Dr Adnan Ibrahim on Emotional Atheism

[Godobeyer]

Let's try going back to the transcription of the video, painstakingly supplied by YmirGF, and comment it paragraph by paragraph.

Although that is really giving it a lot more effort than it has ever earned.


Here he is lying, insulting, encouraging obscurantist thought and being naive at the same time. Some accomplishment.

A real scientist would never stoop quite so low.


Conflating biological research with atheism out of sheer prejudice without regard to reality. Then he spices it up with some gratuitous mistification.

No hint of even any attempt at speaking about truth here.


I won't assume that he is fairly representing Swinburne's ideas, but in any case it is certainly possible to discuss biology without having any need to discuss the origins of the universe.

And again, it is just arrogance to presume that people can't in good faith simply doubt that the universe was meant to be.

Then he goes on to presume to have the authority to say that natural selection does not exist, even as he misrepresents it. That is foolish at best, but more likely dishonest. He is a proud fool, attempting to impress others with his arrogant ignorance. If he has any education at all he knows full well that natural selection is a biological idea, not a cosmological one, yet he conflates the two for dramatic effect. That is ugly and dishonest.

No idea what is this egg he is talking about. At this point he is not even attempting to appear coherent any longer.


Translation: "I neither understand atheists nor do I want to begin to try. It is so much more confortable to misrepresent them in an intensely arrogant, prejudiced way!"

This guy is lying outright about atheists here. It is even worse if he is somehow being sincere while so doing.

I don't take this as a good/fair analyse, you just mixed between his religious opinion and his negligent scientist/logic opinion.

He talking about atheists whom believe in evolution (natural selection,randomness...etc), are not most of the atheists believe in evolution and randomness ...etc ?


Maybe some (or maybe most) atheists believe that more they got educated about science,more that believe in God is reduce
,my religon calls for education .

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't take this as a good/fair analyse,

That is too bad. Because that is about as generous as it gets. By rights I should not even have spent this much effort.

you just mixed between his religious opinion and his negligent scientist/logic opinion.

Frankly, neither is worth of my attention. Or even fully developed to the point of being apart from each other.

He talking about atheists whom believe in evolution (natural selection,randomness...etc), are not most of the atheists believe in evolution and randomness ...etc ?

Common, yet serious mistake. Evolution is a demonstrated fact with no metaphysical significance. Its relationship to atheism is marginal at best.

At this point in history, accepting evolution is a matter of having access to some education in biology and not being blinded by religious fanaticism.

While atheism is just a natural, fully legitimate belief stance that never needed nor will ever need any justification.

I don't know if I ever met an atheist that saw evolution as a reason to become atheist. And it does not really work (nor does it need to work) the other way around, either: there are plenty of better reasons to doubt the existence of any God than the simple fact of biological evolution, which is not much of an arguing point. "There is no evidence of a creator God in biology" can only carry one so far, after all.

You are expecting people to need a reason not to assume a creator God. That is not at all a reasonable stance.

Maybe some (or maybe most) atheists believe that more they got educated about science,more that believe in God is reduce
,my religon calls for education .

That would never be apparent from that video, I am sorry to say.

I would love to be convinced otherwise. But it will not be Adnan Ibrahim to pull that trick unless he has a crisis of conscience (which he obviously badly needs, so that is not out of the picture) and calls back on pretty much everything he said previously about atheism.

 

[FearGod]

Let's try going back to the transcription of the video, painstakingly supplied by YmirGF, and commenting it paragraph by paragraph.

Although that is really giving it a lot more effort than it has ever earned.


Here he is lying, insulting, encouraging obscurantist thought and being naive at the same time. Some accomplishment.

A real scientist would never stoop quite so low.


Conflating biological research with atheism out of sheer prejudice without regard to reality. Then he spices it up with some gratuitous mistification.

No hint of even any attempt at speaking about truth here.


I won't assume that he is fairly representing Swinburne's ideas, but in any case it is certainly possible to discuss biology without having any need to discuss the origins of the universe.

And again, it is just arrogance to presume that people can't in good faith simply doubt that the universe was meant to be.

Then he goes on to presume to have the authority to say that natural selection does not exist, even as he misrepresents it. That is foolish at best, but more likely dishonest. He is a proud fool, attempting to impress others with his arrogant ignorance. If he has any education at all he knows full well that natural selection is a biological idea, not a cosmological one, yet he conflates the two for drammatic effect. That is ugly and dishonest.

No idea what is this egg he is talking about. At this point he is not even attempting to appear coherent any longer.


Translation: "I neither understand atheists nor do I want to begin to try. It is so much more confortable to misrepresent them in an intensely arrogant, prejudiced way!"

This guy is lying outright about atheists here. It is even worse if he is somehow being sincere while so doing.

I can't understand why you're annoyed by his opinion about the dishonesty of some scientists,
you may agree or disagree, but that isn't insulting if he think in a different way than yours.

 

[Godobeyer]

That is too bad. Because that is about as generous as it gets. By rights I should not even have spent this much effort.



Frankly, neither is worth of my attention. Or even fully developed to the point of being apart from each other.



Common, yet serious mistake. Evolution is a demonstrated fact with no metaphysical significance. Its relationship to atheism is marginal at best.

Atheism is just natural and needs no justification.

You are expecting people to need a reason not to assume a creator God. That is not at all a reasonable stance.

I do believe it's about lack of translation,so meaning lost by translate .

Evolution about original of life does not represent any facts, just claims (names)

Evolution does not give a certain answsers about what was primary intelligence that creat lifes (humans and others species).

Evolution in this principle cases is just theory of claims.

That would never be apparent from that video, I am sorry to say.

I would love to be convinced otherwise. But it will not be Adnan Ibrahim to pull that trick unless he has a crisis of conscience (which he obviously badly needs, so that is not out of the picture) and calls back on pretty much everything he said previously about atheism.

That point is in other video.

 

[Shad]

Biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.

(2) It asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing.


Supplement

It is now a common notion that any living thing can only come from another living thing, and no cellular life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter. For example, a spider lays eggs that will develop into spiders.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biogenesis

Biogenesis has zero to do with the origin's of life. Read you own sources. Life is biological life thus has zero to do with God unless you are conceding God is biological thus not God...

 

[Shad]

Evolution about original of life does not represent any facts, just claims (names)

Evolution does not address the origin's of life. You have no idea what evolution is.

Evolution does not give a certain answsers about what was primary intelligence that creat lifes (humans and others species).

There is no evidence of a "primary intelligence" hence nothing to talk about. You confused your religious point of view as if it scientific, it isn't.

Evolution in this principle cases is just theory of claims.

Nope it is a model that makes predictions which are correct based upon evidence. Just a theory is a fallacy in which you treat theory in the colloquial definition.

That point is in other video.

Your points are nonsense as neither you nor your videos have even a basic education regarding evolution. You have no idea what you are talking about so your posts amount to mindless babble.

 

[FearGod]

Biogenesis has zero to do with the origin's of life. Read you own sources. Life is biological life thus has zero to do with God unless you are conceding God is biological thus not God...

If life can originated from non-living matter then we have to see it happening in nature which isn't the case.

 

[Godobeyer]

If life can originated from non-living matter then we have to see it happening in nature which isn't the case.

So its just theory,"claims",have no evidence to proof it by science.

 

[Godobeyer]

Evolution does not address the origin's of life. You have no idea what evolution is.

As I understand.
Evolution is base on theories on this case , one cell becomes two ...go on .

There is no evidence of a "primary intelligence" hence nothing to talk about. You confused your religious point of view as if it scientific, it isn't.

Of course it's has no evidence, because this issue not belong to human science.

Nope it is a model that makes predictions which are correct based upon evidence. Just a theory is a fallacy in which you treat theory in the colloquial definition.

Not true, the theory is not fact.
as I know the ancient Darwin theory is reject by noe-evolution today.

 

[Shad]

As I understand.
Evolution is base on theories on this case , one cell becomes two ...go on .

That is basic biological mechanism

Of course it's has no evidence, because this issue not belong to human science.

Yet you want human science, namely evolution, to address this intelligence. You just contradicted yourself.

Not true, the theory is not fact.

I didn't say a fact, I said a model. Your point is moot since you do not understand what model and fact means.

as I know the ancient Darwin theory is reject by noe-evolution today.

No it isn't as it still uses Darwin as a basis. It was a competing model of evolution that didn't share the same views regarding natural mechanism. In modern times it is cultural anthropology and the evolution of human thought, values, ideas, etc.

 

[Shad]

If life can originated from non-living matter then we have to see it happening in nature which isn't the case.

Except that isn't what biogenesis is about so you still missed the point. Biogenesis is not an opposing view to abiogenesis It has nothing to do with the origin's of life but reproduction.

There were already experiment in which non-living matter give raise to living matter in the form of ammo acids, the basics of life. Your point is moot. Look up the Miller–Urey experiment

 

[Godobeyer]

That is basic biological mechanism

No ,evolution is claims about that, there is no evidence, if one cell become two and so structure a body , by it's own intelligence.

Yet you want human science, namely evolution, to address this intelligence. You just contradicted yourself.

No, I don't contradicted my self , just my point not receive well.
Had evolution process an back up intelligent ? if your anwser is "yes" , where that come from ?

I didn't say a fact, I said a model. Your point is moot since you do not understand what model and fact means.

Whatever , since it's not fact, name it as you want.

Dr Adnan called that "Give it a name"

No it isn't as it still uses Darwin as a basis. It was a competing model of evolution that didn't share the same views regarding natural mechanism. In modern times it is cultural anthropology and the evolution of human thought, values, ideas, etc.

There would be a time in future , all these actual theories of evolution would be rejected(corrected) , I am right ?

 

[Pudding]

This is the complete transcription for the video, the first two paragraphs transcribed by me and the later by YmirGF.

----------------------------------------
Science has developed and gone to great heights, brothers and sisters. And it has proven to us, beyond doubt, that the world of the cell. And this is how I shall call it: "The World of the cell", the "Universe of the cell" is a world that is exceedingly compound and complex, exceedingly skilled and clever, exceedingly intelligent, my brothers, exceedingly effective and exceedingly impressive, impressive to a degree that is inconceivable to the heart of a person who has not stood by the information provided to us by the science of the cell, Cytology.

And despite all this, atheists have always been until today, dealing with this matter as if it was simple, they firmly hold on to their false and lying god that known as randomness, "by chance", "by accident", "It happened by chance". Strange! They ditch the doctrine of a God who is living, knowledgeable, purposeful, willful, mighty, and wise, my brothers. And they firmly hold on the doctrine of randomness and chance, as they think they are scietific. Is science on their side? Are probability calculations and mathematics on their side? Nothing is on their side.

Nothing that has to do with real science is on their side. They are just lies and delusions. They make them up and give them names. And beware of this trick my brothers and sisters, the trick of "give it a name". We have quoted Nietzsche before "naming is authority". Of course this is the authority of scientists, scientific communities, circles, peer reviewed journals, and respected scientific committees. It they give something a name you must submit to it. This is a trick and a lie, committed by even great scientists, "Give it a name" and we will believe it afterwards.

They tell you "the origin of life is not that complicated" It is complication in itself. It is the greatest challenge to biological sciences and is one of the greatest challenges facing all atheistic minds, we say this confidently, not oratorically or metaphorically but scientifically and philosophically one of the greatest challenges, in my view, after the challenge of the mystery of the origin of the universe. How did it originate, my brothers, with all the fine-tuning and precision that we've spoken about several times before this is the first challenge.

That is why a very well know philosopher of science, Richard Swinburne, he said, "before they even talk about life and its origin, and how life has evolved on micro and macro levels.... ... before they talk about all this, they must answer the question on how did the universe originate?" and the universe did not originate randomly or by chance, but by a precise plan that is inconceivable to the mind of a human even if this human was a great Sufi (Islamic mystic). It is almost inconceivable, my brothers, and the mathematical models say this is how the universe originated and here there is no room for talk of natural selection, there were no millions and billions of universes for chance to select from and what do we mean by selection? Natural? This only works on the biological field and on the field of singularities.

The first seed of the universe. They used to call it the egg but it is still billions of times smaller than an egg, smaller than any sub-atomic particles by billions of times it is almost non-existence. "Give us an answer" says Richard Swinburne, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Answer the question about the mystery of the universe first then you can talk about the evolution of species by natural selection, randomness and mutations. Be careful, you must be methodical so you do not fall in the "will of atheism" simply wanting to be atheist and that's it.

Anyways, a person wanting to be an atheist is a matter that requires, at least on a personal level, that the should reconsider his stance and considerations because he might have disbelieved on a psychological or social basis not a rational scientific and philosophical basis. You cannot tamper with your eternal fate just to take revenge on society or on the priests and the clergy who have hurt you in the name of God and religion. Be careful you cannot play this ridiculous and foolish game. you must search well within yourself because the mind does not help you and science is not on your side and logic can never support your position. You have to take the matter very seriously. This is not a game.
----------------------------------------

 

[Godobeyer]

This is the complete transcription for the video, the first two paragraphs transcribed by me and the later by YmirGF.

----------------------------------------
Science has developed and gone to great heights, brothers and sisters. And it has proven to us, beyond doubt, that the world of the cell. And this is how I shall call it: "The World of the cell", the "Universe of the cell" is a world that is exceedingly compound and complex, exceedingly skilled and clever, exceedingly intelligent, my brothers, exceedingly effective and exceedingly impressive, impressive to a degree that is inconceivable to the heart of a person who has not stood by the information provided to us by the science of the cell, Cytology.

And despite all this, atheists have always been until today, dealing with this matter as if it was simple, they firmly hold on to their false and lying god that known as randomness, "by chance", "by accident", "It happened by chance". Strange! They ditch the doctrine of a God who is living, knowledgeable, purposeful, willful, mighty, and wise, my brothers. And they firmly hold on the doctrine of randomness and chance, as they think they are scietific. Is science on their side? Are probability calculations and mathematics on their side? Nothing is on their side.

Nothing that has to do with real science is on their side. They are just lies and delusions. They make them up and give them names. And beware of this trick my brothers and sisters, the trick of "give it a name". We have quoted Nietzsche before "naming is authority". Of course this is the authority of scientists, scientific communities, circles, peer reviewed journals, and respected scientific committees. It they give something a name you must submit to it. This is a trick and a lie, committed by even great scientists, "Give it a name" and we will believe it afterwards.

They tell you "the origin of life is not that complicated" It is complication in itself. It is the greatest challenge to biological sciences and is one of the greatest challenges facing all atheistic minds, we say this confidently, not oratorically or metaphorically but scientifically and philosophically one of the greatest challenges, in my view, after the challenge of the mystery of the origin of the universe. How did it originate, my brothers, with all the fine-tuning and precision that we've spoken about several times before this is the first challenge.

That is why a very well know philosopher of science, Richard Swinburne, he said, "before they even talk about life and its origin, and how life has evolved on micro and macro levels.... ... before they talk about all this, they must answer the question on how did the universe originate?" and the universe did not originate randomly or by chance, but by a precise plan that is inconceivable to the mind of a human even if this human was a great Sufi (Islamic mystic). It is almost inconceivable, my brothers, and the mathematical models say this is how the universe originated and here there is no room for talk of natural selection, there were no millions and billions of universes for chance to select from and what do we mean by selection? Natural? This only works on the biological field and on the field of singularities.

The first seed of the universe. They used to call it the egg but it is still billions of times smaller than an egg, smaller than any sub-atomic particles by billions of times it is almost non-existence. "Give us an answer" says Richard Swinburne, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Answer the question about the mystery of the universe first then you can talk about the evolution of species by natural selection, randomness and mutations. Be careful, you must be methodical so you do not fall in the "will of atheism" simply wanting to be atheist and that's it.

Anyways, a person wanting to be an atheist is a matter that requires, at least on a personal level, that the should reconsider his stance and considerations because he might have disbelieved on a psychological or social basis not a rational scientific and philosophical basis. You cannot tamper with your eternal fate just to take revenge on society or on the priests and the clergy who have hurt you in the name of God and religion. Be careful you cannot play this ridiculous and foolish game. you must search well within yourself because the mind does not help you and science is not on your side and logic can never support your position. You have to take the matter very seriously. This is not a game.
----------------------------------------

Thanks, but there is some sentences is like speechs, some lost meaning because different langauge looks senseless (Arabic not equal English) ,we are discuss the ideas that we extract from that speech

 

[Pudding]

Thanks, but there is some sentences is like speechs, some lost meaning because different langauge looks senseless (Arabic not equal English) ,we are discuss the ideas that we extract from that speech

Please made it clear which sentences lost meaning and provide accurate correction to remove the boundaries of different language so more people can understand what he is actually talking about.

 

[Pudding]

The video in the op represents the common strawman strategy frequently used by some believer upon atheist. Which the strawman is about "atheist believe the universe is created by randomness/chance".

I object their use of the label atheist without apply quantifier "some" to atheist.
Without doing so, it leads to the conception the atheist they talking about refer to all atheist.

Does all atheist really believe the universe is created by randomness/chance?
Please don't lump all atheist together, i'm sure there could be some atheist who have such beliefs, but all atheist believe so? Where is the evidence that all atheist believe so? Is it another bold empty claims and awfully sweeping generalisations again?

 

[FearGod]

Please made it clear which sentences lost meaning and provide accurate correction to remove the boundaries of different language so more people can understand what he is actually talking about.

It has a lot to do with disagreement than a lost meaning, he has one opinion which may annoy
you, but he has the right to express his own views.

 

[Godobeyer]

"atheist believe the universe is created by randomness/chance".

Do have doubt about that ?

I object their use of the label atheist without apply quantifier "some" to atheist.
Without doing so, it leads to the conception the atheist they talking about refer to all atheist.

Because that's the commun respond ,when someone asked an atheist about life.
I can say "most" than ?

Does all atheist really believe the universe is created by randomness/chance?

Please don't lump all atheist together, i'm sure there could be some atheist who have such beliefs, but all atheist believe so? Where is the evidence that all atheist believe so? Is it another bold empty claims and awfully sweeping generalisations again?

I think so.do you have other opinion ?

 

[Pudding]

It has a lot to do with disagreement than a lost meaning, he has one opinion which may annoy
you, but he has the right to express his own views.

Please be generous to make correction to those statement which "lost meaning arise by language boundaries", if people can't understand what he is talking about due to language boundaries then how can people disagree with his "still waiting to be decipher lost meaning statement"?

 

[Godobeyer]

Please made it clear which sentences lost meaning and provide accurate correction to remove the boundaries of different language so more people can understand what he is actually talking about.

You give me sentence that you find difficult to understand or nonsense , I will try to explain it to you.