Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 11:13 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Today at 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Yesterday at 08:20 PM

German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 01:15 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
Yesterday at 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Awesome Debate

 (Read 12733 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #60 - November 10, 2009, 10:03 PM

    So many lectures to watch lol. Christopher Hitchens is awesome, but for fucks sake can he stop debating Christians all the time? I mean, he ONLY debates Christians, I seen him debate a Jew once or twice, but NEVER a muslim, not even once. I'm not disrespectig Hitchens, but he should start debating different groups of people, not the same Christian hacks over and over again (D'Souza, Turek, etc).


    I agree, I'm fairly sick of the D'Souza debates. Debating Jews and Christians has become fairly long in the tooth for the new atheists. They really need to try muslims, because the theology and theodicy is slightly different. I think good candidates for Hitchens to debate firstly is a crettin like Zakir Naik and Hassanain Rajabali. Other candidates would be Hamza Yusuf and Abdal Hakim Murad. Another couple is that Hamza Torez and Adam Deen. I know that Torez took the piss out of the chapter on Islam in Hitchens book "God is Not Great". The muslims seem to think they are fairly immune and untouchable when it comes to debate. They also reckon that atheists don't stand a chance with them. I'm aware that Dan Barker is going to be debating Adam Deen on the 25th of November.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #61 - November 10, 2009, 10:10 PM

    We will never have a successful debater for our cause.  Its self-defeating, as the better someone was at it then the more likely they are to have their head lobbed off..

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #62 - November 10, 2009, 10:39 PM

    We will never have a successful debater for our cause.  Its self-defeating, as the better someone was at it then the more likely they are to have their head lobbed off..


    Do you mean an ex-muslim debater or someone like Hitchens, Harris, Dennett or even Dawkins debating a muslim? Personally I prefer that someone with some grounding in theology and philosophy debate with the guys I have mentioned in my previous reply, simply because the theology is slightly different from the "All-Loving" concept and the "Problem of evil" arguments from Christian theology and theodicy, which have now been battered to death.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #63 - November 10, 2009, 10:50 PM

    i mean an ex-muslim, someone who can get to the core of the quran rather than sticking to the well-rehearsed  generic arguments about an Abrahmic vengeful God

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #64 - November 10, 2009, 11:15 PM

    i mean an ex-muslim, someone who can get to the core of the quran rather than sticking to the well-rehearsed  generic arguments about an Abrahmic vengeful God


    True, to a point. But the Abrahamic God is one that all three monotheisms share. Arguing about the Quran only invites stuff like "Out of context" and "You don't know mantiq, balagha blah blah blah!". The goalpost is always shifted to a different level whenever someone tries to debate someone on the authenticity of the Quran. You might be in a better position to undermine the so called scientific miracles and show that they have been discussed before Islam came on the scene. The scientific miracles thing is something which tries to give the Quran a credible nature. Once that rug has been pulled, then whats left? Altered mythical stories? But it's important to show the references where those scientific miracles were plagiarized from rather than just stating that the Greeks knew of these things before the advent of Islam.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #65 - November 10, 2009, 11:17 PM

    You're right - we really just need an expert on all of these scientific claims.. its no surprise that mine & Hass's scieintific videos are the fastest growing ones that we have done

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #66 - November 11, 2009, 10:11 AM

    You're right - we really just need an expert on all of these scientific claims.. its no surprise that mine & Hass's scieintific videos are the fastest growing ones that we have done


    Do you have any references with regards to the writings of Thales, Galen and Aristotle which have crept into the Quran? Someone will ask for references at some point to back up what is said in the video.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #67 - November 11, 2009, 10:15 AM

    Here is another Hitchens and Fry debate. This time regarding the Catholic church.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw

    The other parts can be found on youtube.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #68 - November 11, 2009, 12:47 PM

    You're right - we really just need an expert on all of these scientific claims.. its no surprise that mine & Hass's scieintific videos are the fastest growing ones that we have done


    BTW, I just wanted to find something from Sunnipath on science in the Quran. It didn't come up up anything specific, but the following:-

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=14207&CATE=24

    Quote
    Proofs of Islam

    Answered by Ustadha Zaynab Ansari, SunniPath Academy Teacher
    Question:
    Will there be a work/cd set/book, Insha'Allah on the proofs of Islam, such as proving the existence of the Creator, the authenticity/miracle of Quran and the proof of the validity of the Muhammad's (saws) Prophethood. I know there are literature available on this matter, but nothing that combines everything in a coherent manner, at least in the english language that is readily available for the masses... One's foundation needs to be solid and unbreakable, meaning no doubts, the reality of the hereafter must be as real as the status quo, this undeniable conviction, on the level of 1+1=2, is what truly makes the final revelation for humanity invulnerable...
    Answer:
    In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

    In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

    Dear Questioner,

    I pray this message reaches you in good health and iman. Thank you for your questions.

    Regardless of how many people write in support of Islam, or against it, this is the deen of Allah Ta'ala and, as such, it will remain invulnerable. Allah the Exalted says, "Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it). It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it)" [As-Saff, 61:8-9].

    In the Qur'an, Allah 'Azza wa Jall, repeatedly challenges us to ponder His signs and reflect on our creation. He says, "Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding-men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire " [Aal-i-Imran, 3:190-191].

    Consequently, many Muslim scholars and saints throughout the ages have written works explicating the core tenets of Islam. Although the majority of these books have not been translated into English, there are still a number of resources available. Some are classical works and some are books written by contemporary scholars. The best combine classical texts with contemporary commentary.

    Here are some suggestions (in no particular order):

       1. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (tr.), The Creed of Imam al-Tahawi  (Rumi Bookstore, 2007).
       2. Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulum id-Din (available at SunniPath Bookstore).
       3. Ali and Aliaa Rafea, The Book of Essential Islam (Rumi Bookstore).
       4. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science (Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, 2003).
       5. Harun Yahya's works
       6. Ruqaiya Waris Maqsood, What Every Christian Should Know About Islam (London: Islamic Foundation, 2000).
       7. F. Kamal, Dirks, Gerald, Badawi, Jamal, et al, Easily Understand Islam (Desert Well Network LLC 2006).
       8. M. Fethullah Gulen, The Essentials of the Islamic Faith (New Jersey: The Light, 2005).
       9. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, Miracles of the Qur'an (These are in CD-format and are available from Alhambra Productions).
      10. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (These are also in CD-format and are available from Shaykh Hamza's productions company, Alhambra).
      11. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Dawah: How to Speak to People of Other Faiths (CD-format, available at Alhambra)

    Finally, please refer to the fascinating literature by people who have embraced Islam. In particular, Shaykh Nuh Keller's Becoming Muslim (Amman, Jordan: Wakeel Books, 2001) is an excellent read. I find this genre particularly inspiring because it illustrates both the simple and extraordinary ways people find Allah.

    I pray this helps.



  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #69 - November 11, 2009, 01:36 PM

    There are some shaykhs who urge muslims to be careful about this whole "scientific miracles" claim. I have noted that Nuh Keller and Hamza Yusuf have already stressed this issue before, maybe they are aware of the dangers of propogating such a claim and also are aware of the writings of Thales, Galen and Hippocrates. It only seems to be the likes of Harun Yahya and Zakir Naik who keep going on about it.

    I have also been looking at the comments on Islame's YouTube channel and I reckon that, the whole point that the muslim commentators don't get, is that what they have proclaimed is a miracle, isn't anything of the sort, the point is, is that if the knowledge was around before Islam then the Qquran ceases to be a miracle, especially when the mistakes that the Greeks made have also crept in.

    It doesn't have to be a word for word copy of what Hippocrates, Galen, Thales or Aristotle said, but the very idea and similarity, the fact that these Greek thinkers have said it, rules out the idea that nobody knew about it before Islam.

    The muslims point is only valid if they can show that the claim that Hassan, Islame and others have put forward is incorrect and those people didn't say those things before Islam. As long as Hassan and Islame have shown that those ideas were known well before they were in the Quran, then they are stood on solid ground. It would only be undermined either if it is shown that those things said were never said at all, or that science confirms what it says in the Quran, but then that would confirm the Ancient Greeks and not the Quran, if indeed those ideas came from them.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #70 - November 11, 2009, 02:57 PM

    Yep, like a fool I got drawn into 2 arguments

    Here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK7-kZwa1IY

    & here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LzMm-51yFQ

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #71 - November 11, 2009, 04:48 PM

    Back to the debates.......

    Hitchens vs Turek.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9G0z4Ahng&feature=related

    More parts on youtube.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #72 - November 11, 2009, 07:47 PM

    Back to the debates.......

    Hitchens vs Turek.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9G0z4Ahng&feature=related

    More parts on youtube.


    I've just finished watching this debate and you know what? Turek clearly stuck to the debate and offered evidence for theism. No matter how old the evidence is and how many times it's been refuted by the philosophers, he still put his case forward well. In comparison, Hitchens just evaded most of the questions and pretty much failed to offer a rebuttal. What I have to say about Frank Turek is that even though he offers his arguments for theism or a cause for a universe, he very quickly jumps to the non-sequitor of Christianity. You could just close your eyes and place Hamza Yusuf there instead of Frank Turek and watch him jump to the non-sequitor of Islam.

    Similarly, Frank Turek makes the point the we can safely discard Zeus or other mythological dieties, because they existed within the universe or in the world, whereas the judeo/christian god is a super-natural being who exists beyond the confines of the natural universe.

    Hitchens makes a point about religious people being bad and doing nasty stuff in the name of religion. But Frank Turek points out to him that it doesn't disprove the existence of God. Hitchens could have very easily refuted Turek's comment, by showing him the horros in the OT and NT and even showing the Quran, but he didn't get a chance to do that.

    All in all, I thought the debate in terms of putting the argument forward was in Turek's favour. I think a debate like this is much better handled by Dan Barker, Richard Carrier or someone grounded in philosophy.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #73 - November 11, 2009, 10:59 PM

    .....And another thing!

    Whenever Christopher Hitchens would say something negative about religion, Frank Turek would respond by asking "Well how does that disprove God?" Hitchens just couldn't answer. Saying people do evil in the name of religion, doesn't directly address the question that Frank Turek posed.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #74 - November 17, 2009, 10:07 AM

    Here is another Hitchens and Fry debate. This time regarding the Catholic church.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw

    The other parts can be found on youtube.


    I've just watched that on You Tube.  The Catholic side lost badly, but its worth noting that they lost because their own two speakers were so abysmal, not because the opposition put a particularly good case.  The Archbishop was the weakest speaker of the four, he even scored an own goal by undermining Widdecombe's assertion that the Ten Commandments are a necessary foundation for a moral and orderly society. 

    Stephen Fry was the best speaker, but he made a couple of howlers that any decent debater would have jumped on, (the Catholic Church "tortured Galileo" indeed  Roll Eyes ).

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #75 - November 17, 2009, 10:13 AM

    This is why I find that the the historical acts of institutional religions and that debate different to "Does God Exist?" Although this debate was different, I find that Hitchens in particular can never stick to the topic of the existence of God. He keeps using the acts of institutional religion as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. I think he fashions a non-sequitor here and is way out of his league.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #76 - November 17, 2009, 05:22 PM

    I've never seen Hitch debate a rabbi. I'm aware that jewish theology is similar to islamic theology.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #77 - November 17, 2009, 06:33 PM

    I'm sorry to say, the rabbi is fucked!
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #78 - November 18, 2009, 12:24 AM

    He was absolutely trashed. His opening address was a pile of rhetorical evasions that did nothing to tackle the points Hitchens had made, and he got worse from there.

    As for his claim that Stephen Jay Gould did not support evolution, that is complete bollocks. I've read Gould and he very definitely did agree with evolution. He was only pointing out a small detail of how evolutionary theory was presented to the public. His contention was that there is a common perception that evolution proceeds at a constant pace all the time, when in fact the evidence indicates otherwise. Species can be quite stable in unchanging conditions (which is predicted by basic evolutionary theory) and most of the change tends to happen comparatively quickly (but still slowly in human terms) when conditions change.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #79 - November 18, 2009, 07:19 AM

    After seeing so many debates with christians, I thought the rabbi might make a refreshing change because there is a slight difference in the theology. Guess I was wrong. He sounded no different than a mullah at a jummah khutba!
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #80 - December 03, 2009, 01:40 AM

    This was posted earlier in another thread, but the sound quality was poor. Here it is again wit better sound.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hnqo4_X7PE
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #81 - December 03, 2009, 02:32 AM

    Am I the only one who wants to sock D'Souza in the face?

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #82 - December 03, 2009, 04:11 AM

    Am I the only one who wants to sock D'Souza in the face?


    I second that; in every debate he might prove that a deistic God exist but fails to prove that the Christian concept of God is true. If he were a deist then it might cut the mustard but he isn't - he is a Christian and so far he has done an epic fail when it comes to proving Christianity; unless of course he claiming that 'it's all relative' when it comes to religious truth and he is only a Catholic because it's what he likes.

    "It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up." - Muhammad Ali
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #83 - December 03, 2009, 04:52 AM

    Well, nothing to do with what he says. I would want to sock him in the face even if he was on the atheist side. It's just something about him. finmad

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #84 - December 03, 2009, 04:55 AM

    It's his hairstyle.

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #85 - December 03, 2009, 09:05 AM

    That rabbi is an idiot. What a way to start a debate. Roll Eyes

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #86 - December 03, 2009, 09:30 AM

    That rabbi is an idiot. What a way to start a debate. Roll Eyes


    He shouldn't have debated in the first place. I've heard him speak and he isn't a bad guy - he should have turned down the offer.

    "It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up." - Muhammad Ali
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #87 - December 03, 2009, 11:23 AM

    I liked the guy who was a bit more neutral. Can't remember his name though. Sam Harris was also good.
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #88 - December 03, 2009, 11:27 AM

    He shouldn't have debated in the first place. I've heard him speak and he isn't a bad guy - he should have turned down the offer.

    He may be a nice enough bloke if chatting over a beer or two, but he's a creationist and unfortunately that means he's dishonest.

    Note that the run of the mill, not particularly well- educated creationists, who don't really know anything about evolution and aren't interested in learning, are not necessarily dishonest. they may just be ignorant. However the guys who get up on stage and make a living out of pushing creationism are always too well read to have that excuse. They know what they are doing.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Awesome Debate
     Reply #89 - December 03, 2009, 11:45 AM

    He may be a nice enough bloke if chatting over a beer or two, but he's a creationist and unfortunately that means he's dishonest.

    Note that the run of the mill, not particularly well- educated creationists, who don't really know anything about evolution and aren't interested in learning, are not necessarily dishonest. they may just be ignorant. However the guys who get up on stage and make a living out of pushing creationism are always too well read to have that excuse. They know what they are doing.


    He's done some great videos telling the religious right to stop bitching about gay marriage; gay marriage has nothing to do with relationships falling to pieces. When he talks about social issues, he is ok - when he moves out of his niche, like so many religious people do, he looks like a fool.

    "It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up." - Muhammad Ali
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »