Shaytaan on Channel 4

[Scimitar]

ok, so it's click bait... but still,

Synopsis: He's interviewed by Krishnan Guru Murthy on Channel 4's podcast, the topic surrounds his new book "Outgrowing God" which is targeting younger people, into leaving religion and adopting atheism, basically... on a side note, I can't wait for "EpistemiX" podcast to pick this one apart:

[Mandy]

How someone thinks he can "Outgrowing God" is beyond me.
Has this person also claimed that he can fly, make object float in mid air and have a reasonable conversion with a certain US president? What other out of this world feast is he claiming to be able to accomplish!!

Jokes aside what is the objective of that man? I imagine that apart from condemning himself to eternal fire he says all this for some reason? What is it?

[keiv]

See brother, you don't have to leave the forum completely :)

InshaAllah I'll watch this later on today.

[Scimitar]

See brother, you don't have to leave the forum completely :)

InshaAllah I'll watch this later on today.

Sneak Attack :D

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Rafa79]

The problem with atheists is that they deal exclusively in generalities. When pressed, they stumble wildly into the realms of the absurd and outlandish.

They often ridicule people of faith, because they know that if they are pressed seriously about the issue of the Origin of Life, and the existence of God, their fallacious arguments evaporate, like smoke in a roofless vault.

I watched a program called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dawkins is interviewed and he responds to questions with an air of smugness and superiority: that he usually displays in both his writings and T.V interviews. However, when asked about the origin of life, Dawkins hesitated, the interviewer refused to relent and kept pressing. Finally, Dawkins responded, by stating that he believed that a civilisation of Ancient Aliens was responsible for the origin of life on Earth!!! Another of Dawkins minions stated that organic matter piggy-backed on inorganic matter such as Crystals. Crystals and Aliens—Seriously!! I’m no Scientists, but even that sounds crazy to me.

Isn’t it ironic that we Muslims usually bear the brunt of criticism for being dogmatic, anachronistic, and barbaric, but I’m supposed to believe that E.T created life on Earth? Perhaps he forgot to phone home and thought he’d stick around and create a host of species!!

Atheistic arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. When their arguments splinter, Atheists do what a petulant teenager often does, they rant and resort to name-calling. As Muslims, we should not worry too much about what these people say.

Dawkins and his friends are becoming increasingly desperate. Even Sam Harris has abandoned the New Age Atheist group and has decided to become a xenophobic, migrant bashing, zealot. Truth never vanishes. Yes, it is neglected, ignored, yet it persists and eventually, we’re forced to capitulate. Eventually, they’ll reluctantly accept, as did all those who did so before them.

[Scimitar]

...on a side note, I can't wait for "EpistemiX" podcast to pick this one apart:

And here it is:




Grab some tea/coffee, and get comfy!

[Caplets]

السلام عليكم


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a7389396.html

British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins

"...British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him...."

[...]

"...As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought.

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas...."

[...]

"...Dawkins has been publicly criticised by colleagues before. In 2014, Harvard professor EO Wilson said that Dawkins wasn’t a scientist at all, instead calling him a “journalist” and implying that he didn’t do any work of his own.

“There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research,” said Wilson during an interview on Newsnight...."


السلام عليكم

[سيف الله]

Salaam

How someone thinks he can "Outgrowing God" is beyond me.
Has this person also claimed that he can fly, make object float in mid air and have a reasonable conversion with a certain US president? What other out of this world feast is he claiming to be able to accomplish!!

Jokes aside what is the objective of that man? I imagine that apart from condemning himself to eternal fire he says all this for some reason? What is it?

That is a good point, egotism could be one driving factor.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Something Id like to look into.

Embedded Tweet

Heres another explanation.

Embedded Tweet

Atheists aren't generally against, and are often quite for moral frameworks, enjoy seeking purpose through existentialism, and often believe in a spirituality through the mystery of conciousness. Yet the idea there's an Author (ﷻ) who can explain it all is repugnant to them.

It seems to me the central motivation is similar to that of the rest of us. That our ideas, and so our opinions, are our very selves. So in their case, if there's an All-Knowing Lord (ﷻ), than their unique ideas, which give them value, could be wrong. An existential threat.

Whereas it seems to me (wa Allahu alam), that an important practice of a Muslim, is to be willing to free oneself from that attachment to a specific personal understanding, whenever a more accurate, reliable understanding is presented. A practice of submission to Al-'Aleem (ﷻ).

Only by practice, can we lose the fear, that by admitting the possibility that we're wrong in our personal understanding we'd be destroyed. Thereby making it possible to take a step closer to Allah (ﷻ).

Empty the cup.

[Caplets]

السلام عليكم

Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate. He has railed against the evils of religion, and lectured the world on the virtues of atheism.

"...Now Richard Dawkins, the secularist campaigner against "intolerance and suffering", must face an awkward revelation: he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour.

One of his direct ancestors, Henry Dawkins, amassed such wealth that his family owned 1,013 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744.

The Dawkins family estate, consisting of 400 acres near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was bought at least in part with wealth amassed through sugar plantation and slave ownership.

Over Norton Park, inherited by Richard Dawkins's father, remains in the family, with the campaigner as a shareholder and director of the associated business.

[...]

The family's association with Jamaica began when William Dawkins, a direct ancestor of the former Oxford University professor, arrived on the island. He began relatively humbly, as an overseer, probably supervising slaves, before receiving 1,775 acres of land between 1669 and 1682.

His son Richard became a leading member of Jamaican society, serving as a colonel in the local militia.

[...]

One history records that when Richard died in 1701 he left "personal property valued at £6,659 in Jamaica currency, [including] 143 negroes 'young and old' valued at £2,784."

Richard's son Henry Dawkins (1698-1744) – another direct ancestor of the campaigner - married Elizabeth Pennant, thus forming an alliance with another one of Jamaica's most powerful planter families.

An inventory of his estate shortly after his death showed that he, his wife and children owned a total of 1,013 slaves valued at £40,736. By 1754 his three surviving sons owned 25,000 acres in Jamaica between them.

Henry's brother James bought Over Norton in 1726. After his death in 1766, the estate passed to his nephew Henry Dawkins (1728-1814), another direct ancestor, who also owned thousands of acres in Jamaica.

[...]

Three of that Henry's sons became MPs. The youngest, also called Henry, (1765-1852), was the campaigner's great-great-great grandfather.

In 1796 the oldest son James Dawkins (1760-1843) voted against Wilberforce's proposal to abolish the slave trade, helping to defeat it by just four votes.

In 1807 he was one of a small rump of die-hards opposing the provisions of Slave Trade Act, which abolished selling slaves in the British Empire.

[...]

The Anti-Slavery Reporter of June 1831 was so outraged that it listed 41 signatories including Dawkins, "By way of securing a lasting record of them. They are names which ought not to be forgotten." ..."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ly-estate.html


* View 'The Anti-Slavery Reporter ' at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?red...awkins&f=false

* 'Companies House' record for 'Over Norton' showing Richard Dawkins as an Active Director : https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...62071/officers

* Obituary for his father in which he happens to skip the slave-trade history of 'Over Norton': https://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...s-2157459.html

السلام عليكم

[Muharar]

When I was a Muslim I didn't like Dawkins at all. I found him to be needlessly antagonistic and he seemed far too smug.

Nowadays I've learnt to appreciate what he says a little more. He could definitely use a softer tone but then I dont think he would cut through with his message as sharply as he does with a harsher tone.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Muharar;

Nowadays I've learnt to appreciate what he says a little more.

Dawkins does not seem to think things through, the evolution of the eye is one example. He describes the lens in various species, and because they are different, he says they must have evolved. He overlooks the need for the nervous system, the brain and limbs to evolve at the same time. after all, what good is an eye if it can only see something, but not tell the body what to do.

If you look at his video; take count of the times he says words like imagine or could have. It seems more like science fiction rather than science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E

In the spirit of searching for some real science,
Eric

[Muharar]

Embedded Tweet

You're quoting Peter Hitchens? He hates Islam and Muslims far more than Dawkins has ever done.

[Muharar]

Dawkins does not seem to think things through, the evolution of the eye is one example. He describes the lens in various species, and because they are different, he says they must have evolved. He overlooks the need for the nervous system, the brain and limbs to evolve at the same time. after all, what good is an eye if it can only see something, but not tell the body what to do.

I'm not a scientist or a biologist but even I know that there are many creatures who are blind. Even within the same animal like the mole there are differences. Some types of mole are blind. Some types of mole see a little, other types of moles can see more. This is linked to their environment and habits.