it's crazy how his answers sound like christians. almost word for word. as far as flaws in the holy text, explaining verses that don't make sense, etc.
The premise of his belief rests on Adam and eve and the fact ("What it is") and theory (model of "how it works") of evolution. As long as he wrongly things that a theory is a hypothesis and not a fact, then this conversation will never end.
the mental gymnastics w/the scriptural stuff is even worse with Islam since the Quran is supposed to be God's direct word AND his final prescription and has been preserved since it's inception so every command in it is from the one true god and is always applicable. So what happens when someone who's a textbook feminist reads, "men are in charge of their wives by right of what allah has given them" is that they have to rationalize it and tell themselves that in classical arabic, it means the opposite or some shit.
I thought he was sounding quite Jewish in the sense that the age of writings seem be the determinant factor for truth. I, myself, always go to the Bronze Age in my quest for up to date knowledge with a stopover around the year 610 to consult an illiterate war lord.
Try telling that to someone who believes a 500 year old dude built a boat and then proceeded to live to be 900 years old! It's like explaining how an internal combustion engine operates to a golden retriever.
@@seanjones2456 It's a challenge, but thank you all for telling me when even though I was brainwashed by Christianity from a young age. Now I am free. So, don't give up! It just takes some of us a longer time to find that wrench that opens our minds to facts once again.
He wants to see transitional forms of human evolution. Literally all it would take is a 2 second google search. And if that's not good enough, go to a museum. And if that's not good enough go to university and study human evolution, become a scientist, and study the evidence for yourself.
I remember being at a Catholic friend of mines house and looking at a catechism pamphlet. The thrust of it was supplication, supplication, supplication. This was a guide for Sunday school, where of course, kids are taught. Mohammed has seen this all his life from every member of his family and from every member of his mosque. I know that my bias would never allow me to believe in any of the religious hocus pocus, so I can understand at some level why it would be difficult to sway him away from his beliefs. Simply put, he is 100% certain that he is right. Actually 150% :)
The problem is that for every new fossil we find, two new links are needed. For Example: Skull 1 and Skull 2 are known. Skull 1.5 is Found! Creationists: Where are skulls 1.25 and 1.75?
I wonder what topic you'd have to pick for me to sound like this. I try to be aware of what reasons I have, but it's the nature of such things that I'd be unconsciously blind to the protection I was giving an unfounded belief. In much the same way as I wonder in what way future generations will look back despite all the social progress we've made and say "they used to what?!" It's probably eat animals isn't it? If I'm being honest with myself, it's probably that. But they're so damn tasty...
He loves science, yet was woefully misinformed on the definition of scientific theory vs hypothesis, which is what I'm sure he 'thought' theory meant. He loves science because by his own understanding, it hasn't encroached upon the divinity of his belief. If he were to give the theory of evolution a full, solid, unbiased examination, he'd either have to re-examine his faith, or deploy the 'god of the gaps' argument.
There are many religious people who seem to have no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with evolution. They simply do not take their religious scriptures literally. For example they will say that evolution is the method god used and uses to create all living creatures. In fact, that is the official position of the catholic church nowadays and has been for a while.
And why wouldn't it be? Next, they'll say that any vestige of anything considered life-like discovered anywhere off this planet, was in fact the work of their god. They are already willing to say that the 'cinderella' conditions required for life on this planet is the work of god 'here'; of course it will apply elsewhere!
I didn't say I agree with religious interpretations, just saying that evolution is by no means any reason whatsoever for religious people to abandon their religion. Any conviction that it must be so is based on the false belief that all religious people follow a literal interpretation of their scriptures. Most of them don't. If you live in a radical fundamentalist country where the majority of the population is stuck in belief systems of the dark ages -- USA and Saudi Arabia being by far the worst two -- then it may seem so, but it's only because you live in a medieval age bubble.
Those that do follow their texts literally are the ones doing the mental gymnastics to shoehorn the power of their divinity into the reality of our universe just so they can remain relevant; particularly in the application of laws. This is where the friction occurs. I'd hardly call the USA a radical fundamentalist country. Dark ages? LOL Now Saudi Arabia is a different story. They haven't needed to develop themselves out of the dark ages because their sustenance and contribution to the world comes straight out of the ground. Without it, they'd have to 'do' something to matter, like israel.
I noticed that Anthony did not "take the bait" on the ISIS issue, but at the same time, he didn't "take the heat" for not taking the bait by laughing along and saying "that's a really timely topic." To me this seems like one of the most masterful expressions of intervention strategy because he accomplished the goal of not getting into "politics", and also, not creating a hostile relationship by saying something antagonistic like "well I'd really rather not talk politics". And I have to say that Anthony even had a third success, which is that he never agreed with him on that point. Anthony always says, avoid saying "yes", or "uh huh" unless you actually agree, and I'm glad that he didn't grant him the point that ISIS is the "un-islamic state". Three birds with one stone in the first 40 seconds! WOW!
I love where he says he would have to find an idea more logical than god putting Adam on earth. Hmmmm how about evolution?! You cannot put god and logic in the same sentence!
A truly omnipotent God would have effortlessly foreseen the mess that would transpire before the deity had the inclination to set the entire process in motion.
He's a university student who "loves" science but does not know that all genetic evidence denies the Adam story? Scary. He sure has all his fallacies fully on board, however.
I was thinking the same thing, he's at university and doesn't believe in evolution, that's the power of indoctrination. You could prove it to him, and he'll still find a way to squirm out of it at whatever cost. I've never seen a Muslim admit defeat, but I'm sure a small percentage are honest enough to.
I was very impressed by this exchange! Mohamed represented himself and his beliefs in a way that was very refreshing to me, even as a nonbeliever. He seemed to have a very progressive and open mind which is rare among true theists. Thank you Anthony for encouraging this open dialogue!
He seems like a good guy. Why can't he see how unreasonable some of his beliefs are? Nice technique though Anthony. I'm learning a lot from your videos. Thanks. "Where do you think the Shinto s have gone wrong? " is a good but I usually get the religious conspiracy answer which is "other religions are different roads to the same destination". I told a Muslim that I often wondered about what god's purpose was in just creating people, listening to prayers more and more forever and ever and could he help me answer this. It left him speechless for a moment.
Another interesting thought is this - if God is truly infinite in time - then the entirety of human existence would literally be a blink in time - not even an observable instant. Why would an infinite being create a universe, beings in that universe, only to have them all destroyed in Armageddon while already knowing the outcome when it happens instantaneously? This is often a weird loophole to go down because you have to really grasp 'infinity' as a concept (which most people don't)..... just my $0.02 - what ever that's worth in internet points, haha.
Maybe he should take Evolutionary Biology 101 or at least read the Human Evolution Wikipedia article instead of sitting outside and apologizing for ISIS.
Hamza Alderman Does the existence of a god have to rely on on a charismatic speaker? How does a charismatic speaker differ to a good salesman? They both use some facts and logic but then they use their knowledge of the way people think to make you think you need what they’ve got.
Hamza Alderman I’ve seen many bad reasons to believe in a god, or gods. And many good reasons not to. I chose not to believe in mythology. Religion is mythology and always will be.
What a great conversation. Anthony, your timing, patience and quality of questions that provoke thought without provoking confrontation just keeps getting better and better. Muhammad seemed genuine and thoughtful as well. Well done.
Minor correction: It's the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity. Theories are composed of a body of supporting evidence and rigorous testing - hence why they are often up for revision as more evidence is compiled and more testing is done. Laws are mathematical equations. Hypothesis are ideas that have either yet to be tested or do not yet have enough supporting evidence to become a theory.
this was a good one! keep 'em comin'. I like the way the conversation builds and the questions are posed, in a polite interested way, where even if it seems futile at the end, they will walk away and think about it later.
Dude seems like a nice chap. Would love to see him interact with Dawkins on evolution for a lesson and see whether he readily rethinks, or whether he just deflects and claims false the findings of modern science.
He is skeptical about thinks and recognises the need for reading and rationality in seeking out truth. He is less questioning of what he has been told / taught to believe about islam and the Quran. I look forward to your second conversation.
When he asked "What are you looking for in a religion?" I'd say "Truth." Of course then I'd clarify that that I look for truth wherever it might be, in religion or in non religion.
Reoccurring concept I see in these interviews is the “personal relationship” and people feeling a strong sense of “connection” to their deity- their personal experience in their most private and often vulnerable moments- these experiences seem to trump all other reasons once you dig a little deeper and peel away peoples reasons it generally ends up falling to faith and feelings. Emotions. Strong human emotions make strong pathways in the brain- making it so difficult for people to question their core belief because it is a part of their inner self they’ve reached and connected to and attributed to whichever deity concept they best related to or were emersed in as their sense of self began cementing. This is why the best way to know a person is to ask them about what their version of god is like- it is going to be the most ideal version of who they see or would like to see themselves as. It empowers them and grounds them and to break through the barrier seems at first so terrifying but ultimately empowering to realize all that all those trials your faith got you through- was just dumbos magic feather. Its all just you.
"Everything is created except the creator" - how convenient Also everything from nothing is not necessarily the only possibility, and besides, he still can't prove that something can't come from nothing.
Since Islam is not too fond of apostates, perhaps this might also keep him from fully being open. He says he would be open which is a good thing but he doesn't seem to accept the evidence for evolution with regard to Adam. Question is: what is Adam to him? Homo Sapiens? Homo Erectus? Homo Habilis? Australopithecus? Ardipithecus? Possibly he hasn't fully looked at evolution.
I always find it funny when Abrahamic Theists say that people need to be humble, yet they believe that a perfect being create a whole seemingly infinite universe JUST FOR THEM, that they created them because it wants to have a relationship WITH THEM and that it LOVES THEM more than any of it's other creations.
@Ted Ingalls You shouldn't assume how people will respond to your challenge. The verse that you paraphrased is a valid one, and we follow it. The problem is you didn't read its context. An army attempted to kill the prophet (saw) and his army in war, that army was defeated and due to be executed, then a verse came down from god to spare their lives, but then it also said that they must leave in exile, but if they return, their execution will take place wherever they are found.
@Ted Ingalls Also i'd recommend reading the entire context instead of a snippet of the verse. Read the entire verse, and the one before, and the one after. You'll find that the context is fighting against people who started the fight, and to stop fighting if they stop.
7:10 Looks like I have found another bedtime story to read! I just finished the one where GOD kills everybody on the planet except for a 500 year old guy and his family. Nothing beats a good science book before bed.
I don't know where Mohamed is from, but there are Muslim countries where although people are religious, they also have a secular approach to most aspects of life, (Turkey being a prime example)... so that's what I see in this individual - open to science, open to the evolution (at least partially) but at the same time dedicated to highly unscientific, very cryptic source to fill another aspect of his life without realizing the cognitive dissonance at all.
I agree with the guys statement around 15:25 when he said “the more we know, the more we find that we don’t know.” When I heard that from him, i immediately thought that if he only applied that mindset to his own beliefs about being 150% confirmed in his belief he would have his brilliance pushed to its potential by abandoning his indoctrination.
It's amazing how restrained Anthony was. He had so many opportunities to go into full science mode & demolish Mohamed's theistic arguments. He gently prodded & probed here & there, but didn't go into a full throated counter-apologistic attack. I would've been all over Mo about what evolutionary science has demonstrated since Darwin. The explanatory scope is huge. It's such a rich vein of evidence that it must be hard not to deploy it while conversing w/ someone like this. That takes some real skill & patience. As with all pros, Anthony makes it look effortless.
Fear of rejection by their social group is the number one reason you hit a wall with believers; he even unwittingly lets it slip when he mentions the 2 billion believers On a personal level, no one wants to make their mothers cry
Wow I love this guy. He is really open minded (and wrong the same time when it comes to his specific theistic belief). I wish he could question and really examine his method of determining what is really true or not.
When he said he was at 150% in his faith I knew science wasn't going to be used. Science doesn't deal with absolutes, but yet he says things like, " there is no way; when I feel; I believe." He demonstrated no science to back up his beliefs.
After that video... *boom* +1 subscriber! Only found out about you from a very Recent AronRa video which I highly enjoyed and have sinced been binge watching many of your videos. I'm secretly glad I took so long to find this channel, it means I have a nice back catalogue to continue watching!
I have to confess, as skeptical as I try to be, he started getting to me. It wasn't until Anthony asked him to combine the principle of scientific humility with his belief in God that I suddenly realized that the reason I was impressed is that he has actually examined a great deal of evidence AND rationalized every bit of it.
With all due respect to Mohammed, who seems like a genuinely nice guy, and could likely be a great spokesman for Islam, if he doesn't eventually discard his belief, his mention of two billion Muslims worldwide is a little exaggerated, but not by much I suppose. I actually did a little number crunching on Islamic countries and there are currently six Islamic theocracies and I believe another eight or nine countries where Islam is the predominant religion. The total population of all these countries is roughly One point five or one point six billion. My point is: you are a Muslim in these countries because you really have no choice. And it has been like this for fourteen hundred years. The true rise of Islam was by murder, rape and sheer terror, and it seems like that is still the method in some regions of the world to this day. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Do any sleuthing on that place and see how they use Islam to enforce their barbaric agenda. Islam seems to be at the same place that Christianity was at about five hundred years ago. And Christianity has almost evolved itself out of existence. It is mostly gone in Europe, We certainly don't care much in Canada anymore, and the United States will soon follow. Islam obviously has to reform. The fact that the penalty for apostasy is death has to go for sure. Who wouldn't be terrified of leaving the faith under that threat. Many other unsavoury aspects have to be dealt with as well. But the fact is, Islam is a religion of repression and subjugation. Maybe not in the free world, but you would have to turn a very blind eye not to see how it works in the majority of Islamic countries.
islam cannot be reformed like christianity, muslims believe the quran is the direct word of god ( no compromise) what they will do is try to "reinterpret" the verses to suit their argument. I talked with muslims scholars and they are the greatest mental gymnasts in the world.... and muslims follow their most favorite scholar
Some Christians would like to interpret the bible literally. But we have democracy and rule of law in most Christian nations. Britain, the US Canada, several others. And most importantly, I think we have real freedom of information, but who knows what could happen if any democracy became a Christian theocracy.
"christian nations" already moved on and progressed forward, i dont think christians want to go back to the dark ages. unlike muslims, they have been planted the idea of the "great islamic age"... the caliphate... so on....
I agree with you on that. Highly unlikely that Christianity will ever be the same as it was in the worst eras of it's history. But it was used as a terrifying tool for political control at one time. And history maybe won't, but it can repeat itself. As you say, highly unlikely. Seems to me that Christianity is in it's death throes. Witness Kyle on this SE channel. 80% drop out when they get away from the home influence, and as he says, it takes a couple of years before they are safely indoctrinated. I.E. brainwashed. :)
hence came the greatest constitution of all time, separation of church and state. but today we got to modify it to separation of religion and state. and did i mention islam wants governmental control?
15:00 one of the greatest kinds of cognitive dissonance is listening to theists preach epistemological Humility, while insisting 150% certainty in the origin and purpose of the universe. I totally have said the exact same thing he says about how expanding the feild of our knowledge expands the circumstance of our ignorance, and we can find great awe and intellectual humility in that... But that’s why I’m agnostic about the ultimate mysteries remaining in the universe, and not making extraordinary claims with 150% certainty.
I'm only about 7 minutes in fyi and will comment again when i finish. This is good so far. It's good to find someone that is willing to answer any questions about his religion for an agreed time. . I'm a former Muslim. I remember being sort of at his stage where I questioned things. But there were just a few things that I didn't quite get. My logic just didnt jive with it. And the "Oh, just don't question some little tiny thing. Look at the big picture" shtick that many people of my background do when they find aspects of islamic text that don't jive w/their liberal values just was not going to cut it. So he's got a resolution for this "kill them where ever you find them" verse but there are other verses that have very pertinant questions that haven't been asnwered that don't apply to any historical context in the Quran. Some commands (if you read the surrounding verses as well) are direct commands. But many muslims are still peaceful because they don't think that far w/this verse. If you present it to them, they'll just think, "Oh, it's like that kill em where ya find em verse that has a historical context. And youre not a scholar in classical arabic. Done"
6:53 Hmm, wouldn't a benevolent god, or even just a neutral god, just have said something more specific to have written down like "You may protect yourself from attackers."? Eye for an eye, or even two eyes for an eye to dissuade more attacks? Seems odd that an eternal being would get upset after a few years and give such a broad statement that includes non-hostiles.
Just as a point of nuance, although it is true that the word "theory" in science technically refers to something that has been repeatedly tested or observed, scientists fling that word around with just as much nonchalance as our friend Mohamed here. To take just one example: string theory. So best be cautious when we say that theory in science means "near fact" since it's rather easy to point to a scientific usage of the term that doesn't fit with that definition at all.
String theory is a mathematical theory, it actually is the correct scientiffic word to use for it in the field of mathematics, and they are mathematical true. So To say it is flung with nonchalance is factual incorrect. But it is good to note there also are theories that aren't tested other as just with math, although I won't stop pointing out ppl are wrong when they use the word theory as just a idea.
+ftbsecret There's nothing wrong with using "theory" as meaning merely an opinion or an explanation. You can point out to people that they're wrong when they use the word that way if you want but they could point you to any dictionary and show you that they are in fact right. The mistake that is often made is just one of mistaking one meaning of the word for another, for instance thinking that "evolutionary theory" falls under the wrong contextual definition of the term "theory". Polysemy is a bitch, but that's just how it is. But if I say "I'm not sure why he didn't make it tonight but I have a theory" and you correct me on that, I'd just point you to a dictionary. It's also why when somebody says "evolution is just a theory", the answer shouldn't be "theory means near-fact" as what we saw here in this video, the answer should be, the scientific meaning of theory is something different than the lay usage and in this particular case the theory is substantiated by evidence, confirmed predictions and repeated observations. As for string theory, there's a reason why I said "scientists" and not "mathematicians". One of the looming problems with science today is how many are gradually moving away from testability. The phrase "post-evidence science" has even emerged as a parallel to the political "post-truth". Physicists working with string theory have gone down the route of probabilistic solutions instead of evidence-based testability. And that's dangerous. There's a risk that we end up with the same semantic problems within science as we see outside of it. Mathematical theory, scientific theory, not really the same thing. And as things go, mathematicians care less and less about whether their theories are testable or not, and prefer to focus on the inner consistency of their theories. String theory only barely meets the definition of a scientific theory in that yes, theoretically, one day with advancement in other parts of science, it just might be testable. It's theoretically possible. Next to that, you have multiverse theories that, even theoretically, are not testable, and, and this is the problem, multiverse theorists simply don't care. And if empirical falsifiability is no longer a criterion in the definition of a theory, than I'm not sure what we're talking about. Without that, mathematics would be no better than theological apologetics, just working on inner consistency without any consideration for whether these ideas are confirmed by evidence or not. Anyways, this is a controversial topic. The point being that how scientists define theory is not nearly as clean as some lay people think. If you want an example where you might be more likely to agree with me that scientists are flinging the word theory around nonchalantly, how about music theory? Or how about that theory that so many within the atheist movement rely upon (and poorly so) to dismiss otherwise valid opinions by simply bringing up fallacy labels: argumentation theory?
At 6:10 he mentions there are no contradictions in the Quran and if he found any that would shake his belief. Here are some of them: 1. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing? "Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2). "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26). "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59). "But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35). "He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4). 2.Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an? "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256). "And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,--that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3). "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5). Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29). 3. The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses? "And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12). "When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143). "And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132). 4. Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods? Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116 The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153). 5. Are Allah's decrees changed or not? "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34). "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115). None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106). When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101). 6. Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning? "We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92). Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103). 7. Is wine consumption good or bad? O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,--of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90). (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell forever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15). Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).
Found a pretty neat question to ask for Mohamed, maybe. He said he was informing people of muslims not being part of ISIS. Yet in part when he talked about a specific part in koran where "kill all non believers" he justified it by well he was treated really badly that's why he said it. So the question "Can a victim of ISIS terror spread a word to kill all muslims, would it be justified?"
I have a question. Are Muslim or mainstream Christian children raised being warned against anti literature? As a Mormon, I knew exactly how to find out that my religion wasn't true. Once I decided to find the answer, it didn't take long to find evidence against it.
First impression from 1% to 100%. 150% is exaggerating, why not 200% or more? Why people don’t go into museums and don’t educate themselves? Not understanding what theory means in scientific terms.
Poor guy, you can see how Anthony's questions were hitting home. It seemed tough for him several times to return to his script... The fear he must have even living in America must be enormous to think about being an apostate for him. He really didn't want to hear about Anthony's deep sea discovery story that would have slightly diminished his claim about the lack of knowledge that humans have about the depths of the ocean. Well done Anthony.
At 8.40 it’s very interesting. Believers of all stripes seem happy TO believe despite an apparent total absence of evidence but, and as Mohammed paradoxically states here they’d need some really, really, really good evidence to not believe! I always enjoy too the Muslim willingness to admit to a God shared with Christianity which is an admission that would I suspect be far less likely from Christians. There are so many ‘universals’ offered to Anthony by interlocutors; ‘something can’t come from nothing’, ‘we can’t just be here by accident’, ‘nature as proof of God’ etc. etc.. By the way, what a fantastic chap Mohammed sees to be too.
You can never have more than 100% of a concept. Only objects can ever be more than 100%. eg. 150% of an apple is 1.5 apples but nothing can be 101% true nor can you be 150% certain. Even though we do know what someone means, it is still incorrect.
I don't agree. "150% of *an* apple" is the whole apple plus half of the same apple which doesn't make any sense. Which is also why his 150% statement doesn't make any sense. Checkmate atheists
ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ Yes technically you are correct. The only way my example would work is if you had *an* apple and I had 150% of what you did. Then I would have one and a half apples.
Public notice: Never comment about the appearance of the participants, it's rude. Even when the participant is as handsome as this sexy man, don't. For example, I would never comment about how much I feel attracted by this man's beautiful face, big strong arms and honest, brilliant eloquence. Oh and his relaxed, confident way of just sitting there... Of course I would never mention that either. Always be polite in the comments. Thank you. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to rewind the video because I was distracted.
So he loves science and accepts it except when it comes to one of the most scientifically grounded theories in history? Only because this theory goes against what he believes because of his religion...
If find it somehow weird, but at the same time understandable, that some believers justify their beliefs by saying it is logical. I'm sure we can create a lot of stories that are totally logical (I'm thinking about Lovecraft, but I'm sure we can find some other as well), but it doesn't necesseraly means that it is the truth. A non-logical elements in a story would effectively disprove it, but the absence of non-logical elements in a story is not making it true either. It think that is why so many believers are using ad hoc hypothesis. If we actually do present all the evidence for human evolution to Mohammed, I doubt it will shake off his belief in Islam. I think he will probably change how he is interpreting some parts of Islam, but that's it. Do you think it could be an interesting method to ask: 1) Is a logical story a proof of his trueness? 2) If not, what could be used to defining its trueness?
I know this is old, but it would have been great if you touched on the widespread and very different interpretations of the Koran, especially in the light of ISIS. How can such opposing views be drawn from the same book? Sure both sides claim the other is mistaken, but surely a god would choose his words very wisely, and not allow them to be twisted either way.
I dont know. I feel like Anthony should've brought a notebook to take down all what he had said and recap all this to him. I love his enthusiasm for science and "openness(?)" to evidence but I dont like his method of incorporating beliefs with scientific method. His explanation goes nowhere.
I would have asked Mohammed, since you need evidence for evolution, do you have evidence for Adam and Eve so that I may believe also? Something I can actually see to be 100% true?
I find this very interesting. If you actually read the Quran, the first four chapters constantly reinforce that non-believers will go to hell, can be killed, etc etc. So when he says he weighs your evidence I find that hard to believe.
Anthony, I know you don't like getting distracted, but with regards to the bit where you say "..someone watching this video..something Mohamed needs to see..". For me that "something" is: The loss of the ability to synthesise vitamin C. For a scientist it's maybe not the best proof that we share common ancestors with other primates, but it's a great one for Creationists because it's simple to explain and there are no good comebacks. Maybe you know about this already, but in case you don't here's the medium length version: Almost all mammals can synthesise vitamin C. Take a dog and a cat on a long sea voyage and feed them the same zero vitamin C diet as the humans, dog and the cat will be ok, but the humans will eventually die of scurvy (they might live a little longer if they eat the dog and the cat, probably not, but if your not an animal lover it could be worth a try, raw liver is the best option). Humans lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C because one of the 4 genes required has a point mutation preventing the protean from being manufactured. This same point mutation is *thought* to be shared by all our putative closest relatives in the family "Haplorhini" (the Dry Nosed Primates) i.e. all tarsiers, monkeys, and apes. All Haplorhini tested so far will succumb to scurvy, and all of them that have so far had that gene sequenced show *the same point mutation*. All Mammals outside that clade tested so far, with the exception of Hamsters *can* synthesise vitamin C, and don't get scurvy. Hamsters can't because they have a *different* point mutation. Common Ancestry can explain all this and make a further prediction. A common ancestor of all Haplorhini including us, got that mutation. It was not selected out because that species ate enough fruit so the mutation was "fitness neutral" for that species, and in fact for all species since right down to humans where it was slightly fitness negative (especially for sailors). So even if a new mutation had come along creating a new genetic pathway to manufacture vitamin C it would not have selected for so the chances are high that *no* species of Haplorhini can manufacture vitamin C. Which brings us to the prediction: *All* species of Haplorhini should share that point mutation. Since not all have been checked yet we can challenge creationists to get some money together and do some real science by paying labs to do at least partial (coding sequence) DNA sequencing of all remaining Haplorhini. If they found one with the ability to manufacture vitamin C and without the point mutation then common ancestry would be in trouble, a lot of explaining would have to be done. If they found say 3 separate species, one tarsier, one monkey, one ape then common ancestry is almost certainly dead and we would need a new explanation for biodiversity! Creation has no explanation for this beyond all other Haplorhini having got the mutation from a common ancestor and we just happened to get the same point mutation by chance in one of our common human ancestors (Noah say). But whatever the creationist websites say that is very unlikely, and this is just one of many neutral mutations we share with our closest relatives. You can summarise the above into a couple of sentences, but I thought I'd give the longer version here so people reading this have the background they need to use it when appropriate.
Did Mohammad follow up? I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. "You took Ochem? Wait, wait, wait, are you ignoring/denying radiometric dating? When do you plan on taking genetics?"
If you only learn enough about your religion to think it fits with science AND you only learn enough about science to make it fit with religion - you can feel like they confirm each other. Just remember to stop at that sweet spot or you're going to lose one or the other.
Nice question on passage about killing spree infidels - base on what do you think that this particular text should be understood in the context? If you be told so, base on what does that theologian think so...
The problems with incest is common knowledge but everyone seems to ignore it. We couldn't have come from two people. When Kane and able were supposedly around it references other tribes. If they were the first offspring how could there be other people? Did inbreeding work differently in a way that allowed people to live a 1000 years? We can disregard these beliefs just based on these contradictions. If the old testament is just a bunch of metaphors and it's making no claims. Then there is no reason to derive beliefs from it other than poetry that can be interpreted to mean whatever you want. I feel like the more believers change the meaning of their doctrine the closer they come to claiming that the cosmos is god but thinking. And these scriptures prove it with metaphors
9:35 and What is illogical or flawed about natural evolution? He does know that the scientific theory wasn’t just imagined out of nowhere (like creation myths) and scientists have Abundant “hardcore” evidence supporting it, and (so far) nothing in the observable world contradicts evolutionary biology. Also, if a religious text contradicts EVOLUTION AND EVERY OTHER FEILD OF SCIENCE CONCERNED WITH THE NATURAL UNIVERSE... then it’s not compatable with scientific principles.
Always suspicious of people who say they believe 150%. That is both ridiculous and impossible. Such a percentage can only apply in the field of mathematics. Unfortunately, that start was maintained in his subsequent comments, for example he says he loves science, but only when it agrees with his own presuppositions.
'Because he hasn't seen it happening.' Self-observation seems to be a major evidence for him, but he couldn't possibly have self observed the 1400yrs to be at 150%. Also, no evidence of Adam let alone self observing him, only written in the scriptures.
Dont believe “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)
+Anthony Magnabosco I hope you and Mohamed meet again. This video is old so maybe you have. I find it very interesting that he seems to understand the way you want people to think and yet has a different belief than your self. This method does lead to some very interesting discussions about topics that are usually debated. Instead of two people arguing it is two people working on one person to help self reflect and apply the scientific method to any and all beliefs. What people believe would be comparable to the first step in the scientific method, Guessing. Now when you guess something there are good guesses and bad guesses. This gives you the scale 0%-100%. History has shown that no guess is ever completely right. New observations don't fit the current best guess so you need to come up with a new guess that fits all observations.(You never get to 100%) Now even if your guess is extremely bad I don't believe you could ever be so wrong to get to 0% either. Example we could live in a multiverse where every and all things are possible. This would make me say Im 50%/50% on everything, but looking at the one universe we live in Im at x%/100%-x% on any specific topic with x%>0. I love math because you can explain anything with it. I will continue to watch your videos and hope you make more.. .
Why is it that he needs to see evidence and use logic for things to make sense for him to believe evolution, but yet would require none of that to believe in Mohammed? I know he didn't mention 'faith' but maybe next time someone says a similar thing ask them 'do you have faith in evolution?'
Anthony Magnabosco I know, I have been watching your videos a lot lately, they are amazing. I commented this because you told Mohamed that you would tell him at the end of the interview, but I do think is better to not let them know your position, as they can be less honest or even leave the interview. Also not having anything to do with this video, but the Bailing ones, when is the tutorial 5 going to be available? I am really looking forward to it.
Hey there. Sorry - it's been a while since I've viewed this encounter with Mohamed. Either we discussed my position on things and I edited it out, or we simply forgot to discuss it. I honestly cannot recall. It was not intentional - I love talking about my lack of beliefs - preferably after the interlocutor has answered all of my questions.
Mmm..sorry - I fully expect the breakdown tutorial 5 to be ready in a day or two - unexpected computer issues are slowing things down from its' release. Stay tuned - it's coming!
Anthony Magnabosco Your approach to deprograming is refreshing. Real dialog to get to them thinking, without condescension. Keeping them on point vs. the red herring presented. PS-Hopefully you won't take this as just an attempt to point fault but, a scientific theory is an explanation of how a fact works, the mechanics involved. A theory will never be the fact it is explaining. I think I'll start calling ToE the "explanation of evolution", in order to avoid confusion.HAHA
ask him one simple question . . . Do you have scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god? If he is typical of mot true believers of every religion I've encountered, you will get the following responses (not in order) 1) they respond with argumentive questions, not evidence. The most common is the basic "Look around you" followed by a series of Logical Fallacies. 2) their "scientifically verifiable evidence" is one "holy book" or other in which god says there is a god. 3) do you have evidence god does not exist? When you ask if that verfieis the existence of Spiderman, they often break off communication. 4) you are evil for attacking their religion (by asking for its evidence) and you will burn in hell for eternity. But scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god? They do not even know what that means and will reists every explnation of what it is.
I am an ex muslim and I can attest that there are plenty of flaws in the Quran. When I was Muslim I couldn't see it - it was easy to cover them up or fill the gaps with poor apologetics, especially because I had severe confirmation bias.
man religious people sure can argue, but they never can fully explain their religion. I mean not even a shred. Just so paper thin it is so odd to see them attempt...
it's crazy how his answers sound like christians. almost word for word. as far as flaws in the holy text, explaining verses that don't make sense, etc.
The premise of his belief rests on Adam and eve and the fact ("What it is") and theory (model of "how it works") of evolution. As long as he wrongly things that a theory is a hypothesis and not a fact, then this conversation will never end.
the mental gymnastics w/the scriptural stuff is even worse with Islam since the Quran is supposed to be God's direct word AND his final prescription and has been preserved since it's inception so every command in it is from the one true god and is always applicable.
So what happens when someone who's a textbook feminist reads, "men are in charge of their wives by right of what allah has given them" is that they have to rationalize it and tell themselves that in classical arabic, it means the opposite or some shit.
I thought he was sounding quite Jewish in the sense that the age of writings seem be the determinant factor for truth. I, myself, always go to the Bronze Age in my quest for up to date knowledge with a stopover around the year 610 to consult an illiterate war lord.
@@patrickbaillargeon8051
😊
Slow Cut Christians believe the Bible is the word of god too.
Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact.
Try telling that to someone who believes a 500 year old dude built a boat and then proceeded to live to be 900 years old! It's like explaining how an internal combustion engine operates to a golden retriever.
@@seanjones2456 It's a challenge, but thank you all for telling me when even though I was brainwashed by Christianity from a young age. Now I am free. So, don't give up! It just takes some of us a longer time to find that wrench that opens our minds to facts once again.
Yes but look at the trees!
THE TREEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;)
Correctamundo
technically it is not a fact
He wants to see transitional forms of human evolution. Literally all it would take is a 2 second google search. And if that's not good enough, go to a museum. And if that's not good enough go to university and study human evolution, become a scientist, and study the evidence for yourself.
+CampingforCool41 Let's not forget what poor Dawkins went through with that lovely creationist lady.
Yianis Mihail Idk how Dawkins refrained from strangling her lol
I remember being at a Catholic friend of mines house and looking at a catechism pamphlet. The thrust of it was supplication, supplication, supplication. This was a guide for Sunday school, where of course, kids are taught.
Mohammed has seen this all his life from every member of his family and from every member of his mosque.
I know that my bias would never allow me to believe in any of the religious hocus pocus, so I can understand at some level why it would be difficult to sway him away from his beliefs.
Simply put, he is 100% certain that he is right. Actually 150% :)
The problem is that for every new fossil we find, two new links are needed.
For Example:
Skull 1 and Skull 2 are known.
Skull 1.5 is Found!
Creationists: Where are skulls 1.25 and 1.75?
Maybe Wendy Wright could join him at a Museum of Natural History sometime?
Sounds all polite and open minded, but deep down there, I did not sense any willingness of Mohamed to ponder his positions.
Wenguang Jiang he lost me as he said that he believes the Adam and Eve story in a literal sense, that is just blandly wrong...
@@awkwardsaxon9418 Yep. So then he has to somehow twist genetics to fit his holy book.
I wonder what topic you'd have to pick for me to sound like this. I try to be aware of what reasons I have, but it's the nature of such things that I'd be unconsciously blind to the protection I was giving an unfounded belief.
In much the same way as I wonder in what way future generations will look back despite all the social progress we've made and say "they used to what?!"
It's probably eat animals isn't it? If I'm being honest with myself, it's probably that. But they're so damn tasty...
Fighting internal bias is harder than we thought
@@markaponte7057 Or just harder than we want to admit.
He loves science, yet was woefully misinformed on the definition of scientific theory vs hypothesis, which is what I'm sure he 'thought' theory meant. He loves science because by his own understanding, it hasn't encroached upon the divinity of his belief. If he were to give the theory of evolution a full, solid, unbiased examination, he'd either have to re-examine his faith, or deploy the 'god of the gaps' argument.
There are many religious people who seem to have no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with evolution. They simply do not take their religious scriptures literally. For example they will say that evolution is the method god used and uses to create all living creatures. In fact, that is the official position of the catholic church nowadays and has been for a while.
And why wouldn't it be? Next, they'll say that any vestige of anything considered life-like discovered anywhere off this planet, was in fact the work of their god. They are already willing to say that the 'cinderella' conditions required for life on this planet is the work of god 'here'; of course it will apply elsewhere!
I didn't say I agree with religious interpretations, just saying that evolution is by no means any reason whatsoever for religious people to abandon their religion. Any conviction that it must be so is based on the false belief that all religious people follow a literal interpretation of their scriptures. Most of them don't.
If you live in a radical fundamentalist country where the majority of the population is stuck in belief systems of the dark ages -- USA and Saudi Arabia being by far the worst two -- then it may seem so, but it's only because you live in a medieval age bubble.
Those that do follow their texts literally are the ones doing the mental gymnastics to shoehorn the power of their divinity into the reality of our universe just so they can remain relevant; particularly in the application of laws. This is where the friction occurs.
I'd hardly call the USA a radical fundamentalist country. Dark ages? LOL Now Saudi Arabia is a different story. They haven't needed to develop themselves out of the dark ages because their sustenance and contribution to the world comes straight out of the ground. Without it, they'd have to 'do' something to matter, like israel.
The US bible belt isn't all that far away from Saudi Arabia when it comes to radical fundamentalism.
I noticed that Anthony did not "take the bait" on the ISIS issue, but at the same time, he didn't "take the heat" for not taking the bait by laughing along and saying "that's a really timely topic." To me this seems like one of the most masterful expressions of intervention strategy because he accomplished the goal of not getting into "politics", and also, not creating a hostile relationship by saying something antagonistic like "well I'd really rather not talk politics". And I have to say that Anthony even had a third success, which is that he never agreed with him on that point. Anthony always says, avoid saying "yes", or "uh huh" unless you actually agree, and I'm glad that he didn't grant him the point that ISIS is the "un-islamic state". Three birds with one stone in the first 40 seconds! WOW!
Wow, great remarks! Thanks for pointing them out.
At the 2:02 mark: "I do not find any way where god can't exist."
Try looking a little harder.
I love where he says he would have to find an idea more logical than god putting Adam on earth. Hmmmm how about evolution?! You cannot put god and logic in the same sentence!
A truly omnipotent God would have effortlessly foreseen the mess that would transpire before the deity had the inclination to set the entire process in motion.
One can place them both in the same sentence but not without avoiding a syntax error.
A good reply to that would be, "what would a universe without a god look like?"
I can speculate on what his answer might be, but for the time being I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
"After 1400+ years a flaw hasn't been found!" 🤣🤣
That has a *very* familiar ring to it..
After 1400 years of flaws he still believes
I really appreciate Mohamed's honesty and openness. I would not be surprised if he shook off his religion with more study in science and evolution.
+thewackeddoctors He'd just find some BS in the Quran and twist it to fit.
he would just find some excuse in the Koran
He's a university student who "loves" science but does not know that all genetic evidence denies the Adam story? Scary.
He sure has all his fallacies fully on board, however.
thats not evidence
👆🤣
I was thinking the same thing, he's at university and doesn't believe in evolution, that's the power of indoctrination.
You could prove it to him, and he'll still find a way to squirm out of it at whatever cost. I've never seen a Muslim admit defeat, but I'm sure a small percentage are honest enough to.
complexity of the universe is not evidence for god
I was very impressed by this exchange! Mohamed represented himself and his beliefs in a way that was very refreshing to me, even as a nonbeliever. He seemed to have a very progressive and open mind which is rare among true theists. Thank you Anthony for encouraging this open dialogue!
Anyone who is 150% sure of a belief sure as fcuk does not have an open mind
He seems like a good guy. Why can't he see how unreasonable some of his beliefs are?
Nice technique though Anthony. I'm learning a lot from your videos. Thanks.
"Where do you think the Shinto s have gone wrong? " is a good but I usually get the religious conspiracy answer which is "other religions are different roads to the same destination".
I told a Muslim that I often wondered about what god's purpose was in just creating people, listening to prayers more and more forever and ever and could he help me answer this. It left him speechless for a moment.
Another interesting thought is this - if God is truly infinite in time - then the entirety of human existence would literally be a blink in time - not even an observable instant. Why would an infinite being create a universe, beings in that universe, only to have them all destroyed in Armageddon while already knowing the outcome when it happens instantaneously?
This is often a weird loophole to go down because you have to really grasp 'infinity' as a concept (which most people don't)..... just my $0.02 - what ever that's worth in internet points, haha.
Maybe he should take Evolutionary Biology 101 or at least read the Human Evolution Wikipedia article instead of sitting outside and apologizing for ISIS.
I want to hear more from Mohamed, interview him again :)
web lock
Go to speakers corner in London and listen to Muhammad Hijab, Hamza Myatt, Mansur etc.
They intellectually rip apart the typical Atheist.
Hamza Alderman
Does the existence of a god have to rely on on a charismatic speaker?
How does a charismatic speaker differ to a good salesman?
They both use some facts and logic but then they use their knowledge of the way people think to make you think you need what they’ve got.
parajacks4
I don’t understand your question.
The evidences for the existence of a Creator would be valid regardless of who is speaking.
Hamza Alderman
I’ve seen many bad reasons to believe in a god, or gods. And many good reasons not to. I chose not to believe in mythology. Religion is mythology and always will be.
parajacks4
Lol ya ok you need to grow up and use critical inquiry. Narrow mindedness will lead you toward Atheism.
What a great conversation. Anthony, your timing, patience and quality of questions that provoke thought without provoking confrontation just keeps getting better and better. Muhammad seemed genuine and thoughtful as well. Well done.
Minor correction: It's the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity.
Theories are composed of a body of supporting evidence and rigorous testing - hence why they are often up for revision as more evidence is compiled and more testing is done. Laws are mathematical equations. Hypothesis are ideas that have either yet to be tested or do not yet have enough supporting evidence to become a theory.
Hasn’t “seen” evolution but dismisses and resists it.
Hasn’t and can’t see Allah but knows it’s true - 150%.
Same old, same old 🙄
this was a good one! keep 'em comin'. I like the way the conversation builds and the questions are posed, in a polite interested way, where even if it seems futile at the end, they will walk away and think about it later.
Dude seems like a nice chap. Would love to see him interact with Dawkins on evolution for a lesson and see whether he readily rethinks, or whether he just deflects and claims false the findings of modern science.
He is skeptical about thinks and recognises the need for reading and rationality in seeking out truth. He is less questioning of what he has been told / taught to believe about islam and the Quran.
I look forward to your second conversation.
When he asked "What are you looking for in a religion?" I'd say "Truth." Of course then I'd clarify that that I look for truth wherever it might be, in religion or in non religion.
Reoccurring concept I see in these interviews is the “personal relationship” and people feeling a strong sense of “connection” to their deity- their personal experience in their most private and often vulnerable moments- these experiences seem to trump all other reasons once you dig a little deeper and peel away peoples reasons it generally ends up falling to faith and feelings. Emotions. Strong human emotions make strong pathways in the brain- making it so difficult for people to question their core belief because it is a part of their inner self they’ve reached and connected to and attributed to whichever deity concept they best related to or were emersed in as their sense of self began cementing. This is why the best way to know a person is to ask them about what their version of god is like- it is going to be the most ideal version of who they see or would like to see themselves as. It empowers them and grounds them and to break through the barrier seems at first so terrifying but ultimately empowering to realize all that all those trials your faith got you through- was just dumbos magic feather. Its all just you.
"Everything is created except the creator" - how convenient
Also everything from nothing is not necessarily the only possibility, and besides, he still can't prove that something can't come from nothing.
"i was born Muslim" --- huh?!
yeah, shame eh! #delusion
hehehe
According to Muslims all people are born Muslim and are corrupted by thier upbringing.
Since Islam is not too fond of apostates, perhaps this might also keep him from fully being open. He says he would be open which is a good thing but he doesn't seem to accept the evidence for evolution with regard to Adam. Question is: what is Adam to him? Homo Sapiens? Homo Erectus? Homo Habilis? Australopithecus? Ardipithecus? Possibly he hasn't fully looked at evolution.
In some, the emotional part of the brain swallows the reason thinking part of the brain. And this seems to be one of those cases.
I always find it funny when Abrahamic Theists say that people need to be humble, yet they believe that a perfect being create a whole seemingly infinite universe JUST FOR THEM, that they created them because it wants to have a relationship WITH THEM and that it LOVES THEM more than any of it's other creations.
There are huge flaws in the Qur'an. He just probably never read it...
And they are all BS
yet you didn't point out a single flaw. pretty obvious why.
UltimatePiccolo how about the part where Mohamed flew to heaven on a winged horse.
@Ted Ingalls You shouldn't assume how people will respond to your challenge. The verse that you paraphrased is a valid one, and we follow it. The problem is you didn't read its context. An army attempted to kill the prophet (saw) and his army in war, that army was defeated and due to be executed, then a verse came down from god to spare their lives, but then it also said that they must leave in exile, but if they return, their execution will take place wherever they are found.
@Ted Ingalls Also i'd recommend reading the entire context instead of a snippet of the verse. Read the entire verse, and the one before, and the one after. You'll find that the context is fighting against people who started the fight, and to stop fighting if they stop.
7:10 Looks like I have found another bedtime story to read! I just finished the one where GOD kills everybody on the planet except for a 500 year old guy and his family. Nothing beats a good science book before bed.
Humans have evolved, period. There's just no proof of a god. Zero !
I don't know where Mohamed is from, but there are Muslim countries where although people are religious, they also have a secular approach to most aspects of life, (Turkey being a prime example)... so that's what I see in this individual - open to science, open to the evolution (at least partially) but at the same time dedicated to highly unscientific, very cryptic source to fill another aspect of his life without realizing the cognitive dissonance at all.
your making differences in lives keep it up!
I agree with the guys statement around 15:25 when he said “the more we know, the more we find that we don’t know.”
When I heard that from him, i immediately thought that if he only applied that mindset to his own beliefs about being 150% confirmed in his belief he would have his brilliance pushed to its potential by abandoning his indoctrination.
It's amazing how restrained Anthony was. He had so many opportunities to go into full science mode & demolish Mohamed's theistic arguments. He gently prodded & probed here & there, but didn't go into a full throated counter-apologistic attack. I would've been all over Mo about what evolutionary science has demonstrated since Darwin. The explanatory scope is huge. It's such a rich vein of evidence that it must be hard not to deploy it while conversing w/ someone like this. That takes some real skill & patience. As with all pros, Anthony makes it look effortless.
It's so strange that people still believe this stuff in this day and age.
9:03 - "Hold on, there's a bug on you."
What a very simian response :)
Fear of rejection by their social group is the number one reason you hit a wall with believers; he even unwittingly lets it slip when he mentions the 2 billion believers
On a personal level, no one wants to make their mothers cry
Wow I love this guy. He is really open minded (and wrong the same time when it comes to his specific theistic belief). I wish he could question and really examine his method of determining what is really true or not.
When he said he was at 150% in his faith I knew science wasn't going to be used. Science doesn't deal with absolutes, but yet he says things like, " there is no way; when I feel; I believe." He demonstrated no science to back up his beliefs.
After that video... *boom* +1 subscriber!
Only found out about you from a very Recent AronRa video which I highly enjoyed and have sinced been binge watching many of your videos. I'm secretly glad I took so long to find this channel, it means I have a nice back catalogue to continue watching!
I'm sorry, but this guy, like so many religious people, is deeply, deeply brainwashed.
I have to confess, as skeptical as I try to be, he started getting to me. It wasn't until Anthony asked him to combine the principle of scientific humility with his belief in God that I suddenly realized that the reason I was impressed is that he has actually examined a great deal of evidence AND rationalized every bit of it.
With all due respect to Mohammed, who seems like a genuinely nice guy, and could likely be a great spokesman for Islam, if he doesn't eventually discard his belief, his mention of two billion Muslims worldwide is a little exaggerated, but not by much I suppose.
I actually did a little number crunching on Islamic countries and there are currently six Islamic theocracies and I believe another eight or nine countries where Islam is the predominant religion.
The total population of all these countries is roughly One point five or one point six billion.
My point is: you are a Muslim in these countries because you really have no choice. And it has been like this for fourteen hundred years.
The true rise of Islam was by murder, rape and sheer terror, and it seems like that is still the method in some regions of the world to this day. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Do any sleuthing on that place and see how they use Islam to enforce their barbaric agenda.
Islam seems to be at the same place that Christianity was at about five hundred years ago. And Christianity has almost evolved itself out of existence. It is mostly gone in Europe, We certainly don't care much in Canada anymore, and the United States will soon follow.
Islam obviously has to reform. The fact that the penalty for apostasy is death has to go for sure. Who wouldn't be terrified of leaving the faith under that threat. Many other unsavoury aspects have to be dealt with as well. But the fact is, Islam is a religion of repression and subjugation. Maybe not in the free world, but you would have to turn a very blind eye not to see how it works in the majority of Islamic countries.
islam cannot be reformed like christianity, muslims believe the quran is the direct word of god ( no compromise)
what they will do is try to "reinterpret" the verses to suit their argument. I talked with muslims scholars and they are the greatest mental gymnasts in the world.... and muslims follow their most favorite scholar
Some Christians would like to interpret the bible literally. But we have democracy and rule of law in most Christian nations. Britain, the US Canada, several others. And most importantly, I think we have real freedom of information, but who knows what could happen if any democracy became a Christian theocracy.
"christian nations" already moved on and progressed forward, i dont think christians want to go back to the dark ages.
unlike muslims, they have been planted the idea of the "great islamic age"... the caliphate... so on....
I agree with you on that. Highly unlikely that Christianity will ever be the same as it was in the worst eras of it's history. But it was used as a terrifying tool for political control at one time. And history maybe won't, but it can repeat itself. As you say, highly unlikely. Seems to me that Christianity is in it's death throes. Witness Kyle on this SE channel. 80% drop out when they get away from the home influence, and as he says, it takes a couple of years before they are safely indoctrinated. I.E. brainwashed. :)
hence came the greatest constitution of all time, separation of church and state.
but today we got to modify it to separation of religion and state.
and did i mention islam wants governmental control?
15:00 one of the greatest kinds of cognitive dissonance is listening to theists preach epistemological Humility, while insisting 150% certainty in the origin and purpose of the universe.
I totally have said the exact same thing he says about how expanding the feild of our knowledge expands the circumstance of our ignorance, and we can find great awe and intellectual humility in that... But that’s why I’m agnostic about the ultimate mysteries remaining in the universe, and not making extraordinary claims with 150% certainty.
I'm only about 7 minutes in fyi and will comment again when i finish. This is good so far. It's good to find someone that is willing to answer any questions about his religion for an agreed time.
. I'm a former Muslim. I remember being sort of at his stage where I questioned things. But there were just a few things that I didn't quite get. My logic just didnt jive with it. And the "Oh, just don't question some little tiny thing. Look at the big picture" shtick that many people of my background do when they find aspects of islamic text that don't jive w/their liberal values just was not going to cut it.
So he's got a resolution for this "kill them where ever you find them" verse but there are other verses that have very pertinant questions that haven't been asnwered that don't apply to any historical context in the Quran. Some commands (if you read the surrounding verses as well) are direct commands. But many muslims are still peaceful because they don't think that far w/this verse. If you present it to them, they'll just think, "Oh, it's like that kill em where ya find em verse that has a historical context. And youre not a scholar in classical arabic. Done"
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
6:53 Hmm, wouldn't a benevolent god, or even just a neutral god, just have said something more specific to have written down like "You may protect yourself from attackers."? Eye for an eye, or even two eyes for an eye to dissuade more attacks? Seems odd that an eternal being would get upset after a few years and give such a broad statement that includes non-hostiles.
Just as a point of nuance, although it is true that the word "theory" in science technically refers to something that has been repeatedly tested or observed, scientists fling that word around with just as much nonchalance as our friend Mohamed here. To take just one example: string theory. So best be cautious when we say that theory in science means "near fact" since it's rather easy to point to a scientific usage of the term that doesn't fit with that definition at all.
String theory is a mathematical theory, it actually is the correct scientiffic word to use for it in the field of mathematics, and they are mathematical true. So To say it is flung with nonchalance is factual incorrect.
But it is good to note there also are theories that aren't tested other as just with math, although I won't stop pointing out ppl are wrong when they use the word theory as just a idea.
+ftbsecret There's nothing wrong with using "theory" as meaning merely an opinion or an explanation. You can point out to people that they're wrong when they use the word that way if you want but they could point you to any dictionary and show you that they are in fact right. The mistake that is often made is just one of mistaking one meaning of the word for another, for instance thinking that "evolutionary theory" falls under the wrong contextual definition of the term "theory". Polysemy is a bitch, but that's just how it is. But if I say "I'm not sure why he didn't make it tonight but I have a theory" and you correct me on that, I'd just point you to a dictionary. It's also why when somebody says "evolution is just a theory", the answer shouldn't be "theory means near-fact" as what we saw here in this video, the answer should be, the scientific meaning of theory is something different than the lay usage and in this particular case the theory is substantiated by evidence, confirmed predictions and repeated observations.
As for string theory, there's a reason why I said "scientists" and not "mathematicians". One of the looming problems with science today is how many are gradually moving away from testability. The phrase "post-evidence science" has even emerged as a parallel to the political "post-truth". Physicists working with string theory have gone down the route of probabilistic solutions instead of evidence-based testability. And that's dangerous. There's a risk that we end up with the same semantic problems within science as we see outside of it. Mathematical theory, scientific theory, not really the same thing. And as things go, mathematicians care less and less about whether their theories are testable or not, and prefer to focus on the inner consistency of their theories. String theory only barely meets the definition of a scientific theory in that yes, theoretically, one day with advancement in other parts of science, it just might be testable. It's theoretically possible. Next to that, you have multiverse theories that, even theoretically, are not testable, and, and this is the problem, multiverse theorists simply don't care. And if empirical falsifiability is no longer a criterion in the definition of a theory, than I'm not sure what we're talking about. Without that, mathematics would be no better than theological apologetics, just working on inner consistency without any consideration for whether these ideas are confirmed by evidence or not. Anyways, this is a controversial topic. The point being that how scientists define theory is not nearly as clean as some lay people think. If you want an example where you might be more likely to agree with me that scientists are flinging the word theory around nonchalantly, how about music theory? Or how about that theory that so many within the atheist movement rely upon (and poorly so) to dismiss otherwise valid opinions by simply bringing up fallacy labels: argumentation theory?
You do a great job of keeping it a conversation and not an argument.
Even if his magic man were to slap him 70 times, and told him he was dreaming, he would keep this belief.
At 6:10 he mentions there are no contradictions in the Quran and if he found any that would shake his belief. Here are some of them:
1. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).
2.Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).
"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,--that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).
3. The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
"And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
"When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
"And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).
4. Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116
The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).
5. Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).
6. Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92).
Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103).
7. Is wine consumption good or bad?
O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,--of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90).
(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell forever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).
Found a pretty neat question to ask for Mohamed, maybe. He said he was informing people of muslims not being part of ISIS. Yet in part when he talked about a specific part in koran where "kill all non believers" he justified it by well he was treated really badly that's why he said it. So the question "Can a victim of ISIS terror spread a word to kill all muslims, would it be justified?"
Hi, kool aid sent me.
"What would you recomend that I do". Very nice questioning. I like your methods and videos.
I can't find any references for what he says about why he says this is not literal Quran (2:191-193). And why does he think that?
I have a question. Are Muslim or mainstream Christian children raised being warned against anti literature? As a Mormon, I knew exactly how to find out that my religion wasn't true. Once I decided to find the answer, it didn't take long to find evidence against it.
First impression from 1% to 100%. 150% is exaggerating, why not 200% or more? Why people don’t go into museums and don’t educate themselves? Not understanding what theory means in scientific terms.
Faith = willful ignorance = religion
Lots of hope for this one there is.
Poor guy, you can see how Anthony's questions were hitting home. It seemed tough for him several times to return to his script... The fear he must have even living in America must be enormous to think about being an apostate for him. He really didn't want to hear about Anthony's deep sea discovery story that would have slightly diminished his claim about the lack of knowledge that humans have about the depths of the ocean. Well done Anthony.
He was doing so well till he got theory and fact mixed up.
At 8.40 it’s very interesting. Believers of all stripes seem happy TO believe despite an apparent total absence of evidence but, and as Mohammed paradoxically states here they’d need some really, really, really good evidence to not believe! I always enjoy too the Muslim willingness to admit to a God shared with Christianity which is an admission that would I suspect be far less likely from Christians. There are so many ‘universals’ offered to Anthony by interlocutors; ‘something can’t come from nothing’, ‘we can’t just be here by accident’, ‘nature as proof of God’ etc. etc..
By the way, what a fantastic chap Mohammed sees to be too.
You can never have more than 100% of a concept. Only objects can ever be more than 100%. eg. 150% of an apple is 1.5 apples but nothing can be 101% true nor can you be 150% certain. Even though we do know what someone means, it is still incorrect.
In order for me for to understand your statement, I have to conceive of 150% (twice) and 101% just to know what you are referring to.
Dr. Tyrone Wells, Jr. Obviously I'm referring to the video.
150% is not twice it is 1.5 times.
Seriously get a clue. You call yourself a doctor?
I don't agree. "150% of *an* apple" is the whole apple plus half of the same apple which doesn't make any sense. Which is also why his 150% statement doesn't make any sense.
Checkmate atheists
ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ
Yes technically you are correct. The only way my example would work is if you had *an* apple and I had 150% of what you did. Then I would have one and a half apples.
Public notice: Never comment about the appearance of the participants, it's rude. Even when the participant is as handsome as this sexy man, don't. For example, I would never comment about how much I feel attracted by this man's beautiful face, big strong arms and honest, brilliant eloquence. Oh and his relaxed, confident way of just sitting there... Of course I would never mention that either. Always be polite in the comments.
Thank you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to rewind the video because I was distracted.
So he loves science and accepts it except when it comes to one of the most scientifically grounded theories in history? Only because this theory goes against what he believes because of his religion...
and because of his religion goes against what you believe,,so his religion must be fouls
"I love science!"
Science says 100% of the supernatural shit in your book of horrible fairytales is imaginary.
If find it somehow weird, but at the same time understandable, that some believers justify their beliefs by saying it is logical.
I'm sure we can create a lot of stories that are totally logical (I'm thinking about Lovecraft, but I'm sure we can find some other as well), but it doesn't necesseraly means that it is the truth. A non-logical elements in a story would effectively disprove it, but the absence of non-logical elements in a story is not making it true either. It think that is why so many believers are using ad hoc hypothesis.
If we actually do present all the evidence for human evolution to Mohammed, I doubt it will shake off his belief in Islam. I think he will probably change how he is interpreting some parts of Islam, but that's it.
Do you think it could be an interesting method to ask:
1) Is a logical story a proof of his trueness?
2) If not, what could be used to defining its trueness?
Great interview.
I know this is old, but it would have been great if you touched on the widespread and very different interpretations of the Koran, especially in the light of ISIS. How can such opposing views be drawn from the same book? Sure both sides claim the other is mistaken, but surely a god would choose his words very wisely, and not allow them to be twisted either way.
I dont know. I feel like Anthony should've brought a notebook to take down all what he had said and recap all this to him.
I love his enthusiasm for science and "openness(?)" to evidence but I dont like his method of incorporating beliefs with scientific method. His explanation goes nowhere.
I would have asked Mohammed, since you need evidence for evolution, do you have evidence for Adam and Eve so that I may believe also? Something I can actually see to be 100% true?
I find this very interesting. If you actually read the Quran, the first four chapters constantly reinforce that non-believers will go to hell, can be killed, etc etc. So when he says he weighs your evidence I find that hard to believe.
Anthony, I know you don't like getting distracted, but with regards to the bit where you say "..someone watching this video..something Mohamed needs to see..". For me that "something" is: The loss of the ability to synthesise vitamin C.
For a scientist it's maybe not the best proof that we share common ancestors with other primates, but it's a great one for Creationists because it's simple to explain and there are no good comebacks.
Maybe you know about this already, but in case you don't here's the medium length version:
Almost all mammals can synthesise vitamin C. Take a dog and a cat on a long sea voyage and feed them the same zero vitamin C diet as the humans, dog and the cat will be ok, but the humans will eventually die of scurvy (they might live a little longer if they eat the dog and the cat, probably not, but if your not an animal lover it could be worth a try, raw liver is the best option).
Humans lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C because one of the 4 genes required has a point mutation preventing the protean from being manufactured. This same point mutation is *thought* to be shared by all our putative closest relatives in the family "Haplorhini" (the Dry Nosed Primates) i.e. all tarsiers, monkeys, and apes.
All Haplorhini tested so far will succumb to scurvy, and all of them that have so far had that gene sequenced show *the same point mutation*.
All Mammals outside that clade tested so far, with the exception of Hamsters *can* synthesise vitamin C, and don't get scurvy. Hamsters can't because they have a *different* point mutation.
Common Ancestry can explain all this and make a further prediction. A common ancestor of all Haplorhini including us, got that mutation. It was not selected out because that species ate enough fruit so the mutation was "fitness neutral" for that species, and in fact for all species since right down to humans where it was slightly fitness negative (especially for sailors). So even if a new mutation had come along creating a new genetic pathway to manufacture vitamin C it would not have selected for so the chances are high that *no* species of Haplorhini can manufacture vitamin C.
Which brings us to the prediction: *All* species of Haplorhini should share that point mutation. Since not all have been checked yet we can challenge creationists to get some money together and do some real science by paying labs to do at least partial (coding sequence) DNA sequencing of all remaining Haplorhini. If they found one with the ability to manufacture vitamin C and without the point mutation then common ancestry would be in trouble, a lot of explaining would have to be done. If they found say 3 separate species, one tarsier, one monkey, one ape then common ancestry is almost certainly dead and we would need a new explanation for biodiversity!
Creation has no explanation for this beyond all other Haplorhini having got the mutation from a common ancestor and we just happened to get the same point mutation by chance in one of our common human ancestors (Noah say).
But whatever the creationist websites say that is very unlikely, and this is just one of many neutral mutations we share with our closest relatives.
You can summarise the above into a couple of sentences, but I thought I'd give the longer version here so people reading this have the background they need to use it when appropriate.
Did Mohammad follow up? I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. "You took Ochem? Wait, wait, wait, are you ignoring/denying radiometric dating? When do you plan on taking genetics?"
For a moment there I thought you'd snagged Daniel Ricciardo.
If you only learn enough about your religion to think it fits with science AND you only learn enough about science to make it fit with religion - you can feel like they confirm each other. Just remember to stop at that sweet spot or you're going to lose one or the other.
I'd love you to ask him to help figure out a way to enlighten Christians about their false beliefs.
Nice question on passage about killing spree infidels - base on what do you think that this particular text should be understood in the context? If you be told so, base on what does that theologian think so...
The problems with incest is common knowledge but everyone seems to ignore it. We couldn't have come from two people. When Kane and able were supposedly around it references other tribes. If they were the first offspring how could there be other people?
Did inbreeding work differently in a way that allowed people to live a 1000 years? We can disregard these beliefs just based on these contradictions.
If the old testament is just a bunch of metaphors and it's making no claims. Then there is no reason to derive beliefs from it other than poetry that can be interpreted to mean whatever you want.
I feel like the more believers change the meaning of their doctrine the closer they come to claiming that the cosmos is god but thinking. And these scriptures prove it with metaphors
9:35 and What is illogical or flawed about natural evolution? He does know that the scientific theory wasn’t just imagined out of nowhere (like creation myths) and scientists have Abundant “hardcore” evidence supporting it, and (so far) nothing in the observable world contradicts evolutionary biology.
Also, if a religious text contradicts EVOLUTION AND EVERY OTHER FEILD OF SCIENCE CONCERNED WITH THE NATURAL UNIVERSE... then it’s not compatable with scientific principles.
One of the most open minded theists I've seen :)
Dawn doesn't mean informing people & breaking stereotypes of Islam!
Hmm. How could we tell who is more accurate?
lol he is even wrong on his estimation of how much he believes it
Do you ever interview an older person? It would be so interesting what time does to “feelings about Faith”.
vote4anna I think I have a Playlist called ‘Elderly’ on my channel that you might want to check out.
Thank you for watching.
I never knew Shia LaBeouf was a Muslim.
is he?
Always suspicious of people who say they believe 150%. That is both ridiculous and impossible. Such a percentage can only apply in the field of mathematics. Unfortunately, that start was maintained in his subsequent comments, for example he says he loves science, but only when it agrees with his own presuppositions.
'Because he hasn't seen it happening.' Self-observation seems to be a major evidence for him, but he couldn't possibly have self observed the 1400yrs to be at 150%. Also, no evidence of Adam let alone self observing him, only written in the scriptures.
Dunning Kruger in full effect.
It's a long one I know, but I'd love to see a breakdown on this one!
Dont believe
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)
+Anthony Magnabosco I hope you and Mohamed meet again. This video is old so maybe you have. I find it very interesting that he seems to understand the way you want people to think and yet has a different belief than your self. This method does lead to some very interesting discussions about topics that are usually debated. Instead of two people arguing it is two people working on one person to help self reflect and apply the scientific method to any and all beliefs. What people believe would be comparable to the first step in the scientific method, Guessing. Now when you guess something there are good guesses and bad guesses. This gives you the scale 0%-100%. History has shown that no guess is ever completely right. New observations don't fit the current best guess so you need to come up with a new guess that fits all observations.(You never get to 100%) Now even if your guess is extremely bad I don't believe you could ever be so wrong to get to 0% either. Example we could live in a multiverse where every and all things are possible. This would make me say Im 50%/50% on everything, but looking at the one universe we live in Im at x%/100%-x% on any specific topic with x%>0. I love math because you can explain anything with it. I will continue to watch your videos and hope you make more.. .
Nearly a fact is not a fact...tangible maybe but not attainable _-|-_
Why is it that he needs to see evidence and use logic for things to make sense for him to believe evolution, but yet would require none of that to believe in Mohammed? I know he didn't mention 'faith' but maybe next time someone says a similar thing ask them 'do you have faith in evolution?'
brother needs hijab! :P
You did not told him what your belief, religion or position was.
Thank you. Correct. Yes. The interview is not about me but my interviewee.
Anthony Magnabosco I know, I have been watching your videos a lot lately, they are amazing. I commented this because you told Mohamed that you would tell him at the end of the interview, but I do think is better to not let them know your position, as they can be less honest or even leave the interview.
Also not having anything to do with this video, but the Bailing ones, when is the tutorial 5 going to be available? I am really looking forward to it.
Hey there. Sorry - it's been a while since I've viewed this encounter with Mohamed. Either we discussed my position on things and I edited it out, or we simply forgot to discuss it. I honestly cannot recall. It was not intentional - I love talking about my lack of beliefs - preferably after the interlocutor has answered all of my questions.
Mmm..sorry - I fully expect the breakdown tutorial 5 to be ready in a day or two - unexpected computer issues are slowing things down from its' release. Stay tuned - it's coming!
Anthony Magnabosco Your approach to deprograming is refreshing. Real dialog to get to them thinking, without condescension. Keeping them on point vs. the red herring presented.
PS-Hopefully you won't take this as just an attempt to point fault but, a scientific theory is an explanation of how a fact works, the mechanics involved. A theory will never be the fact it is explaining. I think I'll start calling ToE the "explanation of evolution", in order to avoid confusion.HAHA
I've never heard a christian say they were 150 percent confident in their god. I guess this makes Islam true!
Yeah, I can really learn a lot from your approach.
ask him one simple question . . . Do you have scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god? If he is typical of mot true believers of every religion I've encountered, you will get the following responses (not in order)
1) they respond with argumentive questions, not evidence. The most common is the basic "Look around you" followed by a series of Logical Fallacies.
2) their "scientifically verifiable evidence" is one "holy book" or other in which god says there is a god.
3) do you have evidence god does not exist? When you ask if that verfieis the existence of Spiderman, they often break off communication.
4) you are evil for attacking their religion (by asking for its evidence) and you will burn in hell for eternity.
But scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of a god? They do not even know what that means and will reists every explnation of what it is.
How does science currently prove/disprove God? What experiment is used?
I am an ex muslim and I can attest that there are plenty of flaws in the Quran. When I was Muslim I couldn't see it - it was easy to cover them up or fill the gaps with poor apologetics, especially because I had severe confirmation bias.
man religious people sure can argue, but they never can fully explain their religion. I mean not even a shred. Just so paper thin it is so odd to see them attempt...
I would have so much trouble not supplying this young man with the evidence he is requesting like anfossil record and re explaining evolution to him