got artritis in my thumb while my mate didn't.
How is this comment 5 days old if the video was uploaded 30 minutes ago?
@@synergygaming65 By not having been uploaded 30 minutes ago, but having been published then.
@@cy-oneNot to forget that this video is part of a Patreon project, where supporters got a sneek peek six days ago.
If my aunt had wheels she'd be a chrysler..
@@synergygaming65 Eddie's in the time stream..
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
This wasn’t really a debate. The Islam advocate simply wasn’t listening, and repeated the same old tired arguments irrespective of what Matt had just stated.
They were always extremely shallow arguments as well. I’m not really sure why he was there.
$
@@Jeremyramone Yup, They get a speakers fee and traveling expenses.
One would THINK that the total failure of apologetics would be more than enough to disprove the pretend god character who they claim is "perfect," yet needs the assistance of lying hypocrites as its advocates here in reality . 🙄
Matt makes fun of Quran verses "How stars act like lamp shade and throw missiles at shaitans" THINKING it is meteorite/shooting stars which is not true at all.
What Matt has no clue about is that stars EMIT COSMIC RAYS and bombard space with it causing harm to anything in its way.
Most famous star that act as lamp is SUN which emits SUN RAYS in form of UV RAYS that bombard space which is how you get SUNBURN even that Sun is 94 MILLION MILES AWAY yet still gives you sunburn on Earth.
Sun does not travel 94 miles to do such thing but emits UV RAYS which travel all over space.
Earth protects from 90% of harmful sunrays and outside in space you would be cooked in no time.
See how SIMPLE VERSE in Quran explains COMPLEXITY of this world but your preacher Matt has NO CLUE because he has LOW IQ while he is mocking Islam thinking he is smart.
And I only picked EASY EXAMPLE so people can understand.
@@the-trustees and yet, this doesn't seem to deter them in the slightest, because each of them is convinced that everybody else is just a flawed advocate, and that _they_ have something compelling to say.
The argument from contingency is silly when an apologist extrapolates it to the universe itself, they see that things within the universe are contingent, so they make the leap in logic to assuming that the universe itself was contingent, which is like being inside a house where everything is orange, and then assuming that the outside of the house is also Orange and that they personally know the painter because they got a feeling once.
Called the fallacy of composition. Very, very tired problem in apologetics. Wish there was an effective way to highlight this to derail all these cosmological and ontological 'arguments'
Thank you Matt. The debate was painful to watch, but your analyses after debates are very informative and thought-provoking.
@earth_is_flat wtf? i hope you're joking 🤣🤣🤣 ... matt got destroyed? by the guy who couldn't explain anything? by they guy who said "we are not humans"? 🤣 ... well, by your profile name i can notice something's wrong with your cognitive capacities
Yes they are true and on point very nice comment I would wish I had a ten thousand likes you know like ten thousand fists?
You can't really think Matt lost either of those debates unless you don't have the first clue what debate is.
Petroleum seeps have been exploited by humans since paleolithic times and have been commonplace in Persian Gulf region, so even if Muhammad was talking about oil, it is still most likely retrospective.
I am throwing this in here as I think is up there with saying: 'How could a simple man in the desert know these things?' While dismissing that he was a travelling merchant.
Not to mention bitumen/pitch, which was also not only well known but a valuable commodity sought after for its medicinal properties. It was traded all throughout Europe and eventually gave rise to the tradition of consuming mummies there (a fascinating story in its own right).
I was REALLY looking forward to this review. I listened to this 'debate' while riding a train and the point where he actively attacked your character made so annoyed I audibly reacted and other passengers noticed it.
Thank you for you patient rhetoric and helping me improve my philosophy, you helped me through some rough parts of my life, even if you didn't actively knew at the time.
Love from the Netherlands
@earth_is_flat Give one valid and sound argument that either of them has given that "destroyed" Matt.
As your commenting on this debate review, watch the other two as well and you'll realize why what you're saying is nonsense.
The only argument that I have heard so far in 4-5 debates on islam is "1400 years ago"
Proof that a human could not know this 1400 years ago and you might have an argument.
@earth_is_flat You set up a black and white fallacy as you give no justification why you would exclude the followers of mohammed.
Did they not belief in the prophet and allah before the quran was written?
So there were Arabs that believed before it was written.
That you think the quran is amazingly written is quite subjective. I only see a book that continously praises a being that the book spends 0 pages on giving evidence that this entity even exists.
So no your conclusion is false.
Try again: an argument that is valid and sound, premise premise conclusion.
to steelman your argument here:
1. The quran is amazing and infalible
2. Something so amazing and infallible could not have been written by mere man
Therefore: god must have written the book
It's flawed as you have not demonstrated that in fact a mere man or multiple humans could NOT have written the book.
Listen to Matt's description of valid and sound arguments and you might learn something about logic.
@earth_is_flat My view on the quran is the same as with the bible and the torah.
It's information borrowed from the religions before them and learning from the mistakes of the people before.
around 600 years is between the bible and the quran give or take a few decennia.
More than enough time for a travelling merchant and his group of people to discover truths and also legends of the times.
That nobody hasn't made anything like it more a testament to how special muslims think the book is. It seems based on a subjective view from people that think the book is already true and therefore it is so amazing.
It is good for poetry and legend of the time just as the Iliad and oddessy, bible etc. But nothing special on truth claims.
@earth_is_flat I also don't speak arabic, that why you should read multiple quranic tranlation/interpretations to discover what the bulk of muslims belief what is in the book.
And the fact that so many people can still massage the text to make it read whatever they want, instead of being very clear about it's meanings, makes it such a non-god written book.
An intelligent god knew that a book would be the worst way of delivering it's message as languages change in meanings over the years.
If a god was smarter he'd bring out a revised edition every 50-100 years. There'd be no debates about this topic, but better, more streamlined morality and guidelines.
Instead we are now 1400 years, 2000 years and perhaps 2400 years further after these books were claimed to be written and I don't see a solution for the theist side after almost 14 years of watching debates. Still no evidence, only vague interpretations of claimed prophesy and arguments riddled with fallacies.
@@flat_earth_foreverso you god only speaks Arabic and your convinced that good wrote the book you can't even understand? WTF 😂
I had a friend years ago who is Muslim but raised in Brooklyn New york... she would constantly defend the Quran... I pointed out 4:20 which concerns a husband's right to smack the shit out of her if she's uncooperative. I asked her if she thought that was ok... and after she looked it up she was really shocked. I asked her, so if we were married, you'd be ok with me slapping you if you disagree... and of course the apologetic she came up with was garbage
It's not the Muslim hitting the woman. It's the stick. 😂😂
@earth_is_flat first of all, yeeeaaah no.
But also, who are you responding to here? The OC didn't say anything about that.
@earth_is_flat you telling the OC to watch islamic apologetics seems rather tone deaf to me.
And no, Nadir Ahmed was incredibly bad in his debate with Matt. No idea who the other guy is, but I'm sorry; I won't take your word on it
Your first sentence is a matter of hate crime against women... therefore buckle up musis the big chop block is comin' and it' comin' haaard
Muslims make the wrong claims:1. Jesus is the butcher not God 2. Jesus was never in Arabia... NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER::::
BUT WHAT DO I KNOW? Well I know where God is and the nature of Jesus
So basically the Muslim said "my religion is true, because the Quran says its true". Just like every other religious theist who believes their religious doctrine is the "true" one would say. Easy W for Matt. Ijs 🤷🏾♂️
They also claim it’s full of scientific revelations, despite not having been updated with any new findings in the last 1,400 years or so. It’s a pity because during the golden age of the 9th and 10th centuries Islamic scholars made important discoveries in numerous fields including mathematics and astronomy.
Its X because its X best circular reasoning. If there is no evidence outside and uses the same word its circular reasoning.
@@flat_earth_foreverThose 2 idiots didn't even tackle the subject which is 'Is Islam True?'. Funny I was debating a muslim before and he said Perfect Dawah and Nadir Ahmed are clowns because I used their interpretation of the Quran. How many muslims do we need to debate to to have a consistent translation 😂
Thank you for educating us on how to make sound arguments.
I watched that debate twice.
This was probably one of the easier debates you’ve done. It was like watching a kid vs an adult.
I’m seriously looking forward to your debate against Hakikachoo
No matter how many times you repeat that same comment, it doesn't change the fact that it's either an obvious troll comment, or you don't know the first thing about debate.
It's normal to challenge Matt on things. But, challenging him on Set Theory would be one hell of a difficult task.
Is set theory true?
@metazock
Is set theory "true"? Im not sure that's a good word to describe it. Set theory is internally consistent.
The laws of logic are true. And set theory is predicated upon the laws of logic.
@@metazock
Something tells me you already know this.
I think I could challenge him on Set Theory, but I am a mathematician. I don't think he knows a lot of the mathematical side of it and that is fine. He doesn't have to.
@RanEncounter
When I say "challenge," I don't mean knowing something he doesn't. I mean having a disagreement with him on a particular position regarding set theory.
I mean, logic is the foundation of math, not the other way around.
Thanks Matt. These have been hard to watch. They’ve seemed like a waste of time from the first few minutes, but it’s frustrating because these are important discussions to have. And, on a personal level, I lost my faith as a Catholic at 48 years old. One of the most important parts of that process was the understanding that I needed to keep learning, keep exploring, keep studying, so that I never assume that I’m right. I learned to keep testing my assumptions. So, spending time watching these debates matters to me. I’m trying to learn. And these debates on Islam have only confirmed my assumptions, but only because the debaters are not bringing their A game. That’s not a good enough reason to affirm my current views.
Ditto, o' fuzzy one. But just trying to empathize with
MD here for a mere half hour leaves me feeling wrung out.
And with a long drive each way? Maybe hanging with Aron
was ample reward?
How did you watch them? Where? Is it inner circle only?
Yep "inner circle" only
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@earth_is_flat You’re joking, right?
im starting to realize debating religion or god is the biggest waste of time
Me: man, it's hard to imagine anything as silly as Christian apologetics
Muslim apologists: hold my beer
Sets aren't contingent on their members, empty sets exist. Sets are contingent on their collectivizing statements. A set of every red items can exist even if there are no red items, it's just going to be an empty set. Luckily this has nothing to do with the universe because humans came up with sets, it's a mathematical construct and we can just change how it works if we want to.
Has anyone ever explained how a timeless god changed in state (from not creating a universe to creating a universe)?
Can they define “timeless“?
What happens outside of time since time no longer exists? Nothing happens outside of time.
Regarding the fine tuning argument, one point I rarely hear about and have never gotten a substantial response to is the "survivorship bias" aspect of it. Or to put it another way, do you think that in another universe where conditions were not right for life to arise, there are people who do not exist sitting around contemplating the fact that they don't exist and determining that their non-existence is absolute proof of the non-existence of any deity?
A plane crashes where hundreds die and only one survivor. If that survivor is an atheist, they are great full for their good luck. If that survivor is a theist, they thank god and forever ask the question “why me?”.
That's the inherent problem with the debate format. It allows for this kind of thing to go on. They can spend their time asserting whatever they want and nobody can hold him accountable. That's why the Gish Gallop came up. These people aren't debating the subject, they are pandering to the audience. There just isn't enough back and forth to come to any worthwhile conclusions.
One of the most frustrating things about those asserting a tautology is reaching the person asserting it and forcing them to see the flawed, circular reasoning. Wait, did I just commit a tautological fallacy?! 🙄😳🤭
Hi Matt, thank you for taking the time to debate muslims.
Please consider debating Moahmmed Hijab.
They are all incredibly dishonest, but him most of all. It would be a pointless task.
Mohammed hijab only debates people when he has the crowd advantage and will not do a proper moderated debate because he only debates to score points rather than arrive at any truth.
@@earth_is_flat-ry1lw ah yes your username tells me I should definitely take you seriously. I don't think even your Islamic heroes are that unhinged.
I really enjoyed how matt merely pointed out hussein havent presented a method anyone could figure out if a prophet was actually a prophet, and he inmediatly jumped into solipsism/pressuposionalism.
And matt just gave him another chance and a few minutes later he went into "if you dont know this specific question then you cannot know anything".
I think it is clear he was learning from christian apologists, which explains why he didnt understood the question nor knew how to deal with them to guide back the conversation into his script.
Great to see you still at it! Been a fan for a decade
I watched this, and it was painful. Islamic apologetics are in a naive & adolescent state as it is, but Hussein brought so little to the table that I was embarrassed both for him and his religion. Hussein's lack of experience & ability to answer questions was glaringly obvious and made me wonder if MDD do any vetting whatsoever of participants.
Didn't you know before that Aron is Xenu? I thought that was public knowledge... 😂
Islamic apologist: "how could the people who wrote the Quran have possibly known these incredible scientific things?!"
*Points at a mundane fact that people involved in agriculture and livestock breeding knew for thousands of years before the existence of the Quran*
Christian apologists might infuriate you, but Islamic apologists make you fall asleep.
Hussein got spanked with logic by Matt. It appeared to me that Hussein got stumped many times by Matt’s questions and is a recent convert to Islam and just parrots the Islam talking points. Looking forward to Matt debating and spanking Daniel on Islam in the future. 😊
Matt, excellent video, however I've noticed the audio on your channel is really quiet. I watch a lot of youtube videos and have found that your videos specifically I have to crank up. If It's just me, please ignore. Hope you are having a wonderful day. Thanks for another great video!
Hi Matt, it's nice to see you go back to your strengths.
Skepticism is his strength. I'm sorry you get emotional over skepticism not aligning with your emotional politics.
I haven’t looked at the slides or watched the debate, but it sounds like he tried a shell game with set theory…. Is every set contingent on something external? What about the empty set? Clearly not. What about a set with a single element, like the set containing the empty set? Nope! Would love to see him try to use set theory to show that Islam is in the set of true things with a little rigor. 🤣
In the three debates I've seen Hussein participate in, a distant, lazy, and ill-considered book report is exactly how I'd describe Hussein's presentations and arguments. The moment an interlocutor probed for an elaboration or raised the implications of his argument, he'd proceed with condescension, ad hominem attacks, harmful/dogmatic rhetoric, or a combination of the three. He'd be especially intellectually dishonest and dismissive towards any female-presenting interlocutors.
@@earth_is_flat-ry1lw My comment was entirely about Hussein, not once mentioning Matt, and those three other debates did not involve Matt. That was to collect multiple data points with minimal opponent bias. That said, his faults and ad hominem attacks were the most egregious against female-presenting opponents. Quite unprofessional and a glaring detraction from anyone's actual argument.
However, I've already viewed your suggested (and unrelated) debate, and while there aren't really any "winners" or "losers" in a performative debate like those typical of the MDD format, you can fail at communicating and providing verifiable evidence of your position, and that seems to have been the case for Ahmed and especially for Dawah.
In every presentation I've seen from Perfect Dawah, he doesn't appear to understand the basics of falsification, verifiable evidence, and reproducible/peer-reviewed studies. Circular reasoning/begging the question is his favorite fallacy, I've noticed.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan
As Matt has said before, if my friend tells me he adopted a dog, assuming my friend isn't a pathological liar, I can take what he tells me as true. If, however, he said he was abducted by aliens, saw a ghost, or God appeared to him in the woods behind his house, I'm going to need A LOT more evidence for said claims. I watched the whole debate and it was embarrassing how flimsy Hussein's arguments were. And Aron's question at the end was icing on the cake! *ALL HAIL LORD XENU!!*
in that debate I felt Matt let him get away with obvious false claims when he said "the scientific evidence in the Koran proves Allah etc" when there are many incorrect claims ,Out thoughts come from our heart. sperm comes from between the ribs, the earth is like a big carpet(meaning flat) these are the few that springs to mind and there are many more .
Including Set Theory in the Argument of Contingency seems more like obfuscation than actual honest arguing. As if he's trying to add a 'complicated' and 'scientific'/'logical' subject to make the argument seem to carry more authority, and make it harder to argue with him
Aron getting up to claim he’s xenu was brilliant lol
Matt, keep at it. Imho, a debate is not about who is winning/losing. I think to have lost the most precious thing of it itself, learning more then.
Well, he never pretended to win all debates and he clearly stated that he didn't need to. Maybe it's tiring for him to debate people who are just playing mind games and not accepting the circumstances they represent.
Matt Vs. Hussein was like Mike Tyson vs Rainman
This is what strikes me about arguments for the existence of God: ascribing intelligence and sentience to the ultimate first cause is anthropomorphic at best.
Why not accept the thing being described on its own merits? It is transcendent . Now let's talk about what it might mean to transcend all things. Putting a face on an unimaginably subtle state of existence stops us from diving into an interesting subject.
Hey Matt, Trent Horn recently did a video called "claims aren't evidence (REBUTTED)". I think it would be nice if you made that video you menetioned here. If anything, at least it would make it harder to misquote or misrepresent you. I went in the comments for Trent's video and made many claims, but it's not clear if they are considering these claims as being now evidenced. Maybe!
One of the few Matt Dillahunty debates I didn't watch to the end, simply because the audio was so bad. Which is a bit sad for an event calling itself "DebateCon" ...
Excellent video.
I think I saw this "debate" in another video, and somehow this Hussein added whole new layers of irritation which Christian apologists could learn lessons from.
Before oil, the Arab empire was built on pearls.
Theists don't really do the debating but instead preaching.
Were you expecting honesty and logical argumentation, Matt? 🤣
11:23 to 11:36 "there's a number of big problems here because you could ask about the set of necessary causes or potential necessary causes. and whether or not **that** is contingent, and whether or not it makes those things contingent." actually, the first thing i would ask is "are you familiar with Russel's Paradox and the various rules of Set Theory? and i need two answers here. so 'yes and yes', 'yes and no', 'no and no', or 'no and yes'." granted, Russel's Paradox can be defeated. but like, if they answer "no" to either one and especially both? then they just aren't qualified to bring up Set Theory. and should refrain from using it in debate until they are familiar with both.
27:35 wow. incredible.
Didn't watch the debate, but I'm guessing god wasn't proven to exist and Islam is true because of "I say so?"
So basically it’s another total fail by the apologist.
Maybe because children are indoctrinated with religion. The arguments of believers are childish. Maybe you need to talk to them like children with simple counter-arguments. Appealing to a child's imagination.
2:55
You say you prep for the topic and not the other debater.
Would it be possible to do both?
By that, I mean you could do exactly what you're already doing, and then once you're prepped, you could watch a debate or two by your opponent.
If nothing jumps out at you, you are in the same place as you would be normally.
But if they use bad logic in those other debates, you will be in a better place in your debate if they bring it up again.
For example, in your debate with Trey, he brought up the exact points he brought up in his past debate with David Smalley.
He was also much more polite in David's debate, so you could have called him out on it and pointed out that trey came to your debate looking to fight rather than debate.
it sounds like Hussein prepared like a Pokémon trainer. "well, he uses this type so I'll use what's strong against that"
which is super effective against people who go to their favorite arguments rather than where the truth lies.
Hi Matt, Could you ask this question to religious believers if you think the question is good.
Why did god make the universe at all?
(A) God didn't have a choice
(B) God was getting bored
(C) Any other reason.
Idea is that if god was supposedly the only thing that existed before creating the universe.. then god could only have created it for itself.
Not to speak for Matt, but the question "why is there something rather than nothing" is often posed as an argument for god.
I haven't heard a satisfactory answer to "why God rather than not god" though, so their argument is just kicking the can down the road on something that doesn't have a clear answer.
@@uninspired3583 yes kicking the can further down the road is how Carl Sagan also described the idea of god.
@@dushyantchaudhry4654 there's a lot of his content I'm not familiar with. Brilliant man though, no question
Still waiting for the daniel debate opening u said you'd upload
Fear Allah. You will all know on the day of judgment
We also don't talk about life being fine tuned to survive in the universe sometimes.
When it comes to the quality of the apologists, could it be the difference between the interpretive nature of the Bible vs the literal nature of the Quran? Hussein did seem to phone it in a little bit.
The fine tuning argument to me sounds a bout like: See these rivers? They're dug out by an intelligent being with the purpose of being exactly there, otherwise they would've had any other random path, but definitely not this path. This path is too special to be a coincidence -- just look at the fish that lay their eggs in this bend and couldn't lay their eggs anywhere else or they'd be eaten or flooded away.
As usual islam nails jello to the Wall, almost
Matt's experience in attempting communication with Muslim apologists is consistent with mine. I do not attempt debate. I invite dialog. I am not asking for arguments and I present no arguments.
I ask two simple questions that never, never, (they just do not) get a simple, straight answer.
1) Do you have scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
Must of the time all I get back is argument and "proof" - which turn out to be the same thing. But no zero verified evidence at all.
Sometimes they argue the question or offer variations on a rejection of the question by saying things like "God is outside time or space and unknowable."
So, I point out that all they have done is substitute one unsupported assertion with another unsupported assertion but at least they no longer claiming the existence of a god in this world.
Then I invite a dialog about what does exist in this world by asking:
2) Can you name any object or force that exists in this world but lacks scientifically verifiable evidence that can be measured, counted, weighed, predicts, observed or demonstrated?
I have never once, in the hundreds of times I have asked, ever had a straight answer to either of those two questions.
It's wasn't tongue in cheek that the universe may be fine tuned for black holes. See the 'cosmic natural selection' hypothesis, it's a multiverse idea where each black hole contains a new universe. Those universes that produce more black holes produce more universes, in an analog to life being more successful at reproducing in evolution.
It's so interesting to hear Muslims use the exact same points to prove their religion is right compared to Christians. It's also interesting to hear each group pick some random presupposed idea as to why the other religion can't be correct. I've heard Christians say that Islam can't be right because it doesn't address original sin. As if that's just a fact. To hear Muslims shit on Christians because the Trinity doesn't make sense sounds like it would be fun to hear about as well as I always wondered what their made up argument would be
“IS THER NO ONE ELSE?” IS THERE NO ONE ELSE?” -Brad Pitt as Achilles. Honestly, do they not know you? Why are you paired with pawns? Or is it that they have no one else?
Husseins arguments were nothing more than baseless conjecture...
Once he argued claims are evidence, he lost me.
All sheep can experience level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty. ❤
Hussein was out of his depth and towards the end obviously under stress.
Next debate should be over whether Qur'an recitations should be considered singing. You won't believe the special pleading there 😆
Now I want a scientist to review which has the most scientific content: Bible or Quran?
What foes that mean though? Science means methodology of verifying reality through experiment,study etcetera.
Even if it mentions a fact about nature which is not incorrect that doesnt make it scientific.
Can't "modern day debate" rename itself to "dark age debate"!?
I've seen debates on the truth of religion, the flatness of the earth, the morality of child marriage, etc. Maybe now and then a sliver of gender or abortion or other more "political", but they are rare. That is not what I associate with the modern day. Haven't been in the US for a while, but I still have some hope these remain fringe opinions.
Your thoughts here are pretty much worthless, and also they are debates taking place in the modern day. Also, the issues you mention are things that people in the modern-day still adhere to and believe in.
Sad.
Hussain’s bit about the skin pain receptors made me lose it. A proper ‘hands on head’ moment. The verse cited for this is claiming that when the skins of the disbelievers are completely burned away in hell, all-merciful god will keep giving them new skins so they can go through the torment again. A ridiculous post-hoc rationalisation.
Remember, they all claim God is infinitely merciful. Torture is just another form of “love” to them.
I've not watched this debate yet. Better go take a look.
You will be disappointed.
The masked Arab covered the topic of science and the quran. They cannot use the excuse that he doesn't speak Arabic because he is a native Arab.
Watched all of it 24:31
Where can we watch these? Why no link in description etc?
Modern day debates UA-cam channel
@@okirain6758 thanks!
If I'm able to respect you, it's because I have no reason to believe there's a fact that you aren't willing to go out of your way to draw everyone's attention to.
If that wouldn't be a criterion for someone's respect for someone else, then I don't know what the hell would be.
I guess I can give the apologist credit for attempting a methodology? Most of them just seem to repeat that Qu'ran is infallible over and over. It failed, but at least he tried.
If this is the debate I think it is, that guy was.... Nothing nice to say here....
He was a joke. Matt specifically said what it would take to believe in God.. then immediately complained that Matt won't tell us that.
You could have grabbed any Muslim off the street and had a better debate. He acted like a 13 year old. I know you are but what am I, kind of person.
I started watching the debate and got called away from it. But now I think I won't go back to finish watching because Hussein just sounds pathetic. I really hate to say that, but I can't see any reason to watch him sputter and spew nonsense.
I suspect (though cannot prove) that the poor quality of Islamic apologists is in part due to Islam not having a successful reformation like Christianity did in the 16th century. With the success of those breakaway factions, it's much harder to just brand them heretics and wipe them out, so out of necessity the approach to foundational documents and doctrine has to become more flexible: is able to be questioned better.
IMO it’s because Muslims generally come from societies where questioning is punishable by death. They don’t experience true debate.
"Somebody .....Someone...." Somebody, someone like a man?
How did he look like?
A Muslim version of the Gish Gallop. :D
Religion is silly.
Boring…I want Matt to show us how many push-ups he can do. Anything would be more interesting than this…try harder please.
Hussein seemed more honest to me than many other religious debaters. In his opening he admitted that he would be unable to convince nonbelievers, meaning that he does this debate more to score points from viewers on his side. Also he casually admitted that after all the time of debate before, this would not be the one presenting the irrefutable evidence (while other religious debaters would rather act as if they actually done it). I found Husseins style and strategy strange at many points but given the normal quality of religious debaters I would rank him being above average. Matt still won convincingly.
This attitude comes directly from one of the chapters in Quran, where Muhammad goes to lengths explaining that you cannot convince unbelievers with reasoning because allah has put a veil in front of their minds. Although they don’t say it explicitly, but that is what is going on in their minds.
None of the Abrahamic religious texts are accurate. That does not prove there isn't a God. I replied, with proof, it was removed.
Okay? Theists still haven’t proved there IS one
@@RoozleDoozle-9210 The philisophical view of life, how we came to be, truth and justice always incorporates some world view of person projection of beliefs. A person seems to come of age once they decide their beliefs hold personal value and are defendable. The truth as I know it, as disappointing or elating as it may be, is that we are a creation, heaven, earth and the universe are all one simulation. That there is a another reality outside of this simulation where there are many entities seems to be the system. Some of the proof is in conservation of energy. This creation, with wave form collapse, heisenberg uncertainty, and other properties which are connected to a extra corporial consciousness, indicate the universe does not bother to render what we can not know. If you do not know something, then the universe does not bother to render it. As with any simulation, nothing is impossible, changing water to wine or waking the dead are simple acts, which they say, all humans can do. Perhaps. But my reality is, that their must be a creator of the simulation, if heiarchys prove standard to life, and with them I would align, if I am required to do so. We are locked in this simulation, which includes the place of the afterlife and we can never exist anywhere else. However, both the Creator and Christ claim they live outside the simulation so maybe some of us can be placed on a harddrive and moved. However, the debate is on and the science is good and bad for and against simulation theory.
Islam is "true". What it is based on is not.
Matt love what did in that debate and value what you do alot.Question:-why is religion still so prevailent in America...we are similar countries (uk) although we would never allow so many guns or make abortion illegal but we usually follow you guys a few years later...people here claiming to be religious have plummeted to less than 50% in the past 20years, hope you guys follow us for once haha
Hussein time and time again showed he was no better then a Zandaqa a heretic. I agree with you almost entirely here, this debate was you pointing out flaws and him not listening. Typical of the Zandaqa. Inshallah you will have better exposer to Islam in the near future. You have been given a poor impression of Islam, inshallah you will go to Jannah if it continues this way.