Muslim vs. Atheist DEBATE | Haqiqatjou Vs Tjump - Are Atheists Consistent Skeptics?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 авг 2024
- #muslimskeptic #haqiqatjou #atheism
Follow on Telegram: t.me/haqiqatjou
Support our work: muslimskeptic.com/contribute/
Timestamps courtesy of: Asadullah SAAiD
00:00 - Standby
03:52 - Introduction
04:05 - Daniel's Opening Statement:
17:05 - Tjump's Opening Statement
19:02 - Daniel's Rebuttal
25:00 - Tjump's Rebuttal
26:43 - Examples of Consensus of Atheists on Immoral things
29:50 - Morality vs the Harm Principle
33:44 - Harmful things not necessarily being Immoral
45:30 - Discussion on Skepticism of Atheists
47:39 - Scrutinizing the morality of Atheists
53:25 - Most Atheists being Moral Subjectivists
59:42 - Basis for Atheists arriving at Consensus
1:04:34 - Daniel's argument against the consensus of Atheists
1:12:31 - Why Atheists advocate for Abortion?
1:19:18 - Aesthetic vs Moral Judgement of Atheists
1:21:41 - Are Atheists morally consistent?
1:28:35 - Difference b/w Aesthetic & Moral Judgement of the Human Brain
1:30:29 - Q and A start
1:32:29 - Discussion on best governance under Atheism
1:35:21 - Doesn't religion allow immoral things to be moral?
1:39:33 - Do all things that cause harm considered to be immoral?
1:42:46 - Skepticism of Muhammad's ﷺ Prophethood vs Alien abductions/Flying tea pots
1:44:58 - Is Afghani people marrying children immoral?
1:47:19 - No harm from Books vs Harm from Sexual Promiscuity
1:51:32 - Natural laws in the Universe?
1:54:43 - Women having lower IQs?
1:56:46 - Is Child Marriage morally acceptable?
2:01:21 - Technology not being a sign of moral progress
2:06:17 - China becoming more Liberal & China's oppressive regime
2:08:33 - Is touching a baby with sexual intent without causing harm immoral?
2:13:14 - Why Atheists resort to Moral Subjectivism?
2:17:28 - Child Marriage vs Transgenderism & Prostitution
2:22:51 - Discussion on Quality of Life
2:26:11 - Free Speech under Atheism
2:29:22 - Is Nercophilia wrong under Atheism?
2:31:57 - Why is there a High Suicide Rate among Atheists?
2:33:52 - Discussion on the Age of Consent
2:38:59 - Is Infidelity wrong under Atheism?
2:39:39 - Atrocities done under Liberalism
2:40:31 - Daniel shows Tjump's ignorance about the History of Liberalism
2:50:57 - Is Sex under 18 immoral in Atheism?
2:56:44 - Tjump admits he is a highschool dropout
2:59:05 - Tjump's ignorance on Colonialism
3:09:06 - Closing Remarks & Wrapping Up 
Развлечения
I sincerely apologize to all my viewers for exposing them to this much cringe.
Hihi nice one brother daniel 🤭
The state of the world is that low that atheism's torch bearers are liberal reddit commenters that play indie games and have no education on the topics they discuss lol.
Tjump acted like the last 2 brain cells when you're giving a math test.
Please vet your opponent before degrading yourself to that level.
Only one comment
Chopping hand is not the first result of stealing. There are many conditions.
Your always academic and logical. Big fan.
It was difficult to be honest. Like talking to a overconfident 5 year old lol. But you exposed him nonetheless Masha’Allah
Thanks for coming on, Daniel! It was a pleasure to have you!
You're a professional moderator. May Allah guide you
Good job on moderating this heated debate today, despite TJ's attempts to hijack it .
Rip
Thanks, James for always being neutral. May Allah bless you
Thanks James for being professional. Much respect!
I've never seen an atheist humiliate himself this bad. What a waste lol.
The part where he said liberal colonialism by the west started in the 1300s 😭😭
started 1920 after french revolution
started in 1945 after the crusades
May the Almighty destroy the colonist and their inheritors Armeen 🥰
the question musIi,ms need to ask is why does lsIam think a 56 year old Iaying with 9yo is okay but Iistening to music is bad 😂🤣 atleast athiests can differentiate between which is right and wrong out of these 2 options, why can't musIi,ms??
@@brockcharz2104 We believe that music is bad because it's influenced by Satan not to mention music is addictive try to not listen to music for 21 days. As for marriage between a 56 year old and a 9 year old, there's nothing wrong with it as long as both people agree.
Tjump: Asks dumb question
Danial: Answers dumb question
Tjump: I don't know why you are answering this question is completely irrelevant
🙃
I didn't watch the debate, its still loading but if thats really what happenned, thats just sad, its time for Muslims to stop dividing on culture and bida and unite on sunnah!
How do you flip the emoji?
@@extracelestials4368 🙃🙃
@@saimtanweer4145 🙃🙃😂😂😂
@@extracelestials4368 You don't flip it. You use it...🙃
This was TJump's janazah, alhamdulillah for the barakah of islam and alhamdulillah for an intellectual giant like you on our side brother Daniel, once again a flawless victory with the help of Allah azawajal. Keep dominating these lowlifes, amazing debate!!
Do you think Daniel actually answered my question at 2:27:50? Lol
@@MZar-vb8qy he clearly did, if you had the most basic understanding of Islamic jurisprudence you would already know the answer that he gave before he even said it
@@proofsofislampi Daniel literally said Muslim scholars can be wrong but Muslims can still follow them because they made their best effort given their understanding of revelation. That's subjective. It means Islam doesn't offer mankind objective morality either. Oops
@@MZar-vb8qy there's a clear difference between having a difference of opinion concerning specifics like "when" and the morality of something. The morality of abortion is unanimous in Islam lol.
It's not difficult for anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge and intellect to understand
@@proofsofislampi It's not "objective morality" if you don't know whether aborting a fetus at X days is moral or not, and for what reasons. That's subjective territory. Do you need help understanding the definition of "objective"?
I’m Christian but I love the way Daniel rails against the subjective nature of the secular worldview! Great content. Muslim skeptic clearly won this one.
Jesus said :The father is the only true god Bible, John 17 :3, if he lied then he isn't god, if he was truthful, he isn't god too, with all due respect, Muslims are more Christians than the so called Christians, because we follow the true teachings of Jesus,we believe he is a prophet born by a miracle even he is mintioned 84 times but Mohammad just 4 times in the last testament (the quran) , but you follow pegan churches which useing the so called Bibles which one of them contradicts its self .... You can watch Hamza's Den, Ahmad Deidat Or Zakir Naik, Jeffrey Lang and Othman bin farouk and you will know the truth...,..,,
I really hope I missed something being a DH fan, not sure how he won when both argue against moral subjectivism- it was a non debate.
@@makstar7062 if you wrestle a pig, you re bound to get dirty. Daniel brought a sound argument. Tjump, rather than address it, tried to create an illusion that the argument strawmans atheists, failed at it, then tried redefining words and creating false data to avoid answering the argument directly. Even in his opening word Tjump makes a direct contradiction by starting with the statement that atheists are humans and therefore inconsistent "duh" and thereby conceding the entire debate. And he ends his entire line of thought with therefore atheists are consistent. He s a mess. He s a liar. And he s an ignoramus with only superficial knowledge. That s why he ll never get a degree, cause he created a world only he believes in and no academia would approve of.
@@makstar7062 What informs moral subjectivism. Would an atheist say that if a society culturally decided that infanticide was ok. Then would that make it morally OK?
I know of no atheists believes that infanticide is justifiable in any society. Atheists use subjectivism to get away from the obvious inconsistentcy it would entail.
@@abutalsafuba2179 I agree, the point is, TJump isn’t a Moral Subjectivist. This is how the whole debate was lost, both the affirmative and opposition had the same objections to Moral Subjectvism = non debate. DH was imposing moral subjectivism on to TJump wherein by his own admission TJump, is a moral objectivist.
_"Atheists are like ants on a piece of paper that cannot lift their eyes from the ink or the pen they see before them, thus failing to see who is writing."_
~ Al-Ghazali (رَحِمَهُ ٱللَّٰهُ)
May Allah ﷻ guide the sincere and open-minded Atheists. Ameen!
Indeed a man who was a thorn to the atheists and the atheist mind.
Masya Allah. Interesting example
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 Jazak'Allah :)
That's so poetic, mashAllah. It went over my head first lol.
Ameen
For an atheist, he sure did utter "oh my God" a lot more times than Daniel even mentioned God.
😂😂😂
good one lol
🤣😂😂🤣
😄
Yes!!!!!
According to Tjump, pinching your forehead and saying "that's so dumb" is the greatest comeback. It was genuinely so frustrating watching him act so arrogantly while being so stupid. Props to brother Daniel for having the patience to deal with him.
@@jonatand2045 Care to explain that?
@@jonatand2045 yeah because political views are the same thing as food preference or fantasy books preferences.
If 90% of group agrees on abortion should be legal, then thats not simply a preference, that a world view that shoold be questioned, in another word if you claim you are a skeptic atheist you should base that belief on valid scientific evidences, if it's not the case then stop demanding evidences from other groups in any other subject because according to you it's their preference.
@@ramo012032 well said
Tjump was constantly moving the goal posts constantly and when Tjump is unable to answer the counter-question, he would pinch his forehead.
Daniel: When did LIBERAL colonialism begin?
Tjump: I don't know.
---5 minutes later---
Tjump: Colonialism is started in 1400s.
Daniel: I asked about LIBERAL colonialism.
Tjump: I won. Owned.
Daniel: The "LIBERAL" colonialism. Example, when did France became an secular country?
Tjump: *Pinches forehead*
@@jonatand2045 did you even read the debate title ?
According to you Muslims preferences comes from Allah therefore it's an unproven claim (for you, a skeptic atheist).
So we demand you to be consistent in your skepticism, and be as skeptic in all this liberal views accepted in atheistic society, because according to t-jump it's just a cultural social construct beliefs (it has no proof therefore it's unproven claim).
Finally, please stop comparing the belief in philosophical views to liking pizza, that's just dumb.
I’ve never heard of TJump but I now know that whoever he is , he can’t debate . His arrogance and condescending behaviour was quite repulsive.
I agree, his style and mannerism leaves little to desire. However, from an argumentation perspective his reasoning was sound and logical and consistent. IMO DH lost this one, his arguments were objections to moral subjectivism and clearly by TJump’s responses he isn’t one and agreed with DH on the whole despite their opposing behaviour towards each other.
@@makstar7062 1-So ...........he didn't because Tjump agreed with DH on his argument. DH won.
2- Tjump was inconsistent the whole debate.
3-Tjump moral compass or "moral objectivism" doesn't make sense and in reality, it is still kind of subjective.
@@makstar7062 Tjump kept conflating morality with opinion on food or non fiction. No one is compelled or punished for having a different opinion on food, but the atheists in general believe in the justification that differing views on morality should be punished or at least compelled to not contravene consensus on morality. So clearly atheists don't treat morality as just opinions.
Its hard to debate someone willing to lie about your position who doesnt answer your questions and cant understand basics of philosophy.
Daniel did all these in the debate, do you want timestamps guys?
@@Ashleii haha. You really didnt get the argument did you.
We dont use science for our morality. That was a lie by Daniel.
Since morality is subjective, i.e an internal preference, it doesnt require scepticism but god being an external thing in reality does
*Timestamps:*
00:00 - Standby
03:52 - Introduction
04:05 - Daniel's Opening Statement:
04:26 - 1. Atheists are Selective Skeptics
06:53 - 2. Examples of the 1st Argument
17:05 - Tjump's Opening Statement
19:02 - Daniel's Rebuttal
25:00 - Tjump's Rebuttal
26:43 - Examples of Consensus of Atheists on Immoral things
29:50 - Morality vs the Harm Principle
33:44 - Harmful things not necessarily being Immoral
35:05 - Back & Forth b/w Daniel & Tjump
38:29 - The morality of Sexual Promiscuity under Atheism
42:52 - Reasons behind consensus of Atheists
45:30 - Discussion on Skepticism of Atheists
47:39 - Scrutinizing the morality of Atheists
53:25 - Most Atheists being Moral Subjectivists
57:25 - Rationale behind Atheists supporting Abortion
59:42 - Basis for Atheists arriving at Consensus
1:02:24 - Tjump interrupting Daniel
1:04:34 - Daniel's argument against the consensus of Atheists
1:05:41 - Skepticism & its consistent application
1:07:20 - No consensus of Atheists on Aesthetics
1:08:46 - Are Atheists consistent on the consensus of morality vs aesthetics?
1:12:31 - Why Atheists advocate for Abortion?
1:15:09 - Reasoning behind consensus of Atheists on Aesthetics vs Morality
1:19:18 - Aesthetic vs Moral Judgement of Atheists
1:21:41 - Are Atheists morally consistent?
1:24:51 - Majority Beliefs of Atheists not being based on Science
1:25:31 - Problems with Moral Subjectivism of Atheists
1:28:35 - Difference b/w Aesthetic & Moral Judgement of the Human Brain
_QnA_
1:30:29 - Will Daniel debate on Shariah?
1:30:45 - Botswana performing better than its neighbouring countries due to Abortion legalization?
1:31:36 - Why did Atheist countries like Cambodia not do as well as countries in similar environment?
1:32:29 - Discussion on best governance under Atheism
1:34:49 - Anti-God bias of Tjump?
1:35:21 - Doesn't religion allow immoral things to be moral?
1:35:50 - No evidence for Law of Identity
1:36:19 - Different Beliefs/Disagreements b/w Atheists
1:39:13 - Question for Tjump's chair
1:39:33 - Do all things that cause harm considered to be immoral?
1:40:37 - Claim of Religions especially Islam being curse on Humanity
1:41:14 - Daniel's response to the anti-Islamic arguments
1:42:32 - Human Values in the Qur'an?
1:42:46 - Skepticism of Muhammad's ﷺ Prophethood vs Alien abductions/Flying tea pots
1:44:58 - Is Afghani people marrying children immoral?
1:46:53 - Scientific errors in the Qur'an?
1:47:19 - No harm from Books vs Harm from Sexual Promiscuity
1:48:16 - Morality of Imposing of Will on others
1:51:32 - Natural laws in the Universe?
1:51:50 - Skepticism of Favourite food
1:53:31 - Religions people don't believe on evidence?
1:54:43 - Women having lower IQs?
1:56:46 - Is Child Marriage morally acceptable?
1:57:38 - Problems with China's policies
2:00:53 - Thoughts on Taliban's victory over the US
2:01:21 - Technology not being a sign of moral progress
2:02:25 - Correlation b/w Atheism & Abortion legalization
2:03:30 - Evidence for the existence of God?
2:04:05 - Are all muslims consistent believers?
2:04:25 - Which Atheists are Moral Subjectivists?
2:05:21 - Daniel's thoughts on an Ex-Muslim leaving Islam
2:06:17 - China becoming more Liberal & China's oppressive regime
2:07:43 - Daniel debating on Scientific claims in the Qur'an
2:08:33 - Is touching a baby with sexual intent without causing harm immoral?
2:10:24 - Laws shouldn't based on God?
2:11:31 - What's the objective reason for obeying God?
2:13:14 - Why Atheists resort to Moral Subjectivism?
2:14:56 - Holocaust vs Hell?
2:16:16 - Why should we trust our mind?
2:16:50 - Intuition of humans to believe in God?
2:17:28 - Child Marriage vs Transgenderism & Prostitution
2:18:50 - Child Marriage vs Harm Principle
2:20:22 - Are people progressing in terms of morality?
2:21:47 - Scientific Evidence for Love?
2:22:51 - Discussion on Quality of Life
2:25:55 - Evolution vs Islam
2:26:11 - Free Speech under Atheism
2:27:02 - Justice of Hitler vs God
2:27:55 - Difference of opinion on Abortion in Islam
2:29:22 - Is Nercophilia wrong under Atheism?
2:29:42 - Are Kids undergoing sex-change operations moral under Atheism?
2:31:57 - Why is there a High Suicide Rate among Atheists?
2:32:45 - Shias considering Imams to be divine
2:33:17 - Identifying as a Medic under Liberalism
2:33:41 - Tjump advocating for pushing Transgenderism on children?
2:33:52 - Discussion on the Age of Consent
2:36:25 - Is the Qur'an true because it's preserved?
2:37:49 - Perfect Justice according to Daniel?
2:37:59 - Islam does not preserve marriage?
2:38:59 - Is Infidelity wrong under Atheism?
2:39:39 - Atrocities done under Liberalism
2:40:31 - Daniel shows Tjump's ignorance about the History of Liberalism & its philosophers
2:44:54 - Morality based on Feelings under Moral Objectivism
2:45:36 - No evidence of Islam preserving marriage?
2:45:48 - Why is God's justice perfect & what does that mean for it to be perfect?
2:47:51 - Preservation of Pharaoh's body
2:48:11 - Evidence for the preservation of Qur'an?
2:48:53 - Breaking of Relationships & High Depression in Secularism
2:50:57 - Is Sex under 18 immoral in Atheism?
2:52:28 - Why base Morality on consent instead of suffering?
2:53:10 - Tjump saying "Oh My God"?
2:53:22 - How does Objective Morality accomodate Technology?
2:55:13 - Why People go to Hell for not believing in Islam?
2:56:44 - Educational Credentials of Tjump?
2:57:38 - American men not being happy in their relationships
2:58:02 - Happiness vs Material Prosperity
2:59:05 - Daniel shows Tjump's ignorance about Colonialism
3:00:06 - Is Rape immoral under Atheism?
3:00:39 - Islamic Punishment for Stealing?
3:00:48 - Diverse groups of Atheists being morally inconsistent?
3:01:18 - Western Promiscuity vs Islamic Polygamy
3:01:33 - Gulf countries having high GDP yet being less happy
3:02:51 - G.E Moore's Open Question
3:03:27 - Qur'an being preserved due to Children's memorization of it
3:03:51 - Daniel vs Tjump on the History of Liberal Colonialism
3:05:13 - Is China an ethically secular country?
3:06:07 - Death Toll under Atheism & Secularism
3:07:06 - Did God consciously choose his nature?
3:09:06 - Closing Remarks & Wrapping Up
SubhanAllah ❤️🤍💖
Another one bites the dust
_May Allah ﷻ bless you brother Daniel and reward you for your efforts._ 🤲🏻
JazakAllahu khairan brother
@@homtanks7259
وَإِيَّاك أَخِي ☺️
Thank you ❤️❤️
جزاك الله خيرا اخي الكريم كنت أتصفح التعليقات بحثا عنك.. شكرا وبارك الله فيك.
@@slimanipdr
شكرا جزيلا على كلماتك الرقيقة يا أخي
I'm an atheist, but Daniel won this debate. It wasn't even close.
Appreciate your honesty
I spent 10 years in the dark like you. Reality is ambiguous, complex and confusing by design, so you can talk yourself into disbelief if you are so inclined. Whats more, the devil is throwing out clues left and right to humiliate you. I advise you to seek out your Lord and pray he opens your eyes before its too late.
@@jonatand2045 hes your enemy, its better for you to see him as such. Hes running full speed against you. Dont confuse yourself
@@jonatand2045 Satan was not forced to disobey Allah, rather he chose to do so himself. Knowing that someone will do something is not the same as forcing that person to do it.
Why did Allah create Satan with the capacity to disobey? To serve a greater purpose. Satan's tricks are a test to us humans. Any test we experience in this world makes apparent to us our true nature. Those who are wicked will fail the test and those who aren't will succeed. If you ask "doesn't Allah already know how we will act?", the answer is that he does. But we are tested so that we ourselves will know in the end that our punishment is well deserved.
@@jonatand2045 "god created every detail that led to that choice"
He also created every detail that could have led to the opposite choice
At the end of the day Satan chose of his own free will, he had sufficient knowledge of why what he was doing is wrong and he had the ability to not do it but he still chose to do it
What i learned today is that there is a consensus amongst the atheist that pizza is moral.
They have the other option of "faecal excrement", I'm glad they chose pizza
* and having sex with a prehum consented dead body is morally acceptable for the atheist moral pragmatist
That was the best part for me. Alhamdulillah for islamic guidance
How enlightening…
@@kaplan-f7266 can you please provide timestamp to it, Brother?
@@amiaquehaque 😄😄😄
Atheists after debating Daniel:
Ohh my God! Help me ..
😂
The mannerisms displayed by these 2 just show you the difference between a Muslim and Atheist
Even the moderator can not set boundry for the atheist ill-manner.
Looks like he needs basic etiquette lessons on being courteous and humble during a debate.
Being rude and not able to abide by the debate ground rules is the subjective 'Morality' TJump subscribes to.
It will lead to chaos and anarchy.
Yes. Daniel lies and refuses to answer while TJump makes faces.
@Jaber he only argued with the debate rules when Daniel lied about him and then later when he refused to answer
This guy doesn’t even have a college degree. Owning a lemonade stand business straight out of high school doesn’t make you smart or qualified. A college degree should be a requirement if you’re going to argue with our boy Daniel.
And Danny boy has degrees from Harvard apparently and he is still so dumb. An embarrassment to Harvard if it's true.
Daniel is proof that degrees from top universities don't always mean the person is smart, reasonable or a possessor of good arguments, free from strawmen and other fallacies.
There was no reason to mention his “businesses” he thought mentioning his “15 businesses” somehow legitimatized him engaging academically with brother Daniel
Saying “I didn’t go to college” by itself would’ve made him look very bad, not that he didn’t look embarrassing and arrogant regardless
Yet he still handed your boy his ass in this debate.
It’s not actually a mandatory to be honest .If Knowledge is gained ,Then a certificate is practically is just a paper.we can see successful knowledgeable people around the world and history
@@user-oc5gh9lr4f yeah, but if someone were to read every single medical textbook in a library, it wouldn't qualify him/her to call themselves a doctor
In one breath, he says atheists' statements about morality are not intended to carry any truth value. In the next, he says they qualify their statements as "morally correct". 😂😂😂
I sincerely hope my perspective is incorrect as I am a fan of DH. Unfortunately he has missed the mark on this, he was arguing against Moral Subjectivism only to realise his interlocutor is a moral objectivist. TJump agreed to DH’s objections to moral subjectivism, they were on the same page. First part of your comment TJump is referring to moral subjectivism and in the 2nd part moral objectivism, he is being consistent.
@@makstar7062 you missed the mark. Tjump paints atheists as moral subjectivists then slips and says they state they are morally correct.
@@makstar7062 you're not off the mark. 1 hour 10 mins in and Daniel is performing really poorly. He's trying to.force TJ to be a moral.subjectivist whe. he's not.
@@mohammedhanif6780 I did start to think I hadn’t fully comprehended the positions fully in light of overwhelming positive comments for DH. No doubt Tjumps mannerisms, attitude and behaviour was in general cringey. His reasoning and argumentation was consistent throughout. It’s obvious to me from the comments folk haven’t realised both DH and TJump are in total agreement that moral subjectivist atheists have no substantive basis for their positions. Both object to moral subjectivism = no debate. Regardless, DH pressed on with this line argumentation knowing full well TJump doesn’t hold those views. Like it or not, this was the crux of the debate, DH again wrongly assumed the position of his opponent like he did with a white nationalist he ‘debated’.
@@makstar7062 How is his views consistent? TJump doesn't even understand that utilitarianism is a moral theory that Jeremy Bentham very explicitly explains in regards to morally good and bad coinciding with pain and pleasure.
This guy was so embarrassing to listen to
I learned nothing from him
Brother we learned from you and you remained patient MashaAllah
The fact that most of tjumps supporters in the comments were christians is the most foolish thing ever. How stupid of these christians to side with an atheist that has a view that is also against christianity and the bible, but hey we already learned that christians will totally throw their entire religion under the bus just to throw shade on islam.
Save me the trouble watching the video. haha
@@Emsyaz honestly I think apus is actually smarter than this guy
This person made me cringe way too much
His over confidence and overacting was his downfall
He could’ve saved some face had he just behaved like a normal person
Indeed, Daniel is an embarrassment. I mean, child marriage?? That's a big yikes.
@@Edward-bm7vw Not even a single atheist can prove that child marriage is objectively immoral.
It's sad yet hilarious to see someone who is so intellectually out of their depth, yet is completely blind to it. This guy Tjump is just so bad at thinking philosophically it is almost comical. How does he have so little self-awareness? I think he was unable to pass his philosophy classes, yet was still interested in the subject, so he conveniently decided to "audit" them.
He is a highschool dropout.
Muslims don't need philosophy to be intellectual. We are beyond the dribblings of philosophy.
@@azizulhaouqe4150 yeah bcoz he couldn't drop out in the compulsory primary school.
No, he said he was in college studying "Business", he took 15 credits extra in philosopy, then he dropped the school.
Mr. T jump should debate with atheist for clarifying his position. He denied basics of atheism and call them all stupid
Brother Daniel, this was one of your least fruitful debates. You should select people who meet the basic level of criteria to debate and not waste time with disrespectful idiots.
Cmon it is fun exposing these himaar
I think that's fair, but it's not always clear beforehand how someone will act in the debate. For example, I didn't expect that this guy would disagree with equal time allocation of 2 min each person mid debate lol
@@MuslimSkeptic Yes, that was jaw dropping when he argued with the moderator.
@@MuslimSkeptic bro can you debate AronRa?
@@MuslimSkeptic
He panicked. He prevented a format at all cost. He immediately realised he was getting schooled.
He wants a street dialogue as a tactic to divert.
Tjump: Mother holding her baby is immoral.
Also Tjump: Necrophilia is A-Okay!
Also morality = 🍕
Tjump: "Oh my God, Oh my God", 1:50:30.
Me: Atheist are inconsistent
The irony of tjump also lives in his moms basement
I'm not a Muslim, but I would have to say that Daniel won this one. What I find really ironic for Tjump is the way he interrupts Daniel in the 2 minutes back and forth because he thinks he "strawmanned" him. And yet in his debate with Jay Dyer he constantly complains how Jay constantly interrupts him even in the timed response. It's like he became the thing he hated.
Can I know why you are not a Muslim ?
You did not research (you did not research enough) regarding Islam, or do you oppose Islam in something, for example, and therefore do not see the truth that it is, tell us.
Talk about consistency
It depends on the nature of the interruption. TJ was interrupting quite reasonably in that he was very concise and asking reasonable questions to help him understand and to lead Daniel to explain himself. I haven't watched the Jay debate but Jay has some bizarre ideas about how skepticism has no rational basis , so it's kind of hart to delate eto some of what Jay says. I imagine Jay's interruptions were more of "you're wrong because [some weird argument]". TJ is just being conversational
hypocrisy
This guy has some kind of brain damage. The way he said harm has nothing to do with morality and utilitarianism isn't a philosophy about morality.... It's like worms in his brain
Daniel easily won this debate without a doubt. Tjump is just strawmanning plus he is introducing logical fallacies and gives answers without any basis. بارك الله فيك
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. It can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.
Did Daniel answer my question properly at 2:27:50? He just rambled without answering
@@MZar-vb8qy He did
@@mohammadshamail7732 Daniel literally said Muslim scholars can be wrong but Muslims can still follow them because they made their best effort given their understanding of revelation. That's subjective. It means Islam doesn't offer mankind objective morality either. Oops
@@MZar-vb8qy
I just listened to your question. The relevancy of your question, by comparing Hitler position as a reference is pretty weak. You are looking for a “got you” moment. Your question has to be unpacked and answered in detailes.
I am a Mormon who has been really interested in Islam lately. I really find your debating skills to be amazing, I must say you won this debate hands down without a doubt Tjump is just strawmannig.
Read the Quran please
May Allah guide u to the Truth
Id like recommend you read " the last prophet" book, by Dr hatham talaat.its great book
@@hid4768 i would recommend every truth seeker to read he's work inshallah she'll be guided
@@mohbubmiah955 Hi there! I started reading the Quran about a month ago.
Q: Why does the atheist guy feign pain, pinch the bridge of his nose, and say “Oh my God?”
…you’re supposed to be an atheist, why are you pretending to believe in a higher power?
This guy consistently was disrespectful towards Daniel and was trying to emotionally agitate him by continuing his squinting/nasal bridge pinching.
Haqiqatjou was the disrespectful one with his name calling and constant ad hominems. Haqiqatjou is the greatest gift to the apostate community.
Tjump refusing to follow the rules set by the moderator ! How arrogrant
This is the atheist who is usually calm etc. but in this debate his emotions were all over the place. The amount of arrogance, disrespect, unwillingness to listen, and the stubbornness is actually fuming me. It is beyond me how freaking deluded and unbased these people are, and I can honestly say they deserve everything Allah is giving them in the Akhira.
Ameen
Allahs mercy is beyond our comprehension. May Allah guide this man to the truth
@@yasar1abdurrahman348 Yes but judging by his attitude and unwillingness to humbly listen and acting like some big time philosopher or something, indeed for sure his heart has been concealed by Allah azawajal and only jahanum is his destiny. But you never know, I hope he is more keen to learn about islam and educate himself cuz he ignorantly and arrogantly made a fool out of himself.
@@sebastiancastellanos9527 in sha Allah. Bro We dont decide who goes to Jahannam and we should never wish Jahannam for anyone. Its a bad place beyond our imagination. Instead lets pray for his guidance and struggle in Allahs cause to send His message across to people. Guidance is completely Allahs choice.
@Jaber Brother, consider this ayah of surah furqan : The ˹true˺ servants of the Most Compassionate are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the foolish address them ˹improperly˺, they only respond with peace. (25:63). I feel that these debates are a good opportunity for us to convey the wisdoms of our deen yet we should never get personal with these. There are innumerous examples from the life of the prophet peace and blessings be upon him, where someone who has so much hatred went on to accept Islam. The biggest example if perhaps the reversion of Hazrat Umar RA. So, I am really happy that these debates are taking place and brother Daniel is certainly a gem, but having a grudge on the other speaker to a level that we start assuming that Allah will give him hell is getting a bit overboard. Allah knows best.
I'm obviously biased here, but I think Daniels question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily.
If most atheists are moral subjectivists, how is it possible that most of them agree on very particular issues? The best move Tjump can do to answer this is indeed to cling on to the definition of subjectivism and say that people can have similar subjective views on certain things, but their view is still subjective and the agreement therefore is irrelevant.
The irony here is however, the debate is about skepticism. Daniel was... curious... about how such agreement can happen and he tried his best to pin Tjump on this fact, but Tjump just DON'T want to enter this dangerous territory to try and explain it. Instead he basically went "Meh, it happens, coz it can happen." He basically shrugs off these... curious... facts about atheists and tried his best to evade the danger altogether by sticking to the definition of subjectivism.
To me this is quite an evidence that Atheists are just not consistent skeptics.
Spot friend
But he conceded the fact, that social engeenering, konditioning and political, cultural and educational indoctrination of the secular atheistic liberal establishment plays a major part in constructing and framing the mindset of the masses.
And this is where consensus are being generated.
This Tjump guy was but saying that a lack of sceptisicm cannot be attributed to most atheists because they are moral subjectivists and there is no difference between loving the colour green and being against or for abortion. Its all based on subjective opinions.
At this point it was just a semantical chessgame not to concede the debate. So Tjump was averting to engage in the coherent arguments made by Brother Daniel.
Exactly, he is not being skeptical about the fact why there is consensus. Otherwise consensus is not a real thing, because we cannot be sure if the "consensus" itself is fake, its possible that people were forced/manipulated to agreee upon it through regimes and governmental policies.
@@theintuitivetruth exactly!
Daniel came into a debate redefining what a skeptic is from the outset . Clearly tjump didn't know this and wasn't ready for such a debate .
He started to drag the debate into generalizatoons he casted on atheist that tjump impromptu was trying to work with . When he appealed to the Pew study he didn't really think about the nuanced stances of those who hold that position. For example I'm pro choice but not pro abortion so I may not feel abortion is immoral in all or some cases but I feel people should have the right to do it . Same with drinking and smoking . I may think drinking and smoking are both immoral but I respect someone right to do it.
Soon as he redefined skepticism the debate couldn't go anywhere with an appeal to things that carry no truth claims . Literally any opinion carried by a culture in large would render someone not consistent by some metric of morality that is subjective from one person to the next. Then some aren't even arguing abortion is moral or immoral in the first place but more so a issue with rights. The debate was doomed from the start .
Also someone tell Tjump, that taking 15 credits is not a qualification, I don't think 15 credits is enough to finish your general education courses in college... wow
This guy is the epitome of arrogance.
Arguing that utilitarianism isn't a moral philosophy but a "pragmatic" one? Pragmatism is a theory in Epistemology not Ethics!
This guy is a joke and needs to go back to college.
Well done br Daniel.
How is pragmatism part of epistemology? I know a very basic definition of epistemology. So am curious to know. Will appreciate some sort of explanation. Thanks
@@saqlainalvi5485 Within epistemology there's the question on theories of truth.
The pragmatic theory is one of those theories. It merely asserts that a proposition is true based on if it works for an individual.
Obviously this can't be true because many falsehoods can be beneficial for a human.
@@user-gn1ke5wy2u and why cant it be a moral philosophy. I mean i understand it's a pretty horrible way to live, but pragmatism might guide somebody's moral choices. So won't it technically be a part of ethics?
@@saqlainalvi5485 Yeah pragmatism only guides a person's choice's to what they feel is true or false.
This isn't a question of Morality (good and bad) but of what truth is. Saying "murder is evil" is a moral statement but asking the question "is that statement true?" is an epistemological one.
But this theory is false. There are many pragmatic falsehoods which would lead to choas in society. For example it would be pragmatically beneficial for thief to claim he hasn't stolen anything.
That's a pretty subtle difference. Only a person who has some level of deep understanding can figure out. No doubt Tjump missed it. Lol. Bdw thanks for the explanation. Appreciate it a lot.
Atheist so confused on his own beliefs he started to debate the moderator.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no point of the presence of a moderator if the debaters can interrupt anytime he wants.
I am interested about to learn islam
Aren't you already a Muslim?
@@juxtapositionMS perhaps as a Muslim he wants to read more about Islam.
@@doobyross8427 Let him answer. Don't just assume.
Order a quran from Amazon tomorrow
tjump facial expression: 😂😴🤤🤒🤕🤢🤮😬🤧🥵🥶🥴😵😵💫🤠🥳🥸😎🤔🤭😰
Daniel expression: 🙂
Clear difference between irrational person vs rational respectively
So a person who, when exposed as lying and who is too cowardly to answer a question, keeps a straight face is the sane one?
@@bertthompson4748 keeping straight face is sign of maturity and honestly
@@OnePunchSaga nope. Its a sign of someone who is lying about their current emotional state.
@@bertthompson4748 liars always panic and are never clear
@@OnePunchSaga thats not true. A liar who is caught out unexplectantly may do that but a liar who has planned a lie will do everything they can to suppress emotions because it reduces their ability to lie.
Atheism dies in Sinking Boat,
Feminism dies in War,
Alhamdulillah I am able to refrain from such scar.
@@jonatand2045 The one who says Promiscuity is Moral. At least I will be the last person on this earth who rather prefer to die rather than accepting atheism as my way of life.
Atheism never make sense brother. One day you will realize.
Inshallah.
Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala said:
اَفَرَءَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ اِلٰهَهٗ هَوٰٮهُ وَاَ ضَلَّهُ اللّٰهُ عَلٰى عِلْمٍ وَّخَتَمَ عَلٰى سَمْعِهٖ وَقَلْبِهٖ وَجَعَلَ عَلٰى بَصَرِهٖ غِشٰوَةً ۗ فَمَنْ يَّهْدِيْهِ مِنْۢ بَعْدِ اللّٰهِ ۗ اَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُوْنَ
"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?"
( Al-Jaathiya 45: Verse 23)
If an atheist rejects moral theories especially utilitarianism, is he even qualified to talk about moral at all? What a joke this guy is.
Atheists literally cannot criticize Islam’s morality when their own morals are literally opinionated
Excellent point
He thinks if something happened in the past it's morally bad and if it happened recently it's morally better. So nuclear bomb good but caring about your family bad.
I’m literally cringing again remembering him saying that mothers holding their babies is immoral
this is feminism mentality
Atheism leads to insanity
@@botbeamer it’s satanism mentality
Tjumps manners were a joke. Does he not understand simple debate rules? And we can all confirm his silly faces and him holding his head every time you made a point only made him look more stupid 😂
BaarakAllahu feek akhi
Yup his twitch gaming skills were showing not much his debate 😂
He looks like 13 year feminist girl
Tjump on thought adventure podcast made the dumbest argument of all time saying God playing a video game on hard difficulty means he is not all powerful 😂
he also made the dumbest point that since Uthman (May Allah have mercy on him) burned Quran manuscripts, it would make the “illusion” that the Quran was preserved since the standardization started with him. What this imbecile didn’t understand was why Uthman (May Allah have mercy on him) burned these manuscripts, it was because Islam was spreading rapidly and the manuscripts had duas, notes, ahadith and had to be burned to not confuse it with the Quran we have today.
Also, the Quran was compiled with the consensus of thousands of sahaba, so there is scientifically no possible way to add or subtract anything of the Quran, alhamdulillah, and we thank Allah for that
Atheists are opponents with a moving goal post. The moment you score agsinst them they'll move the goal post and say the goal doesn't count.
Srsly accurate.
They can kick anywhere towards our side, all counted as goals!! 😆
@@jonatand2045 its impossible to 'score' with the moving goal post analogy
Tjump : You have to be 18 to give consent.. because it is the best conclusion that can be derived from all the data we have.
Also Tjump : you can consent to sexual activity when you are 17.
Also Tjump : We are consistent.
Yep. Hes explaining the difference between law of the land and a moral action.
Laws and morals arent the same thing
@@bertthompson4748 ya.. Keep telling yourself that.
@@housse51 how am i wrong?
What the hell does age of consent have to do with atheism?
@@Edward-bm7vw atheists dont have a book that allows age of consent to be with 9yolds
_"The conditions that facilitate the denial of the Divine are based on false assumptions about the world, incoherent arguments, pseudointellectual postulations that veil emotional issues and on occasion, egocentricity. Atheism is not based on a commitment to reason; in many ways, it is its adversary."_
_~ Ustadh Hamza Tzortzis_
May Allah ﷻ guide T-Jump. Ameen!
What more egocentricity than the muslim one thinking they own the lands and have right to rule over someone's existence bcz their book said so and ofcourse thinking that we're something special and deny science like evolution & big bang that put humans on the same level of animals that we're nothing but living beings there is no such selfishness than the religious one you litteraly do something "good" out of fear of hell lol or bcz ur book said so pathetic
@@jonatand2045 Read his book, it's based on surveys and data.
Brother Daniel, this was good Alhumdullillah.
Please debate someone with at least a college degree next time.
Tjump did not bring anything on the table. Why did he even agree to debate with you? Guy had nothing to offer. No argument at all.
he brought bubble gun to a gun fight
He brought a lot of stupidity 👍
Brought nothing but took my brain cells away... Making profits
The interjections from TJump without consent was an absolute embarrasment and so unprofessional. Even the moderator couldn't even get him to be quiet when Daniel was trying to convey his argument.and points across.
Yup but it was great at making him look like a fool right from the start 😂
Moderator should mute anyone that interjects.
Seeing him so adamant about interrupting, I really thought that’s it. This debate is going to be halted.
I noticed that the Athiest can't control himself. He's uncomfortable and fidgety whenever Daniel is talking and constantly touches his face and whatever is around him as a self soothing mechanism making dumb expressions on his face.
TJump’s best contribution to the debate was when he accidentally muted himself 😂😂😂
Indeed 😂😂
hahahahaha
the question musIi,ms need to ask is why does lsIam think a 56 year old Iaying with 9yo is okay but Iistening to music is bad 😂🤣
athiests can differentiate between which is right and wrong out of these 2 options, why can't musIi,ms??
And when he pointed out preferences like abortion access and woman's equality are different to an objective claim like god exists.
When he won the debate
@@bertthompson4748 I think you're coping a little too much there ol' Bert
Tjumps whole argument = I dont understand therefore its dumb and irrelevant. A legend in his own mind
That's every atheists argument in every debate. Its just presented in different ways.
Atheism is the most inconsistent belief system out there. This debate reinforced that. Kudos to Daniel.
Difficult to say atheism is a belief system since atheists don't have a book or follow rules. The only thing they agree upon is the lack of God.
@@jonatand2045 It's a belief with many implications. Those implications are inconsistent.
@@jonatand2045 I guess you didn't watch the debate.
@@jonatand2045 Alright, big guy.
@@jonatand2045 subjective morality and "no problem of evil" are contradictory beliefs.
I have to say Daniel absolutely smashed this debate he had his interlocutor contradicting himself every other sentence to get out of agreeing with Daniel, and I am very impressed with the sabr shown here by Daniel as My patience cracked just by watching all the straw-manning and contradicting that occurred
Edit: especially with all the blatantly obvious false claims made and condescending tone and remarks that were being made by the interlocutor
This Tjump guy was repeatedly saying “Oh My God” throughout the debate and kept interrupting Daniel and he was also using words like “pwned”…🤦🏻♂️
This guy is stuck in junior high phase. Daniel was literally debating a child. This guy makes Apuss look smart.
😆
Don’t forget the squinting 😂
@@taimur74 LOL that too! 🤣👍
He said "oh my God"?
Bruh wth
@@KingFaisal2006 Exactly. He said it so many times during the debate, I actually lost count. 🤦🏻♂️
Tjump shouldn't go engaging in debate if he can't even listen. He's too emotional as if someone hurt his feelings or something.
Like Ben Shapiro he thinks if he talks fast enough he can deceive anyone. What a joke.
I am agnostic but I applaud Daniels patience with this guy. He seems like typical arrogant pampered mommas boy so confident in his ignorance.
I have never seen an adult male rolling eyes so frequent even more so than entitled middle schoolgirls. And chewing ice cube?
I think he is a manic depressive, living on SSI in his mom's basement.
Genuine question: Is there an example of a more arrogant public atheist?
He was both wrong and incredibly condescending to someone provably academically more knowledgeable about philosophy.
I think Destiny has done this before, but has anyone ever done it as abrasively arrogantly as TJump?
It was hilarious how completely unaware he is of his own idiocy 😂
Destiny was far better than TJump, and not nearly as rude and disrespectful.
To answer Ur question, no.
@Abul-Abbas al-Asyuti Hmm, yes. I think you can only have humility by outsourcing your arrogance. For universal religions, the arrogance is outsourced to people who make moral pronouncements about how everyone should live.
I.e. How everyone from the Inuits in the Arctic to the farmers in China should dress, greet, use the bathroom, think, etc.
I think I'd implode under that much arrogance if I my moralizing extended that far.
Aron ra. Watch him on thought adventure podcast. It was hilarious.
An hour into this... Daniel, come on now, set a standard for yourself when debating people. Don't lower yourself by debating a sentient turd.
Lol 😂
daniel Iied in this debate, he said pew research shows 87% athiest agree with abo,rtlon in all cases, this is a complete Iie.
Pew research actually shows only 50% of athiest agree with abo,rtlon in all cases.
And guess what daniel left out from the same page,
pew research also shows 41% of musIi,ms agree with abo,rtlon in MOST cases
@@brockcharz2104 You seem bitter. It's ok, keep coping. Hopefully it will get easier for you.
*Who explains to us why the Koran says Christians believe God has a physical son!*
To all Muslims! Son of God means NOT SON! What is called the son of God is the word (power) of God! Which has nothing to do with a child (son)! Thus, the Son of God is incarnated as the man Jesus and the man Jesus is therefore referred to as a son, which does not mean a son!
@@tomolo2619 So the God in Christianity roleplays? Ok then...
It's highly embarrassing to assert that utalitarianism isn't a moral philosophy
TJump: A mother is immoral for holding a child. 👏
🤪🥴😂
He is immoral for thinking he has brain
Eid al-Adha was over a month ago, but br Daniel is still slaughtering lol
Oh no u didnt bro hahahaha my sides
Haha
“Uneducated on philosophy” says the the google scholar to a HARDVARD GRADUATE!!! The joke writes itself 😂
lmao link time 🤣
And yet Tjump backed that up easily. Daniels claims weren't logically valid and he didnt understand utilitarianism is a pragmatic system and not a moral system.
This is basic philosophy. A moral system has oughts while utilitarianism just has measurements of outcomes that you need to plug the oughts into.
@@bertthompson4748 please educate yourself instead of just parroting nonsense that this clown tjump says. Nobody has ever referred to utilitarianism as “a pragmatic system” utilitarianism is a branch of ETHICAL philosophy. (Ethics definition: “moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity”) utilitarianism deals with ethics. The only reason tjump claims utilitarianism is “a pragmatic system” is because utilitarianism by default deals within the realm of subjectivism meaning that by definition it cannot deal with absolutes, regardless utilitarianism is an ethics theory that aims to determine right from wrong. And even advocates for actions that promote happiness and well being. I honestly don’t even know where tjump is coming up with these idea of “pragmatic system” because that term doesn’t even exist, so no it’s not “basic philosophy” when even a simple google search will tell you utilitarianism falls under ethical philosophy/ethical theory. And this is exactly what this clown does all the time he just throws terms that sound philosophical and pretend he knows what he is talking about.
@@HawkofLight007 yep. Utilitarianism is an ethical system that evaluates the outcomes of actions which is literally the philosophical definition of pragmatism.
Ethics governs behaviour while morality is the oughts that we derive our ethics from.
For instance if your moral system is least imposition of will it is ethical to kill a dictator even if its immoral.
A pragmatic system would be any system that uses prgmatism (defined as an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application) to evaluate an ethical action.
Utilitarianism also doesnt promote happiness and wellbeing. It promotes the greatest good and since good is different in different societies utilitsrianism can be used in different societies.
For instance a muslim thinks its good to limit sex before marriage so they could force all muslims to wear chastity devices and it would be the utilitarian approach because the outcome is more "good".
A liberal society values freedom and would consider chastity devices as bad because the outcome limits freedom.
Simple
@@bertthompson4748 RUclips keep deleting my comment. So I won’t post the source of the website.
“The core precept of utilitarianism is that we should make the world the best place we can. That means that, as far as it is within our power, we should bring about a world in which every individual has the highest possible level of well-being.”
- Peter Singer
Utilitarianism holds that we should give equal moral consideration to the well-being of all individuals, regardless of characteristics such as their gender, race, nationality, or even species.
TJump: Far secular countries do better in terms of living status than far Islamic countries
Gulf countries: 🤨
Secular countries gained their wealth and power from centuries of rapacious imperialism and the destruction of hundreds of millions of lives across the world. These same secularists with fraudulent political, economic, military and “culture” are the architects of global misery and instability today.
Broo🤣
"I came here as an atheist to defend atheist skepticism. But I cant speak for other atheists..."
Who let this guy in? Seriously, kick him out.
Well the topic is just had . Of course certain atheist aren't consistent. They are people like everyone else just like all Muslims aren't consistent. With that said I believe tjump thought he would speak to him on his position but Daniel was ready to generalize all atheist to make a point . Quite easy to tear down a strawman you've built
@@bacongritty "are atheists consistent skeptics?"
If Tjump says most atheists are moral subjectivists, and therefore they arent skeptics, then why come to the debate with that question?
Daniel clearly pointed out if you want scientific evidence for God but not morality, you arent a consistent skeptic. Tjump in no way addressed the elephant in the room. He just wanted to create the illusion of subjectivists and define atheists in such a way that gave him a fighting chance. And even granting all of that, Daniel still showed the inconsistency by showing how atheists are more skeptic of their food choice than morality. Tjump was illprepared and was just winging it.
@@dadush4 morality isnt a truth claim unless you claim its objective. It's like you dont know what subjective means . Objective means morality exist which means you must provide evidence. To say morality is subjective is to say it's a man made concept that differs from culture to culture . There is no truth claim there. Remember skepticism is to differentiate imaginary from reality by all propositions.
@@bacongritty yeah I understood that, what you didnt understand is that there is a bigger concencus on moral claims like baby killing than food preferences among atheists. Daniel explains this by the liberal hegemony that enforces these ideas and kills scientific research when it contradicts the common narrative. Tjump was unable to provide an argument other than harry potter or pizza. And here s the thing, atheists dont care about this social doctrine. They are not-skeptical about the fact that they are in agreement about this stuff even though there are arguments to be had on the contrary. So whether you re a moral subjectivist or not, you re not skeptic about the very fabric that determines your life style. When there is a bigger spread in food preferences and not in actual legislation in 1 group, it s not just culture, it s indoctrination.
@@dadush4 ok I'm pretty sure you dont know what skepticism is nor moral subjectivity. The consensus is absolutely irrelevant to someone who isn't making a truth claim . You literally said moral claim when i just said they are subjectivist.
This is what tjump is talking about . First he redefines skepticism and then says atheist don't provide evidence for abortion by some objective metric. There's so many things wrong here . I'm pro choice but not pro abortion. It doesn't mean I may believe all abortions or some aren't immoral but I respect the right for people to do it . Similarly to smoking or drinking.
I respect the right for people to drink though I think it's immoral to put it in your body. Hes conflating between right and what's moral and if you are a subjectivist you have no burden of proof because you believe morality is a man made concept that differs based on culture. There is no truth claim there . it's analogous to saying Muslims like kebabs in large so there must be something to it.
U definitely deserve millions of subscribers brother, may Allah be with you on defending islam
ameen
This had to be the most tedious debate ever. Every minute tjump spoke my IQ dropped by 1 point.
Tjump is finished
I think this video is a good example on why atheism’s popularity is dying out. All bark no bite
more like chihuahua bark, but they so cute
Actually it's religiosity that is dramatically on the downswing. And its because its all bark and no brain.
@@jonatand2045 oh wow atheism is confirmed by an argument that a 10 year old Muslim could deconstruct. You’re proving my point.
@@jonatand2045 simply put, man has free will. If “evil” didn’t exist there’d be no point to heaven and hell, since there would be no option to sin. Muslims believe life is a test. You pass by doing good, or fail by doing evil.
@@jonatand2045 Couple questions, but will start with the first one. If every choice has to have a cause, then wouldn’t that subsequent cause have been a choice as well? So you would have this infinite regress until you reach some “ultimate” cause?
Man, I am so disappointed Dan. This dude has like 11k subs and you debated him on his request. You need to set standards now. You don't debate an IDIOT, my brother
This atheist guy was so rude and didnt seem to be able to entertain viewpoints that don’t immediately agree w/ his… 🤦🏻♂️
This guy didn’t prepare for a debate. He spent the first 30 minutes ignoring Daniel and saying nothing but “you provided no evidence and said nothing I win”
I'm an atheist, but I had to turn this off after the first few minutes (which is rare). He doesn't know how debates work, and his first point is just wrong: there's no "consensus" among atheists about promiscuity or about anything else, other than disbelief in God. Ugh.
yeah he was playing semantics
Of course you have to run. We all know it is hard for you as an athiest to hear another world view which is not line with your nonsense one.
Just watched a little more than half of the debate.... I thought Daniel would have a great challenge but TJump ended going in circles....I think in most cases, Daniel's opening statement is enough to wrap up the whole debate👏👏👏
This guy can't even distinguish between basic principles.
For someone who does not believe in god, he sure kept saying "Omg" alot 🤣
Fitra: Allow me to introduce myself…
{أَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَٰهَهُ هَوَاهُ أَفَأَنتَ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِ وَكِيلًا (43) أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ ۚ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا كَالْأَنْعَامِ ۖ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلًا (44)} [الفرقان : 43-44]
This guy wants “objective morality” on why sexual promiscuity is immoral ok give your “objective morality” on why murdering someone for no reason is immoral
Great job Brother Daniel... This guy was all over the place... I almost fell out of my chair when he told us his academic credentials after insisting he is more informed about moral philosophy than you... Literally almost fell down...
You made numerous great points, but the best thing you did was get him to concede the debate. He admitted that most atheist are blind followers of Western culture... Too bad he's to stupid to understand the debate was actually over at that point..
Well done again
I can’t believe he thought utilitarianism was not a theory of morality! How embarrassing for him 🤦🏻♂️
Also well done Daniel for remaining patient when he kept interrupting you. He was obviously concerned about the direction you were going in (which involved mopping the floor with him) so he chose to interrupt and attempt to alter or throw you off from what you were saying.
I'm not educated about philosophy, but I actually paused the video to google if utilitarianism was moral or pragmatic and the answer was that it's moral. It's so amazing how someone can argue with confidence, showing the audience that he knows what he's talking about when he's talking to someone who has multiple degrees in philosophy. Charisma won't save you in the age of Internet and fact-checking is a tap of a button.
Daniel should’ve ended the debate after that… how do you debate with someone like that?
By far the worse Athiest I've ever seen in a debate, worse than Apus or David Wood, soo childish at 30 min he knew he lost the debate and went in full panic mode refusing to listen to the debate rules LOL
I want to see this guy in that are you smarter than a fifth grader show. I honestly think Apuss has more common sense and basic knowledge than this guy, and we all know Apuss intellectual abilities
Why is it that the Atheist Daniel debate they all claim to have better understanding of philosophy, but when ask about their education they don't even has certificate in philosophy?
of all the Atheist we have seen Daniel debate so far this guy was the most ignorant and cringe.
Tjump gets angry and frustrated at others, when *HE HIMSELF* doesn't know something and also when *HE'S* wrong. I think he's just a paid agent that pretends to know things, and actually knows next to nothing, similar to David Farina.
If life expectancy,"happiness",medical and scientific progress,safety etc materialistic values is what Tjump presumes to be the best measures of human moral progress then Huxley's brave new world would score very high.I would argue that if someone described brave new world's socioeconomic system to Tjump ,without telling him that the author is actually trying to paint a dystopian world, he would surely say this is what our society should aspire to be.He would uphold that dystopian world as a model for human progress.The dystopia would be an utopian world to him just like the ignorant gullible citizens of brave new world would.
The reason why you can't find humble atheists is because those people become muslims quite fast
I love fasting muslim
@@amiaquehaque Good one😂✌
@@randomphoton1 Care to explain this "joke"
@@rq9622 Fasting Muslim=who religiously fasts in ramadan and some other fasting mentioned in Hadith and Quran.
@@randomphoton1 I'm a muslim bro but I didn't get the joke xD
Loved it.. Tjump threw most atheist under the bus. when Tjump said yeah subjective moralist is stupid, Daniel said most atheist are stupid right TOm? Love it
جزاك الله خيرا و بارك فيك
نتمنى ترجمة هذه الأعمال
Thanks Daniel and baraka Allahou geek.
In other debates one could be entertained if not learning something. But this one was causing blood pressure and frustration as it seems turning in circles.
الله يعطينا الصبر آمين.
Salam, I'm not sure what I just watched. There was literally no debate. In fact all of 20 mins was relevant and it was mostly to do with subjective moralism and how atheists aren't skeptic regarding morality here, no basis on fact, and Tjump kept saying the very definition of subjective moralism is that it's purely subjective, and this tug of war back and forth of who has degrees, what definition means what, how the porn addicted obese degenerate liberal lifestyle is better than shariah, sarcastic face palms, name calling.... this was the messiest debate so far brother Daniel, I truly envy your patience.
The whole debate feels like Daniel and moderator trying to deal with a very difficult child.
LOL
Ya Allah ! I had my popcorn out for this one and this child couldn’t stop interrupting, couldn’t make any coherent arguments. And when he was losing, he showed his jahalat either by being condescending or throwing his hands up in the air.
Also, until today, I had no idea pizza is better than poop. ☺️😂🤦♂️ May Allah reward you for the things you have to put up with.
ameen
With all those faces from tjump we could make a shit load of memes 😂😂😂
I just wanted to chime in on the "China debate" around the two hour mark because I happen to know a fair bit about this.
China's "elimination of poverty" is literally them just changing the definition of what is internationally considered a state of poverty. Their only increase of wealth in the country is from them reducing civil and market restrictions after Mao Zedong's passing, and Xi Jinping is working very hard to reverse that right now.
China's "explosive rise of GDP" is literally the CCP violently taking control of all land during the cultural revolution and then promoting unproductive, unsustainable, debt-ridden property development and taking land lease fees from it. With the property market crash, they are now trying to inflate GDP with (similarly unproductive) supply-side, and infrastructure investments instead.
China's "elimination of hunger" Is their response to their causing of a famine that killed millions by interfering with the natural ecosystem of the lands by mass-murdering sparrows. Yet their destruction of the eco-system continued by literally placing thousands of chemical plants near their major rivers, diverting water to where it doesn't belong with thousands of dams, that cause mass extinction of animals, soil erosion, removes the water purification property of rivers, causes earthquakes and floods. They are now importing grain and other foods at record levels.
China's "increased education rates" Is their misguided attempt at urbanizing the country where there isn't the demand for it, causing record unemployment levels of highly educated university graduates. By the way, they are now attempting to send those same university graduates back to the countryside to work as cheap factory labor, or to boost agricultural productivity to solve their food shortage (They will fail, because farmland owners are not even incentivized to create a sustainable farmland environment because their land lease only lasts 10 years).
Elimination of slavery? Tell that to all the inmates in black prisons, where they attempt to smuggle the piss of other sick inmates in lunchboxes to drink in their own cell, so they can become sick enough to become exempt of forced labour. Oh, there's been cases of inmates breaking their own legs to avoid forced labor aswell.
China's version of "progress" is one surveillance camera for every two people (and increasing), a social credit system that prevents people from moving within, or even out of their own city to prevent them from attending a protest, the forced organ harvesting of Falun gong and Uyghurs, systematic sterilization and rape of Uyghur women, and so much more.
Sorry for getting all riled up, but the way TJump was so confidently incorrect about everything he mentioned about china's "progress" was one of the most infuriating things I've experienced recently. I just had to address that a little bit.
Thank you for this insight!
Not just that he just claimed that civilizations 1000 years ago didn't have many of the individual liberties we have now which is utterly false. Also majority of the civilizations considered rape to be wrong. Also there was attempts by past civilizations to abolish slavery such as Cyrus the Great of Persia. It just wasn't feasible at the time so they didn't succeed. In fact if we send "morally progressive" modern humans back to that time, they would also fail to abolish slavery because there was very little alternative for them to earn or survive. If this guys moral objectivism is based on human history then he is self refuting himself because there is no morally progressive pattern! Everything that is happening today has already happened in our past. "History always repeats itself" is not lip service.
Well how do you measure a country’s progress objectively?
@@nuhashahmed7692 Technology progresses forwards, not backwards. If we go back in time, we would need more intensive labor to produce the same amount of goods and services we do now. This will ultimately lead us to slavery (which did happen in the past). Similarly, our understanding of biology, physics, chemistry etc… increases over time, so it’s not crazy to believe our moral philosophy develops over time too. This explains why humans are now living longer lives then ever before and why the human population is booming as we speak.
@@hihowareyouhihowareyou8603 You're absolutely right about the necessity of slavery in the past and its good that you understand that because many historically ignorant modern humans can't digest it. The industrial revolution created more wealth than any period in human history and this made wage labor more lucrative to the business class than slavery because they needed consumers and that could only happen if they paid their labourers. So it should be noted that slavery was not abolished simply because of "morality" there was other more powerful reasons & considerations behind it. So putting it under "moral progress" is misleading. Because like I said slavery abolishment was desired in the past but was not possible. We humans don't come up with new morality's this is a historical fact! All the moral philosophies that you see today were inspired from the past the European ones were inspired from their antiquity. Even the Declaration of Human rights is inspired from Cyrus the Great's Cylinder which is very ancient. And he tried to secure much of the liberties that many consider "new".
At first um very disappointed cause a Harvard Graduate debating with a childish and mannerless so called intellectual atheist. Brother Daniel we love u for the sake of allah. This clown is not qualified for you. You are Doing a great job for the ummah just avoid this clowns. May Allah Bless You. Amin love u for the sake of Allah ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I've never seen anyone with a greater disparity between his self-perceptions and the facts of how competent he is. Tom is a prideful cartoon character.
Who schooled Daniel on a basic part of philosophy and came up with a defeater fir his argument.
Steven The person did not even listen a word said!!!.
@memphis diplore daniel has a degree in philosophy and still didnt understand basics of it. Daniels the one clinging to it by asking TJump what his qualifications
“John Stuart Mill was partially a liberal” -T Jump
" it is immoral for a mother to touch her baby because it violates consent" TJump
Half liberal half Italian
@@Hamzaben9 Tom said so many dumb things that I forgot he said that. Someone should collect all the stupid things he said
@@proofsofislampi He also said it is immoral to send children to school because it violates consent. Stupid logic but at least he got half of that right about not sending girls to school, in which case he agrees with the Taliban that he thinks are immoral and backward. He is such a clown.
@@Hamzaben9 Literally lost a few brain cells listening to that guy.
If consent is so important to atheists and arguing against Islamic positions such as sexual promiscuity, why not argue against keeping pets with the same fervor as clearly animals can't consent to be taken in as pets and forced to live in a confined space while being neutered.
Why can't the moderator just mute Tjump if he isn't willing to comply/respect the rules or format of the debate/discussion set by their platform. Simply telling off cringe individuals like Tjump to comply to the rules wouldn't work. They need to use mutes and unmutes to better manage or enforce set rules in order to avoid any debate from becoming a cesspool.
How does harm have nothing to do with morality 🤣🤣
Ikr?? Isn’t that what morality is based off of? What is considered beneficial by a person is what is morally good and what is harmful is what is morally bad?
Morality as per Islam does not depend only on harm.... But yes harm is a significant determinant of it in majority cases.
Tjump telling a Philosophy major that he is not educated on Philosophy is the epitome of Dunning-Kruger-Effect.
Most annoying person so far.
😂😂😂