Can Atheism Justify Human Rights? | Subboor Ahmad & CosmicSkeptic (Alex J. O'Connor)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2020
- The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: • Response to Cosmic Ske...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
• Alister McGrath & Bret...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
The references Subboor Ahmad used in the debate:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
“There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.” (Yuvah Noah Harrai, Sapiens)
"Again (Natural selection), it does not prove to disprove moral ontology, it says nothing about it." Alex O'Connor's 'Cosmic Skeptic' video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOsG...
“Our core morality isn’t true, right, correct, and neither is any other. Nature just seduced us into thinking it’s right. It did that because that made core morality work better; our “believing in its truth increases our individual genetic fitness.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
“Is natural selection so smart that it was able to filter out all the wrong, incorrect, false core moralities and end up with the only one that just happens to be true? Or is it the other way around: Natural selection filtered out all but one core morality, and winning the race is what made the last surviving core morality the right, correct, true one.
Which is it?
It can’t be either one. The only way out of the puzzle is nihilism.”
Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
Replay the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again. (Stephen J Gould)
Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRx2u...
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Charles Darwin)
“Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.”
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. (Michael Ruse)
Jazakallah khair
has Alex deleted his video ?
@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality No, he hasn't. I just opened it very recently
@@bfnv9972 it's unavailable for me
@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality Where do u live? Perhaps it's blocked in ur country. I can access it just fine.
Thank you Suboor for speaking up on China's genocide of Muslims
@@thegroove2000 If Allah doesn't will for anything to happen, it won't. So whats your point?
@@thegroove2000
Yes Allah let it happen and gave free will... He also will punish... dont forget the second part....
@Holy Kafir Islam as a religion is not based on your or other's repulsion, its based on truth principles, ethnic cleansing is always political not religious, religion is only a facade to use as such, so that the ruling party can dehumanize those with other faiths and carry on their political agenda, all people from ancient empires had this, and it is still prevalent.
I see your assumption and understanding of Quranic verses are pathetically lacking.
People will be judged for what they do by God, if prophet Mohammed was Allah, how will he be able to judge when he is already passed away? Your accusations don't make sense.
Semen was never produced between backbone and ribs.... the verse is describing generation not production.... have you never heard of spinal generator of ejaculation? I won't claim it is talking about that specifically but it is located between backbone and ribs. As for the pool of murky water, that has nothing to do with science and reality, its a perspective statement, I see sun setting on 10 storey building too, its grammatically accurate to say someone seeing sun setting in a pool of murky water perspective wise.
@@pastaapostle9388 "Traitor amidst masses" , nothing is strange humans are selfish creatures, if there is possibility for their family wealth to have prosperity they wouldn't mind betraying others with or without same faith, ethnicity or nation. History speak volumes, filicide and fratricide for throne and power among brothers sisters and parents was prevalent throughout history, whether that royal family was Egyptian, Chinese, European with any faith Buddhist Christian or Muslim. Faith is a personal choice and so is relationship with God. Just because someone' name and family is Muslim, Christian or Buddhist and he is doing whatever he wants, that is nothing but him worshiping his desires. Pointing fingers at other people with same faith is nothing but hasty generalization and false judgement.
We don't blame all the Chinese civilians for what the government policies are doing, obviously normal people have their hands tied too due to their own livelihood and security. The blame is on the ruling party and their leaders and the world leaders who are letting the atrocity being happen in this day and age.
Comments from Athiests are repulsive. They claim to be humanists and for human rights, but defend the Chinese communist secular Athiests who carry out this genocide against innocent Chinese citizens for believing in God. Hypocrisy. Athiests carried out the most horrendous crimes against humanity because of Athiesm, which they can justify since their morality is subjective. Do Mao and Stalin who were Athiests wring a bell? Don't throw stones when your house is made up of glass.
i saw pain on Ustadh Subboor's face ( 42:23 ) when he talked about China , may Allah help the ummah of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
SAW
Ameen. I think Subboor should talk about this in Pakistan since a lot of Pakistanis, especially politicians and military generals, think China is a friend of Muslims.
@@icelerate8141 yh I'm Pakistani my self and i see alot of Pakistanis throwing this issue under the bus really bad
Kinda ironic how he used the China card, the same way Alex used the Ayesha's age dispute in his debate with Muhammad Hijab.
What's more ironic is how he tried to antagonize Atheist for not talking about the issue, when Atheist have raised more awareness regarding that issue than alot of Muslim countries.
@@hanansheikh5016 atheists which are participating in that program are not consistent that was subboor's point , it wasn't against atheist rather about the *New atheists*
"We've also discovered that truth is democratic" lol, nice one Subboor.
My comments had deleted 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@criticalcommunist5 TH-cam automatically removes/filter comments if they have bad, aggressive words..etc ,it's their new TOS which is bad in itself but what can you do with a mega-corporation that does what it wants, so try not to use them next time then your comments wo'nt be deleted 😉😉
Sometimes they delete comments that are conspiratorial or too controversial too.
The truth is democratic. We have common, universal ideas of truth, which need to be shared. If not, people's "truths" are different, and incompatible.
@@genericusername8337 Just wanted to point out that "ideas of truth" is contradictory because ideas are not truth. Just because a majority agrees something to be true, does not make it true. Just like how sometimes when a majority fears something and votes to get rid of it, the fact that most agreed to it does not make the decision to be the correct, or an objective one.
I realized you used the word, "universal." This implies that all democracies, bring about the same outcome when something is decided upon by a majority. However, situations caused by different economies, and environments do lead to different reactions towards similar human dilemmas such as immigration.
That last line at 1:44:45 by Subboor summarized the whole debate. Subjective definition of morality is objectified via democracy. Alhumdulillah for Islam.
@@arianagrandaremix8858 - The concept of God in Islam is crystal clear and appealing. In Islam, God is absolute, eternal, no beginning, no end, timeless, no father, no offspring, no spouse, no co-founder etc. He doesn't share human attributes that defines weakness. E.g. Jesus (God) dying on the Cross or God of Judaism wrestling His own Prophet Jacob (in Jewish Bible) and get defeated. Or the concept of God becoming a Monkey or Elephant as in Hinduism and other polyethnic faiths. This is ONE of the other reasons why Islam is fastest growing religion in terms of conversion.
@@arianagrandaremix8858 also if you bother looking at Arab history and the preservation of the book, you ll find many miracles which are simply unmatched. Basically if you believe in deductive reasoning and witness testimonies, you ll be a hypocrite if you reject Islam.
.
@@globalcoupledances in islam there's freedom of religion
@@morpheusoneiros7704 What is the punishment to leave islam?
And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."
Is that why subboor kept defending christianity and never uttered a word about Islam?
@@ubaidsals7832 Islam comes up as a climax of human civilization just have some patience
@@sharzeelaman6873 indeed, Islam comes as bloody cult destroying previous civilization- their culture and knowledge.
@@skepticoeye6785you have prejudicial bent of colonial mind
@@caliphalifpietyhaya6046 I don't belong to west. Lol😏😂😂😜🖕😘
Imām Al-Shāfiī (d. 820) was asked about the existence of the Creator and he replied, "The leaves of a berry bush all have one taste. Worms eat it and produce silk. Bees eat it and produce honey. Goats, camels, and cows eat it and deliver offspring. Deer eat it and produce musk. Yet, all of these come from one thing."
The simple miracle of the leaves of a bush, and every other miracle it produces points to the designer.
JazakAllahu khayr. I've been lookig for a translation for this quote for quite a while.
@sohaib imran No, because you don't understand the complexity presented by simple urguments...
In your ignorance, i can still present the question after you present the chemistry, only this time keen to know why this chemical and not the other!🤔
@sohaib imran semms like you know a lot ,what is you educational background high school fail?
How surprised he would be to find out that multiple animals using the same plant for resources was far from miraculous. Those were simple times.
Didn't know bees ate leaves though?
*“Most of them follow nothing but assumptions. But assumption can be of no value against the Truth at all. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do.” ~ (Qur’an **10:36**)*
Additionally here is what your God says in the Quran about the fate of billions of beautiful humans.
Quran (3:56) - *"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."*
Quran (5:37) - *"They will wish to get out of the Fire, but never are they to emerge therefrom, and for them is an enduring punishment."*
So I reject your faith(lack of evidence) as does Alex, I am a Vegan as is Alex, meaning we do not consciously cause animals(human or non-humans) to suffer unnecessarily, and so according to your theology we along with many billions of other humans past and present who reject your faith and god will suffer unimaginably forever. I think you are a *more* compassionate, kind, loving and moral being than your God...
@Evenson Alps *"He gave you, are some of the reasons for the punishment in hell-fire."* do you have children? If you have children you most likely love them and in spite of their rejecting you and mocking you, you would simply consider them as unwell and seek to help them. Now the first thing that comes to the mind of most loving parents with their children who mock and reject them isn't to cause them to suffer unimaginably(3rd degree burns to 100% of the body, right??) for an *INFINITE* duration, they would be considered clinically psychopathic. Not sure if you remember but ISIS(Islamic terrorists) burned to death a Jordanian fighter pilot, fortunately ISIS couldn't make him endure that suffering for more than a few minutes, *but your God wants to. What possible sin or crime could someone commit in their FINITE lifetime here on Earth that would be commensurate with or justify deserving that duration of unimaginable suffering?* Go into your kitchen and turn on the gas stove burner and leave your finger in the flame for just 1second. *Now imagine that sensation to 100% of your body being endured for eternity.* I have done it, mostly by accident, and if some God deems that any beautiful human deserves such a punishment for a finite transgression, then I make no apologize for condemning them in no uncertain terms! If my assessment of the suffering is correct then your God is the most morally reprehensible being ever!! I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Feel free to ask me any questions I will answer...
You assume Allah
"The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are the children of God and His beloved ones.’ Say, ‘Then why does He punish you for your sins? You are merely human beings, part of His creation: He forgives whoever He will and punishes whoever He will. Control of the heavens and earth and all that is between them belongs to Him: all journeys lead to Him.’ Qur'an(5:18)
By Asadullah Ali ( owner of Andalusian Project channel)
Atheists often advance the argument that God’s Mercy is canceled out by virtue of eternal Hellfire. However, I’ve always found this objection wanting and more an evidence of the vacuity of those proposing it. How so? Because such an argument seems to redefine the concept of mercy entirely; twisting it into a juvenile trait uncharacteristic of any moral standard.
Allow me to explain.
Prior to getting into the notion of eternal punishment, let’s discuss what ‘mercy’ actually is. The concept of mercy today - when applied to those who have committed some sort of wrong - has come to be construed as a selfless act of forgiveness towards the wrongdoer, without any necessary reciprocating factor. Meaning, to be defined as ‘merciful’, one is obligated to release a criminal from punishment without any strings attached.
But this isn’t mercy. To forgive a criminal who refuses to repent for their crimes is not forgiveness, but stupidity. Without the reciprocity of remorse and guarantee of reform, such “mercy” ultimately becomes a means of supporting criminal behavior and completely invalidates every ideal of justice ever conceived. Thus, the type of mercy that many atheists seem to have in mind is really no different than that of a child’s; one who seeks to evade reproach every time he’s caught with his hands in the cookie jar. In other words, It is an irrational plea for moral agents to sanction immorality. But how can a moral agent complicit and still be considered moral? Is that not a contradiction?
But the atheist(s) reading this post may retort that I’ve strawmanned their understanding of mercy. But have I really? Because when examining their reactions to the Islamic version of Hellfire, it seems that I’m right on point. You see, in Islam, people don’t go to Hell for eternity because of one single finite criminal act, nor does God force them to remain in Hell arbitrarily. Rather, the punishment is eternal because the offense is eternally committed. This is stated in the Qur’an itself in numerous places, including the following:
If you could but see when they are made to stand before the Fire and will say, “Oh, would that we could be returned [to life on earth] and not deny the signs of our Lord and be among the believers.” But what they concealed before has [now] appeared to them. And even if they were returned, they would return to that which they were forbidden; and indeed, they are liars. (Al-Qur’an, 6:27-28)
Here, Allah states clearly that those who are being punished in Hell will never get a chance to leave, because He Knows they’re insincere in their remorse and desire to reform. They are far too arrogant to admit they were wrong in any meaningful way. It shouldn’t be surprising then that the Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes that Hell is for the “arrogant” (4:36-37, 4:137, 40:76, 7:36, 34:31-33, etc.).
Thus, because these people refuse to accept God’s Mercy, it cannot be argued that God lacks mercy. It would be fallacious to state otherwise.
That said, I expect a subsequent retort from atheists, such that it reveals yet again the vacuity of their objections. No doubt the following argument will be given: “Why doesn’t god just not create people he knows will go to hell? Or why not just make these people cease to exist?”
And the answer is simple: because both these options would be a contradiction to God’s attribute of Mercy. By denying people their free will to make the choice to rebel against God for all of eternity - whether by refusing to create them or having them cease to exists - God therefore destroys any potential for Him to give His Mercy eternally. Remember, mercy requires the potential for reciprocity. And if there are no people willing to violate the rules and be given mercy, then such mercy ultimately becomes meaningless. In other words, claims that God “lacks mercy” also become meaningless, because this objection rules out the eternal potential for mercy to be given. In summary, there can be no mercy without justice - and no justice without punishment.
But really, is this so hard to grasp? Or are atheists just projecting their own failure to comprehend what a Divine Being should be like? As far as I’m concerned, I don’t want to believe in atheists’ juvenile version of an “ideal god”.
I’d much rather prefer to believe in an All-Merciful God where the word ‘mercy’ actually means something.
Alex: better by what standard ? Subboor: by less suffering, your own standard. That was a good jab to get Alex a little unbalanced.
chris chow No he wasn’t. His own standard destroyed his argument.
chris chow no he was not. His own standard destroyed him.
@@chrischow9085 it's called "hoist by your own petard"
King Solomon then you missed it
I don’t think Alex was unbalanced he was confused because Suboor misplaced his standard. Alex never said suffering itself was an indicator of moral agency, suffering was his standard for sentience. But just because a being is sentient does not mean it has moral agency. Hence the example with the baby (sentient being) hitting a grown man(sentient being) vs the opposite. He didn’t get unbalanced, he paused and then tried to repeat himself because Subboor failed to understand what his standard for moral agency was.
"We've also just discovered that truth is democratic"
😂😂
Of course not.
@Arsh Anwari HADUKEN
@Arsh Anwari first you need to define truth. In Islam Allaah is the truth.
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 That's not deifning anything.
@@RhetoricalMuse can you define it?
"وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ" (البقرة-216)
"But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not." (2:216)
This is the first verse I've read after the debate, my god! What a beautiful coincidence! This book is always relevant!!
*"But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you;"* here is what your God says in the Quran
Quran (3:56) - *"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."*
Quran (5:37) - *"They will wish to get out of the Fire, but never are they to emerge therefrom, and for them is an enduring punishment."*
Is this an example of the verse you quoted? I would hate this as most beautiful humans would, however, would you say this unimaginable suffer for an *INFINITE* duration in any universe is "good" for the person? Yes that is a question!!
And yes I reject your faith(lack of evidence), I am a Vegan(as is Alex), meaning I do not consciously cause animals(human or non-humans) to suffer unnecessarily, and so according to your theology I along with many billions of other humans past and present who reject your faith and god will suffer unimaginably forever. I think you are a *more* compassionate, kind and moral being than your God...
@@veganath Yes, you will suffer for eternity if you reject my faith, what's wrong with that?
veganath.
It’s not good for anybody... that’s the main feature of Jahanam. And if you don’t want to suffer an eternity there, then be a believer and do some good and you’ll probably spend an eternity in Paradise.
“But they who believe and do righteous deeds - those are the companions of Paradise; they will abide therein eternally.” (2:82)
It’s a bit unfair to talk about the chance of an eternal suffering when there is also that of eternal pleasure. And being a plant-eater is allowed according to the laws of Islam, as all fruits and vegetables are Tayibat (Lawful).
@@Wassim971 *"Yes, you will suffer for eternity if you reject my faith, what's wrong with that?"* do you have children? If you have children you most likely love them and in spite of their rejecting you and mocking you, you would simply consider them as unwell and seek to help them. Now the first thing that comes to the mind of most loving parents with their children who mock and reject them isn't to cause them to suffer unimaginably(3rd degree burns to 100% of the body, right??) for an INFINITE duration, they would be considered clinically psychopathic. Not sure if you remember but in 2019 ISIS(Islamic terrorists) burned to death a Jordanian fighter pilot, fortunately ISIS couldn't make this beautiful man endure that unimaginable suffering for more than a few minutes, *but your God wants to.* What possible sin or crime could someone commit in their *FINITE* lifetime here on Earth that would be commensurate with or justify deserving an *INFINITE* duration of unimaginable suffering? Go into your kitchen and turn on the gas stove burner and leave your finger in the flame for just 1second. Now imagine that sensation to 100% of your body being endured for eternity. I have done it, mostly by accident, and if some God deems that any beautiful human deserves such a punishment for a finite transgression, then I make no apologize for condemning them in no uncertain terms! *If my assessment of the suffering is correct then your God is the most morally reprehensible being ever!!* I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Feel free to ask me any questions I will answer...
@@adamyahya9567 *"It’s a bit unfair to talk about the chance of an eternal suffering when there is also that of eternal pleasure."* I have one other observation/question, no doubt you are destined for Allah's Paradise *(hypothetically let us assume this to be the case), and hypothetical a loved one of yours e.g. a child, spouse, parent...etc* rejects your god, doesn't repent, perhaps they are gay *(what ever qualifies to gain entry to hell)* and goes to hell to suffer unimaginably in hellfire forever(3rd degree burns to 100% of their body for eternity, right??) My question to you, *would you be able to be joyous and at peace in heaven knowing your loved one is suffering unimaginable in hellfire forever??*
I feel like Alex isn’t realizing the fact that his claim “whatever leads to more pleasure is good” is in it of itself a moral claim which needs to be justifies
Exactly. His idea that we can have objective values with subjective principles is ridiculous! As Subboor said, the rapist can use his subjective principles to say that rape is objectively morally acceptable because he is the one getting the pleasure and he doesn't care about the pain he is causing others.
How can something objective come from something subjective? Everyone can just keep disagreeing without ever proving anything.
عبد الله
Perfectly said, I can clearly tell Alex was bothered by Subboors argument and it made him resort to philosophical jargon in order to lose the crowd, but in reality he was trapped by the argument
And another thing which seemed contradictory is Alex agreed to the fact that belief in God leads to more pleasure, but atheists shouldn’t just believe for the mere fact it leads to more pleasure as they would be deluding themselves
However that’s the same with human rights, atheists know human rights are not a real tangible thing but they still subscribe to it and other rights like animal rights whilst knowing on there worldview everything can be deduced to carbon and matter, thus all is intrinsically worth the same
There is really no way out of it
Elite
Exactly he committed the “is-ought fallacy” without even realizing, even though Subboor made it clear in the beginning that he will avoid such argumentation, Alex fell into it
"good" means "preferred" and it only needs to be explained by the fact that it is an inherited trait.
@@user-bq3cw3bw8t
I binomial
"We also just discovered that truth is democratic..." That was a smart statement loooool
Yes big slap on atheisms subjectivity 😂😂😂
That was just Subboor being salty and it was cringe tbh
@@abuabdullah9878 cringe? Child
Abu Abdullah lets take this statement as part of a debate, not something personal he came up with because of his feelings at a certain point.
Google "scientific consensus," it'll blow your fucking mind.
Everything I have Said right is from God ,and the mistakes I have Said are from myself, wow only a Muslim could say this
And god remained silent as usual.
Such humility. Only for us
Even non Muslim said it its right because God is perfect.
@@northernlight8857 you have become deaf that's why you can't hear it. You miskeen you.
@@Soyodi come on.Are you saying that a god couldnt be heard if it wanted to? You need a better epistemology and a method to differenciate the real from the imaginary.
This guy says we get morals from minimizing suffering. But that’s very subjective. Suffering to one person could be pleasure to another.
Muslims say we get morals from allah but that's very subjective. Deductively prove allah exists or he is just objective morality to you and a fairytale to another.
sorth ist the only fairytale is something coming from nothing. You atheist can’t prove your fantasy and you guys have no morals
@
1) Same as Bible.
2) Is Paul the Octopus a prophet aswell?
3) Euclid's Elements is 1000 years older than the Quran.
4) Same as Iliad.
Need more evidence? ---> Yes, pls.
@@abuqatada2389aka Alexander ( who saw the sun setting in muddy pool) we don't need to prove you that something come from nothing. We don't know, we are humble.
But since you claim Allah exist, it is objective for you and fairy tales for others. ......hence ultimately subjective.
Btw I am still wondering....did mohamMAD needed a space suit to flew on a winged horse.😂😂
who am I? the only fairytale is atheists having morals. Never trust an atheist.
at least we should appreciate Alex's behaviour , i think he is a genuine guy , may Allah guide him
edit : i commented that before he accused Muhammad Hijab falsely , but still may Allah guide him
Qazi Merajuddin he is gay person.. SHAME.! I don’t wish Allah guide him he is bulls** it
@@princeofarabia7715 shame on you
He said very rude things in the past about religion. Maybe nowadays he is trying to change his style.
He is certainly better than Dawkins and Hitchens. May Allah guide him.
@@umarr6221 Why can't he?
I think it's so hard to communicate someone like Alex.
Imagine his mom tells him to throw garbage
Alex: I don't think I want to agree with your request but I also can't seem to deny it
What this guys wants to say really? He accepts something then he completely denies. Just hearing the whole video, I can't really grasp what he's trying to put. Subboor rightly said Alex's idea is so absurd that no philosopher in the history would actually agree to it.
@@ehsanulbanna637 Maybe you should listen again.
@@davidcollins1 he says yes but no in a million different sophisticated ways.
@@ehsanulbanna637 Just because he can't follow, doesn't mean it's not coherent.
Omg he keeps on retracting and changing his stance lmao he says one thing and then says nah but I didn't mean so , What I aM tRyIng to SaY is ....
God I got so tired of all his assumptions and baseless points...
Like he is making a claim and then saying I don't need to be able to implement it on people ....
But if you don't need to... then why you wanna come and here and talk of that claim :))
"If the truth conformed to their desires,
the heavens, the earth, and everyone in
them would have gone to ruin. In fact, We
have given them their message, but they
keep avoiding their message".
quran verse 23:71
The Message which Ayah?
@@MrJMont21 Quran Chapter 23 verse 71
Quran 45;23
Sahih International
Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded?
Wrong citation brother please correct it. Also, make sure to always capitalize the name of Allah.
@@emaanserghini1919 is it ok now ?
What I learned from this debate :
The Alex guy said "yes but no" to everything (almost) in millions _sophisticated_ ways.
Summary : He is consistent in nonsense
Not every question can be answered with a yes or no.
What part(s) specifically are nonsense?
@@crawbug8932 the conclusions he bring
@@crawbug8932 he said all people in a alternate universe have pink as favourite color. So all are subjective and objectively to color town pink.
And he compared it with rape.
Most people belief rape is wrong including some rapists. But some rapists belief its right for them to rape. No wrong.
@@rumarahman5154 I don't think you understand the "painting the town blue" point. If it was proven that everyone loved blue houses and hated houses painted any other color, it would be objectively bad to paint all the houses yellow.
Rape is objectively immoral because it causes the victim to suffer. Given the subjective goal of decreasing overall suffering, rape is an objectively bad thing to do.
@@crawbug8932 so your saying that if someone else liked yellow houses he would be wrong?
" rape is objectively wrong " from where do u drive this conclusion? from a subjective primes?
what if someone said that he likes to have sex with dead people? yes, it is wrong but is it "objectively" wrong?
Subboor is wow in this . Iera just have some of the most intelligent Muslims in the world itself it seems. God bless you people.
I wish they had taken a vote before the lecture as well as after to see if any minds had changed.
They are an inspiration for us. They motivate me to read books and learn more about the Deen
@@gonen.e8118 Yup you hit the nail right on the head. Muslims dont learn or read thats their biggest problem. Well the world doesnt either but muslims tend to be the most ignorant people in the world.
@@Yameen200 Wow. So much hate!! He just that said he was motivated to read more by these brothers. And you seems to be triggered by it !!
Engliah speaking Muslims*
We have more intelligent Muslims who speak Arabic only
In the mid of the discussion, Alex was waffling with enormous philosophical jargons. The claim that pleasure and pain are the foundations for morality is unsubstantiated since we can have pleasure by harming others and not harming others out of both people can make pleasure
Waffling works good to buy time
This is true even within Islam though. Some believe it is morally wrong to kill apostates, while others support it. Some Jihadists believe that murdering non-believers is 'good' while other muslims believe that it is morally abhorrent.
Different muslims derive pain and pleasure from different things, and therefore use subjective interpretations of the Quran / subjective morality to define what is good and bad for themselves.
Sadiq Mohammad The fact that we can have pleasure from harming others doesn’t “unsubstantiate pleasure and pain being foundations for morality”. The point is that we (as sentient beings) intrinsically want to minimise are own suffering. From this follows that the best way to reduce suffering is to not cause suffering to other people.
He’s basing it off of a veiled view of ethics. So for instance, we don’t say “what will maximize MY pleasure and minimize MY pain.” Instead we ask “what will maximize pleasure OVERALL and minimize pain OVERALL throughout the whole system.” For instance, if I derived pleasure from killing someone, it would still be less than the pain it caused them. Therefore, when viewing the system as a whole, pain was added to the system we consider that bad. This is derived from utilitarianism, I’d recommend you start with Mills and Bentham to learn more.
@@coolvids841 What if there was 20 people on an island and 19 were man and 1 was woman.
Days go by and they find ways to survive (shelter, food, protection from threats).
After securing those survival needs, they not move Maslow's hierarchy of needs and now want pleasure. They realize there's only 1 woman for 19 men. They realize that the only way to derive (heterosexual) pleasure is to gangrape her. In Alex's utilitarianism view the gangrape would be justified because OVERALL maximized pleasure for the population (95% because 19/20 man) was served... So ye.
I hope you're aware of what you're saying.
Allahu akbar! God is most great!
Islamic apologist arguing for christianity . What a PATHETIC situation!😂
@@sukuii9304 where did he argue for christianity?
@@edenhazard4268 He didn't. He only gave credit where credit is due. Subboor said that atheistic morals are remnants of Christianity. I forgot how exactly he worded it.
Al Cubz Allah SWT is God, there is something called judgement day, so those people fooled themselves
@@TecDLogic He's a troll, don't bother.
As a Muslim, I don't always agree with what Alex has to say but he seems like a decent and honest person. May Allah SWT guide us all.
i felt same until i watched his videos later ' reviewing" this debate
Because you are jahil, thats why it seems to you like he is.
As Muslim l can never be open minded
@@subhuman3408 what do you mean by open minded ? we as Muslims should be firm upon our deen. i am not saying that we should change what Allah has instructed of us to adhere to the whims of other people. i was simply recognizing the good in people rather than drawing out the bad. im not sure how my comment came off as “open-minded”. Allahu a’alam
@@subhuman3408fake Muslim not funny
Even when the Atheist lost the debate, they are still raising their hands to vote for him. Which shows, it was never meant to be about learning, but rather a fan club.
I think alex won
@@Mustafa-cp8wc hahaha how explain
@@jotesoft because Subboor Ahmad missed alot of his points and was arguing the same thing over and over again. The first point that religious persons are happier. Yes they are, but the premise is, that you really believe in god and the afterlive etc. Therfor when you don't believe in it you won't be happier by just pretending. It's a pretty awkward idea to think that this would work. It's like saying yeah, people who think they will get superpowers are more happy, so why does not everybody believe they get superpowers.
And I'm sorry, but the worst thing was the point with the second evolutionary trajectory. When the definition of pleasure is"what is wanted when experienced" than there can't be sentience without pleasure or suffering as an opposite. And that has nothing to do with our non-understanding of the second trajectory but with the fundamental idea of decision making. For something to have a moral meaning there have to be options which can be chosen. And if pleasure derives from the "wanted" option there is by definition in every evolutionary trajectory pleasure.Otherwise there would be no evolution because no choices would have been made. And when different things lead to that pleasure the same moral code can be used, but leads to different actions that are morally "good" or "bad". And the amounts of times Subboor Ahmad repeated the same question just showed that he didn't understand the idea of that. And I have to admit I found it condescending towards Alex that he said he'd make the question "easier" for him, while he was the one not understanding the concept of pleasure that Alex presented.
So yes, I think Alex won as well.
It was a Tie if Alex didn't won it
Subbor didn't satisfied me
Yes I am a Muslim
@@Jallajoona I have tweaked the Subbor's Arguement
P1:Religion provides more pleasure
P2:Therefore its Immoral to preach against It
C:All Atheist Movements are Immoral
The vote at the end was literally all of Alex's friends on one side of the room that he acknowledged at the beginning vs everyone else in the room. Lesson learned, bring as many of my friends to a debate to vote.
Why do you think religious people still claim to ever win a debate? Do you think it has anything to do with their ability to show god exists or do you think it has more people patting them on the back afterwards?
@@MrBrownstainbear it's not just religious debates, it's any debate about any topic or subject. The same standards apply to show which side won.
This is not true for emerging topics that are currently polarizing people. Yes these old debates have strong partisan voting trends, who would believe in god because of this mans arguments after all.
@@MrBrownstainbear if you don't think religious beliefs polarize people then I have nothing further to say to you.
@@m00dy7 You said "it's not just religious debates, it's any debate about any topic or subject." And I pointed out that that is incorrect because we could have a debate about a new issue and the room would be decided there. But yes, for issues like religion, where they have made up there minds before the debate, you will not get an answer of who won.
If you didn't read what I said earlier very clearly and don't want to talk to me because of that, that's fine lol.
Subboor: Is rape wrong?
Alex: Yes and No
What did you expect, you are watching a philosophical debate its not that easy to answer these quetions with yes or no
@@Cookiekeks whaaaaat man than what's the third option?
@@ideascraft4934 explaining it like he did in the video
@@Cookiekeks stfu rape can never be justified, what to you mean by "explaining". Explaining what?
@@Cookiekeks.
Thank you for live streaming ❤️
I really hope and wish people stop Bashing one side or the other, these type of intellectual discussions regardless of how strongly you feel about one side or the other benefits humanity. Bashing one side or ridiculing a debater will prevent more discussions from happening in the future. Respectful criticism and argument points, reflection etc. are what this comment section is for, let’s utilize this space appropriately.
My pleading is especially for my Muslim Brothers and sisters. Jazakallahu khairan.
I 100% agree what you said, the funny thing is that (I could be wrong, but I guess that's how I see it) everyone has a different worldview which they find it true. Just like you and me for example on Islam(I'll assume you're a Muslim tho due to the last sentence.)
Anyways it was wholesome comment not gonna lie.
@heera rodriguez yep, I guess that's the point. So yeah what you said is spot on.
Well-said, sister. Two verses come to mind:
"Invite (people) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good counsel. And argue with them in the best of manners. Surely, your Lord knows best the one who deviates from His way, and He knows best the ones who are on the right path." Qur'an(16:125)
"O you who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to Allah and bear witness impartially: do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of Allah. Be mindful of Allah: Allah is well aware of all that you do." Qur'an(5:8)
I love these debates. Great to hear atheists and Muslims come together to discuss some of the most difficult questions available.
These debates are horrible and painful to watch. It´s just a way to legitimize religious philosophy and religious "thinkers" that are otherwise ignored and laughed at by scientists and philosophers. If you can take someone butcher and misconstrue logical arguments then by all means listen to Subboor all day long.
@@tuchilife8251 Sounds like you are afraid to hear the other side and just call it butchering logic(just another way to say you hate the logical counter arguments presented). Probably cause your worldview gets challenged. No self respecting philosopher or scientist would laugh at someone who wants to have a discussion or debate inn good faith that's qualities that a self-conceit narcissist and an ignorant person would do who doesn't understand the world at large and thinks he holds the answers(he doesn't and never has it's meant to be challenged constantly). They themselves should know better than to laugh at anyone as they were also laughed at in the past and history shows it. Clearly this video isn't for you so it's best you don't bother with these types in the future and watch your typical circle jerk content you are used to and consume. Have a good day, tuchi life.
@@kinetic3971 Nobody´s laughing so I don´t get why you create this false argument/statement. If anything I should be crying that people are still this far behind and that there are people believing this nonsense. Run around yelling you believe in the Easter Bunny and you get locked up in a psych ward but tell people you believe an invisible bearded man that created the world and he´s telling you stoning your neighbor for eating shrimp on a Sunday is ok and all is good. Nor am I afraid of hearing out "the other side" otherwise I wouldn´t be here. The problem is that the other side has no sensible arguments nor science on their side. This whole debate is Subboor questioning Alex´s reasoning with some "gotcha" logic often misconstruing his points. What counter point does Suboor preset? None..at least none that make sense to a thinking human. The circle jerk is people talking about god and justifying all kinds of cruelty and stupidity cattached to religion. I´m not afraid. I think religious people are more afraid and that´s why they would rather choose the wrong answer rather than the right one because the alternative scares them. Have a good day Kinetic.
@@tuchilife8251
Nah Theism is better.
@@tuchilife8251 Its so funny you say that when subhoor has cited several evolutionary biologists and atheist scientists while alex was the "i think" person
We've also just discovered that truth is democratic - Subhoor 😂👌🏾
@tubetardism 20/20 Consensus of whom? A bunch of people in that room where majority are his college mates? Would you still have the same opinion if debate took place in an islamic institution and audience voted the opposite ?
@@abd-l-basith boom lol
Hey ,
I'm consistently wrong, that means I am right.
🤪
underrated comment lol
Wow ..what a comment
1:44:14 This reminds me of a lecture by Kamal El Mekki when he said a debate is the least efficient form of dawah. Each audience has already decided 'the winner' of the debate according to their beliefs before the debate even begins. It would be more interesting if the emcee asked who among the audience changed their opinions after the debate.
you still educate masses and propagate your views on what is true nevertheless if someone changes their heart or doesnt
@@LARESCIV the point of Leodash's suggestion, I think (i.e. as I'm reading it), isn't that we should change opinions, but to find out whether or not anything _did_ change their opinions.
@@DavidLindes You mean like any cues? I guess the cues could be the impressions of individuals but when it comes to debates of ideologies or religions, the majority of vocal people are usually tribal and they are least constructive, but theres also solid bunch of those who absorb and analyze for their own good.
@@LARESCIV just literally poll the audience with, say, "raise your hands if any of the arguments you heard tonight changed your thinking on these topics", or similar.
What I noticed is that there is a fundamental problem with Alex's argument that human rights are objective by the example given about a town who believes blue to be the best color without justification. The only thing Alex asserts that makes the color blue to be objectively the best in the town is that the majority deems it so. So when an outsider or an oddball comes and argues that it is rather yellow that is truly best, than the only way the town can defend it's stance is that because enough people collectively believe in it, than it must be objective.
This is still subjectivity. All he's done is extend that from micro individual subjectivity to macro subjectivity. Just because a large number of people believe in it, it does not mean it is morally objective. Imposing the will of the majority may lead to a problem indicated by John Stuart mill known as the tyranny of majority.
It also does not not consider human nature. When it comes to complex decisions, humans may differ varyingly with a myriad of differing opinions. People do not always collectively agree upon certain actions. In our societies in the west today we merely adopted a culture of what secularism deemed as morally wrong and right. Although most don't claim it to be objective, those who oppose this system are ostracised, socially shunned or even physically chastised.
Furthermore living in a hedonistic and individualistic society, Alex has assumed many collectivist human traits which to an extent oppose a liberalistic mindset.
Islamic apologist arguing for christianity . What a PATHETIC situation!😂
@@sukuii9304 Are you gonna address the comment or just spam the same reply?
BTW where did Subboor "Islamic apologist" argued for christianity? He merely pointed out that human rights are as a result of Christian belief and that is a fact.
@@hamzazulfi indirectly admitting that Islamic rights are trash......and nobody cares about it. Lol
@@skepticoeye6785 RIP logic.
Saying UN rights came about as a result of Christians =/= Islamic morals being trash (when Muslims don't even accept that human rights are a direct commandment from God even in Christianity).
+
Atheist: what is right is based on what the majority wants and thinks
Majority of the world believes in God so then doesn’t that mean atheism is wrong according that logic?
chris chow what is atheism?
chris chow and what is it the opposite of?
chris chow can an atheist believe in any form of god at all?
@@chrischow9085
Theism belives in God/ gods while Atheism desbelieves in any form of God/gods.
Now......, among theists, whose version of God/gods is true? Let that be a debate among theists only. Why should atheists even care, when they believe in none of the version anyway??
The point is....theists believes in God/gods. Which one? Lets keep that question between theists only. I dont think atheists should take the headache when they dont even believe in any in the first place. Otherwise it will be like asking about the seven colours of the rainbow, when one dont even believe in a rainbow exist in the first place. Think about it..!
chris chow yes, look up the definition. A theist believes in a God or multiple of ANY form. Which is the complete opposite of an atheist. The question is not about quantity or form of God here. That comes afterwards. The main difference between theism and atheism is belief and disbelief, where majority of the world do believe in a higher power. Therefore, based on your principle of “majority prevails” you should believe in a God to be a practicing “atheist”.
All atheists at the end of the day: "I don't know"
Silly atheists. How can they not know imaginary beings exist?
@@ephramwalton like athiest's morals?
The start of all wisdom you mean. Theists too often go with what is convenient i.e Allah and a nonsense religion.
@@alexnorth3393 actually wisdom is what is reasonable, when you come to argue about someone's belief, you best have one that is more logical and reasonable, which is never the case with athiests, they argue with you, and when it's your turn to ask them what do you believe as an athiest is the cause of the universe they go "I dont know", they go even further by saying "well, you dont know either!" Like no ones claiming to KNOW what's the cause, this a matter of belief, so when they go "I dont know" it shows they don't have any knowledge to share.
We believe athiesm is nonsensical, denying gods existence is nonsensical. When you deny god, you deny actual purpose, design, what's right and what's wrong morally, things athiests live by, but also believe don't actually exist (they're hypocrits). Also Imagine saying religion is nonsensical when it's actually beneficial for society, unlike atheism, religion gives purpose and hope. Religious people are better at reproducing which as an athiest if you believe in darwins theory, reproducing is your main goal in life beside surviving. But if you're a nihilist why not just d** already, you cant make up purpose, stop lying to yourself. Athiests can only live a contradiction or with contradictions in the way they live their life compared to their beliefs.
@Fatram Fatram
Edit: I'd like to add how I Iove how you athiests are the exact same in nature (indenial). You cannot justify your beliefs so you attack others, it's so pathetic and baseless your attacks and your beliefs, sad af.
Also I dont get why you athiests love to preach against the belief in god when it's a "beneficial lie" in your perspective just like human rights. You dont see athiests preaching against human rights. Now religion is actually beneficial to society unlike athiesm, which takes away purpose, hope, justice, right and wrong, selflessness, appreciation of design. So why do you lot have a double standard when it comes to God? Aren't human rights just as made up as god in your belief?
ohhh damn!! You got me! I'm gonna stop believing in this fairytale now, bc since you called it a fairytale, it must be a fairytale!!!! Life has no purpose, I'm not born for any reason other than to reproduce and survive, and if I see no point in that, then I must be a mutation, bc of my nihilistic belief, that life really is pointless. I think I'll stay true to my belief and k¡II myself, unlike most athiests. You really convinced me!! Why should I believe in god?its not like I have reason to right???? Clearly selflessness is just an illusion, me wanting to help a dying man on the side of the street is misplaced compassion, it'd be ridiculous and of no benefit for me, and that compassion must come from a hidden selfishness inside of me, being used wrong bc in this case I wont gain anything by helping this person who has nothing to offer. Compassion, selflessness doesnt actually exist. Purpose doesnt exist, design doesnt exist, right and wrongs dont actually exist, GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!
BS aside. What you call a fairytale is the entire history of humanity. Atheism has barely any part in human past, and you can't prove otherwise. You're the one living a made up story FILLED with plot holes and inconsistencies.
I believe in God bc I believe humans do have a purpose, we do have an understanding that right and wrongs exist, we appreciate design of the universe, we understand compassion and selflessness which doesn't come from selfishness as darwinians would have you believe. I believe the universe doesnt have an infinite past. I believe whatever is infinte must be the necessary cause (it has nothing that caused it to be, but always was) I believe that necessary cause must be unchanging, and I believe that necessary cause that is unchanging and infinite must have intention, for the dominos to fall (cause and effect).
What would be absurd is to deny things you believe in. I'm not gonna deny human rights, or the creator, and in not gonna deny logic by believing there was this "point" that was changing for infinity or no time at all, until suddenly it exploded just bc!!! and expanded into what is the universe now. I believe whatever it was, whether it was a point, that exploded and expanded into the universe as it is, must have been created, bc something that changes cannot have an infinte past. I will not deny logic, and I will not deny purpose, selflessness behaviours that clearly exist in the world, I wont deny rights and I wont deny things that are wrong from being wrong no matter what the majority believes, whether it be r*pe, or k!IIing humans based on their skin colour or accepting g@¥ rights. These will be wrong no matter what the majority believe in. Goodbye.
Apparently, Subboor's explanation went over Alex's head. Alex's justification for human rights is not due to the intrinsic reality of the concept, but its utilitarianism for maximizing pleasure which is supposedly objectively measurable. The fact that the variable can change from human rights into a belief in God that also maximizes pleasure is exactly the same type of justification, which would be an incoherent position for an atheists to hold because it's a mutually exclusive belief with respect to their worldview. It doesn't matter whether either is intrinsically true because that was never the reason for Alex's justification. But he's also waffling here because he actually does believe human rights exist in the sense that there is some intrinsic truth to the concept otherwise he wouldn't believe it exists in the first place, which he doesn't believe exists for the concept of God. So he's towing the line between it being a useful concept and being true just to effectively delude himself into believing that there is a basis to his belief, which is the entire point of the lack of justification.
Good point
no, alex fully acknowledges that human rights are not an objective truth.
humans want to do what they think gives them the most pleasure and causes as little suffering as possible. and thats is fact about human nature. you cant want to do something that causes you to suffer, unless that suffering is pleasure for you, which then means it isnt suffering anymore. there is nothing wrong about saying that its objectively true that humans want to have as little suffering as possible. so you simply use that to make laws. the reason you cant replace human rights with god is because human rights would be based on a concept that exists objectively in humans, which is maximization of pleasure. if you were to replace it with god and not believe in god, then its literally the same as replacing it with a stone. human rights are based on a concept which is intrinsically true within human nature. religion in this case would be literally something made up (if you were to not believe it like a lot of people do and that was also part of the argument), and this does matter because then you could also say you made up a stone with texts on it which say that rape is awesome and slaughter is celebrated but its totally fine to believe in it because you say so. it doesnt work that way with human rights because humans wanting to maximize pleasure is a fact, which human rights would be based on. its simply a natural fact in this context and not comparable with believing in god since that wouldnt be.
@Xe Zey Yeah I know. He begrudgingly admits that human rights can't be morally justified because it's simply a useful construct that when enforced would allegedly maximize human pleasure, or more generically, maximize “the common good". His justification for its existence is the latter. But, so what? Moral nihilism asserts that objective standards of morality don't exist in Reality, i.e., that morality isn't ontological. So then what is a human right if it doesn't at least implicitly enforce a moral ought as the term implies? It loses all its meaning. He's incoherent.
@@ScarredRomeo i dont see the problem. lets say its nihilistic. that doesnt mean we shouldnt have those laws. theyd still be useful because we as humans want to maximize pleasure. whether theres a point to us wanting to have maximum pleasure is irrelevant to whether we want to live with laws that allow for maximizing pleasure. we simply want to because we want to. we wouldnt need objective morals to justify that we objectively want to live with maximized pleasure.
@@TimeattackGD I think many people miss the point. This isn't a question about having laws. It's a question of whether human rights *in the common sense of the term* can be justified from an atheistic worldview. That some society can have such and such laws that exist to enforce the rights of some humans so that their pleasure is maximized is not what is meant by the term. It is a universal that presupposes something intrinsic to the human condition. Alex alleges that some maximization of human pleasure (whatever that entails) is sufficient to determine human rights. He underlies this with the notion that every human being seeks pleasure, which is effectively a first principle of Natural Law ethics, though it is probably put more accurately as, every human being seeks what it believes to be good for itself, and seeks to avoid what it believes to be evil for itself. But the latter is subjective, and only when that good or evil can be classified as objective can anything like *human* moral agency and *human* rights be justified. If he believes that moral agency is subjective, then he is being incoherent when talking about *human* rights.
I’m a Christian but godbless Suboor
Quran 45;23
Sahih International
Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded?
Good point brother👍wich means the more knowledgeble a person is, he should be has more God's consciousness in him and not the otherwise
Amazing reflection! thank you
@@chrischow9085 your ignorance of quotin half a verse of which you have no understanding of context or whats it talkin about should be your primary concern as it reflects on state of your ignorance and intellectual thinking and ability to study any scripture or literature
@@adnan86pk How's surah an-nisa 4:34 sound?
Or is that out of context too?
so you switch to another verse????and anyone who has any genuine interest in learning about any particular verse would look into its context, and many other factors as well..for 4:34 if you are genuinely interested in understanding it and not pushing your agenda on it i recommend listening talks of Dr. Jonathan brown or Sheikh Hamza Yusuf or Dr. Yasir Qadhi...or go to your nearby mosque and directly ask the responsible person there...take references, check those references and it will help you...good luck
So what basis does Alex have to categorically reject the minority claim of ‘painting the house yellow’ (in the example he gave)? Doesn't his argument simply lie on what majority of the people believe in? It reminds me of this:
“And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.” [Quran 6:116]
I think Subboor's final statement did really well to sum up the debate, that truth is not democratic :D
What difference is that to any theist who believes their god is true and therefore their moral framework is objective?
@@sorthist9007 The difference between chalk and cheese, because if you follow the claim of the majority, your views would be subjective. The implications of that can be horrifying.
@Meshari
You have to prove the foundations to me (god exists or morality is objective) or you are just stating an opinion
Islamic apologist arguing for christianity . What a PATHETIC situation!😂
@Pablo Pappachan how is he arguing for christianity? the entire debate is if atheism can justify human rights. all suboor said is christianity’s objective morals are dominant in the western world.
💯Subhanallah! I can't believe if Alex becomes a Muslim If God Wills. Its gonna be Exemplary 🖤May Allah guide him to the straight path & enlighten him with right Knowledge. People like him are gonna turn into being the Best of Mu'mins , Hasbunallah 🤲🏻
*"if Alex becomes a Muslim"* Alex is Vegan(wouldn't accept a god that condones the unnecessary slaughter of non-human animals) and also too intelligent to accept things on less than merit worthy evidence. Besides it isn't necessary for Alex to side with any theocratic ideology for him to be well reasoned in his arguments.
There is no way on earth Alex will convert to Islam he wasn't indoctrinated from a child like you. For secular non religious people, religion is basically socially acceptable delusion. If 1 person beleives they have magical fairies at the bottom of their garden we call that person crazy. If a billion people talk about sky wizards and prophet's on flying horses it's just a religion that should be respected. SMH
Definitely Subboor destroy the atheist. Alhamdulillah
This guy is jumping crazy, unstoppable, when he talks he throws infinite red herrings. This makes it is really hard to follow the line of argumentation. He has no line of argumentation. His form of skepticism is also unbelievable. He cannot confirm something, as every question is questioned of legitimacy. It is really awefull to listen to.
lmao which guy bruh
Aun Maqsood
The word Skepticism implies that he’s talking about the Atheist.
max 12 The atheist
Who?
Yes you all assumed as i also do who did he refers to.but hes the one who know.i agree that it is verily painful to hear.this alex should hear to his own argument it looks like hes nearly going to confuses himself by his own speech.however hes have to be credited for trying
The starting background was awesome
Exactly my thought
The Intro Music was epic 🙂 I felt as if I was travelling through time & history !!
Alex had to hesitate to say whether rape was moral or not. How on Earth is he defending human rights when he can't even condemn rape outright?! The whole concept behind rape is that it is non CONSENSUAL. The act of sex is same but it's the consent that matters.
Lol true
Morals are subjective. If you believe rape is wrong then that just subjective opinion (and most people agree with this opinion)
This is not like 1+1 = 2. It is not something can be measured. Morals are created by societies over time
Also, rape is not always considered to be wrong by all societies in all circumstances. In wars, men most of time forcefuly took enemies women as sex salve or wives without their consent . Even muslims did that in wars, where they took the females of infidels they conquered as wives or slaves.
In many ancient societies, parent even choose the wives or and husbands for the kids without consent. The children have to agree (specially if she female) without any objection.
@@killermoon635 You can make a pretty strong argument why women in that case are justified of being forced to be slaves for the man and compelled to do sex with the man that otherwise used to be hostile to her nation, because she choose a man as a life partner that tried to kill that man that now took her as slave, she also implicitly at least supported the killing of such a man, so as a "repairation" for such wrongdoing, shes justified to become a slave of such a man.
1:36:50 "𝐈𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 on this subjective moral principle, which we do, then we can make the objective derivative that rape is wrong"
1:36:58 "No, they wouldn't, but again, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 to whether it's correct or not"
Which one is it, Alex?
Lol, the fact that he has to think if rape is objectively wrong or not is a big enough red flag of what atheism creates.
F L tureeee
Yesn't
Can someone explain
@@rambobgv4508 He is conditioning agreement for saying that rape is wrong. A few seconds later he dismisses whether people agree or not and says that it is irrelevant.
I don't think Alex ever went to a non western country. He just assumes that a person living in India or Saudi Arabia weather muslim or non muslim would think that pain and pleasure is the criteria by which we determine what is moral. Which simply isn't true. Morality where I live in for people of any religion or non religion is simply self evident. Even an atheist here would say homosexuality is objectively wrong just as atheists in the UK think incest (with contraceptions) is wrong. It has nothing to do with pain or pleasure. Now what right does he have to impose his worldview of deriving morality from pain and pleasure to the rest of the world to many parts of which this idea is simply alien! This is exactly what the colonizers did 300 years ago. Why do we have to conform to your paradigm of morality? Why can't the opposite happen?
Also about humans in a different possible world having no pain receptors, I think Alex understood what Subboor was saying but he just pretended not to. It's just like humans trying to imagine what a 5th dimension would look like. Just because we cannot conceive it in our minds that doesn't mean it is not possible. It's called the ego centric predicament. Imagine trying to describe what the experience of color is to a born blind. Similarly, just because we cannot imagine us with a different sense(?) other that pain or pleasure that doesn't mean it is impossible. Hey, if darwinian evolution is true, then it came up with our sense of pain and pleasure, why would something different not be possible? They would just have a different way to be sentient or whatever word they come up with to describe their experience. If you time travelled to before the emergence of life, you wouldn't be able to conceive any sense of pain or pleasure then either.
What country do you live in?
"weather muslim or non muslim"
just a spelling note, it's whether not weather (state of atmosphere)
@@user-bq3cw3bw8t I think it was a typo
@@mohammadabu-zidan497 Interesting that Alex agrees with Ibn Taymiyya.
@@icelerate8141 Indeed. As Jon Hoover correctly says, Ibn Taymiyya was a 'modern thinker'. His views on epistemology and empiricism are shared by many atheists.
I think he will cause an intellectual earthquake in the West once his ideas are well understood, because they allow many people to be 'intellectually satisfied monotheists' to borrow the phrase.
Subboor Bhai, Allah aapko Jaza-e-Khair de. Your content is a gold mine.May Allah remove the doubts in our minds.
A fools gold mine. He kept misrepresenting what Alex was saying and trying some "gatchya" techniques to win brownie points with the audience. He's not a rational being.
Oh bhai is Suboor ko Conner Ka aik lafz bhi samajh nae aya. Idhar udhar ki maari ja raha tha. Ghor say suno.
@@510tuber Okay Jeffrey 🤡
@@510tuber your statement contradicts the video itself..
Subboor: is rape wrong objectively past, present,future yes or no?
Atheist: Yesn't. 😂
1:35:21
SubhanAllah and i thought they only used yesn’t in memes or jokes. Thats actually mad 😂
@@globalcoupledances
Why your not accepting the truth?
Alex hide the human moral value's
Alex only talk on subjective and objective..
If he like eat banana so it is not completion that each and every body like it.. atheism its own way... ana banana for him not for us...
@@globalcoupledances this is an adhominum attack... Nobody said that Subboor condones Gang rapes
@@globalcoupledances liar
@@globalcoupledances wait so u believe rape is not wrong????
May Allah grant brother subboor more wisdom and knowledge of Islam. Aameen
You sound like a 5 year old playing dungeons and dragons.
*Islam is above evry thing*
No it isn't ... Human rights are above Islam.
@Cool Basketball In a debate where you challenge "Human rights" I mis-understand Islam?
Who can possibly challenge human rights? Satan and Islam ...is there anyone else?
@@socratesson4320 Apparently, you're misunderstanding everything..
@@socratesson4320 first learn how to wash yourself after shiiting then we can discuss human rights
@@socratesson4320 Islam Grants human rights who are Always for the best, Without Islam humanity will never achieve what is possible, Plus we don't compulse you To become muslims If you desire to do whatever you wish go Ahead it's not really bothering us, What's bothering us Is Those Islamophobes who go around our houses and taking away our human rights and we are not really doing anything to them. It's really a world full of hypocrites we live in.
I think that Subboor did not press hard enough on the subject of human exceptionalism.This is a concept that no atheistic philosophy can rationally justify.Only monotheistic religion can.
because human exceptionalism isnt real. we are just another animal. the most advanced tho
@@RobinXlone OK!then you should stop taking antibiotics(microbes are living creatures) or eating eating chicken. You should also stop using insecticides when cockroaches invade your home and putting traps to mice. If you do,you are no less criminal then Jack the Ripper or Adolph Hitler
@@braikoro3975 im ok with being hitler jr.
@@RobinXlone advancement is a foundation of human exceptional ism.
@@RobinXlone a animal don't have sense of sense of self restrictions just like humans do
Arguing that there are objectively "good" things to act upon in order to reach a particular goal doesn't answer the question if the goal itself is morally good and therefore "worth" pursuing to begin with.
We dont even need a debate for this topic bcuz atheism cant "prove" good or bad.
Exactly, a person can hold any moral position and still be as much atheist as the other person
bark alah fek saboor .. jazak alah khyrn .. you were genuis as usual mashalah
These arguments are amazing.
"We also discovered that truth is democratic " I laughed so hard at this 😂 but if you think of it he destroyed Alex's position only by that statement because essentially that is all that he was saying
ألله أكبر
Muslim Man omg i never even realized that. he killed 2 birds with 1 stone
Truth in Essence is an objective thing. But things which cannot be certain and is vague is an agreed thing by a society. Take LGBT for example. Its ok because UK sasy so. and Take China for example. Ughyurs are getting a lot of pain but the chinese thinks its ok. Few biologist take Darwin theory to be completely true and Some christian believe in a flat earth theory and thats true. Is Karma True? Ask yourself.
timestamp please :)
@@faiyadh9558 Just like islamic countries think it is okay to punish or give death penalty a certain way. Oh wait, they are not real muslims and I am engaging in hasty generalisation. My bad.
@@Noa...... No actually that is okay, as long as it is not outside the limits God has set. For example Saudi Arabia has very low rates of crimes in fact one of the worlds lowest, the others being UAE and the rest of the GCC. You made the false assumption that we were liberals and were looking to appease liberalism. Nothing wrong with capital punishment, just because the west can't properly reduce it's crime rates in a logical way, doesn't mean we can't (we had 1000 years of experience and were already given the answers from Allah, without us needing to find out through trial and error)
Saboor you are my hero.. May Allah guide you to more knowledge.. I learn a lot from you... ❤️❤️♥️👍
I have so much respect for Alex, I wish we have more videos from brother Subbor and Alex... Both sides can learn from each another and also teach us some more...
Props for brother Subbor for he did really great in this debate!
Subboor been hitting the gym
@Schizophrenia Sometimes we got a fool here gentlemen let's give him a big 💩
@Schizophrenia Sometimes we got a comedian here
Schizophrenia Sometimes Your name implies you have schizophrenia so no one should take you seriously
Schizophrenia Sometimes big nose means masculinity.
Ahmed Nashif something that Alex doesn’t have 😂 crying about a debate that took place over a year ago (MH debate)
Mashallah this is Subboor bai at his insightful and cutting best, also big fan of Alex's mind, arguments, eloquence and manners too. God bless them both
Hijab destroyed Alex
Subboor dismantled Alex
Mashallah either way!
@@kirankumarreddy7335 You must be exhausted after worshipping some 33thousand "Gods" so you turned to atheism...who would blame you..🤪
Eww is that what you know about hinduism? I bet you know even less about islam
@@kirankumarreddy7335 how do u know?? Hah
@@tanjinaafrin2937 know what?
@Karl Kani i know and i am not a hindu.. someone assumed i am by my name... And neither is islam any logical...
He lost the argument in Suboor's opening speech.
Yes that's true
How?
"Allah exists because.... I say so."
Basically how most debates with muslims go. 😒
J'adore Alles
Yes that makes sense lol
J'adore Alles
“God doesn’t exist.... because someone says so”
The Intro looks sick, more of that please , the content is as sick (in a good way) ;)
Subboor is a very logical man .
Nobody who follows the Bible or Quran is logical
alex ojideagu Do not expect too much from this channel’s audience. Most cannot be taken seriously.
They were not atheist because everyone was Religious back then. Very few scientists literally believe miracles in the Bible and Quran. There is no evidence for any of them.
@@makeitsimple9990 we need only dig 2-3 questions deep with you to prove you are projecting. Each Atheist/Agnostic is lost in their own little way.
What pray, do you believe in?
@@user-s8jb3qb6y I'm Atheist, I'll answer your question 3 years later. I believe in being kind to others, patience, understanding, honesty, integrity, doing the best you can, valuing and appreciating those who are close to you, developing genuine relationships, treating others with respect, etc !
1:08:15 brilliant response by Br Subboor, May Allah bless him, ameen
I really wanted to understand Alex’s points but he fumbled and hesitated himself. 55:00 & 1:35:20
Also, why did the moderator even bother to ask the audience which side are they, proceeded to making conclusion that the motion passed just because many raised their hands? If that’s the case, this whole debate/discussion weren’t necessary at all 🤦🏻♀️
May Allah give Alex hidayat. I can see he's pretty genuine. To my Muslim brothers and sisters, let's be respectful even if some people doesn't give us the same amount of respect.
Was Alex not respectful? (Or are you saying others haven't been? Because that I've certainly seen.) If you think Alex wasn't, I'd be curious to know what points of disrespect I missed, because I thought he was, even if vehement in certain disagreements, and occasionally frustrated that he wasn't apparently being understood on some points.
I love Subboor for the sake of Allah .
Alex's position: the truth of human rights existing is not important because it's useful.
Also Alex's position: the truth of whether or not God exists is most important, even though believing God exists is useful.
"the truth of whether or not God exists is most important, even though believing God exists is useful."
It seems like you'd argue that taking the blue pill is preferable to the red one. In contrast I'd say that leading an enlightened lifestyle maximizes the total pleasure in the long run and as such is preferrable to staying ignorant.
@@PeterPan-dy4wd I ain't arguing anything, just pointing out the inconsistency of Alex's position.
Islamic apologist arguing for christianity . What a PATHETIC situation!😂
Because God existing would have tangible implications and change the foundations of the entire scientific model.
It would be different if people spoke of God in the same way they spoke about human rights (most people don't speak about rights in a way that have universal implications), then it really wouldn't matter, but it is spoken about it in a different category.
There are people who do think about religion in that way (as in it's nice to believe in), but others use it far more literally and want to change scientific bodies of work.
@@simphiwe4930
"God existing would have tangible implications and change the foundations of the entire scientific model."
*it was a God believing Individual who is known as the father of scientific method.*
"but others use it far more literally and want to change scientific bodies of work."
*Scientific bodies are there as a result of religious poeple.*
If selfishness is an evolutionary trait then humans can't be held responsible for their actions ?blame it on ????
Just because it explains something does not mean it excuses it.
@19 December 19 yeah so rip to the law system which is predicated on humans choosing what to do.
@19 December 19 rip logic and rationality
Islamic apologist arguing for christianity . What a PATHETIC situation!😂
Correct.
2:56 Alex opening
23:59 Suboor opening
43:47 open dialogue
Alex followers in his channel are mostly attacking islam and suboor but not his arguments. Shameful
59:00 I disagree with Alex's logic about rape in Evo2. He said rape would only be accepted if everyone, including the victim, felt it was okay, and hence it wouldn't be rape anymore. Here he has moved goalposts. Question is about rape ONLY, not consensual sex. And his imagined scenario where even the victim wants the sex isn't rape to even start with. So he has not addressed the question at all. He should have tackled a rape situation in Evo2 that can still exist even if the people considering the pleasure/pain didn't feel any worse off for raping. and that would be for example if the victim was a different species.
Rape means non-consensual sex. Non-consensual means at least 1 party did not *want* to have sex. If there is evo2 where no one feels worse off from being raped then why would they not consent? This goes back to Alex's notion that sentience necessarily implies some kind of pleasure and pain system otherwise a sentient creature would have no incentive to make decisions.
@@flashg3292 Non consentual doesn't mean one party didn't want to have sex, it means that one party didn't accept to have sex. You can consent to something without wanting it. If you systematically let people have sex with you when you don't want it without objection, it's damn near impossible to make the claim that you didn't let it happen.
Moral exceptionalism was the open and shut case bro.
Moral exceptionalism is a given. A thing that thinks it has morals thinks it has the right morals whether it is an atheist, a hindu, a shark, a dentist or a star. The evidence for this is that judgements about the rightness of morals is itself a moral judgement. So something that thought its morals were wrong could only do so based on its morals and that's a contradiction.
The kicker here a consistent set of moral values maybe be impossible in practice. And what good are morals if they aren't practiced?
@Planck M. I never claimed that my argument justifies Alex's claim that animals don't have moral agency.
Good and evil, right and wrong are concepts of human minds. They aren't objective. If they were objective then there would be some reliable method we could agree on for deciding ethical questions that wasn't dependent on the person applying the method.
I am open to counter arguments, not mere assertions, but reasoned arguments based on clear premises. So if you have one for objective morality I'd like to hear what it is.
@Planck M. i mean good and evil doesn't exist, they're just concepts
@Planck M. but then that framework would only work with the existense of god, which you need to prove so, also that would imply that an objective moral system is better
Love iera for presenting such phenomenal argumentation and Love suboor's groundings so firm knowing exactly what he is putting forth as a preposition 👍
It feels like he's just throwing terms right left and center, instead of trying to simplify it to best be assimilated by the average person, saboor is why more clear and consistent with his arguments, may Allah guide us all
I love that Irish guy who asked those 2 awesome questions about Alex being a law giver to the animal kingdom and also that animals are better at seeking pleasure and avoiding pain
Not really, as Alex stated he's not making laws he's just stating something that we have scientific evidence for which is animals can feel pleasure and pain and therefore they have a moral worth, what is wrong with that? Feeling pleasure and pain doesn't imply moral agency however to have moral agency one does need to feel pleasure and pain, it's very common to just have the former and not the latter.
@@fantasypgatour pain and pleasure are not in science. wanna talk?
@@ahmadfrhan5265 What do you mean?
@@fantasypgatour i mean science doesn't show pain and pleasure nor can show what's " good or bad " and you are misinformed about science and can't talk like you anything and saying it's " common knowledge ". are you an atheist? if yes i can prove to you literally that all atheists can't prove anything and i mean literally anything.
@@ahmadfrhan5265 Science certainly can show pain and pleasure, maybe you would do well to dive in to neuroscience? It can't show what's objectively good and bad because that's up for debate as it is but it shows that people can have subjectively "good" and "bad" experiences. I'm not an atheist no, I do believe in god but it has nothing to do with scripture or indoctrination.
Your videos have blessed me so much- thank you brother- Mashallah
Alex presents himself well, eloquent speech, circular argument posed in a beautiful rhetoric....but ultimately waffle loooool
It's like, I don't understand what he means most of the time because of complex language and a kind of word play. When he or Subboor simplify it, it waffles fast.
@Planck M. That's kind of scary. Makes you think how far people are willing to go for these causes? How do you justify that to yourself anyway...
Islamic apologist arguing for christianity . What a PATHETIC situation!😂
@@armins.601 Well religion went really far for there books so you have nothing to say.
@@nylehaywood2471 Islam is a 100. I don't know what you've been reading. Look into it if you haven't. I promise it's the truth 😃😃
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته المرجو منكم أيها الإخوة الكرام أن تترجموا هذه المناظرة للغة العربية من أجل أن تعم الفائدة ، جزاكم الله خيراً
The main question is this.
Can Alex objectively prove that pleasure and pain decide what is morally good and bad respectively?
Can you objectively prove Muhammed went to Outer space on a winged horse ?
@@carrysnowdrift7890
Yes.
But your question does not answer my question.
@@najaah62 Okay prove it and you will find that it answers your question.
@@carrysnowdrift7890 its called bhaagna
@@carrysnowdrift7890 You're pulling red herrings, typical. We simply believe he performed miracles because he was a truthful man with the correct message, because the foundation of Islam is strong. But you have no foundation, you cannot prove anything from your standards, you only assume.
I find it ironic how much Alex values consistency because his arguments, at their basic levels, are inconsistent.
He seems to display an inclination towards ‘crowd-sourcing,’ or ‘majority wins.’ He is basing his morals on what MOST people want, the pleasures and sufferings that the MAJORITY experiences, and the most common causes of these experiences.
But why is he so adamant on upholding this? Why is it so right to him?
You see, the idea of considering the opinions of most or majority as the truth on which principles are based, is in itself an inconsistency.
He is completely ignoring the fact that humans are completely capable of being wrong, that we are all imperfect and flawed at both the individual and societal level.
So why would we base our judgements of what WE like or dislike, when there are no solid reasonings that make these judgements true?
Haven’t you heard of the phenomenon of ‘bandwagoning’, in which people blindly follow others, for practically no reason other than ‘majority wins’? Wouldn’t that be a major opening for all immoral and unjust actions?
If most people believed that rape is morally correct, when a small majority experiences suffering from it (those being the ones raped or otherwise related), would this make rape morally sound?
Although the majority of people have experienced pleasure, there is still a small proportion that has experienced immense suffering. However, since the suffering of that small group of people did not exceed the pleasure received by the larger group, would this make it a morally correct judgement? A legal act?
It simply makes no sense. It is an inconsistent judgement, based on ultimately changing and immoral principles. How could what the majority decides be the determining factor for law and human rights? It is complete and utter nonsense.
@@chrischow9085 Why wouldn’t people believe that rape is morally correct? When there are no scriptures, no pre-defined, unchanging, objective laws based on concrete principles, that could direct them to what is right or wrong, what makes them think rape is wrong? Also, scriptures are not written by men. True scriptures, at least. The Quran was written by God. This is essential, because only God is truly unchanging. When you have a society that bases its laws on its own likes or dislikes, you have an unstable, inconsistent society. These laws can change so easily. For example, a change in the population of people who like the color ‘yellow’, as the example Alex has used, could make them repaint the entire city yellow. But why is yellow correct? What would make them think so? Most people like yellow now, that is true, but there are still some who like blue. Does that mean that those who like blue have now become in the wrong? This is a very idiotic system, so fragile and easily changed. It does not make sense to apply it on a society at a larger scale.
As Ahmed Subhoor has said, there is a reason why most have clutched on to religion for so long (over 1400 years to be exact). It’s simply better for us individually, and us societally.
No you didnt understand him. Every human trys to avoid pain, its not the majority.
@Ninja FEESE yes. Every human wants to avoid pain/suffering. You can literally see it in the brain and it makes sense
Saboor lost me at 53:00 not being able to understand what being sentient means. Not listening and interrupting repeating the same question after Alex explains it 5 times.
atheist : all you people always mis understood atheist position
christian : all you people always mis understood the trinity god
(Islam : Crystal Clear.)
Due to fairness i edited just for islam : all you people always mass mis informed about islam.
(when i read the comment section, tooo many dark cloudy miss information about the truth of islam).
Fabrications get confusing, truths are clear.
@hanifan pv
Not really, in islam there's the division between sunni and shia and a spectrum that goes from secular to extremist. Atheism is just the nonbelief in deities.
Jonatan D Even Shias can’t prove any of their belief from Quran. Is God at fault if we decide to ignore his guidance and follow our desires. Or can you stop the group of people who bring their evidence from fabricated sources for their beliefs. We humans are born with free will and that is the reason you are an atheist and others from different beliefs. There can be only one truth. Because Rape being wrong can’t be right and wrong at the same time. Part of Shiasm is not part of Islam according to Quran.
Jonatan D
You cannot compare shiism and sunnism when it comes to athiesm vs. islam vs. christianity and etc. it is thoroughly *proven* that shiism essentially split from *mainstream* Islam due to initially the difference in *political* views as to who should have been the rightful successor to the caliphate.
Secondly, this theological difference between both strands did not emerge until almost 200-500 years after the coming of Islam, where followers of shiism began to interject completely *alien* beliefs and practices, and making their own innovations to *mainstream* islam.
Other than that essentially 80-90% of the Islamic adherents follow mainstream islam, with all these various groups being peppered left and right in small numbers, but no *evidence* of their existence can be found in the original texts.
Out of the remaining mainstream Islam, there are varying schools of thought based on *law* . Which is completely and absolutely fine as opposed to theological difference. Because laws can be interpreted differently based on one’s knowledge and intuition, except for issues over which the Quran and hadiths are explicit. What matters is that the *theology is the same*
"atheist position"??? That is not even a thing
Solid argument by Subboor, really clear and precise!!
True
I feel like he spends most of the time simply not understanding what Alex said. He needed 5 or 6 explanations of what a sentient being is and that it's independent of the evolutionary instance we're in.
Saboor May Allah bless you brother and my guid Alex to the truth in believing in one God.
I believe what Subboor was attempting to convey to Alex was that Pleasure and Suffering are not universal or laws of nature in such categorization as Gravity or Time. Pleasure and Suffering were contrived by sentience, Pleasure and Suffering necessitates sentience, but sentience does not necessitate Pleasure and Suffering. Alex was attempting to utilize the incomprehensible to substantiate his beliefs in regards to maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering i.e. propel a erroneous principle that can not substantiate his premise.
sentience DOES necessitate Pleasure and Suffering. name a living thing that doesnt experience pleasure or suffering
@@RobinXlone What?! I am referring too if the worlds species or simply humans had evolved in a contrasting mode, the feeling of pleasure and suffering might not even exist; something can be aware of its existence and have emotions i.e. sentience but that does not mean pleasure and suffering are always going to be apart of that sensational and emotional spectrum.
Edit: There are many living species that do not experience pleasure or suffering, do your research.
"They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to them the Guidance from their Lord!" ~ Surah Najm
This whole debate is summarised by this verse... All Alex did was presented assumptions, not a single proof was presented... Too much pseudoscience for my liking... he needs to realize that Science without proof is not Science... Also, I found tons of contradictions in his arguments...
E.G He said at 57:00-59:00 "Anything can't be placed in it" to basically maximize pleasure, the concept of God can't be thrown in but I have a question for him what about Gay people? If their sexual activities give rise to new diseases? and has the highest number of cases for STDs will it be included in the list of things which maximize pleasure??? He kinda answered it by saying that people who don't believe in 'truth', 'truth' being the Science or proof in this case, will do whatever they want anyway... So what does it say about our current society? Are we people who value the 'truth'? Given what I stated above is reality. What we witness is the total opposite...
On human exceptionalism, offering the slightest bit of superiority to humans means you don't really believe we are animals after all... What's so special about our evolution? Given plants, animals are also sentient beings and have the ability to express the pain in their own ways? Also, it's Hypocritical if you are going to say that yeah this bit applies to us but not this bit, It's a complete package you can't pick and choose. Either we are special or we are not! There is no in-between...
At the end what he basically said is mob rule is the 'objective truth'... People who commit suicide actually think they will find pleasure in it but according to our knowledge, it isn't the case... Death is the most painful experience the human body suffers from, Survival of the fittest and all that other jargon... What he said is if enough people find suicide to be acceptable, it would be morally alright to accept suicide and do nothing about it and by saying that he throws out evolution right outta the window and all this pleasure BS collapses on its head...
I'm gonna edit my comment later on as I have more to say... But this debate went nowhere... Peace!
"I'm gonna edit my comment later on as I have more to say..."
Qur'an 18
23 And never say of anything, "Indeed, I will do that tomorrow,"
24 Except [when adding], "If Allah wills." And remember your Lord when you forget [it] and say, "Perhaps my Lord will guide me to what is nearer than this to right conduct."
:)
depends what you mean by special, are we more intelligent? yeah that does give us a right to do what we want with those who aren't ? no
@@lubu2960 Does destroying your environment for your own survival counts as intelligence? Also, we being 'more' can be argued all day long.
E.G humans are the only living creatures on earth which commit suicide, what does that have to say about our so-called 'Intelligence'. It also goes against the very theory of evolution, why would an organism want to kill itself??? It sounds to me we are dumber than the most animals out there...
As I said before either you say humans are unique or they aren't, you can't pick and choose bits from a human being unique and then choose some bits from humans not being unique...
Don't say what you do not know to be true. That is one big difference between theists and atheists. The first group claim to know the absolute truth about life and the universe while the second are trying to search for it using evidence and basing their opinions as the evidence changes.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates.
@@mustafapk1516 What do you mean you cannot "choose" bits and pieces of humans being unique? That's an ultimatum you just made up on the spot , what is your evidence that you cannot see in what ways humans are unique to other animals? You definitely can.
Anyone know where Subhoor got his shirt from??!! I really want it!!
“You can be consistent in nonsense” 🤣 Alex waffled on to the point there is no consistency in what he was saying to the point he didn’t make sense. Painful.
True alhamdulilah
Agree, all alex debate against muslim scholar, one thing consistent about alex is his inconsistency, wafling, contradicting himself/his premises
I noticed one stark difference, that is, brother Subboor Ahmad's concise speech.
Each time I see these kind of debates, I see the disbelievers hide behind jargons and jugglery of words to conceal their nonsense.
It was narrated in Sahih Bukhari that, our Prophet (PBUH) was sent with concise speech.
Al-Bukhari said, Conciseness of speech means when many meanings which would take books to write before are summed up in a phrase or two.
I pray to Allah that, may He increase the ability of this ummah to propagate truth and counter falsehood with clear speech according to the teachings of our Prophet (PBUH).
Jazakallah brother
My goodness Alex really hogs the floor doesn’t he. Got really bored of his voice towards the end.
And it really annoyed me how theyd call time when Subboor would talk a bit but they just let Alex unfold like a flower in the springtime.
maybe you should watch the unedited version. you get bored with alex explaining the same thing over and over? me too, but if subboor had ANY clue as to what alex was saying we wouldn't have to go over the points again and again. subboor really doesn't seem to understand that in bizarro world (his universe B) bad stuff is good and good stuff is bad, that universe B is irrelavant.
@@HarryNicNicholas not a chance I’ll put myself through a longer version of that
@@jmdrummondThis version of the debate is so heavily edited. It borders on fiction. They cut out a lot of subboor sounding like an idiot.
@@timr6642 well give me a full version
Yes Drummond indeed. It's painful to explain something to a man who is hell-bent of believing fiction. Hence the boredom. If Subboor had the ability to comprehend what he was saying, then it would've been a different scenario.
1:25:20 missed opportunity of telling Alex, "now suddenly you want to forcefully impose your morals!"
That's the inner Mohammed Hijab talking XD
“ the objective derivares that we make from a subjective principle can be legitimate” I still don’t understand how you can logically drive objectivity from subjectivity. Idk if there’s a philosophical lesson I missed that clarifies that
You didnt. Its all mumbo jumbo waffle waffle walla walla bing bang shazaam
It's called building a castle on thin air.
Same do I, non sense for athletes perspective
that atheist guy was waffling and tries to escape
No he didn't 👍🏼
He obviously made too much sense for you 👌🏼
@@lightyagami6855 good luck with that then
He was clearly waffling
@@roger5515 In English?
@@roger5515 nope lol. what are you talking about?
it's like saying
atheist: there is no god
muslim: there is no god but allah
muslim is half atheist
that doesnt make sense
It's not about maximising pleasure, it's about who regulates how we express our pleasure. If no one regulates how we express our pleasure then having sexual intercourse in a public park on a sunny day should be OK to atheists
For atheists, an Incestual sexual relationship with their own mother would be acceptable, based upon the "moral" principle of minimising suffering and maximising pleasure. As long as no child is born from such a relationship, then it's ok for them🤮.
Using Alex's "moral" principle. Even sex with animals would be acceptable for atheists. For example, if a dog started to sexually hump the leg of its owner, it would be perfectly acceptable for the owner to hump the dog back, as long as he doesn't injure the dog.😂🤣
They are already doing it and have been doing it for years where have you been? Have you heard about porn?
absolute idiots, you lot
I never thought of human rights as a christian hang over and that atheism cant justify rights either...Alex didn't give a undercutting argument that "Proves" it is a better justification than religions claiming to be from a divined source.
Christianity = Atheism
Atheism is just one claim on the lack of belief in any god(s). Of course, that alone cannot justify human rights.
Alex has been practicing his shapiro fast talk to avoid the issue.
saboir did gd job
That scumbag doesn't have the guts to debate a mainstream Muslim apologist. Atleast Alex debates his opponents. I can respect that.
@@saqlainalvi3333 and who are those mainstream muslims?
This is so true lol
@@shoaibkhan916 not college students
masha allah. Great debate bro subboor 🤗🤗🤗
আসসালামু আলাইকুম
ওয়ালাইকুম সালাম
Capital A for Allah