Dr Adnan Ibrahim on Emotional Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can discuss it in one other thread, this thread to discuss the video of Dr. Adnan Ibrahim.

Oh, but the video I posted very neatly refutes many of Dr. Ibrahim's points.

 

[Godobeyer]

Oh, but the video I posted very neatly refutes many of Dr. Ibrahim's points.

I already refutes many of your video points too.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Which is a delusion, i may say I'm 99% sure that God exists, it goes either way.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your "certainty", which is not far off the definition of delusional.

 

[LuisDantas]

I already refutes many of your video points too.

I don't think so. To witness:

Unthinking or thinking things can't do anthing without previous insert law and plan.

Incorrect. Things happen without being meant to all the time.

who made the plan of schema ?

There is no real evidence of such a schema existing in the first place.

5:20
He said "it's probably fair to say it's plain that unthinking things can't move toward a goal love their own,thinking things can" !!!
this is bull****.

because he jumps the first step , who give the ability of thinking, or even creation..

Not "jumping". Choosing not to presume that such a first step exists.

Much of the video is pointing out the (fairly self-evident) fact that Aquina has no logical argument. He just likes to proclaim that there must be a creator, apparently out of aesthetical certainty alone.

7:20
design is in everything , what seems perfect or not.what designed what is not , is non sense subject !!

Design is not literally "in everything", at least not in any obvious way. I certainly do not see it in biology nor in existence as a whole. It helps that I have some understanding of things such as natural selection, psychology of perception and probability and statistics. But even without those, I don't think you meant to literally say that everything is designed. Randomness exists and manifests in our lives every day.

It seems to me that you have to choose between either accepting that we do not share of your certainty that there must be a designer of existence or attempt to convince us otherwise. If you truly find the subject nonsensical, the later option is probably not practicable.

7:50 He said "I agree with creation required creator ", then he said , how determined its was designed,"sorry this just insane .

The point is that it is not a given that what Aquina calls a Creation was in fact created.

Aquina expected us to simply agree with him without presenting any reason why. The speaker of the video is pointing out that there is no good reason to presume that Aquina was entitled to describe existence itself as a creation, let alone a designed, intentional one.

See 7:58 -"(...) we're talking about the universe, labeling it "creation" in order to claim that there's a creator. It is a dishonest apologetic, it is a circular argument where you are injecting the very thing you're trying to prove (...)"

"The truth is that we recognize design by contrasting it with that what naturally occurs, and when someone says "this has to be designed" or "this must have been designed", or "this has almost certainly been designed", what they are saying is that it is not possible, or not probable, for this particular set of circunstances to come about by natural means."

I want to point out that the video captions incorrectly use "actually" instead of "naturally" in the paragraph above.

"The first question we have to ask is: "How did you determine that?" So it is important for us to recognize how we go about determining that something is designed (...)"

9:12 the complexity but simplicity , even cars can build own by simplicity. ( That's what Adnan Ibrahim called " give it a name " )

If you say so. I honestly could never tell what Adnan meant to address, if anything.

What is said at this point, however, makes no reference to cars. It is:

9:04 "(...) it is not about the complexity of the building. Some would say that the hallmark of design, intelligent design and good design, is not complexity, but simplicity. Having just enough complexity to acomplish the goal."

10:08 see the different between " bundle sticks , and beaver dam " sound like a crazy exemple to dishonet the point of designer.
it's like someone ask me the different between mirage in street , a water.
the beaver may would not live in bundle sticks.btw

10:00 "How do you tell the difference between a bunch of stick blocking up a river after a flood and a beaver dam? From some perspective they look very much the same. The answer is that you go in and investigate (...)"

I want to add that this is a good thing to point out, since we atheists are so often expected to apparently find ignorance of a cause to somehow be evidence of a creator.

11:53 he said "I find watch in beach , how I determine it's watch ?!!!" this exemple should be take him to madhouse.

Hardly. He explains it very lucidly and clearly, and a good point it is, too.

Watch up to about 13:00: "(...) how did he determine that it was a watch? This is where we get back to exploiting our laziness and thinking about how we determined that it was a watch? Oh, he has mountains of evidence that this particular object that he is holding is a designed watch for a purpose and no evidence to support the idea that it could occur naturally. And yet when you extend the analogy to the universe, now we're talking about the natural world, you are talking about things that do occur naturally."

"What is worse is that people tend to use Paley's watchmaker believe that God in fact designed and created everything, and if that is the case, there can be no contrast between what is designed and what is not designed, because everything is designed, and you are walking in a beach full of watches, in an universe full of watches, and you yourself are a watch. And at that point you can no longer pick this specific watch and say that it has the hallmarks of design, if your worldview has it that everything is designed (...)"

15:26 I believe if Cars or PC had minds (intellegence enough), they would tell us that they are designed b . even they don't know human being who did that.


This man who was just came from very very tiny cell come from sprem combined to egg , is argue about design !
Yes, your mom and your dad design you then

If you say so. But that is not an argument, just a profesion of faith.

15:48 Gravity is someting can't be touch or unseen, but you believe in , so why not God "designer"?

Gravity is far from undetectable. It is actually measurable and has very well understood properties that are not a matter of interpretation.

A creator God is another matter entirely - and as it turns out, there is essentially nothing beyond peer pressure and aesthetical desire going for the belief in its existence.

Many if not most people don't even have that aesthetical need. And it turns out that such a belief has very nasty dangers, as anyone who is a disbeliever in a massively Christian or Muslim community can tell you.

So that is the answer: we believe in gravity because it is demonstrable, and we disbelieve in God because it is neither clear that it does exist (quite the contrary actually) nor is there any good reason to want to somehow make the attempt. It is not clear that it is possible or morally defensable to attempt to believe, either. The evidence strongly hints against it.

17:47 in Quran its mentioned that God created a similaire to human being before Adam(pbuh).
God created many kind of birds , that does not forcely that all were one.

If you say so. We have no reason to take the Qur'an, a remarkably inexact book that needs quite a lot of interpretation, over actual evidence.

18:00 Check out Darwin theory :
(...)

What of it? This video is a dishonest montage. So what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already refutes many of your video points too.

You did? Where?

 

[FearGod]

You do not seem to have understood a word of what you have replied to above.

I have just told you that such is not the case. Religion never demanded belief in God, which is not particularly worth pursuing in the first place.

Religion can be very worthwhile. And if it could not, that would be all the more reason to discuss it.

But you don't understand either atheism nor non-Abrahamic religion, now do you? You seem to doubt that either can exist honestly in the first place.

Sometimes I don't know why I waste my efforts.

It's either to live free life "your own way of life" away of any beliefs and away of any religion which is what atheism is
or to believe in one religion whether Abraham or others, so if you don't have any beliefs"atheism" then what the hell
some is doing here, wasting their times and ours or just want the others to be free of religion and to have several
boyfriends and girlfriends and spent the whole night in the night clubs, just saying, er

Weren't you paying attention? I told you time and again that I can't. The text is entirely worthless and meaningless.

To you, yes

Dude, nonsense is nonsense. Can you make any sense of the English translation YmirGF generously transcribed above?

Facts are facts, it says the truth which you know and the others do know, nonsense to you doesn't mean it's so for the others.

I certainly can't do that to save my life.

What you're here for.

Does

that make any sense in Arabic? The English is, frankly, hopeless. It looks like child gibberish.

It make sense to the sincere people, Atheists regards all religions as nonsense and they're here because religion makes no sense for them.

 

[McBell]

Facts are facts, it says the truth which you know and the others do know, nonsense to you doesn't mean it's so for the others.

I sincerely hope there is a majorly huge translation problem in the video.
If not, then the speaker is merely spouting nonsense.

Perhaps you could translate the video for us?

 

[McBell]

It make sense to the sincere people, Atheists regards all religions as nonsense and they're here because religion makes no sense for them.

This is nothig more than wishful thinking on your part.
How about instead of getting all uppity about the fact that the English translation is nothing but nonsense, you get down off your high horse and translate it properly?

Or are you in agreement with the English translation provided in the Video?

 

[FearGod]

You seem to have failed to grasp that god-belief is a strictly personal thing, not at all a logical matter.

Well, except in the somewhat rare cases when one was a believer and learned better, I suppose.

Do you (or Adnain, for that matter) really expect to convince people out of atheism? That is... odd.

People aren't stupid, they can fetch for the truth for themselves and they're responsible for their choices
and the loonies and the children are exempted.

 

[FearGod]

I didn't say there is no afterlife, FearGod. I said it is like nothing your can possibly imagine. A small, but important, difference. My evidence? I am!

Still you're living in a delusion which you believe it to be true and a fact, nothing to do, it's up to you.

 

[Godobeyer]

Incorrect. Things happen without being meant to all the time.

Not happened all time.
If there was no plan that's mean no designs.

There is no real evidence of such a schema existing in the first place.

Yes ,this is the mystery.
something designed had no observe schema, how he/it got designed.

Not "jumping". Choosing not to presume that such a first step exists.
Much of the video is pointing out the (fairly self-evident) fact that Aquina has no logical argument. He just likes to proclaim that there must be a creator, apparently out of aesthetical certainty alone.

Yes indeed who give the ability of thinking in first place ?

Design is not literally "in everything", at least not in any obvious way. I certainly do not see it in biology nor in existence as a whole. It helps that I have some understanding of things such as natural selection, psychology of perception and probability and statistics. But even without those, I don't think you meant to literally say that everything is designed. Randomness exists and manifests in our lives every day.

It seems to me that you have to choose between either accepting that we do not share of your certainty that there must be a designer of existence or attempt to convince us otherwise. If you truly find the subject nonsensical, the later option is probably not practicable.

Randomness is not exist, and you will would not exist in first place , and can't design anything.

The point is that it is not a given that what Aquina calls a Creation was in fact created.

Aquina expected us to simply agree with him without presenting any reason why. The speaker of the video is pointing out that there is no good reason to presume that Aquina was entitled to describe existence itself as a creation, let alone a designed, intentional one.

See 7:58 -"(...) we're talking about the universe, labeling it "creation" in order to claim that there's a creator. It is a dishonest apologetic, it is a circular argument where you are injecting the very thing you're trying to prove (...)"

"The truth is that we recognize design by contrasting it with that what naturally occurs, and when someone says "this has to be designed" or "this must have been designed", or "this has almost certainly been designed", what they are saying is that it is not possible, or not probable, for this particular set of circunstances to come about by natural means."

I want to point out that the video captions incorrectly use "actually" instead of "naturally" in the paragraph above.

"The first question we have to ask is: "How did you determine that?" So it is important for us to recognize how we go about determining that something is designed (...)"

Your body is designed to see ,walk , talk and or eat , or drink ....sleep , die ....etc

You can't be rebellion against these laws , that your body designed by or for .

If you say so. I honestly could never tell what Adnan meant to address, if anything.

What is said at this point, however, makes no reference to cars. It is:

9:04 "(...) it is not about the complexity of the building. Some would say that the hallmark of design, intelligent design and good design, is not complexity, but simplicity. Having just enough complexity to acomplish the goal."

Indeed Dr Adnan is correct about " give it name".
When atheists be face a serious problem , they just gave it a name "accident, randomness , natural selection ...etc ".

10:00 "How do you tell the difference between a bunch of stick blocking up a river after a flood and a beaver dam? From some perspective they look very much the same. The answer is that you go in and investigate (...)"

I want to add that this is a good thing to point out, since we atheists are so often expected to apparently find ignorance of a cause to somehow be evidence of a creator.

How/why could not scienist investigate the design of creatures ?




Hardly. He explains it very lucidly and clearly, and a good point it is, too.

Watch up to about 13:00: "(...) how did he determine that it was a watch? This is where we get back to exploiting our laziness and thinking about how we determined that it was a watch? Oh, he has mountains of evidence that this particular object that he is holding is a designed watch for a purpose and no evidence to support the idea that it could occur naturally. And yet when you extend the analogy to the universe, now we're talking about the natural world, you are talking about things that do occur naturally."

"What is worse is that people tend to use Paley's watchmaker believe that God in fact designed and created everything, and if that is the case, there can be no contrast between what is designed and what is not designed, because everything is designed, and you are walking in a beach full of watches, in an universe full of watches, and you yourself are a watch. And at that point you can no longer pick this specific watch and say that it has the hallmarks of design, if your worldview has it that everything is designed (...)"[/QUOTE]
I believe someday , someone (other atheists) will refute all actual atheism theory ,as Darwin refuted

If you say so. But that is not an argument, just a profesion of faith.

Indeed it's argument ,for believers.

Gravity is far from undetectable. It is actually measurable and has very well understood properties that are not a matter of interpretation

A creator God is another matter entirely - and as it turns out, there is essentially nothing beyond peer pressure and aesthetical desire going for the belief in its existence.

Many if not most people don't even have that aesthetical need. And it turns out that such a belief has very nasty dangers, as anyone who is a disbeliever in a massively Christian or Muslim community can tell you.

So that is the answer: we believe in gravity because it is demonstrable, and we disbelieve in God because it is neither clear that it does exist (quite the contrary actually) nor is there any good reason to want to somehow make the attempt. It is not clear that it is possible or morally defensable to attempt to believe, either. The evidence strongly hints against it..

That's video did repesent a clear evidence how body designed .
My point is
Gravity is unseen power , so God .

What of it? This video is a dishonest montage. So what?

So what , so answer to that question

What is the evidence of change of kind that Darwin gave ?

 

[FearGod]

Oh, but the video I posted very neatly refutes many of Dr. Ibrahim's points.

Explain how, your points please.

 

[FearGod]

You have absolutely no evidence to support your "certainty", which is not far off the definition of delusional.

I have, i ain't blind.

 

[FearGod]

I sincerely hope there is a majorly huge translation problem in the video.
If not, then the speaker is merely spouting nonsense.

Perhaps you could translate the video for us?

It'll still be nonsense for you, sorry, but i know what I'm saying.

 

[FearGod]

This is nothig more than wishful thinking on your part.
How about instead of getting all uppity about the fact that the English translation is nothing but nonsense, you get down off your high horse and translate it properly?

Or are you in agreement with the English translation provided in the Video?

Yes i believe the fact as it's regardless of the language, religion for the atheists is nonsense,
"give it a name" does make sense for them, sorry , but it's a fact and i know it.

 

[McBell]

It'll still be nonsense for you, sorry, but i know what I'm saying.

Nonsense is nonsense.
Thus you are claiming utter nonsense to be truth.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you freely admit you cannot discern between truth and utter nonsense?

Interesting high horse you have placed yourself up on.

 

[FearGod]

Nonsense is nonsense.
Thus you are claiming utter nonsense to be truth.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you freely admit you cannot discern between truth and utter nonsense?

Interesting high horse you have placed yourself up on.

As i said to you and i repeat, religion is nonsense for you but that doesn't mean all will see it as you do.

 

[LuisDantas]

I sincerely hope there is a majorly huge translation problem in the video.
If not, then the speaker is merely spouting nonsense.

Perhaps you could translate the video for us?

Quoted for emphasis. I, too, wonder if any Arabic speakers can make sense of the video or even translate it in such a way that makes sense.

I honestly don't know.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have, i ain't blind.

So what is your evidence for God?

 

[McBell]

As i said to you and i repeat, religion is nonsense for you but that doesn't mean all will see it as you do.

I am not interested in your strawmen.

The video is nonsense.
that YOU are relating the video to religion is most revealing.

Are you just lashing out blindly from a morally bankrupt high horse with your emotional rants to anyone who disagrees with you?
Sure looks that way from here.