This is the key to being a muslim debater: when non-muslims politely criticize your beliefs, call them offensive and accuse them of making "ad hominem attacks" and using "rhetoric". Then use rhetoric and ad hominem attacks on the non-muslims and get the mostly muslim audience to make a great deal of noise in approval. All of the islam vs atheism debates I've watched so far end up going like this
Religious belief is absurdly ludicrous. The reality is we know them by their works & the Christians, like James H. Charlesworth, use a fantasyland vocabulary. I know we are in a population overshoot & the biosphere collapse is my consequences, the radical left was too busy surviving to pay attention to voting. Born 1958. The civil war made us a bomb factory which supplied the bombing of every legal target in N. Korea & then their dams. This is a fossil-fueled, nuclear bomb dropping pest. People like thinking Jesus Christ is on their side. The authoritarians sold climate change denial. We have the videos. "Let me just say that if God was a city planner, he would not put a playground next to a sewage system." There is always vanity, someone thinking they are better than us, having the correct religion, being smarter, better educated, wealthier & such. It cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god or spirit-world just as it would be to suggest we all ought to travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a stranger's imaginations. No one looks for prophets in the Yellow Pages. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. Freud wrote the antidote for Christianity is literacy. Besides, if there were a real god, then most likely everyone would be aware of Her. It would seem the vanity of the creator is fed with worship. The Christian lacks any sense of standards. They attached their books to the Jewish & the Mormons glued onto them both. They all are hypocrites, wolves in sheep's clothing, vain, wicked, adulterous, evil, who seek signs. There are none given, but one & it is what you imagine. Even Jesus aborts faith failing working in magical mountain moving, landscaping at scale using voice control. Don't give me that "My God, I'm forsaken" nonsense. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital, & we say God helps those helping themselves because the creator has a perfect record of doing nothing.
atheists: gives a very logical explanation on their notion. crowd: okay theist: says 'god' in uppercase. crowd: whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Religion debates are never intellectual. This whole debate was basically the athiests giving their arguments and the theists over simplifying and strawmanning their arguments and then proceed to intellectualize their own.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake - Napoleon If the Theist are angry and aggressive don't stoop to their level, remain calm so you can express your thoughts clearly and avoid making mistakes
@@GMYSTERYICTNF this ^^ i still hate that some people will go away from the debate thinking the theist carried themself well, but this is the best way to go
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
what a couple of douche these guys, i guess Qur'an tells them also to be smug and rude. the atheist scientists are way more civil, not to forget logical.
As is often the case, the theists act like assh*les and get away with implying that the non-believers are 'evil', 'ignorant' and 'liars'. The atheists are well behaved and polite as is always the case. There's a difference between saying someone is 'wrong' and someone is a 'liar'. The audience, which is made up of theists, is also rude. The only way theists can keep their heads above water is by dishonest means and so their question period is really just a time to affirm their dogma. These debates are good even though they degenerate into prize fights and trickery for they allow the audience to hear arguments they would otherwise never be exposed to and for seeds to be planted.
Yes sir, scientists have an argument but theists love ad hominem. For those who don't know an ad hominem is: it is the act of attacking someones character, life style or anything about the person rather than their argument. This is what FOX News does in EVERY FUCKKEN INTERVIEW and is extremely painful to watch for logical, intelligent people.
What's funny is that the majority of intelligent people commenting on this thread are atheists. The debate did an excellent job of bolstering our position, so we enjoy commenting on it. It's PURE WIN for those of us who have abandoned the ludicrous practice of SUPERSTITION and MAGICAL THINKING.
The only angry and arrogant person in this debate was Hassainain…..Ironically he accuse others to be angry. Hassainain if you can not handle the pressure of the arguments against your God don'r engage in debates.
Dark Prince How on earth he did that !! I can remember him saying anything. Just "Look around you its obvious there is a God" ........This was his entire argument and then some high school bullying ....and some idiots laughing.
Kostas Spiliotopoulos it's funny how atheists deny god using their own intellect.. while many people find God using the same faculties... God is the reason for your existence.. or would you rather believe you and apes are cousins.... LOL
Twit Chic www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html Smartest man on Earth's answer to this ridiculous "nothing and nothing can't make something!!" claim that's been debated since time immemorial.. lol
2:19:00 Theists here blatantly lie about a Quranic verse alleging a miracle that the Quran claims the universe is expanding. Surah 51:47 says this "And the heaven, We built it with might, and indeed We are powerful (one says āda’l-rajulu or ya’īdu, to mean, ‘he is strong’; and awsa‘a’l-rajulu, to mean, ‘he has become capable [dhū sa‘a] and strong’)." The translation which tells us that it is expanding replaces the word capable. In Arabic, the Quran uses musi'oun here which means capable, not muwasi'oun which is expanding. Very dishonest of the theists. I can't understand how any idiot can look at this debate and think the theists won it. They definitely didn't. I wish the atheists knew more about the Quran though and that would've left the theists in even more embarrassment.
The Masked Arab SeaOfIslam Which part were the Atheists gobsmacked? Because there are a lot of Muslim audience that claps every time the Muslim speaker speaks?
Bunch of religious nuts 😂My favourite was, you cant prove the multiverse because you cant see it.. Meanwhile they're trying to convince us god exists 😂
The problem is, even if these Muslim theists won the debate, they would still have to debate with other theists, like Christians, Jews, Mormons, Baha'i, and other religions over whose religion is the one true religion. Apparently god still wants to fry these believers in hell even after they believe in him/her/it/them/whatever.
so much positive claim to knowledge on the theist side....and they're asking for athiests to prove it? I'm confused.. these two theists....unebelievable ignorance.
@@prabingolapi2807 no such thing as hell. you’re just a weakling who can’t cope with reality that’s why you believe fairytales from pedophile prophets 🤣🤣🤣
The best thing about the atheist side is they don't even care about the cheering of the audience. Even when someone is initiating applause from the audience, they do not even wait for it to escalate , rather they'll just interrupt it and go about their argument. You can see that during legendary Thales comeback
1:17:07 the moment that mtfk muslim step on, he immediately insulted those atheist, and then say that they gave no clue to prove god exist, sound like he has given something to prove his imaginary friend do exist
Hassanain summed his beliefs up perfectly, "how can I prove that god exists?, all I have to do is look in the mirror". What a ridiculous, self centered, illogical statement. Only god could create something as wonderful as me. Any theist should be embarrassed by the lack of knowledge these two men exhibit.
1:27:56 This argument that natural selection would have favoured humans with smaller brains because it would make childbirth easier is so incredibly stupid. By that logic, having no brain would make us even better suited for survival. Dear Mr. Corey, yes, our large brains make it harder for us during childbirth (which is an example of bad design), but for other people than you, the brain is a pretty good thing to have. That's because we can think with it. You should try it sometime.
Hah, lol the muslim grandmothers clapping hands at 1:43:35 when the muslim man attacks the atheist "maybe you did not understand what you read!". lol, these grandmothers did not even undrestand what the discussion about the blackwholes was about and still clapping hands for the muslim :).
I can tell you my friend. I am ( was really) a muslim from an arabic muslim country. and everytime I see ignorant people clapping like that I just wish I had a thousand hands so I can slap them all at once.
aboulabs ye its ok to clap if one understands what is about... .but its obvious they dont know but still take sides. Thats not very wise. Even if my side (or my freinds) argue against my opposite side but if my friends say something I cannot be sure I would not clap or support that. Needs to be neutral sometimes...even if friends.
The theists ask "I know you are but what am I." it's just sad how much these particular theists cannot hear/consider criticism without blind aggression.
The Athiest are more calm they have patience they wait to hear the other side because they want to learn. The Theist just want to defend their side and they assume offense is a good defence
tx Yea and he is such a nerd... I couldn't stop laughing, because they didn't take the debate seriously, in my opinion. They appeared to be having fun just throwing tons of stuff at the other side, like creationists usually do but this time the other way around.
1:54:45 Muslim - I exist... Where did I come from? - Argument from Ignorance fallacy. His entire worldview is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, and a god of the gaps. Ohh I don't know where I came from, I can stick a "god" in my gap of knowledge and the god hypothesis works... as long as you don't ask where that god came from. He is also begging the question, asserting his conclusion as his evidence without justifying it or explaining its origins. This is circular reasoning. He is also using special pleading to pick only his god, out of the millions of other gods that have been proposed. Then he shifts the burden of proof claiming "I don't need to prove that my god exits, you must prove it is false.
+Slevin Klevra Clearly you don't understand the IRONY in what he was pointing to, He was mocking the atheist that he believes in a multi verse without seeing it even though the atheists make fun of theists for believing in God without seeing him. So the joke is on you.
@Tony Montana Brother it was those desert men who gave you your mordern chemistry . The fact of multiple elements within air and soil was introduced by Imam Sadiq grandson of the Prophet. A book was written by his student Jabbar ibn hayyan known as father of chemistry
Barker and Carrier are not saying people can't be religious. This was a debate whether God exists or not. The purpose of debate is having both sides brings their sides. Not hard to understand.
The tragedy of stupidity is that it doesn't realize of it condition. Worse than that is to realize and still keep it.The value of these debates is that they can spread some light to those who have an open mind, the religious ones? just forget it.
I don't think someone who believes in magic and adheres to a belief system that requires women to dress in bags should be critisizing anything for being too primative.
Adeel, for example when he uses the appeal to authority fallacy to Stephen Hawking. For example, when he argues by consensus. There were times when the consensus was that earth was flat. That was proved wrong, just an example.
you don't have to wait, the problem of omnipotence, the problem of evil, the incompatible nature of an all powerful, and all knowing God (how can an all knowing God have the power to change his future mind?) Among many hundreds of other powerful arguments, not to mention the loads of evidence for the "theory" of evolution, and all the rebuttals to every single argument ever made for any God ever.
The fact is that he was quoting creationists, just like Carrier claimed. While his points about the human brain being limited by the birth canal are certainly true, this is not an argument against evolution of intelligence. In fact, the high mortality rate that Carrier pointed out is evidence that there is huge selection pressure towards intelligence - even to the point where it's advantageous to the species to invest in huge risk of death rates in pregnancies.
If that wasn't the explanation, then human pregnancy really is an argument that should be cited in the problem of evil as an argument for a sadistic and evil god(Or a conclusive refutation of a good god).
Is this the one where they guy says that Islam said that life is made of water and no one could have said that back then, and then Richard names someone before Islam who said the same thing? lol..such ownage!
That excited theist guy used logical fallacy of false equivalency in most of his arguments. To make u understand It's like he compare feelings(love hate,guilt that can't be seen) with colours (white red blue that can be seen). He used it during god existence, falsifying philosophy, concept of multiverse etc
@@MuhammadHosny0 it is scientific and the base structure of biology for sure and it seems more logical than stupid mythes that u tell urself to ignore the fact. And btw being a monkey is way better than an illusional person.
1:18:00 These are ludicrous arguments by Rajabali. How is saying that life evolved in billions of years the same argument as saying a bullet formed to hit a person in the head? Who in their right mind is impressed with that argument? Besides, calling your opponent a liar is incredibly arrogant and rude.
Also, ch 51 v 47 of the quran doesn't predict the expansion of the universe, i looked it up, and it's telling that corey didn't recite it. The passage says that god made the universe big by expanding it to a vast extent, but it doesn't say that it's continuing to expand now. Even if the quran did predict the expansion, it would have gotten it right by accident; the quran also says we live in a geocentric solar system. Does that make geocentrism correct? Of course not.
I'd listened to Rajabali's spiel before, and I thought it was the worst attempt at apologetics I have ever heard. After having listened to Corey's spiel, I'm now not so sure of that ranking.
Canel birth limitations of brain size has slowed intelligent development but does not exclude it in nature from developing to the state we are today for a very simple reason...natural selection favors the most intelligent organism regardless of what offspring survival at birth which alwasys drifts the species toward more intelligence....
Wow only about 10 people clap richard carrier lol - the audience don't even look like they are listening. There will be one or two following what he says tho and seeing the contradictions with their faith that he presents
The majority of the god believers in this audience does not convince me that the majority is correct. The earth goes around our sun and nearly every star has been proven to be other suns. I have moved on and out of being superstitious to make better use of my limited time. Many non-theists are good and stable people I'm more likely to trust. The theists must use science to criticize science so the the unchanging old beliefs will keep fading with every new generation.
just cause u haven't seen something, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I'm a Muslim,so I'll give u my belief from the Quran ok?:) Quran mentioned many scientific details in the 7th century when science proved it to be true only in the 21st century. how could have prophet Muhammed (sa.w) have known this if it was not from God?
"'ll give u my belief from the Quran" this is indeed what the book says, not you. I say what I think. The fact that I am an atheist does not come from someone else (or in this case from a book) or something else. It is a 100% personal choice Whenever I have to discuss about something I say what I think and do not rely on informations written on different books; this unless those information can be scientifically proved and are reversible. "Quran mentioned many scientific details in the 7th century when science proved it to be true only in the 21st century." You need to explain those scientific details. Furthermore, what does "scientific details" mean? (I can completely understand if your mother language is not English but we are not talking about this). Anyway, just by mentioning something does not prove and mean anything. Everyone can simply mention a (scientific) theory/fact. This does not mean that what is stated can be considered true. Many of the scientific statements in many "holy" books are theories taken from ancient greek philosophers and scientists. They are the owners of what is written. Furthermore, the philosophical progress in Europe was and is too strong to keep religion and science together. You can see that religion and science are separated. It is very hard for religion to accept critics. What science does instead is listening to all the critics and using them to correct what was non true. Religion keeps going on dogmatic rules and unexplainable events. "just cause u haven't seen something, doesn't mean he doesn't exist." Have you seen what you are talking about? Do not take my answer as an insult. As you can read I did not say that a certain religion is bad. What i want to do here is to "open your eyes". Furthermore, understand the difference between religion, spirituality and fanatism. Religion: a series of beliefs (monotheistic or politheistic) which are characterised by "holy" books written by one or more authors, who usually indicate large numbers of people and are conveyed orally (old religions) or, in our case, by books. Spirituality: acts of personal and deep connections with our soul / acts concerning our inner growth or the connection with our mind (does not imply the presence of a god as even the own soul can be considered divine so as the mind) Fanatism: psychologically and/or materially violent acts in orderd to force those who are considered "non-believers" or "different" to join a certain belief or religion (note that this can refer to politics too!); there are also secret cults, where the number of the members is small and include initiation rituals and other "brainwashing" aspects.
faizan ahmed Islam all religions are all man made, gods and goddesses are made up by humans. Religion is a belief system, hence why it doesn't need science or facts, because it is based on beliefs not facts or evidence.
The contradiction between living a moral life, when you try to minimize suffering and maximize happiness not just for the individual but also for the society as well, and the one which is been offered to us by any religion is clear. The Bible simply can’t be taken literally other wise we would be killing people on the streets every Sunday. That means every person who takes moral guidance from this holy book has to do it by picking and choosing the parts he/she likes leaving the ones you don’t. And doing this you prove that your basing your morals in your on intuition and not the book in itself. Ask yourself why do you believe in the God of Abraham and not Zeus or Odin? Is it because there is more evidence for this one? Is it more reasonable been a Christian/Muslin/Jew then been let’s say a Hindu? The answer can only be NO, there is no particular reason to think any kind of faith/religion is more or less true then any other. The reason people believe in one particular religion is because that’s the one they were brought up to believe (usually by their parents) in other words religion is a by-product of Culture and most of the time Indoctrination. The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect. And what about God as the average person sees it: He created the entire Universe, is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all loving and is gone judge all of us after we are dead according to his on rules and any decision he makes is the right one. Just look around you! There is poverty, misery, pain, suffering of every kind and he does nothing about it. Because if he is all powerful he should be able to do it, and if he is all loving and cares for us he should do it. Wet evil exist so either God can’t do anything about it or he doesn’t care to, he is therefore not omnipotent or cruel. Just think about the argument about The omnipotence paradox: The whole concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?" What about the obvious problem in the historicity of the Bible: We have no contemporary historical documents of any kind that even mentions Jesus or any of the accounts written about his life. It’s actually worst then that because we know from archaeological evidence that the Bible itself was written decades after these account allegedly happened and there are actually passages that have been altered many time by the church and others. So even with the Holly book of all three Monotheist religions were written or inspired by any divinity we can be certain it has been altered many times and written down by people who didn’t even witnessed the events. The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. Ask yourself do you believe you have free Will? If the answer is Yes then were does it come from? If the answer is God then when God gave you free will did he had a choice? If he didn’t then is he isn’t really omnipotent, if he did then he had also have free will. If he does have free will and so do we, he can’t know the future and therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient God. What about if you don’t know of any particular religion or you happened to been born in the “wrong religion”, a person who is ignorant of any religion or accidentally was born in the wrong one would be sent to a terrible fate after he/she dies just like all non-believers and all the believers in “false revelations”, not to mention the followers of a different sect of a religion which is false: For example if Christianity is true and Catholicism the right form, them what about the Mormons are they gone be punished for not having the correct sect of beliefs/dogmas required. Take for instance the argument from Design of which was first proposed by Willian Paley saying that the fact that the universe appear to have design that is evidence of a designer. There are many problems the logic of this one. First and most obvious one the only way one can infer design from anything is by claiming to already know something like that that has been designed. If I found a clock on the floor I infer that has a maker because I have seen other clocks before that have been, If I never seen a clock I can’t infer design from that. I can’t assume that a rock have been designed because I never seen one that have been and all the evidence coming from science (Geology) says that we understand the process which led to that rock are naturalist, just like everything we see without a man or animal creator (Ex: Computer and Bee Nest). Second problem: The fact that there is Design DOES NOT ASSUME a Designer, there is always the possibility that it all come about by accident or chance. And third is the famous Anthropic Principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, which means that it’s no surprise the universe looks the way it is apparently designed for us but that is an illusion. Some proponents of the Anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. There are many other problems but I submit that is enough for anyone to see that the argument is fallacious. There is of course the first cause argument: Premise: Everything that comes into being must have a cause. Second Premise: The Universe came into existence. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence. The biggest objection to the argument is that it suffers from special pleading. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. Therefore it does not address the question of who or what caused God. Secondly, even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument fails to address how can we know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. Finally, there is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. Also perhaps most important is the fact that we live in a Universe that obeys natural laws and we know from Einstein that Space and Time are intertwined there go the very idea of time before the Big Bang fails because there was no time existing wet. So whatever it is you posit before the Big Bang is speculation given that we don’t know with there was a infinite something, other causes, other universe or even absolutely nothing. But we do know that in the real of Quantum Mechanics virtual particles just emerge into existence completely uncaused from nothing, so far they are the only thing we know that are not explained by previous states of the universe. What about the shifting of the burden of proof: Any Theist can’t say for sure there is a God just like any Atheist can’t prove there is no God. First of all the Atheist doesn’t need to prove anything all he needs to do is to show that the argument for the existence of God that have been presented for him are fallacious. The burden to prove Go’s existence is entire on the Theist who simply claim he has no reasons to believe in God or evidence, that he/she just have Faith in it. Needless to say that is not enough when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning. Just look at Russell's teapot argument: If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. That is why every Believer in anything is the one who has to justify what he believes and the Atheist is a mere Skeptic about the assumption there is a God. Finally it’s worth mention the most important issue the religion/science contradiction: We live in a time when so much is known and science have provided many answers to important question for us. Actually proving as fact backed by empirical data/evidence, unlike religion with is based in faith/revelation/authority. Science has proved that the Heliocentrism is true and Geocentrism is false, I don’t need to tell you which one is endorsed by the Bible. Science has also proved Evolution to be true and Creationism/Intelligent Design to be false, both young and old earth contradicts directly science. And more recently Neuroscience/Cognitive science/Psychology have proved Determinism to be true and Free Will to be false. The Conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any Gods exist. Therefore one should not believe that a God exists.
+stefanos2691 islam is unique on its way.. logical and reasonable....the name of islam is also unique...islam is the only religion on earth which did not name after any man, group, tribes etc....no other religion even come close to this religion islam....that's why the other religon follower burning so much...
Richard +Dan you blokes murdered them with your intelligence + common sense (+I'm confident that your opponents accepted that fact), the big problem is those braindead idiots in the audience who were clapping "Heartily" for your opponents... These folk do not belong in "OUR Civilised Society" - send them back!
God's existence is impossible to ascertain. Science has, indeed, reduced God to the realm of ideas and abstracts; but to negate His existence is really beyond the purview of science. Discrediting the mythologies of religions is a more worthy endeavour since very religion chronicles absurd stories, like Muhammad riding on a flying horse or Jesus casting out demons, or endorses questionable precepts, like slavery and the caste system. Exposing these myths and dispelling them is easier IMO.
I still believe in the higher being, but shit these guys that are atheist make good points and have the other 2 and audience speechless. It made me speechless 😶
Hey try the books by Richard Dawkins One with the title "The God Delusion", the other "Out Growing God"(this one is easy to understand). I am not asking you to convert, just give it a go.
If god is infinite, and didn't have to wait an infinite amount of time before meeting us, we're also already dead to him. Take any statement a theist says and say "and how do you know this?" and it's sad. it's just a mythological fairytale that perfectly answers a childish question "but what's out there?" it's not what's out there, it's what people wish is out there. God always conveniently believes and proscribes the exact same things a believer thinks. Only evidence of wish-thinking.
I bet one day atheists and science will find who created this universe and who is god but these religious people will never because their search for their creator has stopped.
Lack of design in the creation of an extremely complex, functioning, Universe, is a hard pill to swallow. Just as fatuous as the various Theistic explanations.
in the whole of debate....its the ignorance of atheist like you which blinds you to see that.......i simply dont see where and when theist were talking crap ....they were totally logical in their talk...what they were saying suited to the human nature best....religion is compatible to human nature...the right and wrong of a religion is based on morality and human nature.....the questions that atheist put were logical and would come in anyones mind...but those were answered perfectly and sensibly by theist ....why we exist and the reason of our existence are told by religion which sounds most logical and compatible with human nature... atheist were never able to prove the reason and the process of our existence ....you and others like you turns your eyes blind to the idiotic arrogance of idiots like hitchens and dawkins ., when they debate.....the rudeness that they show in their talk is quite visible.....you find theists rude probably cauz they made sense........i can smell insecurity when u say theist were arrogant and rude ...the remarks made and questions put by atheist are quite logical for a better understanding of any faith....but the answers given by theist were logical tooo........all you atheist coming together and trying to comment and make yourself happy that you were not gobsmacked shows that you need a better understanding of religion...
kamranabbas1985 Well, thanks for all the unfounded insults, but that's not an answer to my question. If you're a Muslim you're doing a good job of making Muslims look bad.
***** its laughable to ask what you are asking for after watching the debate.....actually you made me call you what you are seems to be...the kind of silly arguments that barker and richard presented about moral values is seriously laughable...why we need to behave good and all that stuff.....religion gives you a reason for all the good deeds that you must do and makes it a compulsion for everyone to act upon it.....the way rajabali explained barker about the spirit wasn't it sensible?....the theory of multiverse and natural selection presented by richard you found that logical?.........the whole idea of our existence and the way we have such a perfectly planned and organised world ...for atheist was based on the process of natural selection ...its absurd to believe to have such and organised thing through that...corey explains that why?they are saying it happened bt where are the proofs of that.....where are the multiverse can you see it or anyone else has seen it....the first rebuttal by theist, didnt they answer the questions put by atheist....when atheist talk about the sinning by a person and 9/11 attacks.....its seriously gives me an idea what poor knowledge they have about their existence and why they choose to be an atheist.....god doesnt have to prevent attacks like 9/11...he is not suppose to....he is not responsible for that ...he is not obliged to stop such attacks.....he himself created death..its a reality of our lives...he didnt ask anyone to kill ...ppl did it and who suffered will be rewarded.and who did it will be punished...this life clearly is a test....these attacks happns when we dont follow the path of religion ... sinning is in our nature...problem is not with sinning ...its about not repenting ...Adam and Eve(peace be upon them) kind of sinned but they repented...we have that impluse to sin bt we have free will to choose to do or not to do evil...and you dont have to go into a laboratory to test religion or existence of god...religion is compatible to human nature , u need t follow it and see the reality of it by urself....the right and wrong religion...the constitution that religion gives us to live suits to human nature best Rajabali explains him clearly the morality issue.....and what barker said about examination stuff is kiddish...seriously its childish to think like that....god has explained us the purpose of this life...is to live a life following his commandments and you dont have to do anything special or amzing for that..live your life normally bt dnt forget you lord in evry step and breadth that you take....barker talks about failed test and god is responsible for it is totally absurd to say........reajabali explains in nice manner about the free will of humans(see somewhere around 2:07;00)....what atheist spoke all the time was all about the process the way universe works but what theist focused on was how the universe works in such a perfectly planned and organised manner....from where did you get this universe....for theist its all cauz of natural selection after bing bang that corey rejected in his arguement with the examples of hawkins and one other guy(forgot his name)... together with this i wud say the kind of emotional human nature we have.....the way a human lives his life....the consequences of his acts....the way he goes from this world.....suits best with the rules and regulations set by religion...what we lack today is morality....we are running after absolute freedom where we are not accountable for anything...we wud do any damn thing in the name of free speech.and see right and wrong according to our own needs and necessity...religion is standing absolutely firm against this.... and as far as the rudeness is concerned u better watch how barker talks and other atheist like hitchen(use to talk)....and dawkins...the time they open their mouth is more of insult rather than explanation
14:40 "Love has never been felt"?????? WHAT??????????? "It has always been understood indirectly"? Really? Oh my GOD, now you ARE gonna make me believe in God (I'm kidding, don't get carried away). When your mother held you in her arms, you didn't feel love? You had to understand it indirectly? No, love is clear, it nourishes you, no offspring can survive without love, love is a capacity we all have. But God is a myth, an interpretation of the origin of existence, nowhere can you get a sign of God, especially not the God Jews, Christians or Muslims believe in. I may accept calling the natural order of things "God", but that's as far as I would ever go and I don't even go that far since the word God has been polluted too much by religious people.
Hassan Tahan Can you see gravitiy? You don't. It exists nontheless. Or do you think it a good idea to leave your house from the 3rd level? There is enough evidence for love just as there is for gravity. We know what is needed in our brains to let a human experience love and why we as a communal species have developed that brain state.
JaniceHope You still can't see it. And Atheists have been wanting direct proof for the existence of a deity. And what I say to those Atheists, show me an atom, show me gravity and show me love. I feel my Lord as much as I feel love.
I can't help wondering if the two theists we're actually comedians portraying the characters of: Two academically deficient 13 year old boys# pretending to be adult intellectual and falsely interpreting people's laughter for there (assumed) wit, when in actuality the laughter is at their stupidity. # no offence to uneducated 13 year olds.
+Segismundo2011 The people in the audience whom are wearing their conformity uniforms and billions like them throughout the world that fear taking responsibility for their own actions. That's who. Scary?
"He" doesn't mean that he is male, just that "God" is a masculine word. Most religions say that God is genderless, as far as I can see. (I am not religious.)
God is the masculine term and Goddess is the feminine term But the real reason is because religion is sexist, 'a women can't be the all powerful ruler only a man' It's stupid. And outdated. It was outdated before these religions were made up.
This is the key to being a muslim debater: when non-muslims politely criticize your beliefs, call them offensive and accuse them of making "ad hominem attacks" and using "rhetoric". Then use rhetoric and ad hominem attacks on the non-muslims and get the mostly muslim audience to make a great deal of noise in approval. All of the islam vs atheism debates I've watched so far end up going like this
کسایی که می خوان ادامه اون تیکه معروف این مناظره ببینن ( بخشی که اشاره به خلقت همه چیز از اب میشه ) به تایم لاین دو ساعت و بیست دقیقه به بعد برن
I know, right? I felt like I was watching a soccer game with the home team crowd celebrating every play of their team.
Religious belief is absurdly ludicrous.
The reality is we know them by their works & the Christians, like James H. Charlesworth, use a fantasyland vocabulary.
I know we are in a population overshoot & the biosphere collapse is my consequences, the radical left was too busy surviving to pay attention to voting. Born 1958. The civil war made us a bomb factory which supplied the bombing of every legal target in N. Korea & then their dams. This is a fossil-fueled, nuclear bomb dropping pest. People like thinking Jesus Christ is on their side. The authoritarians sold climate change denial. We have the videos.
"Let me just say that if God was a city planner, he would not put a playground next to a sewage system."
There is always vanity, someone thinking they are better than us, having the correct religion, being smarter, better educated, wealthier & such.
It cannot be moral or ethical to suggest there is a god or spirit-world just as it would be to suggest we all ought to travel with one foot in fantasyland, using a stranger's imaginations. No one looks for prophets in the Yellow Pages. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. Freud wrote the antidote for Christianity is literacy. Besides, if there were a real god, then most likely everyone would be aware of Her. It would seem the vanity of the creator is fed with worship.
The Christian lacks any sense of standards. They attached their books to the Jewish & the Mormons glued onto them both. They all are hypocrites, wolves in sheep's clothing, vain, wicked, adulterous, evil, who seek signs. There are none given, but one & it is what you imagine. Even Jesus aborts faith failing working in magical mountain moving, landscaping at scale using voice control. Don't give me that "My God, I'm forsaken" nonsense. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital, & we say God helps those helping themselves because the creator has a perfect record of doing nothing.
atheists: gives a very logical explanation on their notion.
crowd: okay
theist: says 'god' in uppercase.
crowd: whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
It's a fact
Nobody wants to listen fact
One major problem with this debate is that it's too intellectual and high level to be subjected to the reactions of a cheering crowd
Religion debates are never intellectual. This whole debate was basically the athiests giving their arguments and the theists over simplifying and strawmanning their arguments and then proceed to intellectualize their own.
I never understand in these debates why the theist side is so angry and unpleasant. The atheist side is always so calm, nice and factful.
You can't understand it because it's not true.
Probably it's survival mechanism of atheists as for 100s years those who talked tried to talk back got chopped off, stoned or drowned by theists
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake - Napoleon
If the Theist are angry and aggressive don't stoop to their level, remain calm so you can express your thoughts clearly and avoid making mistakes
@@GMYSTERYICTNF this ^^ i still hate that some people will go away from the debate thinking the theist carried themself well, but this is the best way to go
When your compassionate about something your emotions will show in your face also your voice
it's a shame Allah didn't help with syncing the audio.
He's busy sucking Muhammad's dick
hahaha
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
Facts
The existence of god wasn’t proven “which was the whole point of the debate”.
2:21:05 is what y'all came for, thank me. by liking my comment ❤️
what a couple of douche these guys, i guess Qur'an tells them also to be smug and rude. the atheist scientists are way more civil, not to forget logical.
Thankyou so so much😂
found that scene on shorts and have been looking for this video for ages!!! lol
Thank you so much bro you're an angel 😂🙏
As is often the case, the theists act like assh*les and get away with implying that the non-believers are 'evil', 'ignorant' and 'liars'. The atheists are well behaved and polite as is always the case. There's a difference between saying someone is 'wrong' and someone is a 'liar'.
The audience, which is made up of theists, is also rude. The only way theists can keep their heads above water is by dishonest means and so their question period is really just a time to affirm their dogma. These debates are good even though they degenerate into prize fights and trickery for they allow the audience to hear arguments they would otherwise never be exposed to and for seeds to be planted.
Well said, and btw,... love the pup :)
*DOGS RULE*
Yes sir, scientists have an argument but theists love ad hominem. For those who don't know an ad hominem is: it is the act of attacking someones character, life style or anything about the person rather than their argument. This is what FOX News does in EVERY FUCKKEN INTERVIEW and is extremely painful to watch for logical, intelligent people.
The theist side was so angry and flustered during this debate. They got their asses kicked all over, LOL.
Richard carrier dropped the science bomb on the preacher about the water origination, and the pastor just rambles incoherently. funny shit.
Damn, this audience has really drunk the Kool Aid. They're fervently applauding everything the theists say, no matter how hollow or disingenuous.
What's funny is that the majority of intelligent people commenting on this thread are atheists. The debate did an excellent job of bolstering our position, so we enjoy commenting on it. It's PURE WIN for those of us who have abandoned the ludicrous practice of SUPERSTITION and MAGICAL THINKING.
I genuinely don’t believe the crowd even know what is being said😭😭😭
The only angry and arrogant person in this debate was Hassainain…..Ironically he accuse others to be angry.
Hassainain if you can not handle the pressure of the arguments against your God don'r engage in debates.
probably you wud have given that advice to hitchens and dawkins....first
Bro Hassanain butchered the opposition..
Dark Prince How on earth he did that !! I can remember him saying anything. Just "Look around you its obvious there is a God" ........This was his entire argument and then some high school bullying ....and some idiots laughing.
Kostas Spiliotopoulos
it's funny how atheists deny god using their own intellect.. while many people find God using the same faculties... God is the reason for your existence.. or would you rather believe you and apes are cousins.... LOL
Dark Prince He he he ....The earth is round very funny.
Hassanian is basically making a Creationist argument, but with an extra mix of logical fallicies.
Twit Chic www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html Smartest man on Earth's answer to this ridiculous "nothing and nothing can't make something!!" claim that's been debated since time immemorial.. lol
have you grown up yet?
@@factsdontcare4feelings24 Have you had an ounce of logic yet ?
@@vinmisanthrope9719 athiesm is a phase.
@@factsdontcare4feelings24 Nope. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods.
2:19:00 Theists here blatantly lie about a Quranic verse alleging a miracle that the Quran claims the universe is expanding. Surah 51:47 says this "And the heaven, We built it with might, and indeed We are powerful (one says āda’l-rajulu or ya’īdu, to mean, ‘he is strong’; and awsa‘a’l-rajulu, to mean, ‘he has become capable [dhū sa‘a] and strong’)." The translation which tells us that it is expanding replaces the word capable. In Arabic, the Quran uses musi'oun here which means capable, not muwasi'oun which is expanding.
Very dishonest of the theists. I can't understand how any idiot can look at this debate and think the theists won it. They definitely didn't. I wish the atheists knew more about the Quran though and that would've left the theists in even more embarrassment.
Thanks, this is really interesting information!
The Masked Arab Taqiyya... lying in Islam is encouraged. Just pathetic.
The Masked Arab SeaOfIslam Which part were the Atheists gobsmacked? Because there are a lot of Muslim audience that claps every time the Muslim speaker speaks?
Allah's Missile Defense System (Shooting Stars repel nosey Jinn/Demons).
www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=263536&hl=%20allah&st=0
true
When you have no evidence, you become rude.
Thank you!
Dark Prince the truth is an offense, but not a sin.
--Bob Marley
I’ve never been so disconnected from a crowd. They’re clapping and I’m like “what the hell are they agreeing with here. This is nonsense”
Bunch of religious nuts 😂My favourite was, you cant prove the multiverse because you cant see it.. Meanwhile they're trying to convince us god exists 😂
cheerleaders 🤣
@@redacted7634yup that was lame it's like i haven't seen japan so it doesn't exist.
muslim debater to the crowd: applaud after each of my sentences, ok? and don't be shy on cheering too.
Michael Corey "If we can't see it then how is it evidence", very odd statement coming from a theist.
Good spot how I wish Dan or Richard said that is the exact reason we do not believe in God.
The problem is, even if these Muslim theists won the debate, they would still have to debate with other theists, like Christians, Jews, Mormons, Baha'i, and other religions over whose religion is the one true religion. Apparently god still wants to fry these believers in hell even after they believe in him/her/it/them/whatever.
God is great, eh? :))
so much positive claim to knowledge on the theist side....and they're asking for athiests to prove it? I'm confused.. these two theists....unebelievable ignorance.
*I can't stomach these Theologists. Atheist side destroyed them on every level.
100%
First time i have seen Dan Barker in a debate …..He is very very good, Bravo.
Very clear and accurate reasoning.
How lucky we are to have Mr Barker and Mr Carrier.
robzrob yes agreed.
Ya you are lucky believe in dan who will lead to hell fire.
@@prabingolapi2807 quiet down weakling. we don’t care e about your fairytales
@@Obscuredbywinds they will lead you in hell fire be ready.
@@prabingolapi2807 no such thing as hell. you’re just a weakling who can’t cope with reality that’s why you believe fairytales from pedophile prophets 🤣🤣🤣
The best thing about the atheist side is they don't even care about the cheering of the audience. Even when someone is initiating applause from the audience, they do not even wait for it to escalate , rather they'll just interrupt it and go about their argument. You can see that during legendary Thales comeback
1:17:07 the moment that mtfk muslim step on, he immediately insulted those atheist, and then say that they gave no clue to prove god exist, sound like he has given something to prove his imaginary friend do exist
Hassanain summed his beliefs up perfectly, "how can I prove that god exists?, all I have to do is look in the mirror". What a ridiculous, self centered, illogical statement. Only god could create something as wonderful as me. Any theist should be embarrassed by the lack of knowledge these two men exhibit.
Wow. This happened in Detroit. From the looks of the crowd- I would have thought this happened in the middle east.
Why is the Muslim debater dressed like a priest? Even the fashion statement is stolen 🤣
Don’t learn Quantum physics or evolution at university, just watch theist vs atheist debate, much effective
1:27:56 This argument that natural selection would have favoured humans with smaller brains because it would make childbirth easier is so incredibly stupid. By that logic, having no brain would make us even better suited for survival. Dear Mr. Corey, yes, our large brains make it harder for us during childbirth (which is an example of bad design), but for other people than you, the brain is a pretty good thing to have. That's because we can think with it. You should try it sometime.
Hah, lol the muslim grandmothers clapping hands at 1:43:35 when the muslim man attacks the atheist "maybe you did not understand what you read!". lol, these grandmothers did not even undrestand what the discussion about the blackwholes was about and still clapping hands for the muslim :).
I can tell you my friend. I am ( was really) a muslim from an arabic muslim country. and everytime I see ignorant people clapping like that I just wish I had a thousand hands so I can slap them all at once.
aboulabs
ye its ok to clap if one understands what is about... .but its obvious they dont know but still take sides. Thats not very wise. Even if my side (or my freinds) argue against my opposite side but if my friends say something I cannot be sure I would not clap or support that. Needs to be neutral sometimes...even if friends.
Can I ask from which country? I am actually neither muslim nor an atheist. So quite neutral what comes to this debate.
It's black holes not "blackwholes" you illiterate cringe
lol
The theists ask "I know you are but what am I." it's just sad how much these particular theists cannot hear/consider criticism without blind aggression.
You can clearly see the special treatment given to the theistic side in here clearly. They can jump in where they want
The Athiest are more calm they have patience they wait to hear the other side because they want to learn.
The Theist just want to defend their side and they assume offense is a good defence
Facts don't care about you're feelings... You're feelings aren't on same level as our facts!
That’s why I’ve chosen Thor as my god..
MCU is my marvel
You watch Love and Thunder?
Silly @@GMYSTERYICTNF, Love and thunder is not canonical🗿🗿💀💀💀💀💀
Interesting choice, Iron Man is my God
haha Hassanain Rajabali got angry. Dan Barker and Richard Carrier did a great job.
Haha carrier looks so youthful. He looks like a teenager wearing his dad's suit. I think he and barker did a fine job though.
tx Yea and he is such a nerd... I couldn't stop laughing, because they didn't take the debate seriously, in my opinion. They appeared to be having fun just throwing tons of stuff at the other side, like creationists usually do but this time the other way around.
1:54:45 Muslim - I exist... Where did I come from? - Argument from Ignorance fallacy.
His entire worldview is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, and a god of the gaps.
Ohh I don't know where I came from, I can stick a "god" in my gap of knowledge and the god hypothesis works... as long as you don't ask where that god came from.
He is also begging the question, asserting his conclusion as his evidence without justifying it or explaining its origins. This is circular reasoning.
He is also using special pleading to pick only his god, out of the millions of other gods that have been proposed. Then he shifts the burden of proof claiming "I don't need to prove that my god exits, you must prove it is false.
+Slevin Klevra Clearly you don't understand the IRONY in what he was pointing to, He was mocking the atheist that he believes in a multi verse without seeing it even though the atheists make fun of theists for believing in God without seeing him. So the joke is on you.
what does that have to do with the wonderful points Slevin Klevra made above?
"God made everything living out of water - who could say that 1400 years ago!" - I don't know maybe someone that lived in a desert?
Last I checked we don't do well without water.
You'd think if it got the water thing right it could have mentioned carbon ...
@Tony Montana Brother it was those desert men who gave you your mordern chemistry . The fact of multiple elements within air and soil was introduced by Imam Sadiq grandson of the Prophet. A book was written by his student Jabbar ibn hayyan known as father of chemistry
Barker and Carrier are not saying people can't be religious. This was a debate whether God exists or not. The purpose of debate is having both sides brings their sides. Not hard to understand.
The tragedy of stupidity is that it doesn't realize of it condition. Worse than that is to realize and still keep it.The value of these debates is that they can spread some light to those who have an open mind, the religious ones? just forget it.
I don't think someone who believes in magic and adheres to a belief system that requires women to dress in bags should be critisizing anything for being too primative.
1:23:37 you see the universe means one so there can't be more
Dang dude well unicyle means one so there for bicyles don't exist
1:17:00 Hassanain got too passionate, when the passion goes into the debate, it falls into the "you win I lose" issue.
Hat off to Dan Barker and Richard Carrier as Atheists, They make me proud to be an Atheist, Bravo.
The only thing supporting the theist arguments are those annoying claps
The second speaker's lack of scientific understanding (not to mention sophistication) is truly breathtaking.
2:26:40, sometimes it's better to accept that you don't have an answer and simply say, I don't know.
Hassanain Rajabali starts his rebuttal with a lot of anger.
Theists are such hypocrites
***** Been while since I seen the clip. When Carrier debates with Christians on Christianity, the Christians get mad at him LOL
+LittleImpaler Tell me where the Muslim guy makes no sense.
Adeel, for example when he uses the appeal to authority fallacy to Stephen Hawking. For example, when he argues by consensus. There were times when the consensus was that earth was flat. That was proved wrong, just an example.
Rahul Balakrishnan What time-stamp are we looking at here?
My point was that "consensus" is not a good argument to dismiss relatively new theories.
What a Skewed audience, they don't clap for the logical responses.
Debating with Fanatic Theist like this is similar to playing chess with a toad 🐸.
Save you 3 hours: no she doesn’t exist.
Edit: Actually it’s worth it for Carrier’s opener.
Evidence for your claim...we'll wait.
you don't have to wait, the problem of omnipotence, the problem of evil, the incompatible nature of an all powerful, and all knowing God (how can an all knowing God have the power to change his future mind?) Among many hundreds of other powerful arguments, not to mention the loads of evidence for the "theory" of evolution, and all the rebuttals to every single argument ever made for any God ever.
The fact is that he was quoting creationists, just like Carrier claimed. While his points about the human brain being limited by the birth canal are certainly true, this is not an argument against evolution of intelligence. In fact, the high mortality rate that Carrier pointed out is evidence that there is huge selection pressure towards intelligence - even to the point where it's advantageous to the species to invest in huge risk of death rates in pregnancies.
If that wasn't the explanation, then human pregnancy really is an argument that should be cited in the problem of evil as an argument for a sadistic and evil god(Or a conclusive refutation of a good god).
Is this the one where they guy says that Islam said that life is made of water and no one could have said that back then, and then Richard names someone before Islam who said the same thing? lol..such ownage!
That excited theist guy used logical fallacy of false equivalency in most of his arguments. To make u understand It's like he compare feelings(love hate,guilt that can't be seen) with colours (white red blue that can be seen).
He used it during god existence, falsifying philosophy, concept of multiverse etc
if they can’t see that the very fact they’re sat together with incompatible, exclusive theologies then there’s no point in going any further.
1:50:20 - Standard response , when you run out of logic, or for that matter answer.
This is the equivalent of scientists debating flat earthers 😂No matter how much logic you use you can never win.. You can debate delusion
Wow, feel proud to be evolved human being.
Your grandparents were monkeys 😂😂
@@MuhammadHosny0 yours too.
@@fooxhaniom7439 nope, the theory of evolution is a THEORY for a reason 😂
@@MuhammadHosny0 it is scientific and the base structure of biology for sure and it seems more logical than stupid mythes that u tell urself to ignore the fact. And btw being a monkey is way better than an illusional person.
@@mmm-zd4zd help us quit by advising your mom to stop posting porno
The Bible also talks about the expansion of the heavens.
1:18:00 These are ludicrous arguments by Rajabali. How is saying that life evolved in billions of years the same argument as saying a bullet formed to hit a person in the head? Who in their right mind is impressed with that argument?
Besides, calling your opponent a liar is incredibly arrogant and rude.
Also, ch 51 v 47 of the quran doesn't predict the expansion of the universe, i looked it up, and it's telling that corey didn't recite it. The passage says that god made the universe big by expanding it to a vast extent, but it doesn't say that it's continuing to expand now. Even if the quran did predict the expansion, it would have gotten it right by accident; the quran also says we live in a geocentric solar system. Does that make geocentrism correct? Of course not.
I'd listened to Rajabali's spiel before, and I thought it was the worst attempt at apologetics I have ever heard. After having listened to Corey's spiel, I'm now not so sure of that ranking.
Canel birth limitations of brain size has slowed intelligent development but does not exclude it in nature from developing to the state we are today for a very simple reason...natural selection favors the most intelligent organism regardless of what offspring survival at birth which alwasys drifts the species toward more intelligence....
Wow only about 10 people clap richard carrier lol - the audience don't even look like they are listening. There will be one or two following what he says tho and seeing the contradictions with their faith that he presents
Michael Corey is obsessed with his book I'm sure he would have made it biblical teachings 1600 years ago.
The majority of the god believers in this audience does not convince me that the majority is correct. The earth goes around our sun and nearly every star has been proven to be other suns. I have moved on and out of being superstitious to make better use of my limited time. Many non-theists are good and stable people I'm more likely to trust. The theists must use science to criticize science so the the unchanging old beliefs will keep fading with every new generation.
Was looking for this! Thanks!
Yes, they are gobsmacked by the stupidity.
How can God be truth, if nobody has seen "it"
+LittleImpaler be atheist. no god, no problem!
just cause u haven't seen something, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
I'm a Muslim,so I'll give u my belief from the Quran ok?:)
Quran mentioned many scientific details in the 7th century when science proved it to be true only in the 21st century.
how could have prophet Muhammed (sa.w) have known this if it was not from God?
"'ll give u my belief from the Quran" this is indeed what the book says, not you. I say what I think. The fact that I am an atheist does not come from someone else (or in this case from a book) or something else. It is a 100% personal choice Whenever I have to discuss about something I say what I think and do not rely on informations written on different books; this unless those information can be scientifically proved and are reversible.
"Quran mentioned many scientific details in the 7th century when science proved it to be true only in the 21st century." You need to explain those scientific details. Furthermore, what does "scientific details" mean? (I can completely understand if your mother language is not English but we are not talking about this). Anyway, just by mentioning something does not prove and mean anything. Everyone can simply mention a (scientific) theory/fact. This does not mean that what is stated can be considered true. Many of the scientific statements in many "holy" books are theories taken from ancient greek philosophers and scientists. They are the owners of what is written.
Furthermore, the philosophical progress in Europe was and is too strong to keep religion and science together. You can see that religion and science are separated.
It is very hard for religion to accept critics. What science does instead is listening to all the critics and using them to correct what was non true. Religion keeps going on dogmatic rules and unexplainable events.
"just cause u haven't seen something, doesn't mean he doesn't exist."
Have you seen what you are talking about?
Do not take my answer as an insult. As you can read I did not say that a certain religion is bad. What i want to do here is to "open your eyes".
Furthermore, understand the difference between religion, spirituality and fanatism.
Religion: a series of beliefs (monotheistic or politheistic) which are characterised by "holy" books written by one or more authors, who usually indicate large numbers of people and are conveyed orally (old religions) or, in our case, by books.
Spirituality: acts of personal and deep connections with our soul / acts concerning our inner growth or the connection with our mind (does not imply the presence of a god as even the own soul can be considered divine so as the mind)
Fanatism: psychologically and/or materially violent acts in orderd to force those who are considered "non-believers" or "different" to join a certain belief or religion (note that this can refer to politics too!); there are also secret cults, where the number of the members is small and include initiation rituals and other "brainwashing" aspects.
faizan ahmed Islam all religions are all man made, gods and goddesses are made up by humans. Religion is a belief system, hence why it doesn't need science or facts, because it is based on beliefs not facts or evidence.
Pancho Valkov I am an atheist. LOL
they recruit muslim 99% for the shows and the place is owned by Muslim
Richard Carrier is brilliant... Respect!
The contradiction between living a moral life, when you try to minimize suffering and maximize happiness not just for the individual but also for the society as well, and the one which is been offered to us by any religion is clear. The Bible simply can’t be taken literally other wise we would be killing people on the streets every Sunday. That means every person who takes moral guidance from this holy book has to do it by picking and choosing the parts he/she likes leaving the ones you don’t. And doing this you prove that your basing your morals in your on intuition and not the book in itself.
Ask yourself why do you believe in the God of Abraham and not Zeus or Odin? Is it because there is more evidence for this one? Is it more reasonable been a Christian/Muslin/Jew then been let’s say a Hindu? The answer can only be NO, there is no particular reason to think any kind of faith/religion is more or less true then any other. The reason people believe in one particular religion is because that’s the one they were brought up to believe (usually by their parents) in other words religion is a by-product of Culture and most of the time Indoctrination. The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect.
And what about God as the average person sees it: He created the entire Universe, is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all loving and is gone judge all of us after we are dead according to his on rules and any decision he makes is the right one. Just look around you! There is poverty, misery, pain, suffering of every kind and he does nothing about it. Because if he is all powerful he should be able to do it, and if he is all loving and cares for us he should do it. Wet evil exist so either God can’t do anything about it or he doesn’t care to, he is therefore not omnipotent or cruel. Just think about the argument about The omnipotence paradox: The whole concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?"
What about the obvious problem in the historicity of the Bible: We have no contemporary historical documents of any kind that even mentions Jesus or any of the accounts written about his life. It’s actually worst then that because we know from archaeological evidence that the Bible itself was written decades after these account allegedly happened and there are actually passages that have been altered many time by the church and others. So even with the Holly book of all three Monotheist religions were written or inspired by any divinity we can be certain it has been altered many times and written down by people who didn’t even witnessed the events.
The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.
Ask yourself do you believe you have free Will? If the answer is Yes then were does it come from? If the answer is God then when God gave you free will did he had a choice? If he didn’t then is he isn’t really omnipotent, if he did then he had also have free will. If he does have free will and so do we, he can’t know the future and therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient God.
What about if you don’t know of any particular religion or you happened to been born in the “wrong religion”, a person who is ignorant of any religion or accidentally was born in the wrong one would be sent to a terrible fate after he/she dies just like all non-believers and all the believers in “false revelations”, not to mention the followers of a different sect of a religion which is false: For example if Christianity is true and Catholicism the right form, them what about the Mormons are they gone be punished for not having the correct sect of beliefs/dogmas required.
Take for instance the argument from Design of which was first proposed by Willian Paley saying that the fact that the universe appear to have design that is evidence of a designer. There are many problems the logic of this one. First and most obvious one the only way one can infer design from anything is by claiming to already know something like that that has been designed. If I found a clock on the floor I infer that has a maker because I have seen other clocks before that have been, If I never seen a clock I can’t infer design from that. I can’t assume that a rock have been designed because I never seen one that have been and all the evidence coming from science (Geology) says that we understand the process which led to that rock are naturalist, just like everything we see without a man or animal creator (Ex: Computer and Bee Nest). Second problem: The fact that there is Design DOES NOT ASSUME a Designer, there is always the possibility that it all come about by accident or chance. And third is the famous Anthropic Principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, which means that it’s no surprise the universe looks the way it is apparently designed for us but that is an illusion. Some proponents of the Anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. There are many other problems but I submit that is enough for anyone to see that the argument is fallacious.
There is of course the first cause argument: Premise: Everything that comes into being must have a cause. Second Premise: The Universe came into existence. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence. The biggest objection to the argument is that it suffers from special pleading. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. Therefore it does not address the question of who or what caused God. Secondly, even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument fails to address how can we know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. Finally, there is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. Also perhaps most important is the fact that we live in a Universe that obeys natural laws and we know from Einstein that Space and Time are intertwined there go the very idea of time before the Big Bang fails because there was no time existing wet. So whatever it is you posit before the Big Bang is speculation given that we don’t know with there was a infinite something, other causes, other universe or even absolutely nothing. But we do know that in the real of Quantum Mechanics virtual particles just emerge into existence completely uncaused from nothing, so far they are the only thing we know that are not explained by previous states of the universe.
What about the shifting of the burden of proof: Any Theist can’t say for sure there is a God just like any Atheist can’t prove there is no God. First of all the Atheist doesn’t need to prove anything all he needs to do is to show that the argument for the existence of God that have been presented for him are fallacious. The burden to prove Go’s existence is entire on the Theist who simply claim he has no reasons to believe in God or evidence, that he/she just have Faith in it. Needless to say that is not enough when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning. Just look at Russell's teapot argument: If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. That is why every Believer in anything is the one who has to justify what he believes and the Atheist is a mere Skeptic about the assumption there is a God.
Finally it’s worth mention the most important issue the religion/science contradiction: We live in a time when so much is known and science have provided many answers to important question for us. Actually proving as fact backed by empirical data/evidence, unlike religion with is based in faith/revelation/authority. Science has proved that the Heliocentrism is true and Geocentrism is false, I don’t need to tell you which one is endorsed by the Bible. Science has also proved Evolution to be true and Creationism/Intelligent Design to be false, both young and old earth contradicts directly science. And more recently Neuroscience/Cognitive science/Psychology have proved Determinism to be true and Free Will to be false.
The Conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any Gods exist. Therefore one should not believe that a God exists.
Word salad introduction
You've never seen atheist being gobsmacked with theist idiocy and ignorance? There is plenty around...
Smug smug smug. If their religion tells them to behave that way i am so happy i am an Atheist.
Religious people are so fucking stupid.
its mostly muslims .
+stefanos2691 islam is unique on its way.. logical and reasonable....the name of islam is also unique...islam is the only religion on earth which did not name after any man, group, tribes etc....no other religion even come close to this religion islam....that's why the other religon follower burning so much...
Debating with muslim is like playing chess with Pigeon who poops around the chess board and displace the chess piece and shout I won
2:22:00 Islam destroyed. 😂
destroyed for you mean that quran need to say that every thing was created form some thing else.?
How?
@@tonyomran1989 asking me or him?
@@aquagaming3480 him.. sorry.. how was Islam destroyed?? Lol
@@tonyomran1989Islam was not proved to be begin with there is no point in disproving it.
Love has never been felt?
- You have to be kidding. Love, if it's anything is a feeling. Try again.
Richard +Dan you blokes murdered them with your intelligence + common sense (+I'm confident that your opponents accepted that fact), the big problem is those braindead idiots in the audience who were clapping "Heartily" for your opponents... These folk do not belong in "OUR Civilised Society" - send them back!
God's existence is impossible to ascertain. Science has, indeed, reduced God to the realm of ideas and abstracts; but to negate His existence is really beyond the purview of science. Discrediting the mythologies of religions is a more worthy endeavour since very religion chronicles absurd stories, like Muhammad riding on a flying horse or Jesus casting out demons, or endorses questionable precepts, like slavery and the caste system. Exposing these myths and dispelling them is easier IMO.
I felt like Hassanian just felt into a rambling and incoherent mess as the debate continued. Cool it dude, and address the issue calmly.
When I see myself in the mirror I realize how close in many ways that I am to my common ancestors.......primates.....
I still believe in the higher being, but shit these guys that are atheist make good points and have the other 2 and audience speechless. It made me speechless 😶
Hey try the books by Richard Dawkins
One with the title "The God Delusion", the other "Out Growing God"(this one is easy to understand).
I am not asking you to convert, just give it a go.
@@MaanIsMe I'll read em
If god is infinite, and didn't have to wait an infinite amount of time before meeting us, we're also already dead to him. Take any statement a theist says and say "and how do you know this?" and it's sad. it's just a mythological fairytale that perfectly answers a childish question "but what's out there?" it's not what's out there, it's what people wish is out there. God always conveniently believes and proscribes the exact same things a believer thinks. Only evidence of wish-thinking.
I bet one day atheists and science will find who created this universe and who is god but these religious people will never because their search for their creator has stopped.
Lack of design in the creation of an extremely complex, functioning, Universe, is
a hard pill to swallow.
Just as fatuous as the various Theistic explanations.
try the anthropic principle
SeaOfIslam Can you point me to when the atheists are gobsmacked, please?
in the whole of debate....its the ignorance of atheist like you which blinds you to see that.......i simply dont see where and when theist were talking crap ....they were totally logical in their talk...what they were saying suited to the human nature best....religion is compatible to human nature...the right and wrong of a religion is based on morality and human nature.....the questions that atheist put were logical and would come in anyones mind...but those were answered perfectly and sensibly by theist ....why we exist and the reason of our existence are told by religion which sounds most logical and compatible with human nature... atheist were never able to prove the reason and the process of our existence ....you and others like you turns your eyes blind to the idiotic arrogance of idiots like hitchens and dawkins ., when they debate.....the rudeness that they show in their talk is quite visible.....you find theists rude probably cauz they made sense........i can smell insecurity when u say theist were arrogant and rude ...the remarks made and questions put by atheist are quite logical for a better understanding of any faith....but the answers given by theist were logical tooo........all you atheist coming together and trying to comment and make yourself happy that you were not gobsmacked shows that you need a better understanding of religion...
kamranabbas1985 Ok...... So then you can point to when the atheists were gob-smacked?
*****
i told you.................... that you are an ignorant fool........
kamranabbas1985 Well, thanks for all the unfounded insults, but that's not an answer to my question.
If you're a Muslim you're doing a good job of making Muslims look bad.
*****
its laughable to ask what you are asking for after watching the debate.....actually you made me call you what you are seems to be...the kind of silly arguments that barker and richard presented about moral values is seriously laughable...why we need to behave good and all that stuff.....religion gives you a reason for all the good deeds that you must do and makes it a compulsion for everyone to act upon it.....the way rajabali explained barker about the spirit wasn't it sensible?....the theory of multiverse and natural selection presented by richard you found that logical?.........the whole idea of our existence and the way we have such a perfectly planned and organised world ...for atheist was based on the process of natural selection ...its absurd to believe to have such and organised thing through that...corey explains that why?they are saying it happened bt where are the proofs of that.....where are the multiverse can you see it or anyone else has seen it....the first rebuttal by theist, didnt they answer the questions put by atheist....when atheist talk about the sinning by a person and 9/11 attacks.....its seriously gives me an idea what poor knowledge they have about their existence and why they choose to be an atheist.....god doesnt have to prevent attacks like 9/11...he is not suppose to....he is not responsible for that ...he is not obliged to stop such attacks.....he himself created death..its a reality of our lives...he didnt ask anyone to kill ...ppl did it and who suffered will be rewarded.and who did it will be punished...this life clearly is a test....these attacks happns when we dont follow the path of religion ... sinning is in our nature...problem is not with sinning ...its about not repenting ...Adam and Eve(peace be upon them) kind of sinned but they repented...we have that impluse to sin bt we have free will to choose to do or not to do evil...and you dont have to go into a laboratory to test religion or existence of god...religion is compatible to human nature , u need t follow it and see the reality of it by urself....the right and wrong religion...the constitution that religion gives us to live suits to human nature best
Rajabali explains him clearly the morality issue.....and what barker said about examination stuff is kiddish...seriously its childish to think like that....god has explained us the purpose of this life...is to live a life following his commandments and you dont have to do anything special or amzing for that..live your life normally bt dnt forget you lord in evry step and breadth that you take....barker talks about failed test and god is responsible for it is totally absurd to say........reajabali explains in nice manner about the free will of humans(see somewhere around 2:07;00)....what atheist spoke all the time was all about the process the way universe works but what theist focused on was how the universe works in such a perfectly planned and organised manner....from where did you get this universe....for theist its all cauz of natural selection after bing bang that corey rejected in his arguement with the examples of hawkins and one other guy(forgot his name)... together with this i wud say the kind of emotional human nature we have.....the way a human lives his life....the consequences of his acts....the way he goes from this world.....suits best with the rules and regulations set by religion...what we lack today is morality....we are running after absolute freedom where we are not accountable for anything...we wud do any damn thing in the name of free speech.and see right and wrong according to our own needs and necessity...religion is standing absolutely firm against this.... and as far as the rudeness is concerned u better watch how barker talks and other atheist like hitchen(use to talk)....and dawkins...the time they open their mouth is more of insult rather than explanation
14:40 "Love has never been felt"?????? WHAT??????????? "It has always been understood indirectly"? Really? Oh my GOD, now you ARE gonna make me believe in God (I'm kidding, don't get carried away). When your mother held you in her arms, you didn't feel love? You had to understand it indirectly? No, love is clear, it nourishes you, no offspring can survive without love, love is a capacity we all have. But God is a myth, an interpretation of the origin of existence, nowhere can you get a sign of God, especially not the God Jews, Christians or Muslims believe in. I may accept calling the natural order of things "God", but that's as far as I would ever go and I don't even go that far since the word God has been polluted too much by religious people.
You still can't see love.
Hassan Tahan
Can you see gravitiy? You don't. It exists nontheless. Or do you think it a good idea to leave your house from the 3rd level?
There is enough evidence for love just as there is for gravity. We know what is needed in our brains to let a human experience love and why we as a communal species have developed that brain state.
JaniceHope You still can't see it. And Atheists have been wanting direct proof for the existence of a deity. And what I say to those Atheists, show me an atom, show me gravity and show me love.
I feel my Lord as much as I feel love.
get your head out of your,,,,,,,.you just like 2 hear your self talk.
Atoms, gravity, and love are demonstrable, even though you can't see them. Show me how God is demonstrable?
I can't help wondering if the two theists we're actually comedians portraying the characters of:
Two academically deficient 13 year old boys# pretending to be adult intellectual and falsely interpreting people's laughter for there (assumed) wit, when in actuality the laughter is at their stupidity.
# no offence to uneducated 13 year olds.
Ezy win for the atheists..... atheists always win debates.
So much ignorance in one room!
which part exactly the atheists got gobsmacked?
Why isnt the Christian dude a muslim? He seems pretty convinced by Islam.
Someone shut the audience up.
tx I thought the audience were penguins.
+jonas salan The Bible and for all I know the Quran calls them sheep. Who wants to be a sheep!?
+Segismundo2011 The people in the audience whom are wearing their conformity uniforms and billions like them throughout the world that fear taking responsibility for their own actions. That's who. Scary?
Why shut dem up when we can have a video like ds wre some of dem can come 2 laugh at demselves 4 being d way dy were during d video.
Did you ever notice that God is always assumed , by almost
everyone, to be “He”!
"He" doesn't mean that he is male, just that "God" is a masculine word. Most religions say that God is genderless, as far as I can see. (I am not religious.)
God is the masculine term and Goddess is the feminine term
But the real reason is because religion is sexist, 'a women can't be the all powerful ruler only a man'
It's stupid. And outdated. It was outdated before these religions were made up.
@@snn7c883 then why make it gender exclusive? If IT is genderless call IT "it" or "they"