Host : South Place Ethical Society
Speakers : Adam Deen & Norman Bacrac
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Topics that Adam Deen can speak on:
Can you spare just £5 a month for the dawah ?
Life, Death and beyond.
Goodness without God good enough ? Islam vs Atheism
British Muslims in the Media- A brief presentation
God Hypothesis : True or false
Watch - "Are morals without God a delusion ?" Adam Deen vs. Andrew Copson
Ethics without God - Canada 30th March 2009
Is God a delusion ? - Humanist vs Muslim
Moral Arguement for God
Was Mohammed a messenger ?
Q & A
Labels
- Debates (4)
- Documentaries (4)
- Event (1)
- Future events (15)
- Lectures (4)
- media (1)
- Muslim Issues (6)
- News on religion (5)
- Philosophy and Theology (5)
- Poems (2)
- Post-event thoughts (2)
- Q and A (4)
- Rebuttals (1)
- Topical theology (3)
6 comments:
Its a pity that the audience didn't understand and respect the format enough to remain silent whilst the speakers were talking.
Assalamu Alaikum Brother Adam. Great debate! I'm proud of the fact that not only were your arguments excellent but you kept your composure in the face of a rude and hostile audience. Since the atheist mentioned Ibn Warraq, I thought it would be a good idea for me to introduce this fine website to you since it refutes many of the claims of the Christian Missionaries and Orientalists (the kind of sources that Ibn Warraq uses)using the highest levels of Western and Eastern scholarship.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
salam bro
jk for the video...got a quick question , how shld muslims argue against the big bang theory, some muslims justify it via ayats of the quran.....whats the best way to tackle it....a reply wld be appreciated.
jk
The actual title for the debate was GOD IS NOT A DELUSION.
I was there as an ex-muslim and I liked the way Adam Deen was handling the debate. Although, he was too fast for the audience of majority senior citizens but later he realised that and managed to calm down.
Norman Bacrac was obviously making more sense but Adam had a bigger challange to prove something that doesn't exist and for that reason he did well.
It would have been better to have a debate with some ex-muslim like Ibn Warraq or someone but obviously that's too dangerous. I wish muslims were more tolerant.
A
"Norman Bacrac was obviously making more sense..."
In what way was it 'obvious'?
Norman failed to directly address Adam's points. As is often the case with these kind of debates, the atheist misrepresents the theist argument and attacks that, and/or invokes emotional arguments.
"...Adam had a bigger challange to prove something that doesn't exist and for that reason he did well."
No, Adam's 'challenge' was to provide rational arguments for the existence of God and in the context of the debate he did well because Norman failed to undermine the premises of his opponent's arguments.
"It would have been better to have a debate with some ex-muslim like Ibn Warraq..."
As if that gives him any credibility in attacking the philosophical arguments...
Ibn Warraq would possibly be better placed to argue specifically against the Muslim position, but the first two arguments did not rest on any particular religious viewpoint nor was the debate centered on arguments for any specific religion.
Why was the audience so... disrespectful and... improper?
Post a Comment