Krauss as a Professor, a heavily loaded title, he should be more careful when venturing into an unknown area. Islam is considerably huge in term theological content, it takes a lot of time to learn it, yet Krauss which is so clueless venture into it, just like Dawkins. His opponent over here who has no title (let alone Professor) seems well informed about science.
If you step in to the boxing ring you better know how to box, it is just commonsense.
Also, interrupting the opponent in his given time to speech seem to be just what this professor is, very disappointing. He argued almost every seconds for almost anything his opponent utter, until we lost of what was discuss before it. The good planned format became chaotic brawl because he just would not shut up. It is piety since he is quite knowledgeable person in his field.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
To his credit I've heard him say he doesn't enjoy public debates. He much prefers a discussion/dialogue format. Debates are combative by nature, they're not about what you say but how you say it. They're mostly about entertaining the audience rather than educating them.
I agree with John. I've watched several debates on dialogue format, and Krauss was always very respectful.
zwalja: "Islam is considerably huge in term theological content, it takes a lot of time to learn it...."
It does not take an Islamic scholar or rocket scientist to know that traveling from Mecca to Jerusalem on a flying horse is bullshit. The Koran and Hadith are nonsense like any other religious books.
@chimps: "It does not take an Islamic scholar or rocket scientist to know that traveling from Mecca to Jerusalem on a flying horse is bullshit. The Koran and Hadith are nonsense like any other religious books."
It is very easy to write "nonsense" and "bullshit", but unfortunately I never wrote them, although it might make me sound a bit smarter.
Beside the point! You do not have to be an expert on Islam to criticize irrational claims.
And you are right, The muslim themselves have been discussing theology since day one. And the debate between Christian scholars and muslim scholars, and with the hindus, the Jews, the Atheist. And I myself have done it number of times with different opponents. They attacked Islam and I defend it according to my capacity and I attack their ideology and they defend it. Once I was forced to read the whole Gospel of Barnabas because of the assumption that he believed in it, and he did not.
I have watched the above debate before. The Muslim speaker was making claims about reality that crossed over into the field of physics. The Prime Mover argument (which is Greek not Islamic). He debates the nature of morality (which is philosophy not religion).
@John 6IX Breezy: "To his credit I've heard him say he doesn't enjoy public debates. He much prefers a discussion/dialogue format."
I look around in YT for something similar as you implied, and I think I got one. I went as far as 13 plus minutes because he is just the same.
There is no moderator here and the format seem was agreed by them two themselves, yet he constantly interrupting. He did admit it that he just could not resist in doing that. Maybe he should just gag his opponent, grab the microphone, talk as much as he likes and announce that he just had fruitful discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPdM9HN53Eg
@zwalja:
I'm sorry, it's a lot simpler than that: God, or gods don't exist, it's very simple to prove and discussions with the theists are stupid and lead nowhere, no matter the theological depth of Islam, or if angels have sex between them.
Less discussion and more reformation.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Notice that the presenters of this debate originally planned to segregate the women from the men. The room was integrated after Krauss refused to go on.
@SBMontero; "discussions with the theists are stupid and lead nowhere"
False premise before even start.
I have watched lots and lots of debates from the heavy weight speakers to the screamers, in the hall or in the park, in the mosques in the churches and in public hall or in school, mostly in the park. But now with YT I don't have to roam the country looking for one.
But if you are the moderator of this site you can stop any theist from airing their views here. It is a tip for you to have your view materialize.
@zwalja:
This is even easier to answer, you don't hold an opinion, you hold a falsehood, a lie, and it doesn't matter whether you hold it in a hall, a university, or your bedroom, god, or gods don't exist and is demonstrable, as it's also demonstrable that a lie isn't an opinion, it's a lie.
Oh, and I don't need to moderate anything to call you liar in your face. You know that you lie, I know that you lie and we all know that you lie, like all those who claim to defend supposed theoretical points of view, knowing that they do it's to lie. And that isn't a false premise, it's the pure reality. Assume it... or swallow your lies for what are, untruths like unicorns exist, gnomes roam the gardens and sirens by the pools. Ahead.
@SBMontero:
So those long statement is the proof that you have been promising all along?
TBH, I was expecting something that is belief shattering.
@zwalja:
Does that mean that your beliefs, like those of a small child, need someone to break them? Mature, baby, Who do you think you're talking to? With your 5-year-old son you can fool with fairy tales? Ôo)-♫
@SBMontero:
You made the claim of having proof yourself. I don't demand any poster or posters to produce it unless if I have to. Just few post above you wrote this;
"I'm sorry, it's a lot simpler than that: God, or gods don't exist, it's very simple to prove"
As you see you made the claim of having. And In other thread you also made the claim:
"It's very simple, god, or gods don't exist and besides I can prove it, the rest is pure crap".
I can not dismiss your statement because you may have something, I don't know, and I still don't know. If it is there it would be nice to know it, and that is what the discussion forum is all about.
@zwalja:
C'mon! Mature, baby,
https://youtu.be/VuyYGVDCdN0
Greetings fellow primate,
I would like to make two comments regarding this...
1. People like Professor Krauss get a hard time for the fervent approach they have, but you can understand why. The lies that come out are ridiculous, especially when theists make claims regarding space and physics, such as the big bang etc...
This is similar to why Gordon Ramsey swears in his kitchens, if you read his autobiography he says it's because people who f*** about and don't pay due respect to the field are deserving of ridicule.
Krauss does this with some, but he can be wonderfully respectful if the debate is more of a conversation where the opponent doesn't lie when it comes to the field of science.
2. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s), essentially it is the position that none of the evidence (or distinct lack of) that has been presented, is credible.
The burden of proof is not on an atheist, we are not the ones claiming to have an all powerful (but cannot do much now), all knowing (but notoriously makes mistake after mistake) deity, that isn't within reality but can still interact without detection or is with in reality but cannot be detected still using scientific methods.
If I had to give proof, I would say it is the theists lack of proof.
Islam is the conjuring of a man. Christianity is no different and no other doctrine can fair a better epitaph.
When a man asks his fellow man to provide proof that an untruth is false he has asked that man to do nothing. Pretty easy task.
I don't need to know all about islam or any other religion to call it bullshit