Jump to content
Ali

Debate ready in MP3 and Video Online

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Original Thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?ac...t=ST&f=1&t=3527

Salam Alaikum.

The debate between Br. Hassanain Rajabali and a leading Atheist - Dan Barker on the subject "Does God Not Exist?" is now availableforviewingo nline.

The following links will launch the broadcast with Windows Media Player:

Debate Part 1

Debate Part 2

The following links will launch Windows Media Player within the browser using the appropriate plug-in:

Debate Part 1 - Embedded

Debate Part 2 - Embedded

Please contact us at DreamReapr@aol.com if you're experiencing any problems accessing the content.

Source: http://www.madressa.org

The debate is now available online in MP3 format. The debate can either be downloaded or heard online without downloading.

The first part is 10 MB & the second part is 6 MB.

Debate: Does God Not Exist (Part 1)

Debate: Does God Not Exist? (Part 2)

It would be helpful if you add your comments/ratings/reviews on the debate in the above website.

I'll try my best to upload the debate if I get the chance on to the ShiaChat servers with their permission.

P.S: If you're having connection problems, try again later. Naturally this debate is being downloaded bay many people.

Wa salam.

Edited by bahlool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the address if you want to download it.

http://63.73.164.22/Debate/debate.wmv

Right click on here...and select Save as. . .

LOLOL, it's 195 Megs for part one...with my dial up modem...hmmmm, that'd take roughly 293, 939, 399 hours...lol

not all of us have cable :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masha'Allah!!

i was there and the debate was a great success. May Allah bless Br Hassanain ,and Br Ali who worked so hard to bring this debate to light.

as mentioned in Quraan( thahara al 7aq, wazaheqa al ba6el, enaa al ba6ela kaana zahoqa). al7amdulilah by Allah's support some ppl came out of that debtae having a different point of view, or at least something to think about:)

may Allah bless those who work hard to spread his words( Ena na7nu nazalna al thekr wa ena lahu la7afethoon)

w'salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Masha'Allah!!

i was there and the debate was a great success. May Allah bless Br Hassanain ,and Br Ali who worked so hard to bring this debate to light.

I'm glad to hear that, it went well :)

I'm at work right now, can't wait to go home and watch it!

Sallams,

Bahlool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

I stayed up last night to watch the debate and mashallah, Bro. Hasnain Rajabali did a magnificient job. :) Admittidly, I had doubts about him but it showed me that no matter who speaks it, the truth will always win.

On the flip side, Dan Barker was a total bore. I was expecting to hear something new from him, but he just repeated the same tired atheist dogma: ridiculing religion, "science will find the answers", "why does God allow evil", etc. He also showed that he was quite ignorant about Islam but to his credit at least he did admit that at the beginning. I think he's more used to arguing against Christians.

Most of all what this debate showed me is that we both have very different ideas about God. We Muslims believe in an All-Powerful Creator, non-dimensional, limitless wheras Christians and atheists tend to personify God. At times it felt like Br. Rajabali and Barker weren't even talking about the same thing. Barker kept on speaking of God as if he were a person, ie "God is a married bachelor" (astaghfirullah), "God's mind", "God sitting in heaven", etc. This understandably is the product of his Christian upbringing but unfortunately he can't seem to grasp the Muslim concept of God, which is not as a person but a Higher Power. Barker thinks that if he refutes religion then it will automatically disprove the existence of a Creator, wheras the existence of the universe's Creator rests solely on reason, not religion.

Only downside, I was hoping for a more philosophically geared discussion, especially in light of some points Barker made on his website, but nonetheless it was still a good, scholarly debate.

Two thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Alykum!

Alhamdulilah i attended the debate as well, Mash'Alllah it was great!

I would like to thank all those who helped make it a success, I hope inshallah we will have more of theese debates in the future.

wasalam

Edited by genuflection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam un alaykum Brothers and Sisters,

I, by the grace of Allah was able to attend the debate between Mr Rajabali and Mr barker. I think that Mr Rajabali hammered Mr Barker. I think the highlight of the debate was that Mr Barker refused to have Cross Examination!! He said Mr Rajabali during the 10 min intermission, that he had eight things to ask Mr Rajabali, and he had already answered them all! The debate went very well, mashallah. We must have had about 400 people and at least 100 outside of the muslim faith. I absolutely loved it.

By the way, I couldn't help putting this in, Sister Bilkis, has a very good hand. She was zooming on the keyboard, typing the transcript, and inshallah the transcript of the debate should be displayed on www.madressa.org tonight, or maybe tommorow, if all goes well.

I think another highlight of the debate was when Mr Rajabali hammered Mr Barker on the argument on evil.

He said (I will paraphrase) : "If i say I always lie, the statement is senseless, because the statement "I always lie" cannot be true, for that statement must also be a lie, if you says that you sometimes lie, or you never lie, then that satement makes sense."

Another highlight of the debate was when Mr Rajabali said (and I will also paraphrase) : "If Isaac Newton was such a great man by just observing the apple fall, i.e the law of gravity, imagine how great is the prson who made the laws of gravity into existence."

BIG APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE

At the end of the debate had copies of the Qoran on a table just outside the auditorium, for visitors to take. They also had the books, THE BIBLE THE QORAN AND SCIENCE by MAURICCE BAUCILLE and GOD OF ISLAM by SAYED AKHTAR RIZVI

I can assure you, brothers and sisters, the debate was outstanding. For example, (this was planned, but the audience didn't know and it was a good surprise) the moderator at the beginning was setting the pace and talking about the format of the debate. Then he moved on to the topic of cell phones. He said that when he was young he was taught that the only people who should have cell phones are doctors and drug dealers!! LAUGHING FROM THE AUDIENCE. Then he said that it is disrespectfull for the speakers when a cell phone goes off in the audience, it interrupts the audience's speech BRRRB BRRRB (This was the moderators phone) and the moderator picked his phone up and made it sound as if it was a legitimate call!!!!

I think the debate has to have been the best of all times. I loved it, i am sure, that each and every one who attended the debate had to have loved it as much as i love it.

Inshallah, may Allah give us tawfiq, and strength, so that these debates can carry on.

I just loved the debate!!!!!!! :!!!:

From your dear brother, Azhar Hussein

Edited by AzharHussein786

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone coming out with this debate transcript? Downloading 193M might be a problem for majority of the user while viewing a text file might not be. Anytime when someone has some free time on his/her hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallams,

The transcript will be available here:

http://www.madressa.org/debate_transcript.htm

I've downloaded the debate. I'm going to try to convert it to mp3 format. I'll try to make the debate within 15MB, so those on dial-up can hear it.

Download link for second part is:

http://63.73.164.22/Debate/debate2.wmv

Enoy :D

Sallams,

Bahlool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallams Br. Muhammed Ali,

The mp3 file which I will try to make will be approx. the same size as the real media file.

The reason I choose MP3 because it can be downloaded and copied to CD players and mp3 players. Once its ready I'll post it here. Since its in a video format it wil be a little difficult to convert to mp3 but inshallah it will work out :)

I'll post it on http://www.islamacademy.com/media/

Sallams & Duas,

Bahlool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams brothers ans sisters,

Sister Zareen,

The transcript was typed up yesterday by Sister Bilkis, may Allah bless her, and should be ready in about 2-3 days, from the news i have just got. The 'pre' transcript, which tells you how the debate went can be viewed on www.madressa.org

From your brother in Islam, Azhar Hussein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallams Br. Muhammed Ali,

The mp3 file which I will try to make will be approx. the same size as the real media file.

The reason I choose MP3 because it can be downloaded and copied to CD players and mp3 players. Once its ready I'll post it here. Since its in a video format it wil be a little difficult to convert to mp3 but inshallah it will work out :)

I'll post it on http://www.islamacademy.com/media/

Sallams & Duas,

Bahlool

Can you post it on shiachat as well ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you post it on shiachat as well ?

Yes of course brother.

Sallams Brothers & Sisters,

The debate is now available online in MP3 format. The debate can either be downloaded or heard online without downloading.

The first part is 10 MB & the second part is 6 MB.

Debate: Does God Not Exist (Part 1)

Debate: Does God Not Exist? (Part 2)

It would be helpful if you add your comments/ratings/reviews on the debate in the above website.

If you encounter any problems, do let me know :)

Sallams & Duas,

Bahlool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this topic on the general forum and I do have the rights to express my point of views on the debate, I will do it unbiasedly as possible.

I have listen to the debate, down loaded from the site, with great interest. Dan was acting like a stuck record like he just wanna to know certain perspective or answer. On the other hand this Muslim cleric was also not saying anything convincing which can entice any atheist immediately. He was also repeating the same stuff, as a regular Muslim of faith will do. The only applaud I hear is from his own people. The environment was pretty much controlled.

What was God, prior to the development of structured society? Ancient Animistic beliefs held that God was omnipresent; that everything was part of God, and God was within all that existed: an "animated" world where every animal, plant, or oject contained a spirit force. This concept continues to resurface throughout history, and in the common era, the logical variant is referred to as Pantheism: God and the universe are the same; so that God has no existence independent of the universe, and therefore cannot be its creator; there is no divine purpose, nor beginning or end; everything is cause and effect. The Pantheistic/Animistic viewpoints are likely far closer to the truth, than any of the anthropomorphic religions. Fundamentally, early Animism was the first form of belief similar to monotheism; suggesting there was one god in many forms. Such beliefs lost favor with the majority of organized religions; and monotheism did not regain popular support until Zoroastrianism reintroduced it in the sixth century BCE, which led to numerous religions adopting a singular form of God. Thus Christianity, Judaism and 1400 yrs back Islam were born. Different core value but the notion of singularity can be seen.

The strongest factual evidence of the concept of God comes from a source that many religions deny: Evolution. The basic reason that these religions are afraid of accepting evolution is because they are aware that it removes the foundation for the belief in a humanoid god, and consequently, the superiority of man. If man, and all other life, evolved into their present forms from something else, it becomes impossible to claim a defining image for your god.

Is it even possible to reason toward something that can be referred to as God? With the limitations of human language, God is the closest word that we can use to refer to a group of certain logical principles. Man has an innate sense of these tenets, but many people are incapable of reasoning in the abstract, and need the symbolism created by religions, in order to even begin to comprehend anything beyond human reference; nonetheless, humans are aware that there is something more to this universe than simple existence.

Again my intentions are not to tick any believers but to engage in the debate at a different level. Now I like to see the perspective from the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salaams all!

I was present at the Rajabali/Barker debate and observed that Dan articulated the same arguments but all his points in rejecting God was in the relative frame of reference.

During the debate, Rajabali explained to Dan in depth about the "Necessary Existence" of an Absolute God but Dan would dare enter into that discussion.

I will give a simple example of an abstract reality:

What is the actual fact or reality in the following statement:

"Give me a glass of water"?

If you study the above statement you will find that there was an actual existing reality behind the statement that caused the person to ask for a glass of water. This reality was the need to survive and to replenish what was used in the body. Such a reality was announced in the person's body through thirst and hunger and therefore the person issued the statement: "Give me a glass of water"!

Question: Did you see that reality??? or does it have a material existence?

Answer: No, but the statement (Give me a glass of water) gave us just a reflection of that reality!

So if we relative beings cannot even see the abstract realities, what about the Absolute Reality? The only way to know God is in the light of His attributes! And the atheists want to know God like the knowledge of physical things.

Another issue that Dan brought up is our belief in the all-Merciful God. Dan says that such a God should not allow evil and allow someone to suffer; otherwise He cannot be all-Merciful; therefore such a god can never exist

OUR ARGUMENT: The Mercy of God is not the same like our mercy which we are familiar with in this relative world. For example when we tell someone to have mercy, it means mildness of temper and softness of the heart, etc. But such things cannot be attributed to God because it would pre-suppose material existence for God and that negates His Absoluteness! What the Mercy of God means is what a person qualifies to receive for his actions in this trial. For example, an evil person qualifies for punishment and a good person qualifies for reward. So when a good person is rewarded, that reward comes from the general Mercy of God (Rahman) and when an evil person is punished, that punishment also comes from the general Mercy of God (Rahman). But going further, when a good person does more good, then God bestows on this person another special Mercy which is called "Perpetual Mercy" or "Rahim".

So we see above, the problem of the atheists - they presuppose material existence for God in all their arguments and they will get no where!

Thanks.

Edited by ILOVEQURAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam) brothers and sisters,

I attended the debate, and I agree with genuflection, but I was also hoping for a little more of a philosophically geared discussion. Nevertheless, I think Br.Hassanain did extremely well, but I wish there was the cross examination. By the way did you know, that the cross examination did not take place because Dan Barker refused, he claimed he had 8 things to ask br hassanain and he had answered them all!

(Inshallah) May Allah enrich the Islamic Institute, so that they continue this series of debates.

From your dear brother in Islam, AzharHussein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it’s just an attempt to have more philosophical approach.

"Give me a glass of water"?

If you study the above statement you will find that there was an actual existing reality behind the statement that caused the person to ask for a glass of water. This reality was the need to survive and to replenish what was used in the body. Such a reality was announced in the person's body through thirst and hunger and therefore the person issued the statement: "Give me a glass of water"!

Question: Did you see that reality??? or does it have a material existence?

Answer: No, but the statement (Give me a glass of water) gave us just a reflection of that reality!

All the cells in our body are capable of communicating either through the physical pathways (junctions) which connect adjacent cells, or through chemical messaging via the bloodstream. This ability to coordinate activities is evident during foetal development, where the cellular community handles growth, construction of specific organs, and the precise timing of how and when systems come “on line”; much of this accomplished prior to the fashioning of the brain. The brain, of course, is simply a community of specialized cells which contribute to the sum of our awareness; all knowledge that makes up our consciousness is still contained within these cells.

A cell is self-aware; “eating”, “breathing”, and reproducing, while interacting with its environment and others of its kind. It apparently knows that there is something greater than itself, for it must “believe” in the existence of the mind, to ask assistance from it. We can be somewhat safe in assuming that a cell does not “think” about the entity that responds to its messages, being that the capacity to reason abstractly would serve no purpose for a life-form existing on this level. The knowledge pertaining to these stages of awareness is innate, and because every cell contains the blueprint used to create this system, all know their function within it.

So if we relative beings cannot even see the abstract realities, what about the Absolute Reality? The only way to know God is in the light of His attributes! And the atheists want to know God like the knowledge of physical things.

Blind faith has always been a major part of human society. The vast majority of people lack the resources and inclination to establish that what they know is actually true: we accept what we are told by experts, and live by the assumption that these individuals have proof of the soundness of their conclusions. This system works reasonably well, and common knowledge has been right more often than wrong. The drawback to trusting those who disseminate information is that it can lead to the widespread acceptance of something that is untrue. Aside from the chance of error, there is also the practice of intentionally promoting a false ideal. The persons who control society rightly see the majority of people as simple sheep, which can be herded in a desired direction. Due to this conformity, beliefs are cultivated that control and manipulate society, often because leaders feel that the public cannot cope with the truth: you can be certain that a significant portion of your knowledge falls within this category. Please tell me how far am I off the beam?

The Mercy of God is not the same like our mercy which we are familiar with in this relative world.

OKAY, inderstandable BUT.....if this is the case than...

For example when we tell someone to have mercy, it means mildness of temper and softness of the heart, etc. But such things cannot be attributed to God because it would pre-suppose material existence for God and that negates His Absoluteness! What the Mercy of God means is what a person qualifies to receive for his actions in this trial. For example, an evil person qualifies for punishment and a good person qualifies for reward. So when a good person is rewarded, that reward comes from the general Mercy of God (Rahman) and when an evil person is punished, that punishment also comes from the general Mercy of God (Rahman). But going further, when a good person does more good, then God bestows on this person another special Mercy which is called "Perpetual Mercy" or "Rahim".

how can YOU GUYS so sure of this. Did somebody in you spent some time with HIM to know that he will act this way or just simply the opinion of an expert of a certain scholar(s).

I would say that to some people religion is the antithesis of reasoning. In many ways it is, but when teaching ethics to individuals incapable of understanding the science behind behaviour, parables and symbolic mythology become the only reasonable way to deal with the problem. Fluid belief systems are not entirely logical as such, but the members who realize the need to give others the impression that certain beliefs are “true”, are wisely trying to move people in a positive direction.

Humans are spiritual by nature, and tend to consider the mental aspect of existence separately from the physical. Because religion is a methodology which enables a segment of society to comprehend something more than basic physical being, it can be considered a component of spirituality. The nature of life is far more complex than that of the simple gods mankind creates, with their human frailties and vices, yet some level of figurative understanding is better than a complete absence of comprehension.

Now I'm open to listen from your side.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humanity, kindness, compassion, sympathy……whatever ever you wanna call it. BUT without the enticement of the religious doctrine created by this world under the rules of humanoid gods, religious leaders and so called spiritual fanatical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • @eThErEaL Surely the Arabs possessed some virtues before the advent of Prophethood, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that these virtues outstripped their many sins and vices. As Ja'far ibn Abu Talib capably summarized in his address to the King of Abyssinia,  “We were a people of Jahiliyyah, worshipping idols, eating the flesh of dead animals, committing abominations, neglecting our relatives, doing evil to our neighbours and the strong among us would oppress the weak…” Their actions are repudiated time and time again by the Qur'an. "And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it." [3:103] “And when the news of a female (child) is brought to any of them, his face becomes dark, and he is filled with inward grief! He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that whereof he has been informed. Shall he keep her with dishonour or bury her in the earth? Certainly, evil is their decision” [al-Nahl 16:58]   Now I don't mean to be racist towards the Arab race, and nor are the practices of the people of jahiliyyah reflective of most Arabs today. But it seems to me that it took the best of the 124,000 prophets to bring the Arabs of that time into line for a handful of years- before they rebelled against his teachings once more as soon as he passed away, all for the greed of power and authority.
    • As a historical source I think it is fair to use. We may not have rijal information on all of the chains; that's partly because our rijal books are mostly focused on hadith narrators of the second hijri century - companions of the mid to late Imams. Abu Mikhnaf himself was not close to the Imams, he was a descendant of a companion of Amir al-Mu'mineen (as), but he is relied upon by Waqidi, Tabari, Shaykh al-Mufid, and other Sunni and Shia historians. It's one of the earliest accounts of the event. He died (d. 157 AH) in the early part of Musa al-Kadhim's Imamate, and his chains to the event are very short. Since his text is about a public event, and Najashi called him a scholar of Kufa in his time, and since he was not criticized until much later Sunni scholars like Dhahabi, I feel that it is a good source. There are some discrepancies, and so it's not holy scripture, but I found it to be very useful when I first converted. Here is a good post on the topic: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235023655-why-is-abu-mikhnaf-reliable/?do=findComment&comment=2716964
    • I don't quite understand this.  Hypothetically, let's say one's father is against you getting married, so if you attempt to change your wali to a grandfather or an uncle who says yes to the marriage, will it still be illegitimate?  And there are some fathers who won't let them get married no matter what the reason. What then? 
    • 8305 How algorithms are determining just about everything. Zuckerberg's "Frankenstein Monster". The best part is the 5th and 6th paragraphs. https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/mark-zuckerberg-cant-stop-you-from-reading-this-because-the?utm_term=.onyQAO1dz#.ooA0yYkor 
    • Alhamdulillah. Thank you for letting us know. 
×