38 replies to this topic

[.InshAllah.]

This is funny

[MysticKnight]

Is people's faults something to laugh about or  feel piety about?

[Haydar Husayn]

To be fair to Dawkins, he is not a good debater, while Craig is an expert in debate. He could probably do a better job defending atheism in a debate format that most atheists. Dawkins also has the aditional problem that he is not a philosopher, while that is Craig's profession.

Dawkins should just admit that is the reason he doesn't want to debate, and stop with the stupid excuses. He doesn't want to debate because he knows he would lose, and if he is going to avoid his most dangerous opponents, then he shouldn't debate at all.

[Psychopath]

^ Well, in that case he shouldn't really be acting like a philosopher. He's a classic example of the impressive scientist who thinks he can just wander into the philosopher's territory and come out on top. He should have stuck to zoology, I think.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

dawkins doesnt know his arse from his elbow man. u ever seen him live? he totally freaks out if anyone asks anything that doesnt kiss his ass in some way or another

[Haydar Husayn]

Psychopath, on 15 October 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

^ Well, in that case he shouldn't really be acting like a philosopher. He's a classic example of the impressive scientist who thinks he can just wander into the philosopher's territory and come out on top. He should have stuck to zoology, I think.

I agree. He is completely out of his depth, and his only purpose is to become famous, make money, and perhaps pick up a few converts to atheism among the easily influenced. He has no interest in a real academic discussion, because he simply isn't qualified to have one.

For some reason, many people seem to think that scientists, and in particular those who are evolutionary biologists or cosmologists, are in a position to determine whether or not God exists. This is why so many people are interested in Einstein's beliefs, or those Hawking.


Anyway, I was recently watching this discussion between the 'four horsemen of new-atheism', and I was struck by how shallow the whole thing was:

[Psychopath]

^That's because three of them are shallow; I make an exception for Dr. Dennett. He's one of the greatest minds today. Dawkins' Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype were brilliant; like I say, he should remain in his actual field.
.

Edited by Psychopath, 15 October 2011 - 05:57 PM.

[Lanatin]

Ugh don't ever post a video with that dog people call 'Christopher Hitchens'. 'God is not great' is a book that wasted literally two hours of my life; speculative nonsense and a superiority complex which deluded hitchens into playing the role of a polymath.

He should stick with being a columnist for Vanity Fair (provided that he beats cancer)

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 15 October 2011 - 06:02 PM.

[Haydar Husayn]

Psychopath, on 15 October 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

^That's because three of them are shallow; I make an exception for Dr. Dennett. He's one of the greatest minds today. Dawkins' Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype were brilliant; like I say, he should remain in his actual field.
.

Yeah, I was actually thinking of adding that Dennet is the only one that came out relatively well of the whole discussion. Hitchens is a moron with a large vocabulary, and the other two are in the wrong field. The discussion does show how little they understand about the faiths that attack though. For example, considering how much time they spend interacting with Christianity, their knowledge of the religion seemed extremely superficial. To say nothing of their knowledge of Islam, which was on the level of the 72 virgins in Paradise stereotype. They actually seemed to think that Ayan Hirsi Ali was an effective critic of Islam, and that Ibn Warraq was a serious scholar of Islam.

I think this shows some of their arrogance that they think these religions are so obviously stupid that they don't even need educate themselves on them.

La, on 15 October 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

Ugh don't ever post a video with that dog people call 'Christopher Hitchens'. 'God is not great' is a book that wasted literally two hours of my life; speculative nonsense and a superiority complex which deluded hitchens into playing the role of a polymath.

He should stick with being a columnist for Vanity Fair (provided that he beats cancer)

You should watch his disaster of a debate with William Lane Craig. It really exposed how little Hitchens has actually thought through what he believes.

[iSilurian]

Much agreed with haidar and psychopath.

William Craig uses historical evidences for his arguments, which are completely different from scientific evidences.  The two of them could debate but it would probably be stupid and wouldnt lead anywhere.

It would be more reasonable for someone like Hitchens or someone who...for starters isnt a scientist, to debate a theologian/historian.

Scientists debate on scientific grounds, historians debate on historical grounds, philosophers debate on philosophic grounds.  Thats just how it goes.

On scientific grounds, obviously dawkins would win, on historical theologin grounds, William Craig would win.

[Haydar Husayn]

iSilurian, on 16 October 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:

Much agreed with haidar and psychopath.

William Craig uses historical evidences for his arguments, which are completely different from scientific evidences.  The two of them could debate but it would probably be stupid and wouldnt lead anywhere.

It would be more reasonable for someone like Hitchens or someone who...for starters isnt a scientist, to debate a theologian/historian.

Hitchens did debate Craig and did terribly. You can watch the whole debate on youtube, or just look at some of the many highlight clips.

Here is the first part of the debate:

Quote

Scientists debate on scientific grounds, historians debate on historical grounds, philosophers debate on philosophic grounds.  Thats just how it goes.

On scientific grounds, obviously dawkins would win, on historical theologin grounds, William Craig would win.

The problem is Dawkins doesn't just make scientific arguments. He also makes philosophical and historical arguments, where he doesn't really know what he is talking about.

[shamoun]

On the basis of this, it seems Dawkins ought to stay away from scientific debates too.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

bear in mind that the scientists' arguments against creationism are based soley on the christian view of creationism, with the view that muslim and jewish teachings are identical to genesis etc. so therefore they believe that our faith states god made the universe in 7 days and needed a rest, he directly controls all destiny to the minutest degree (including who will go heaven and hell before they are born), the earth is 10,000 years old and so on and so forth.

i have yet to see even one of them discuss the concept of tawheed, arguing against the shia viewpoint. quite simply they are going for the easy targets because they sell.

[Replicant]

Maula Dha Mallang, on 17 October 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

bear in mind that the scientists' arguments against creationism are based soley on the christian view of creationism, with the view that muslim and jewish teachings are identical to genesis etc. so therefore they believe that our faith states god made the universe in 7 days and needed a rest, he directly controls all destiny to the minutest degree (including who will go heaven and hell before they are born), the earth is 10,000 years old and so on and so forth.

i have yet to see even one of them discuss the concept of tawheed, arguing against the shia viewpoint. quite simply they are going for the easy targets because they sell.

Yes, I agree with this. I notice that many of these atheists are turned off from believing in God because of Christianity because of its absurdity (no disrespect to Christians intended).
They never study Islam but are turned off by the media, terrorism, apostasty laws etc.

I would love to see them take on narrations from the Imams .

Edited by Replicant, 17 October 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[Incognito]

I have said this always, Dawkins when it comes to the God problem. His arguments are all old, with except a new more flashy name of "Boeing".

None of his arguments are convincing, even the atheist philosophers are embarrassed to know that this person is leading their belief.

[.InshAllah.]

more funny stuff

[Servidor]

Replicant, on 17 October 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

Yes, I agree with this. I notice that many of these atheists are turned off from believing in God because of Christianity because of its absurdity (no disrespect to Christians intended).
They never study Islam but are turned off by the media, terrorism, apostasty laws etc.

I would love to see them take on narrations from the Imams .

I would love to see Muslims take on the actual Christian religion and not generalise about us on the basis of a minority of heretics. Perhaps they are turned off by the Da Vinci Code, the media, sex abuse scandals, High Middle Ages ectera. They never study the Catholic Faith but they speak of it's absurdity quite freely. Absurdity. That is why you have to study some (and only some) of our names to pass you philosophy courses? And why even put a "no disrespect intended" clause in brackets? What else could you have possibly done by the remark than offend a Christian reader? And so what were your intentions in making the comment to begin with?

As well - who is spear-heading the theistic cause in Western academia? In Britain it is (or was) Richard Swinburne. He is a Christian - Eastern Orthodox. In the United States it is William Lane Craig - Protestant but educated at a Catholic University, clearly influenced by his reading of Thomas of Aquinas and with Weslyan leanings. Still a heretic though. But I find it remarkable that Muslims can use William Lane Craig as a bludgeon on atheists and by the same token speak of the "absurdity" of "Christianity". He is brilliant, thoughtful, incisive when it comes to atheism. But as to his own convictions - absurdity.

Sounds rather absurd.

Edited by Servidor, 18 October 2011 - 09:25 AM.

[Replicant]

Servidor, on 18 October 2011 - 09:14 AM, said:

I would love to see Muslims take on the actual Christian religion and not generalise about us on the basis of a minority of heretics. Perhaps they are turned off by the Da Vinci Code, the media, sex abuse scandals, High Middle Ages ectera. They never study the Catholic Faith but they are speak of it's absurdity quite freely. Absurdity. That is why you have to study some (and only some) of our names to pass you philosophy courses? And why even put a "no disrespect intended" clause in brackets? What else could you have possibly done by the remark than offend a Christian reader? And so what were your intentions in making the comment to begin with?

I'm very sorry if I offended. Reading it again, I did not put it nicely and I apologize.

I just meant that these Atheists may find Islamic Monotheism (Tawhid) a bit more palatable than the Christian idea of God being in the form of a human or the concept of the trinity etc.

I hope you will accept my apology.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

Servidor, on 18 October 2011 - 09:14 AM, said:

I would love to see Muslims take on the actual Christian religion and not generalise about us on the basis of a minority of heretics. Perhaps they are turned off by the Da Vinci Code, the media, sex abuse scandals, High Middle Ages ectera. They never study the Catholic Faith but they speak of it's absurdity quite freely. Absurdity

dude my third primary school was a roman catholic school. bible studies was a mandatory lesson no matter your faith, as well as morning prayers and hail marys and lords prayer for punishments and everything. it wasnt even as though i was the only muslim, there were loads of us.

so yeah. im pretty sure i know enough to speak about christianity, especially catholicism.

[Servidor]

Replicant, on 18 October 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

I'm very sorry if I offended. Reading it again, I did not put it nicely and I apologize.

I just meant that these Atheists may find Islamic Monotheism (Tawhid) a bit more palatable than the Christian idea of God being in the form of a human or the concept of the trinity etc.

I hope you will accept my apology.

No.

No I will not accept your apology. Not until you furthermore agree to apologize for supporting Liverpool. I shall accept it conditionally on your immediate transference of allegiance to Arsenal FC. But - of course. I shall take your olive-branch.

As for what atheists find or might find palatable - I shall have to disagree. Most sincere atheists tend to see a drawing power in the claim that God became man. A God Who comes to you is both more profound and unnerving than the God too far away to be so interested. I have never met an atheist who had sincerely reflected on this central claim of the Christian religion without seeing it's profundity. I have never known an atheist who rejected the Christian religion because of the Incarnation. As for the Holy Trinity - the very center of the our Faith. I have never - mark me well: never - met anyone, atheist or otherwise, who denies or attacks the doctrine of one God in Trinity who has actually known what the doctrine is. In what our confession consists.

Beside that - it is unreasonable to suppose that they only needed a copy of the Qu'ran and a link to al-Islam.org and their lives would be different. Even granting that it is the historical claims of the Christian religion and/or the Christian confession of God that is sending them away - why would they become atheists? Presumably they would adopt some notion of a God different from ours (as in the so-called Enlightenment). Deism or another form of personal monotheism more to their taste; indeed - entirely the product of it. Most thoughtful atheists I know of tend to reject the existence of a God on considerations relative to attributes common to both our conceptions. So, as an example, omniscience relative to free will or prayer.

Most atheists who leave or spurn religion do so because they are or become against religion in itself. They reject ritualism. They reject revelation. They reject moral culpability. Islam has all of these as well. Moreover we live in days in which almost for the first time we are drilled, from childhood to television, in a purely materialistic understanding of the world. Atheism is prevalent because it is the logical conclusion of what we are taught. And even those who do not follow it through to it's conclusions still mitigate their religious convictions where appropriate. This is the first time in recorded history that the majority of humanity, irrespective of religion, does not believe that we are actually creatures and that the world was actually created. This is either going to change and people shall come to recognize that presuppositions bear upon how we interpret even purely natural phenomena or data - or it is going to become worse. There are other considerations as well. License - prevalent immorality making the religion that would condemn them rather unpalatable, one might say. Suffering. And ectera.

You cannot inculpate the Christian religion for the existence of atheism. In point of fact - it was the forcible displacement of the Christian religion (not on rational but on political grounds) that marked the beginning. What is occurring in Western Europe and English-language countries is the consequence of increasing distance between modern men and the Christian religion. It is not a matter of knowledge and denial. It is a matter of not knowing at all.

Maula Dha Mallang, on 18 October 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

dude my third primary school was a roman catholic school. bible studies was a mandatory lesson no matter your faith, as well as morning prayers and hail marys and lords prayer for punishments and everything. it wasnt even as though i was the only muslim, there were loads of us.

so yeah. im pretty sure i know enough to speak about christianity, especially catholicism.

I am certain you do not. Going to a Catholic school does not mean you know the Christian religion. Not anymore than going to public schools these days guarantees literacy. It is relative to the student. Not least telling here is the boldness. I was a Shia Muslim and I do not arrogate to myself the right to define the religion of the Shia Ithna Ashari. Beside that Catholic schools have been unspeakably and increasingly low (doctrinal) standard since the Second Vatican Council. Indeed - the fact that I keep coming across alleged students who know nothing of the Catholic Faith and can do no more than reiterate distortions, confirms me in saying so. For example - you have twice now claimed that double-predestination or fatalism is a Christian doctrine. I, in another thread, demonstrated that it is a historical heresy condemned by multiple councils. Blame your teachers - but do not tell me what my religion is.

Edited by Servidor, 18 October 2011 - 10:45 AM.

[Replicant]

Servidor, on 18 October 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

No.

No I will not accept your apology. Not until you furthermore agree to apologize for supporting Liverpool. I shall accept it conditionally on your immediate transference of allegiance to Arsenal FC. But - of course. I shall take your olive-branch.

Nooooooo!!!
1) I cannot do that because I love Liverpool too much.
2) Arsenal are going to get relegated at this rate.
3) My family will behead me if I change teams.

As for your main point, you make some valid claims.
I don't watch many of these debates, but from the few I've seen, I gather that Atheists usually attack Christian theology more than anything else about Christanity.
When they attack Islam, they attack the ethical side (stuff like women, apostasy, violence etc) rather than the theological side of things. I would like to see them discuss Islamic Monotheism a bit more to see what they have to say about that.
Maybe they should look at Saduq's Kitab al-Tawhid (Book of Divine Unity) because it's quite a profound collection of narrations.

Either way, I don't they'll ever be satisfied because of their arrogance.

One thing in common between Christianity and Muslims that Atheists do attack though is the stories of the Prophets, like Noah or Adam . They would deem the Christian and Islamic version as fairytales.

Edited by Replicant, 18 October 2011 - 11:12 AM.

[Servidor]

Replicant, on 18 October 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

As for your main point, you make some valid claims.
I don't watch many of these debates, but from the few I've seen, I gather that Atheists usually attack Christian theology more than anything else about Christanity.
When they attack Islam, they attack the ethical side (stuff like women, apostasy, violence etc) rather than the theological side of things. I would like to see them discuss Islamic Monotheism a bit more to see what they have to say about that.
Maybe they should look at Saduq's Kitab al-Tawhid (Book of Divine Unity) because it's quite a profound collection of narrations.

It turns upon the atheist. Some atheists do take aim at the ethical questions - inquisition, witch-burning, quotations from the Old Testament and so on. Overall I have seen very few actually raise questions of what we would call theology (the Incarnation for example); in fact I cannot remember a single instance where this has occurred. The problem of evil is the main thrust of the atheistic counter-argument. They then focus on whatever it is the theist interlocutor had put forward as evidence. Again - arguments from the alleged inconsistency of omniscience and other attributes common to both the Christian confession of God and the Muslim conception are common enough. Denis Giron raised the problem of omniscience and free will in reference to Islam on his Free Thought Mecca.

Most atheists have no serious, grounded knowledge of the Catholic Faith. Take any atheist and give him twenty minutes with an FSSP priest for interrogation on Christian doctrine and they shall come up nil. Protestantism is the problem and even then it is too vague to allow of talk of "knowing". No one knows the full content of the selection of Protestant denominations thoroughly. Protestantism has therefore allowed an ambiguity to prevail when it comes to the Christian religion. That is why so many atheists think they can talk about it intelligently without having read any of the fathers, knowing the acta of any council or having any serious acquaintance with the other sources of Christian doctrine.

But I think that is enough for this thread.

Edited by Servidor, 18 October 2011 - 11:16 AM.

[Haydar Husayn]

Servidor, on 18 October 2011 - 09:14 AM, said:

I would love to see Muslims take on the actual Christian religion and not generalise about us on the basis of a minority of heretics. Perhaps they are turned off by the Da Vinci Code, the media, sex abuse scandals, High Middle Ages ectera. They never study the Catholic Faith but they speak of it's absurdity quite freely. Absurdity. That is why you have to study some (and only some) of our names to pass you philosophy courses? And why even put a "no disrespect intended" clause in brackets? What else could you have possibly done by the remark than offend a Christian reader? And so what were your intentions in making the comment to begin with?

Can you suggest some Catholics who have debated with Muslims, or are willing to debate with Muslims? Because it seems like mainly Protestants who are active in that field.

I would also be interested in your recommendation for a good Catholic apologist who has debated with Protestants, or perhaps even a debate you have seen where you think the Catholic did better but was up against a well-informed Protestant. For example a Catholic against James White, who as far as I am aware used to be quite active in the Protestant-Catholic debate scene, with what appears to me to be decent success.

Alternatively, a good book refuting Protestant arguments against Catholicism would also be welcome.

Quote

As well - who is spear-heading the theistic cause in Western academia? In Britain it is (or was) Richard Swinburne. He is a Christian - Eastern Orthodox. In the United States it is William Lane Craig - Protestant but educated at a Catholic University, clearly influenced by his reading of Thomas of Aquinas and with Weslyan leanings. Still a heretic though. But I find it remarkable that Muslims can use William Lane Craig as a bludgeon on atheists and by the same token speak of the "absurdity" of "Christianity". He is brilliant, thoughtful, incisive when it comes to atheism. But as to his own convictions - absurdity.

Sounds rather absurd.

Yes, but let's face it there aren't many high-quality Muslim intellectuals in the West who are qualified for these types of debates. Even Craig is an exception among Christians due to his training both as a philosopher and especially as a debater. It's rare to get someone at such a high level in both these fields.

I don't think he is particularly well versed in theology however, which perhaps explains why he refuses to debate other Christians or even in some cases former Christians. His arguments are also usually in favour of the existence of a God, and not a specifically Christian God. I'm not aware of any argument he often makes that wouldn't equally apply to arguing in favour of Allah in the sense that Muslim understand Him. In fact, he would probably have a slightly easier time in his debates since, among other things, he wouldn't find himself in the position of defending some of the things that happen in the Old Testament, as so often happens.

Edited by Haider Husayn, 18 October 2011 - 05:12 PM.

[Servidor]

Haider Husayn, on 18 October 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

Can you suggest some Catholics who have debated with Muslims, or are willing to debate with Muslims? Because it seems like mainly Protestants who are active in that field.

One of the forum members, Yahya Seymour (Yahya 2004 here) recently had an exchange with some people from Fordham if I am not mistaken. You would likely have to ask him concerning those willing to debate Muslims in a strict academic context. Otherwise - go to any university and talk to a Catholic student.

Haider Husayn, on 18 October 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

I would also be interested in your recommendation for a good Catholic apologist who has debated with Protestants, or perhaps even a debate you have seen where you think the Catholic did better but was up against a well-informed Protestant. For example a Catholic against James White, who as far as I am aware used to be quite active in the Protestant-Catholic debate scene, with what appears to me to be decent success.

Alternatively, a good book refuting Protestant arguments against Catholicism would also be welcome.

Here I am not on firm ground. I have not really had any great interest in arguments (of others) concerning Protestantism. I could give you my reasons for rejecting Protestantism. High among them would be that this is not how the Christian religion works. Christ did not give the holy apostles the authority to go out and convince all nations of the logical force of His claims and commandments; or to hold a symposium and work it out for yourselves. A doctrine is not decided by an argument. There is a visible Church of true teachers with apostolic authority and Christ with those true teachers (as He promised) until the consummation of the world. A Church against which the gates of Hades cannot prevail. Doctrine is received from the apostles and fathers - not from the deliverances of private interpretation of vernacular translations of the New Testament. It is for that apostolic and authoritative Church to hand the Faith that comes to us from the apostles on - and mark out error; i.e. what does not come to us from the apostles but from say a loquacious fifteenth century German.

If you are sincerely interested in studying the Catholic Faith - you should not begin at Protestant/Catholic controversies. Why not begin with the first one thousand five hundred years and draw your conclusions when you come to it? And presumably you would do better to begin by looking at the Catholic Faith in and of itself; considering it for yourself. Then perhaps look at what it is Protestants want to tell you.

As for books - for the Catholic Faith as against Protestantism there is obviously no better than the Council of Trent. You could find it online. I know Saint Robert Bellarmine wrote a very thorough refutation of Protestantism, though I do not know if a full translation is available (it is a little much to reasonably offer to translate from Latin for you...). Saint Francis de Sales preached in Protestant Geneva with immense success. He wrote a little book called the Catholic controversy which is available online - pdf or html. The little book converted apparently nearly seventy two thousand heretics back to the Christian religion. As well, the original Jesuits paid no little attention to the Protestants; their purpose being largely to engage emerging Protestantism (Counter-Reformation). The religious face of Western Europe for the last several centuries marks their success. But again - I do not have any particular work in mind that I could recommend to you. But you might look along those lines for yourself.

Haider Husayn, on 18 October 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

Yes, but let's face it there aren't many high-quality Muslim intellectuals in the West who are qualified for these types of debates. Even Craig is an exception among Christians due to his training both as a philosopher and especially as a debater. It's rare to get someone at such a high level in both these fields.

Not really. To study philosophy at a university standard you generally have to engage in discussions as a matter of course. You have to offer a defence of your doctoral thesis as well. There are also several academic bodies in which one might find ready opponents on any of the central questions of modern philosophy. Most academic philosophers spend a considerable amount of their time in discussion or debate. I particularly like Swinburne's lectures because he literally expects his audience to argue with him afterward or to ask questions at least; there are also other debates in which he has participated over the years at Oxford which no one had the presence of mind to record; one particular heart-rending loss being a debate with Richard Dawkins from the biology department.

Moreover, that is not the only front on which one can engage atheists. To hold to Swinburne as an example, he wrote a robust trilogy on precisely the crucial issues pertaining to theism; it's coherence, reasonability and probability; all in conscious opposition to atheist intelligentsia and aimed directly at them. But, anyway - my point there was that it is hardly reasonable or fair to say that precisely these "high quality" theist "intellectuals" in the West not only affirm absurdities but make something absurd the object of their deepest convictions and commitment.

Haider Husayn, on 18 October 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

I don't think he is particularly well versed in theology however, which perhaps explains why he refuses to debate other Christians or even in some cases former Christians. His arguments are also usually in favour of the existence of a God, and not a specifically Christian God. I'm not aware of any argument he often makes that wouldn't equally apply to arguing in favour of Allah in the sense that Muslim understand Him. In fact, he would probably have a slightly easier time in his debates since, among other things, he wouldn't find himself in the position of defending some of the things that happen in the Old Testament, as so often happens.

He is not a good "theologian". Some of his arguments could be construed that way, naturally. Not his customary argument from the historical resurrection of Christ - but certainly his nuanced version of the cosmological arguments, those from teleology and morality. My point there, again, was that it is not very reasonable to use his arguments and reasoning against atheists and then bizarrely conclude on the same token that his religious convictions are an "absurdity". You cannot both think much and little of his intelligence.

Edited by Servidor, 19 October 2011 - 12:42 AM.

[Gypsy]

An atheist who refused to debate? Strange.

He is scared of what he calls the "Professional Debater".

Dawkins enjoys debating religious people because most of these people are emotional and dogmatic. Religious people are always bounded by their religion and their debating style is predictable, hence it is an easy victory for Dawkins, who already know all the tricks and techniques, of how to deal with such people.

Edited by Zareen, 20 October 2011 - 10:38 AM.