The Dawkins Delusion: A response to Richard Dawkins

[LayZie G.]

North, thank you for the good laughs.

 

Wallaahi I cracked up as I read your confession. Of-course, I was not surprised by this simple admission, instead, I was relieved for you. I knew the truth would catch up to you one day because you wouldn't be able to bear the heavy burden that you were carrying on your shoulders all along. YOu are exhausted, now give it up and go on, give yourself time to heal. (Work hard on polishing up your debating skills)

 

PS:I don't know anyone who has ever taken you serious, except Johnny, my abti is so forgiving that he has given you one chance after another and you have failed him every step of the way.

[N.O.R.F]

^Heh. Couldn't resist a rabbit punch? You of all people shouldn't be commenting on debating Ms 'I'll go with whatever Fox News says'

 

guerrila, you ignored what I asked of you in my first reply to you. The other atheists don't seem to want to play without their someone holding their hand.

[Cicero]

***********deleted*************

 

[ February 08, 2010, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]

[Mavericksky]

Bismillah,

 

Having read the article and the responses from the contributers, I feel almost like following the usual path of argumentation.

 

However, I felt inspired to Qaute from the Word of The Most Supreme Creator (whom Dawkins and co - Shall most DEFINATLY meet) Its only fare to hear from his words:

 

 

''And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!'' Surat Cave 56.

 

Alhamdulilah who created us with profound wisdom and who endowed us with a free will to believe or disbelieve. ...And I certainly pray to Allah to be risen among those that believed.

 

Peace and blessings be upon the Pure Mercy(Mohammed).

 

.

[Mavericksky]

Bismilah,

 

''Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

 

--->"Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds'' The Cave 103-104

 

Much Praise be to Allah who sent the unlettered Messenger (pbuh) to teach profound truth and wisdom to people who wrote and read.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

is it not circular logic to quote scripture in debating this topic. Further, rather then presenting random findings might I suggest each camp getting their evidence and lets which is more logical... As for the ones asking about might my religious believes, might I suggest that we focus on the content of a discussion rather then who said?

[Mavericksky]

Bismilah,

 

When I was bordering on agnosticism/atheism and profound scepticism my logic was as follows:

 

1- Religion is man made

2- God is not apparent/observable and therefore non-existent/irrelevant

3- Finaly, all metaphysics and spiritual notions are highly contentious, un-scientific, irrational and harmful to human progress.

 

For me rationality and anything that resembled pseudo-logic, pseudo scientific or any form of apparent high level mumbo-jumbo was suffice to dismiss the issues of GOD & Religion as at best dupiuous.

 

I would quate all types of writings from the west and east so long as they by default supported my pre-determined view point..........

 

 

To cut the long story short I pontificated on the issue of religion (ISLAM) being probabley fabricated/man made, ofcourse I never gave that which I rejeted out of hand ANY SERIOUS STUDY AND CONTEMPLATION.

 

It is quite easy to argue for something that you have little real knowledge of , but its indeed most difficult, hypocratic and no to mention unscientific to argue against something that you have NO REAL KNOWLEDGE of.

 

Lets be honest we are here not discussing DAWKINS delusions per-se or his pseudo-scientific credentials. BUT, WE ARE INDEED DISCUSSING THE TRUTH OF ISLAM AND THAT OF ALLAH.

 

So, intellectual honesty demands any person who is genewinly ready to critic Allah and the Islamic faith to have an excellent grasp of:

the theology of Islam, The Quran, The Prophetic Hadiths, The islamic Jurisprudence and ISLAMIC HISTORY. Of course any such person will have to be master of the ARABIC language too, for otherwise he will fail to truely comprehend his subject of study.

 

Its reasnoble to conclude that if one does not posses actual first hand information and knowledge about a particular subject (i,e Islam in this case) than this leads to one invetible falling to error with regard to the subject.

 

More to follow inshaAllah.

[N.O.R.F]

Cicero,

 

You have a point there. One which I will not challenge. The two paragraphs do look very similar but what we mustn’t forget is that the piece by Hamza is quite lengthy (i.e. more than two paragraphs).

 

When I want to read the strongest case for theism, I don't read what mental midgets like Hamza Tzortzis and Harun Yahya scribble. Instead, I peruse some of Craig's works, the writings of Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame, and Richard Swinburne of Oxford, all clever, albeit mistaken, christian philosophers and theologians.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Care to elaborate on how they are mistaken?

 

Ps your posts tend to be sprinkled with spitefulness and distain towards Islam and Muslims. What gives? Surely you’re now free from the shackles. Surely you can do what you want (that is what it’s all about is it not?). Why hold so much hate and contempt?

 

Naxar, I think the onus is on you to tell us what you have a problem with and why.

 

Mavericksky,

 

Quite a refreshing post there and one I totally agree with.

 

I think the following Ayah you posted best sums up this thread thus far.

 

''And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve,

dispute with false argument

, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!'' Surat Cave 56.

[Ibtisam]

North, you must read the book first, otherwise it is as pointless as Johnny quoting me something from the Quran which I know he does not understand nor can comment on, all he would be left with is quoting me what another said, which is never as stong as what and how you can say something.

 

Don't be lazy, read the damn book, it is not that long.

 

Cicero: when you manage to post without mocking Islam, Muslims and their book can people discuss with you anything, till then it is best people ignore you all together. It is a shame with all your so called education and libration, someone could not teach you basic manners and discussing an issue without emotional crying and chewing tour nails. Acudubililahmina shidan rajiim.

 

P.s. they also forgot to tell you that we are called Muslims not Mohammadans.

[N.O.R.F]

North, you must read the book first, otherwise it is as pointless as Johnny quoting me something from the Quran which I know he does not understand nor can comment on, all he would be left with is quoting me what another said, which is never as stong as what and how you can say something.

Which has happened before, on numerous occassions.

 

Can't be bothered with the book. The words 'reason and logic x 1,500' would kill me.

[Ibtisam]

^^Just because it has happened, does not make it a valid mode of discussion.

 

If you cannot be bothered to read the book, then there is no reason why anyone should respond to what you posted, unless Hamza is going to appear and defend or counter argue, you cannot do it on his behalf because you have not read the book. since you don't want to read the book I can only assume you did not seriously want to engage them (those who do not agree with you) instead you just wanted a hit a run- something that I expect of Johnny.

[N.O.R.F]

^Say I read the book and come back next week, what next? Should I expect Johnny et al to go to dugsi and be aquainted with the Quran, Tafseer and Ahadeeth before we can discuss anything?

[Ibtisam]

^^No, but you can expect him not to rely on the Quran as evidence, or attempt to do his own tasfeer, as we know he has yet to study it.

 

In any case You are claiming the high ground here, you want a debate, so cover your basic point of entry.

 

The aim of the discussion is not to bang your heads together, I assume you want to try and benefit them, so you need to put in the effort, otherwise you are not doing your job as a daaci. I guess if the aim is to just argue for the sake of it, then it makes sense that neither of you do your reading and then we can just see who shouts the loudest.

[N.O.R.F]

^My point of entry is Hamza's piece. Because I haven't read Dawkins' book doesn't mean there is no debate to be had. Because I haven't read the book doesn't mean I'll be unable to assess and respond to their rebuttals etc.

 

Wa fulayiin uun

[Johnny B]

You seem to have alot of time nowadays .. still off cause of the football accident?