Mohammed Hijab – Oxford Uni. Atheists vs Brother Mohamad ( Q’s on Incest, Bestiality and Rape)

			I
		

			absolutely
		

			cannot stand to exist unless one believes in an entity that dictates such truth.
		

			But it's because there is no social equivalent to say, the scientific method. So you can't, for
example, put morals under the microscope
		

			to find out more about this as educated atheists. Okay.
		

			Michael, who is studying Arabic, and Islamic Studies at Oxford University is going to Jordan today
or tomorrow, after Saturday. So he's going to immerse himself in the Arabic speaking country. He's
an atheist. I'm a theist, I believe in God who doesn't believe in God. And this discussion, we're
going to try and see which one makes more sense if we're trying to flesh out these arguments.
		

			So the first thing I want to ask you what you say, yeah, that
		

			is ultimately, an ultimate truth is actually wrong.
		

			As I say, No, it's not I can't say there's an ultimate truth. And
		

			I like how you set me up there.
		

			But again, I hope I proved to you.
		

			But generally, I've come up with a good enough reason to say broadly across the spectrum, * is
implementable really important. I've just because what you're saying is a bit of a time temperature
point, and I want to come back to the core. So you're saying that, because I've listened to you,
Kevin, I don't want to lose this point, you said that something is analyzable. You can rationalize
it. And it's prescriptive, and then you can move forward with it as a subjective rolling you said,
as a strong subjective persuasion as a strong subjective view just described, narcissism
		

			ascribed narcissism
		

			is rationalized in the minds of the masses, and is prescriptive against the Jews. So it's okay for
Hitler to do what he did.
		

			Well, that's what we have competing ideas
		

			about morality in ways okay.
		

			I would say no, but why not? Well, because I have a different I believe I have a more convincing
idea of where morality comes. So subjective morality versus objective, but both of them are
rationalizing and both of them descriptive. I would say none of them are nice one isn't actually
nice. Why not? Because I
		

			regard that they weren't keeping in regard people's autonomy. And so it has to keep does it have to?
So that's, that's my, but no, but you said that you have to keep you've just put something in there,
you superimpose the liberal principle, which is that has to keep in consideration is people, people
autonomy in the hump principle, Jay snow, right, on Liberty book. And he said, you know, so long as
you're not harming anyone else do you want to do I mean, in a nutshell, really, this, this point,
can't really know what mothers have the same sort of, in this particular. I mean, you've you've
quoted the hundreds. So what I'm saying is, you know, they're completely different. I mean, this is
		

			completely against
		

			Kant's idea.
		

			Okay, actually, it's not completely against it. But that's another discussion, because, you know, so
if you if you were to say, for example, the greatest benefit in a gang * from the gang, Reapers,
overwhelms out the person victim, then that's okay.
		

			To have personal autonomy, which is a liberal principle, it's a liberal principle, you get that on.
Okay, so how can you put your subjective liberal principle onto in there as if it's objective
reality? I'm not saying this objective, I'm just saying it's compelling to the point.
		

			I can say the same thing about Islam.
		

			But can you convince people to remember, I can say the same thing about Judaism and Hinduism? And
the point is, it's all subjective. I mean, can you see how life becomes so hard? Yeah. Can you see
how it is?
		

			University. Michael was more to do with social sciences, or his studies or Islamic Studies. And
Arabic, Lyon, who is studying physics at Oxford. So it's a bit more of a twist, getting a scientific
edge to it. He's also an atheist. We're going to go through some of the arguments for and against
atheism. So could you say as a postmodernist atheists that yeah, this this theology and monetization
proposal knew their horse or donkey
		

			or woman? Could you say that it's wrong ultimately
		

			by also NIOSH in your semi objective, yeah, objectively know that the reasoning for that is
		

			that it's not for me. When you say something objective, you mean effectively, that it's
		

			as external as the universe is written in the code of the universe that's not necessary. I'm not
saying that what I'm saying is it's not it's unchangeable is something is definitely a true
statement. It's a natural, it's and it would still be interesting, even if there was no humans. It
is the
		

			truth.
		

			Government is a true statement as a as a true statement said I was I suppose, animal more software
is the wrong thing. So would you say, I would agree that is the wrong thing, but not for the same
reasoning and grounding as you are. You can't I mean, here's the here's the thing, just because I'm
a post modernists in the sense that I do not believe there's an absolute truth to that.
		

			I mean, this like it just because I can't, I can, I can still allow for things because the reason
is, opinion is nothing. No, it doesn't mean nothing. It just means that I can't say it's 100% true,
and more likely, when you're saying, let me just see if I right. You're saying it common sense, as
long as your first one is what you can say on the band's hopefully my opinion is wrong.
		

			Well,
		

			it's been more than that. So as opposed to the, the idea that
		

			the one thing that to this world, obviously, I can't necessarily guarantee I'm even in a world as
opposed to oneness, but that's a very horrible 14. For me, if you're denying that, then it's a huge
announcement. So you have a big entity or deity that's following, then you can't have ultimate
trees. It's as simple as that. And going back to this moral question, I asked
		

			the question, I do want to respond to that, how I can just have associate How can you know, Chris, I
said, I said, I said, I said to him, he did what he did, yes, it was in his moral interest or his
belief, your moral beliefs dictate to the people that you know, he,
		

			you know, he wanted to kill the Jews, he wanted to make himself you want it to be completely, you
know, the Aryan race, in a sense to be dominant in Germany, etc, etc. And he wanted us to be
exterminated. This proof this is to say that he's wrong completely. And justifiably, ultimately,
that is what you believe in. Okay. So do that. Not probably to what you what you probably want me to
say 100%. And I'm going to give you as for the future, I do think it is wrong. And by that, I don't
mean, I can say objectively, but so high as in like, sort of unimaginable higher than the function
you need doesn't make you grow. Okay.
		

			Let me, let me let me explain. Let me spend for this, because for the listeners, that was the that
was the I mean, I'm just, to me, it's certainly one because, to me, the reason my thesis works on
two things. The first thing is that you have to observe us around us where you will
		

			need to get through this or else you won't make sense. Especially I'm sorry, I'll try and get
through it as much as possible. So that everything comes from senses. And for me, everything comes
from from Susan, like I experienced, nothing comes from us from everything we can deduce comes from
experience with the senses, or someone without without all five senses. And the brain. They don't
exist.
		

			Experience, experience. They don't exist. It's not the
		

			way we gain access to services as well. And you can get experiences without
		

			if someone didn't have all five senses, you can beat them have the ability to smell see about our
world. Yeah, yeah, you can still you can so much they can think that they know anything about it.
They won't notice it. They can't censor us to talk to grandma.
		

			Then they've got sense. You seen everything. Okay.
		

			Yeah. So everything comes from our experience. And when I think about that, I mean, everything,
including morality, happiness, and to me, I can't, as a result of not believing any objective
morality. Yeah, I cannot condemn anything. Someone does want that. Okay. Um, what I mean by that you
could probably think of something you could condemn me, that is there. There's no, there's nothing,
nothing. If there was only one person talking to me, personally, there's only one person in US Hang
on, I'll explain how I can. There's only one person in universe than me. That person cannot do
anything. And that has great ties to libertarian libertarian views. The holiday that libertarian
		

			views are subjects that they are and that's I've subscribed to subjects because that's the whole
point of me not believing subjects. Yes. You're imposing down. I mean, you're saying this is, this
is what Michael did. By the way. It's just this is so so interesting, because it's just shows you
the mind, we have to be honest with you, the socially constructed 21st century man, whenever we talk
to them about morals, they always refer back to the Enlightenment era, liberty, materialism stuff,
but we're not talking about that. We're talking about a world where morals are completely
subjective, where human beings can make their own morals and their own purpose. And I can say, I
		

			mean, as
		

			you know, as Richard Dawkins himself said,
		

			it's all basically there's no
		

			there's no purpose or anything. There's no good law. As he says, there's no there's no, there's
nothing about hypnosis. There's no it's one question who is
		

			having this kind of mind frame will stop you from being able to say that and you haven't said it yet
that this one is completely Well, you know,
		

			You can even say for example that you know, killing a child or * a child babies 100%. Can I
could you say that?
		

			500% Yeah, no, no, no, no, that was close to 100% is human because how I saw there with Ryan and
Mike, whenever I sort of put them in a scenario refer to enlightenment ideas like liberalism,
		

			etc.
		

			The problem with that is that liberalism, like any of the human ideologies is actually unprovable
objectively, from an atheistic perspective.
		

			A bearing that in mind, an atheist can't actually disprove any model
		

			to be objectively incorrect. I want atheists to really pay attention to that point, especially as it
relates, for example, to criticizing religious Muslims, for example, Muslim, headscarf was a man of
growing a beard.
		

			They have no basis really to say that this is utterly wrong, absolutely wrong. At least we have no
basis to do that. In fact,
		

			I challenge any atheist to pick up on any of the morals of Islam, or any of the other religions, in
fact, and say that this is absolutely wrong.
		

			can't disprove religion, I bet. No matter how much you say this is bad, because it's morally
unacceptable. That's only going to be your opinion.
		

			Now, having said that, we are very moral creatures. And I want you to really think about it
psychologically and physiologically. We are moral creatures emotionally. We're moral. Whether those
morals come from how comes such laws are so deeply rooted within us.
		

			Thing