حوار مع ملحد

By: Qwaider

On:Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:53:20 AM
In:Thoughts
Viewed: (5886) times

Currently 4.4/5 Stars.
1
2
3
4
5

Rated 4.4/5 stars (141 votes cast) Thanks for your vote!

Other Memories Documented on October 28

Could any article survive forensic inspection?..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2009
Viewed: (4985) times

A well deserved rest..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2007
Viewed: (5202) times

You know blogs went too far when......
by: Qwaider.
In: 2006
Viewed: (7053) times

The stupid little spammer took the bait..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2006
Viewed: (10351) times

Dedicated to All Moms..
by: Red Rose.
In: 2006
Viewed: (5047) times

Art School..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2006
Viewed: (5703) times

Don't just take my word for it!..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2006
Viewed: (5421) times

All Clear!..
by: Qwaider.
In: 2006
Viewed: (4344) times

« Visited by King Abdullah II

WOW Moment! »

Memories....

#1
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/28/2008 11:31:36 AM

I listened to upto 6 minutes of the first video, but I couldn't take anymore of the mickey mouse voice effect they put on the guest's voice to protect his identity.

Having said that I've probably had a dozen of these conversations with everything from a priest, Imam, Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu, jew, etc...

One thing that's promising about the 5 minutes I watched is the presenter's attitude, because this is the proper attitude for two people about to converse about religion. It's not supposed to be the attitude of someone out to beat the other, but two people exchanging ideas. Finally you have to let the other person talk. I remember at one point I had this type of discussion with my family and every other word I spoke illicited responses of (God forgive met) (astaghfiru allah) from my family. Needless to say that particular conversation was useless.

#2
Muhammad Arrabi
Said
On: 10/28/2008 11:31:58 AM

new material, eh qwaider? what's the point?

#3
3awwadkhalaf
Said
On: 10/28/2008 11:51:25 AM

طرح سطحي و غبي جداً منك يا أخ قويدر! و صراحة أعدك أني لن أبرح مدونتك من اليوم فصاعداً! إن الهدف من هذا الفيديو الهزيل هو محاولة يائسة لوقف مد الإلحاد المبارك! الوسيلة الوحيدة للنهوض بالأمة البشرية! هل ستقنعني أن كارل ساجان أو ماكسويل سيقتنع بهذا الهراء.

تباً لكم و لتخلفكم إلي ودانا بستين داهيه!

أن الدين حاجة كانت ملحة في وقت من الأوقات!أما الأن فهو القانون المدني وحدة السبيل إلى الخلاص! توقفوا عن نشر الترهات و أنضموا إلى ركب التقدم و الحضارة!

#4
Mariam Ayyash
Said
On: 10/28/2008 3:02:51 PM

"مد الإلحاد المبارك" ممممنوو اللي باراكو هاظ؟
:)

#5
abu 3awwad
Said
On: 10/28/2008 5:07:25 PM

3awwadkhalaf
メンバー登録: 2007年12月10日
最終ログイン: 5 か月前
見た動画: 6
チャンネル登録者: 0
チャンネル再生回数: 300
年齢: 27

国: ヨルダンハシミテ王国

プロフィール画像の侵害を報告する
3awwadkhalaf غبي جداً
ن الدين حاجة كانت ملحة في وقت من الأوقات
غبي جداً
حوار مع غبي جداً
3awwadkhalaf

#6
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/28/2008 7:07:03 PM

Hani
I'm glad you managed to find something positive about this. I'm happy to hear you side of it. There is a lot in that loaded video for anyone who's looking to find something. Check the 3rd one in particular

Hey Muhammad
There is no point. People will see this and think two different things. (a) This is an affirmation that atheism is great, or (b) That religious guy actually makes sense!
There are skeptics on both sides. I guess this video is targetting those

3awwadkhalaf
انا لم اطرح شيء، و لم اضيف حتى رأيي الشخصي. مع الإحترام طبعا لكل الأفكار. و الصراحة اذا كان هذا الموضوع سيجعلك لا تبرح مدوّنتي فأهلا و سهلا.. يا ريتني نشرته من زمان :) و لكن ربّما لم تقصد "لن ابرح" .. لكن انشالله لن تبرح هذا المكان، و اهلا و سهلا بك
اوّلا، الفيديو بصراحة ليس بهزيل و يحتوي على كم هائل من المعلومات و الردود على بعض الأسئلة الفلسفية كثيرة التكرار. مثل من خلق الله.
ثم ان الإلحاد، لم يثبت حتى هذه اللحظة انّه قادر على النهوض بالبشرية. كمثال، روسيا و الإتحاد السوفييتي السابق. حاولت و لأكثر من 80 عاما طمس الهوية الدينة. لا هي نجحت في طمس الهوية، و لا هي استطاعت البقاء ممثلة في الأفكار الشيوعية التي اثبتت على ارض التطبيق انّها تفشل في عدة محاور اهمّها الرضى النفسي!
كارل ساجان استاذ و عبقري رحمة الله عليه، خسره العالم بوفاته. و كان من اوائل الملهمين لي في حب الكوزمولوجي. لكن و مع احترامي للأستاذ الكبير، فموقفه هو حر به، و انا احترمه بالطبع لكن في عملية الخلق، لم يستطع لا هو و لا غيره الإجابة على كثير من الأسئلة و اصرّوا ان كل شيء بدأ بالصدفة. في حين انّ المؤمنون يسّمون هذه الصدفة ... اله
الإلحاد لم يتوقّف يوما من الأيام، و ان كان في مد في القرن الماضي و انحسار في القرن الحالي لكن الهذيان بأن الإلحاد هو الوسيلة للنهوض بالأمة البشرية هو محض هراء.
امّا نعت كل من لا يعتقد بما تعتقد "بالمتخلّف" فكلامك مردود عليك في امّ عينك. لأنّك ببساطة لم تضيف شيء يثري التراث الإنساني! احصل على جائزة نوبل في الفيزياء او الكيمياء او يا سيدي في شم اصابع الأقدام، و بعدين قول عن العالم "متخلّفين". يعني زيّك زي غيرك! لا و غيرك احسن منّك بمليون مرة.
التقدم و الحضارة لم تكن "تاريخيا" بعيدة عن الدين! الا في آخر 300 سنة. بل بالعكس، الدين ساند الحضارات و دفعها الى الأمام لآلاف السنين. فالقياس على آخر 300 سنة قياس باطل ايضا
من صفات العلماء الملاحظة و الشك. و الشك شيء صحّي و مفيد و هو يقضي بأن لا تجزم حتّى تحصل على دليل او بيّنة او تثبت بما لا يدع مجالا للشك!
حتي ريتشارد دوكن الملحد الشهير المعادي للأديان جملة و تفصيلا قال "من المرجح الا يكون هناك رب". لم يقل "لا يوجد" او "بالتأكيد". يعني اذا واحد شديد في الإلحاد و القناعة بعدم وجود اله قال هذا الكلام. ما البينة التي لديك لتزاود عليه؟

Mariam Ayyash
LOL good catch!

Abu 3awwad
I'm not sure what you wrote there, but it looks like chinese! is it?

#7
انس
Said
On: 10/29/2008 1:46:31 AM

والله يا ابو قويدر يوم عن يوم بزيد اعجابي بقوة حديثك ..يعني ما شاء الله عليك رائع

اما بالنسبه للغبي اللي لن يبرح .. فانا بقلو بالناقص عن قارى متخلف ..

انا الصراحه كنت عم بجهز رد بس انت سبقتني وقلت اللي بدي احكيه بطريقه افضل 100 مره من اللي انا كنت بدي احكيه ..

#8
Nizar
Said
On: 10/29/2008 3:39:27 AM

I have watched the full conversation (5 videos) and here is my openion:

First, I really respect the commentator and anchor thats representing this show Mr. Mohammed Al Awady, He is very very nice wise man with good skills of communication and he understands the setiuation that many teenagers are facing today and he is willing to face it unlike most relegious people today.

Second, The guest choosen in this episode wasn't the best, it wasn't good at all, his reasons for not believing in god worn't discussed on air except a couple of typical questions concerning existance were talked about.

Releating people who have different believes about existance with drug abuse, social problems, homosexuality, insomnia and loss of ability to eat normaly is very stupid, it's just a way to show and convince the audience that Hamad is on the wrong path and we the program represintatives are on the right path.

I don't want to take sides over here, but fair disscusion has to be fair and this conversation wasn't at all close to fair.

In order to have a fair discussion, A healthy uncensored selfconfident mature and wise athiest with no social problems must have been brought as a guest to the show and his questions should make it to the audience in hope of some logical answers, Not an already reconverted young teenager that tried some weed or alcohol with his dudes and came to the conclusion that if god exist he wouldn't bann this shit and later regreted it when he sobered up.

Third, This should be a conversation with an athiest not a conversation ABOUT a reconverted muslim, hence Mr. Al Awady has been talking 95% of the time, give the guy a chance to talk about what he believed in.

Disapointing, waste of time, didn't gain anything from watching this conversation but a headache from the mickymouse sound.

#9
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/29/2008 8:28:23 PM

Although I agree with you that the other person should have been allowed more time to speak. The end result is the same. They summarized why many people resort to atheism as a method of escaping reality. Or as some view it, as a method of facing reality. It depends really on your perspective.
But let's see what we agree on:
1) Atheism in many people's view is really a religion substituting matter for God
2) Many view atheism as a permission to do whatever because "god is dead" or "God is not watching" or "God -probably- doesn't exist
3) Many are really not atheists, but think they are. They don't even know what it means.
4) Many have decided to go into atheism due to the way the church reacted to science. Which wasn't the case for all other religions.
5) Many these days confuse human rights with atheism. Although the right to have your own belief is guaranteed under human rights. Atheism isn't specifically spelled out as a method of doing this
6) Morally, even though this is subjective. Religious people are expected to adhere to a set of guidelines that are not mandated by the law. This is the exception for atheists (yes, you can be an atheist and a great person. But you really don't have to!)
7) Philosophical questions and ambushing someone with their beliefs isn't really that hard to do. In fact, you can dispute existence of god, or non existence for all eternity and there will still be areas where you can't prove either way
8) Atheists like ask for proof, while believers find this proof in everything around them. Neither can present a "beyond any shadow of a doubt" proof and both claim that they don't have to, while the other party should
9) At the end of the day, it's what you believe when you are all alone, in your room, on your bed, and when there's no one around while you're thinking to yourself and only to yourself that counts.
10) The fact that religion doesn’t accept certain sexual orientations doesn’t mean that god doesn’t exist. It’s completely orthogonal

#10
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 12:54:29 AM

1)Atheism in many people's view is really a religion substituting matter for God

<---- rather it's the lack of a religion, and unlike most religious people atheists are willing to admitt what they don't know.

2) Many view atheism as a permission to do whatever because "god is dead" or "God is not watching" or "God -probably- doesn't exist
6) Morally, even though this is subjective. Religious people are expected to adhere to a set of guidelines that are not mandated by the law.

<------- Yes whatever, but this whatever isn't necessarily immoral. Based on personal experience religious people are no more likely to be moral than atheists, but I suppose it depends on your definition of morality. Consider that in a major christian city the police force went on strike, and instantly crime was rampant, there were riots, muggings, armed robbery, looting etc... So it seems it wasn't the city dweller's christiantiy that was keeping them in line, but their city's law enforcement.

5) Many these days confuse human rights with atheism.

<-------- disagree, I don't see those 2 concepts as even remotely similar

7) Philosophical questions and ambushing someone with their beliefs isn't really that hard to do. In fact, you can dispute existence of god, or non existence for all eternity and there will still be areas where you can't prove either way
8) Atheists like ask for proof, while believers find this proof in everything around them. Neither can present a "beyond any shadow of a doubt" proof and both claim that they don't have to, while the other party should

<------- Perhaps but scientifically the burden of proof is always on proving it (God) does exist. You don't assume a theory is true until it is proven. You have to prove it before you can say it is true.

#11
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 1:12:33 AM

wow apparently that (claiming something is true because it can't be disproven) happens so often there's a common latin name for it among the other logical fallacies.
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam"

#12
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/30/2008 1:30:14 AM

There, do you feel happy now?
Regarding that example you gave about the religious city. Let me just point out that this doesn't prove anything.
Look, most companies will give you a long list of their bylaws. Why? because this is their policy (which augments what the law dictates), but it's not law! You can still be employed and disobey both. If caught you will go to prison. You can disobey the law but stay within the policy and in this case you and your company are screwed. But if you adhere to the law and disobey your company's policy you might get fired.
What I'm trying to say is that you have the choice to follow this policy (religion) that might not be Law. If you do, you would be in more compliance (morality-analogy above) than someone else

As for your view on Human rights and Atheism, I respect that you don't confuse the two. But trust me, not many do.

Let me ask you this question,
PROVE that matter can self generate spontaneously. Simple question!

What I'm saying here is that neither are able to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that their argument is true! Someone with an open mind would most likely concede to this point. Open your mind!

#13
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 1:38:55 AM

Qwaider,

It was a true example. The city is montreal, however I think if the armed forces, police, and intelligence forces went on strike in Amman, we'd do much worse than Montreal, and Amman is considered a conservative muslim city. How relevant this is to morality is debatable but to me the idea of religious people being considered more moral is laughable.

about your last paragraph, I never even disputed that point. I'm not sure what made you think I did. I disputed where the burden of proof lies. This based on the rules of logic which you should be very familiar with based on your field, and on the scientific method itself.

Now if you were to concede that religion falls outside the realm of science and logic, then the whole relevance of the scientific method and logic in the argument becomes irrelevant, and if logic is irrelevant, there's nothing left to debate.

#14
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 1:45:29 AM

Look at it this way.

Saying:
- P is true because you can't prove P is false
Then
- It can't be proven God doesn't exist therefore God must exist.
- It can't be proven that big foot doesn't exist, therefore big foot must exist

The more correct form is:
- It can't be proven God doesn't exist, therefore it's possible god exists.

and the even more correct form:
- It can't be proven god exists or doesn't exist, but there are so many other possibilities that the probability of God existing is too small to be relevant.

#15
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/30/2008 1:53:07 AM

Now lets see...
Hani, I gave that -morality- part as an example look closely, I didn't say it definitely means that someone is more moral because he's a believer But the example holds. You didn't counter with anything other than a hypothetical situation and that it's laughable.

Religion doesn't fall outside of Science and logic. In fact, it's logic that proves that a god exists. At least one side of logic that you're choosing to disregard "claiming" that the burden is on believers to bring proof. What's your proof that your argument is valid? I mean if we leave it at that, it would be a 50-50 situation. He did it, no he didn't. Prove it either way and win! You can't just claim that the burden is on the other party, you have to PROVE IT. Just like they have to prove it, and side neither can!

The burden of the proof is on both sides. And at this point it becomes a matter of faith. There's no certainty in faith. (please ready my last sentence one more time) there is NO CERTAINTY in faith! If there is certainty there can be no faith.

Anyway, I'm not upset or anything, and I hope I didn't offend anyone by what I said.

#16
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 2:01:24 AM

It wasn't hypothetical, it really happened in Montreal. The hypothetical part was my prediction of what would happen in Amman. It wasn't meant as a proof. My point was I think morality is an individual thing. What someone believes or claims to believe aren't relevant as to how they act.

I don't look at it in (he did it, or he didn't do it) terms as you mentioned. Rather in (it exists or doesn't exist), and we both agree that there's no conclusive proof either way. We just disagree on who the burden of proof rests on. Science has only one answer for that. The burden of proof is on the positive.

Of course there is no certainty in faith, faith by definition isn't concrete. It is fantasy. You can choose to believe in anything you want to, it doesn't make it true or false.

#17
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 2:05:09 AM

Look at it this way, in a court of law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant committed a crime. The defense only has to provide reasonable doubt. When it comes to God, there's all the doubt int he world. For one thing, it never shows up, it never speaks, it never reacts, it's just written about and spoken to!

#18
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/30/2008 2:07:14 AM

Ahh, that example doesn't include things like:
-But how did the universe come to exist?
--By a coincidence
-for scientific purposes can you: Measure, document and repeat?
--No
-Then it was created by someone or someone or some will
--No
-Why not?
--Because you can't prove it exists therefore it can't create anything
-But something is there, where did it come from?
--Self generated
-Can you Measure, document and repeat?
--If you gave me 14,000,000,000 years, the probability would be that I can do it
-Or god could have created it
-- No because you can't explain how did God himself get created
-That's the wrong question
-- Why?
-because you ask how the door was created, not how the carpenter was created because creating a door is not the same thing as creating the carpenter who isn't just human, but he also has the knowledge to create something. They're completely different. What applies to the creation doesn't apply to the creator.
--Still that's a coincidence

#19
Hani Obaid
Said
On: 10/30/2008 2:14:54 AM

The fact that the universe exists says little as to who or what created it, so I don't think it's relevant to the existence of God. What is relevant is that we are a very tiny part of the universe, and the holy books give us far more credit than we deserve in this reality. I'm not conceding there's a single entity that created it, or that it was created on purpose, but I think once you present the argument that (it exists therefore something must have created it), it follows that (something must have created that creator) to infinity, and that just doesn't make sense to me.

#20
Qwaider
Said
On: 10/30/2008 2:23:19 AM

You're applying the concept of the created on the creator. It doesn't work like that, and doesn't make sense to me either
Anyway, I respect your belief (or lack of) it's totally yours. I'm not trying to change your mind or anything.
In the Quran, god says, "creating you [humans] didn't mean anything compared to creation of the universe" which is humbling and in line of what you said.
Anyway, may god continue to bless you with intelligence to question his existence and everything else we take for granted