Atheist Cross-examines Muslim on Morality

Using objective as being outside of humans, I've already conceded if the earth were here, and there were no humans on the earth, there would not be morality. It takes us here who have compassion. So hold on, we have compassion, we prefer pleasure to pain. And we have the capability of recognizing the consequences of our action. And it's

these things that make morality even possible. Okay, so in that case,

defines as noisy invented by humans.

In a sense, yeah. And is it changing? Yes. Can trees change? Can truth can two plus equals four change? Okay, so morality is not true.

Yeah, sr, going back to this absolute is thing again. And yeah, of course, you know, I'm not, you know, you want me to prove God, how about this? Let me say this about it. Let's say, No. Can you prove it? Can you answer that question?

So while it is not true, morality is not true in the same way that please plus equals four is true. It's not, it's not

you telling your son, don't slap someone in the face is not true.

Boy, let's put it this way. It would be hard for me to find a scenario where that would be a poor piece of advice. Okay. No, but that's,

that's true. Okay.

This gets back to the thing. It's like me saying something is absolute. And me saying it's silly. It's ridiculous to believe the contrary. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of what I'm talking about, you know, what I was gonna say is that you actually apply something without realizing there's a presupposition, which is a democratic kind of reasoning. Do you realize that? Yeah, the democratic realize that we all are different types of people in another

slightly different reasons. Some things that powers

your use if you're using a democratic reasoning. Yeah. Did you accept that in 1933? In Germany? No.

You don't accept what they did was right. No, the German people were wrong. The majority of the electorate, they voted for Hitler, or the Nazi Party. Particularly, I think that's a real leap to say that the Germans were in favor of, you know, torturing the Jews, like,

I would concede that

a significant portion of that was okay. I didn't say anything about Jews. I'm saying that 1933. If you look at the electoral action results, yeah, democratic democracy dictated that the Nazi party should be in power. Is that is that correct?

Is that correct? Is that true? I mean, it was a poor decision.

In that case, then you can't use democratic reasoning. It's not democratic. You said before the majority of us believe in this one in every context that's kind of unfailing over the over the test of time. What do you mean, what

I just said, namely, a scenario in which case, that wouldn't be a good piece of advice. And you said, there is a lot of things, you know, he said, I said that, if you think of if you're using a democratic reasoning, okay, there are different pieces of you know, when you choose that

democracy, how much evidence we have for something? Is Hitler. Incredible. Is Hitler gonna be a good leader if we elected? I mean, he would have to say you don't really know, I have to say this is I I respect you, in a sense, because you've been candid with me, but I have to ask to be honest here. The truth must come out. Yeah, my truth. I personally believe you're employing an incredible double standard, an absolutely incredible one. Why? Because when it came to talking about the fine tuning, yeah, I wanted to talk about the probability which is literally impossible to believe that the universe came about as a result of random forces. You said, Yeah, what we don't know. But when it

came to something, which is almost purely subjective, which cannot be proven, objectively, I wish I like like the idea of, you know, someone stuffing someone else's as a bad thing. Although you cannot prove you accepted. So it seems like it was subjective things that you cannot prove, with no distinction. When we started, there's no proof of something having a fantastic amount of evidence are two different things. Okay, so what has more evidence, the fine tuning of the universe or sloughing someone in the face of ethics, slapping someone in the face? That's

the most ridiculous statement I've ever had any human being?

How can you prove that just

we're talking about the elephant in the tail. It's just like, he just thinks I know about we shouldn't hit each other. Because I live on the right and I get hit in the face. So is it predisposing you to believe that Hmm? Is there a predisposition?

I don't think so. I mean, you know,

what's so is it nature? No, this is where I said nature. Nurture you. You were honest. Are you saying how ridiculous you think I am. I'm gonna be honest, and saying how ridiculous I think some of your things are like, well, it's pretty common to sit to say that hitting someone in the face is, you know, not only a bad is a bad thing to do. So all of us would say

was calling to me like I'm saying something

to it at all basis. Okay, entire systems of humans, if you're talking about the most fundamental things about behavior that we can talk about, that's why I would say, what's more likely, don't punch them in the face or so whatever is cosmologically out there somewhere. Things that I can't describe. That's it. That's why I chose this one. I was gonna say that if you're talking about commonality or code was commonplace in a society, then you have to go back to the German example. Nobody don't wish okay.

No, no, no, it was common that happened happened once happened, one mistake, and it wouldn't be done. Again. My question to you is this not so common? If you look at the history of anti semitism in the in the West? Yeah. Yeah. It was common to be anti semitic. In in Germany, yes or no.

I imagine there was some Yeah, I was upon. Yeah. In Europe, they probably still is. I mean, yes. That was common, and it froze. Yeah. The price still is

low. If your argument is that, that which is common must be true, evidently, then anti muslim. anti semitism was true.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's just a contradiction, but it's just a contribution. It's not. It really is. Why? Because your argument is that is your that is your argument. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, we could you could ask me, Why don't you ask me the same question that I asked you is like, why is punching someone in the bad face? Why is that a bad argument? On my side? I'm just saying you ask

for a bad thing to do. I can explain you exactly what happened. We wouldn't do it again. So I'm just saying to you. Definitely tested over time. It was tested once and it failed. Now, not positive morale.

In the face is bad. How'd you know? How can you prove that?

Go try it. See how it works for you? No, no, no, sir. So I'm just saying how can you prove that? This is what I mean?

The thing is, you've got to have you have you have to be consistent. You really do you have to be consistent by not going after things that you know are self Oh,

yeah. These type of houses of ethical trade was not interesting, but absolutely proved the house. Again, I said from the beginning, there are certain things that can absolutely prove that there are things that are fantastic evidence for so

in the face being good behavior among a group of social creatures is not a good idea what the evidence is fantastic. What's the evidence? Number one, it'll hurt you. So what? Huh? Okay, let's do it back to me. I don't want it to be done. If we all go around punching each other in the face, it's going to be a horrible place to live. So if everyone if

people punch each other.

Ken

How can you prove the word but exists?

In terms of the theological and philosophical consequences are not desirable? We do not want them they're not good for

good for any objective we're trying to reach as humans. Okay. What's the objective that you're trying to use? The rich?

We want to I mean, I said, I think before, it's like, pleasure is preferable to pain. Okay, so this is his base, as you can make your argument, you know, and this is,

I know, that's a presupposition. But so you know, so would you say you're a consequentialist? No. So what are you doing?

in life? Right, just following the herd? You have?

You know, by talking to me, I'm not a herd father. No, but I'll tell you something, my friend, because what it is you are you following popular culture without having any reason? You're following the herd? No, I've given you objective. I've given you questions, critical questions, which you haven't been able to give me consistent results for yet. And I said at the beginning, you and I are laying in the same bed when it comes down to this because you're attacking the bedrock of my decision making. And I would attack yours in the saying that you are pinning your hopes on the presupposition that your position is based on evidence 100% of the answer is evidence. That is an

absolutely not. Well, that's what I was just talking to you about. If you take my line of argument, which is not haven't even referred to Scripture, because you said to me before that it's all based on scripture is not based on scripture.

What I'm saying if you say my line of argument, there's evidence to suggest that God exists, which is the following which I told you. Yeah.

I finally agreed.

It requires some level of clarity, false. Everything can easily be everything requires some level of faith, everything, even your own existence, to believe in your own existence requires some level of a very small amount. Now, that's in your opinion. Some philosophers took this very seriously seriously. I mean, I'm saying to you that, as I said to you before, you require to take rationalism and empiricism, all of those things have to be taken for granted as presuppositions

is working is not something just because something is working doesn't mean it's true.

Doesn't mean as you as you experienced that's working.

Again, the evidence is fantastic that it's where Okay, so

I'll say that no. Would you say that the evidence or fine tuning of the universe being set by an entity is fantastic.

Okay, and that way, I will say, they're constantly the evidence for them being constant in that way. antastic I'll say one more thing, before we leave you use the word self evident. I was one more argument that I want to put forward to you, which is called we as Islam. It's called the physical argument I'm just trying to see.

Yeah, I'm sure

I was gonna say was that this argument is as follows.

The older human beings are born with something called the somewhat SS in Arabic, which fitflop fitflop. In the Quran, it says physical, physical,

physical reality, and let the Holocaust, NASA lay on the fifth floor of the people that he has created an innate predisposition to believe in God. If you look at Oxford, anthropological society in 2011, they conducted a major sociological study, you're not going to cite that.

You're not going to cite that book.

I don't know.

Who wrote the article to one person.

Right? No, no, no, he cited something like this. Okay, so basically, the Oxford anthropological society, okay. He was leading the

way we could check it off, and they've got a guardian thing on it. They got a guardian article.

The reason I bring this up is this comes up a lot. There's a preacher, this is awesome to believe, to believe in one God now. Yeah. You've just said that, you know, so evidently, that morals exists? Yeah. I'm saying that. Okay. If we use the same logical believing in something self, evidently, doesn't make sense to say now, it doesn't say self evident. See, this is where you're mixing somewhere, people are mixing the finding? No, no, no, I'm not mixing. You know, I'm just psychology joke of mine, this phenomenon about the agency, do you mind if I finish while I was gonna say I was gonna say that when they did the experiment, which was a large scale sociological experiment, which

was multidisciplinary in nature, which involved anthropologists and psychologists and sociologists, etc. They deduced and concluded that it was a predisposition for people to believe in God, they did such studies and children, etc.

My point is when you have evidences

when you have evidences, the lack of which I've spoken to you about before,

and then you have external evidences, and now you have internal evidence, a psychological type evidences that God exists, and it's self evident to human beings, it doesn't make sense, actually, to believe it's not what it says. So what does it say it?

I haven't read the article, but I would guess they made a book. Okay, whatever it is the book, The article, when they're talking about that, you know, they're talking about human psychology. And they're talking about or, you know, predisposition to assign agency to anything they ask.

Exactly. And that does follow on to create Gods for things. Those are agents, right. How would you, how would you explain this? Why did this idea come about while we are predisposed to that? Why?

Why will generally people describe it as you know, making, you know, making a certain kind of error you assign agency to things?

You know, because we're, you know, designed to

I'm actually getting into an error. I don't really want to talk about it. Do me a favor. Before we finish up I have to pay now. Yeah. I was gonna say, do me a favor. Can you do me a favor? Yeah. Can it's been a fantastic. It's been a pleasure talking to you.

Have you read the book? Yes. I've read all of it. Yes.

From beginning to end.

That case, I'll say to you the following.

I want you to just focus on one particular passage of the Quran.

And then come if you can't, and then come back to me and tell me what you think of it and just go over it. I want you to look from chapter 55, zero to chapter 114. Now, you might think there's a lot of chapters now.

If you just think about them for a second, and just ponder over them and some of what you think of the narrative voice. And come back to me and tell me what you think if that's all right. All right.

pleasure to talk to you.