All of Rajab Ali's arguments are baseless, metaphorical, abstract, and lack logical reasoning. While he may be adept at explaining things in abstract terms, he fails to justify his stance convincingly. In contrast, Dan Barker stands far ahead, as his good deeds are not motivated by the promise of a heavenly reward. The question of true piety arises: who is more virtuous? Someone whose actions are driven by a carrot-and-stick policy or someone who acts morally purely because it is the right thing to do and avoids causing harm.
All of Rajab Ali arguments are baseless, metaphorically explained, abstract and without any reason. He may be good at explaining things in abstract way but failed to justify his stand.
Ironically, we even have a good example of why it is illegitimate in Newton himself. Newton had presented his theory of gravity and laws of motion, which he employed to describe the movement of things on earth as well as the movement of the planets. However, he asserted that the balances of the solar system were clear evidence of design because of the delicate balances involved. However, his own theory of gravity explains how the solar system formed from the accretion disc of the sun.
Existence is necessarily primary because something can't come from nothing. This means that nobody can legitimately infer any kind of design for any observed attribute of nature unless we have evidence of the designer and the method used to design. None of that exists for proposed god designers, and this debater even claims the right to repeat his assertions even if one could prove that no such evidence was possible.
This is why falsifiability is important, and while it may seem comfortable to make your religious beliefs unassailable in that way, it also makes your religion irrelevant to reality and belief in your religion could not possibly have any moral relevance in such a situations all worldviews suddenly become equally good.
However, they aren't. The parsimony requirement of rational argumentation, known as Occam's razor, forbids rational decision makers from introducing such unfalsifiable claims that have no connection to any observation in reality. "Nature exists and has complexity in it" does not imply "It was designed by Allah" any more than "Allah exists and his nature is complex" implies that he had a designer.
Just because you don't know something doesn't imply it's not there, that's true, but if you don't know something it's incredibly foolish to center your life around it. For example, I don't know that the freeway will not have invisible spike traps on it when driving to work tomorrow, but that's no reason for me to regard the possibility of there being such spike traps as something to worry about in the slightest.
We need positive evidence to make claims about external reality. If you are going to tell me that you are going to hold that Islam is true *regardless of what you observe in reality*, and at the same time give Newton the right to hold that Christianity is true regardless of what he observes, then you clearly have a worthless method for discovering what's true about reality as there's no way to determine whether they are true or false.
All of Rajab Ali's arguments are baseless, metaphorical, abstract, and lack logical reasoning. While he may be adept at explaining things in abstract terms, he fails to justify his stance convincingly. In contrast, Dan Barker stands far ahead, as his good deeds are not motivated by the promise of a heavenly reward. The question of true piety arises, who is more virtuous? Someone whose actions are driven by a carrot-and-stick policy or someone who acts morally purely because it is the right thing to do and avoids causing harm.
Thank you Rajab Ali
All of Rajab Ali's arguments are baseless, metaphorical, abstract, and lack logical reasoning. While he may be adept at explaining things in abstract terms, he fails to justify his stance convincingly. In contrast, Dan Barker stands far ahead, as his good deeds are not motivated by the promise of a heavenly reward. The question of true piety arises: who is more virtuous? Someone whose actions are driven by a carrot-and-stick policy or someone who acts morally purely because it is the right thing to do and avoids causing harm.
Man this is one underrated video
hasnain rajabali..Allah bless you.. best nd constructed reply on retoric agnostic nd athst nd so calld free thinker.... i hav ever seen.
All of Rajab Ali arguments are baseless, metaphorically explained, abstract and without any reason. He may be good at explaining things in abstract way but failed to justify his stand.
35:47
Ironically, we even have a good example of why it is illegitimate in Newton himself. Newton had presented his theory of gravity and laws of motion, which he employed to describe the movement of things on earth as well as the movement of the planets. However, he asserted that the balances of the solar system were clear evidence of design because of the delicate balances involved.
However, his own theory of gravity explains how the solar system formed from the accretion disc of the sun.
Existence is necessarily primary because something can't come from nothing. This means that nobody can legitimately infer any kind of design for any observed attribute of nature unless we have evidence of the designer and the method used to design. None of that exists for proposed god designers, and this debater even claims the right to repeat his assertions even if one could prove that no such evidence was possible.
This is why falsifiability is important, and while it may seem comfortable to make your religious beliefs unassailable in that way, it also makes your religion irrelevant to reality and belief in your religion could not possibly have any moral relevance in such a situations all worldviews suddenly become equally good.
However, they aren't. The parsimony requirement of rational argumentation, known as Occam's razor, forbids rational decision makers from introducing such unfalsifiable claims that have no connection to any observation in reality. "Nature exists and has complexity in it" does not imply "It was designed by Allah" any more than "Allah exists and his nature is complex" implies that he had a designer.
Just because you don't know something doesn't imply it's not there, that's true, but if you don't know something it's incredibly foolish to center your life around it. For example, I don't know that the freeway will not have invisible spike traps on it when driving to work tomorrow, but that's no reason for me to regard the possibility of there being such spike traps as something to worry about in the slightest.
We need positive evidence to make claims about external reality. If you are going to tell me that you are going to hold that Islam is true *regardless of what you observe in reality*, and at the same time give Newton the right to hold that Christianity is true regardless of what he observes, then you clearly have a worthless method for discovering what's true about reality as there's no way to determine whether they are true or false.
Too kindergarten opinion shame on you brother Dan Barker may Almighty guide you.
All of Rajab Ali's arguments are baseless, metaphorical, abstract, and lack logical reasoning. While he may be adept at explaining things in abstract terms, he fails to justify his stance convincingly. In contrast, Dan Barker stands far ahead, as his good deeds are not motivated by the promise of a heavenly reward. The question of true piety arises, who is more virtuous? Someone whose actions are driven by a carrot-and-stick policy or someone who acts morally purely because it is the right thing to do and avoids causing harm.