Adam Deen is an international public speaker on Muslim Apologetics.
A former Islam channel presenter who has been working in the field of Muslim apologetics for almost a decade. He has contributed to debates on issues ranging from religious philosophy and theology. His work draws on contemporary philosophy to defend Islam in debates. He has regularly appeared on mainstream TV.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Deen vs. Barker Debates - Adam Deen debates USA's leading atheist.
Is God a delusion ? Kings College - London
Can you be Good without God ? Imperial College - London
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dan Barker argued strongly from a humanistic point of view, which I admire. He also says he's a compatabililist, which I like.
Then he goes on to say that there's contradictions in the quran. This is when I thought about it more deeply, since here he's not arguing for what he stands for but criticising an ancient text.
Word's can be synonymous, can have connotations, can have denotations, can be metaphorical, can be metonymous. Syntax can also convey various meanings indirectly (e.g. different word orders). It is hard to find a contradiction considering all of this, plus the contextual information, intertextual, subtext, the time each revelation supposedly had been brought down. In addition to this there is the problem of translation and language change/ etymology.
Anyone can argue for a piece of writing in favour to their interpretation. All they need to do is manipulate the semantics of language.
For some reason I felt that Dan Barker spoke for a longer length of time than Adam Deen, which I thought was unfair. But at least Adam Deen's arguments were more structured. However Dan Barker's argument seemed more convincing that was until I realised it was only because he was arguing from a humanistic perspective (what is known).
I have to say Dan Barker's arguments are pretty simple to rebut and I was shocked by their lack of complication. Dan Brown has not only misunderstood the Quran but misunderstood the correct concept of an infinite being it seems.
excellent debate brother Adam, you're an inspiration to the Ummah, may Allah increase your ability and give you tawfiq. your case was very strong and well structured and you didn't have to rely on emotional arguments like Mr Barker.MASHAALLAH, keep up the great work!
Can you be good without God? I don't know much or anything about the Quran, so I can't speak to the question from that point of view. However, yes, I believe that you can be good without God if you act within boundaries that are "good" for a human.
I guess we have to define "good" before the question can be fully explored. If "good" means only Muslim or Christian to some people...well, I'd have to disagree with those people from the very foundation of their perspective.
To my way of thinking, "good" is not limited to one religion or ideology.
well Dan Barker did touch on "human nature" saying...non atheists are undermining "human nature" (prolly of doin gd without any religious systems). My question is where does "human nature" come from? out of the blue? in fact where does nature come from? and where does our conscience come from? the fact that as humans ourselves we can recognise what is humane and inhumane? And he cant see that justice is only served in this world only if the person is caught....that we live in a perfect world where governments or systems of man-made laws r fair n just..well bad news...thats not the case.
5 comments:
Dan Barker argued strongly from a humanistic point of view, which I admire. He also says he's a compatabililist, which I like.
Then he goes on to say that there's contradictions in the quran. This is when I thought about it more deeply, since here he's not arguing for what he stands for but criticising an ancient text.
Word's can be synonymous, can have connotations, can have denotations, can be metaphorical, can be metonymous. Syntax can also convey various meanings indirectly (e.g. different word orders). It is hard to find a contradiction considering all of this, plus the contextual information, intertextual, subtext, the time each revelation supposedly had been brought down. In addition to this there is the problem of translation and language change/ etymology.
Anyone can argue for a piece of writing in favour to their interpretation. All they need to do is manipulate the semantics of language.
For some reason I felt that Dan Barker spoke for a longer length of time than Adam Deen, which I thought was unfair. But at least Adam Deen's arguments were more structured. However Dan Barker's argument seemed more convincing that was until I realised it was only because he was arguing from a humanistic perspective (what is known).
I have to say Dan Barker's arguments are pretty simple to rebut and I was shocked by their lack of complication. Dan Brown has not only misunderstood the Quran but misunderstood the correct concept of an infinite being it seems.
excellent debate brother Adam, you're an inspiration to the Ummah, may Allah increase your ability and give you tawfiq. your case was very strong and well structured and you didn't have to rely on emotional arguments like Mr Barker.MASHAALLAH, keep up the great work!
Can you be good without God? I don't know much or anything about the Quran, so I can't speak to the question from that point of view. However, yes, I believe that you can be good without God if you act within boundaries that are "good" for a human.
I guess we have to define "good" before the question can be fully explored. If "good" means only Muslim or Christian to some people...well, I'd have to disagree with those people from the very foundation of their perspective.
To my way of thinking, "good" is not limited to one religion or ideology.
well Dan Barker did touch on "human nature" saying...non atheists are undermining "human nature" (prolly of doin gd without any religious systems). My question is where does "human nature" come from? out of the blue? in fact where does nature come from? and where does our conscience come from? the fact that as humans ourselves we can recognise what is humane and inhumane? And he cant see that justice is only served in this world only if the person is caught....that we live in a perfect world where governments or systems of man-made laws r fair n just..well bad news...thats not the case.
Post a Comment