Atheism CONQUERED With Two STUPID Questions (Mohammed Hijab)

MH has proven time and again that he's not really a good debater, if at all.

He's like the JP of Islam - always trying to convolute his responses with a lot of gibberish to try to confuse the opponent.

His bit against Alex O'Connor was one of his biggest embarrassments, but of course, his humongous pride took over quite easily.

aaaaaaaaah the wordeful argument "we don't know therefore (our) God did it", ignoring the fact that it's clear that the people who wrote the Quran or the Torah (later bible) knew nothing about science... Wait a moment, is this the idiot who tried to fact checked Dawkins on Islam and instead got totally wrecked?

Literally never heard his arguments before never.

Seriously, in 500 years are they still going to be trotting this bullshit out?

Here's a hint to religious people of all flavors; when Atheism has an actual expression for whatever nonsense you try to claim as evidence, that means it's been answered before and you're not as smart as your little religious pebble brain tells you. Do the research (outside your little book of bedtime stories) before presenting the same old tired arguments for the Nth time.
In this example we call it "God of the gaps" and it's one of the most tedious religious "arguments", where religious smart pants zoom in on the fact that science actually have the balls to say "We don't know" and religious nuts immediately rush in and starts screaming AHA, GOD DID IT!

I knew when he said deductive argument he was either going with the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Argument from Contingency. They're so predictable. These guys really ought to investigate the debunks of these common arguments before recycling them for the umpteen millionth time.

The blackguy pees

im not muslim, nor athiest, im just here to tell you the truth, that there IS hope for you, in Jesus. There isnt really much hope outside of him, and whether you care or not there is hope in Him, and he deeply loves you. :)

"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
Philippians 2:5-11

If you have any questions, feel free to ask and I might be able to reply if I see it.

I'm a practicing witch, because I do believe in some slight, yet unknown influence that we have over physical outcomes around us.
And I'm also a scientist because I can accept that whatever we find with science is a great way to view the world accurately.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, one only needs to be logically consistent and self honest.
I love your videos.

Theists are incapable of being honest. They will change what the word 'know' means. They will 'know' something because they're convinced of it. Not because there's actual evidence for it.

Dude, you have bread? I want bread!

It’s possible that we are all completely wrong. In the words of Eddie Murphy referring to his aunt who may be a Sasquatch, “You shaved her down and taught her how to speak.”, and for that, just because you know how to speak in words, does not mean we are sufficiently advanced enough to discern what our universe is and maybe how it got here. As I learn more and more, it appears as though the truth gets more complicated and harder to understand or know. So, in a strange paradox, it seems the more I know, the less I know.

So there could be a God.....therefore 100 billion people will live to infinity as a result ? Absurd.

Okay, let's say there is a "god". The three main religions in the world Christianity, Judaism and islam are all from the middle east. Which "god is the true one? How come these "gods" only showed themselves to a few, would it be more sensible for he/she to show themselves to the mass population. Don't tell me it's in the book. Books are not without errors. Why should he worry if I don't believe in a god. If god is real, then he can judge me, not the likes of hijab. hijab can keep his religion to himself and leave me out of it.

question are all hoomans as stupid as him, not sic but him

What a headache.

I don’t know how the universe started. I don’t know what if anything existed before it.

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer. It just means that humanity hasn’t found it yet. And that’s okay.

But our not knowing doesn’t automatically mean that your religion is correct. How could it? We don’t know-there’s no evidence either way.

I just think that whatever the answer is, it’s not a god. Again there’s no evidence either way.

Why do theists have to make everything so complicated?

The Kalam argument is flawed. Very flawed.
To begin with, premise 1 can only be about ok with a few more qualifiers, as Sir Sic mentioned.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." => "In the universe as we know it, everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Still debatable, but a little more acceptable. We know nothing about outside the universe, hence this premise can only be valid inside the known universe. And I'm already generous as I could qualify more with "inside our observable section of the known universe".

"The universe began to exist."
First, we don't know that for sure. We only understand things back to the Big Bang which is basically the massive expansion of the universe from a state of very dense amount of matter/energy. We can't be sure what the laws of physics would be in that state, much less how it came to be.
But more importantly, we can't apply premise 1 to the universe because what is true of "everything in the universe" might not be true of "the universe" itself. Pretending otherwise without justification is a fallacy of composition, cleverly sneaked in by the lack of qualifier in premise 1. So, there is actually nothing to link premises 1 and 2, making the conclusion an automatic non sequitur.

"Therefore the universe has a cause."
Non sequitur aside for a moment, this whole syllogism has no detail on what the cause might be, nor does it prohibit an infinite regress of causes. In particular because we know nothing about the state of reality outside of the universe, we don't know what is possible or impossible.
This guy, much like others who use the Kalam to "demonstrate" their own version of god, immediately tacks on multiple properties to "the cause" without demonstrating any, and very much against the need for any of them. Knowledge and creativity in particular are very much not required for a "cause" to an "event". As the syllogism is allegedly based on premise 1, the "cause" in the conclusion must be a "cause" as defined in the premise. Many examples of events with purely mechanical causes are occurring in the universe so, barring another level of demonstration, there is no reason to accept these new properties in the "cause" of the universe.
So, as it stands, those properties are just an additional level of non sequitur added on top of a broken basic syllogism. (Not even a valid one, much less sound.)

Also, I'm not going to start of the fine-tuning argument given how it is absurd to conclude that the whole universe is fine-tuned so that a totally negligeable amount of space is viable for life. And only a fraction of that is suitable for human life. This argument is just a manifestation of human arrogance. Not an ounce of logic in there.

Quarks pop into existence every second.

Was I created from nothing? Mum and Dad claim to have something to do with it, and that's not nothing.

IT'S THE FUCKING COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FFS
Can these people think of anything new?
Also, the CA/Kalam is valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true), but we don't know if it's sound (as valid, but the premises are true). :)

My personal definition: I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist because I feel there is psychological/philosophical insight to be found in religion if it is not taken literally, while I find atheism usually entirely dismissive of religion. Of course, there's probably plenty of self-identified atheists who feel identical to me about religion, so I doubt my personal definition applies to all atheists/agnostics. 😆 I would be interested in those who identify as either weighing in to see how whether my own thoughts are echoed by others.

It's TURTLES all the way down isn't it?

Atheist means no belief in God. Not no God.

Did he really just go
"Prime mover"
"Turtles all the way down"
Checkmate and wait, also Fine tuning arguement?"

At the end of the day, both atheists and agnostics do not accept the idea of the existence of your (or any) god.
Get over yourselves.

Arent regressive and backwards redundant terms?

God am real because I don't know something.

a muslim is going to destroy atheism in 2 questions a religion that will kill you for not believing the stupid shit they believe religion is dangerous and violent

Militant. Just the fact they think they are 'conquering' makes them militant.

Hijab isn't a scholar he's an extremist thug that intimidates and threatens people at speakers corner and preaches extremist rhetoric to his Muslim followers , even the average Muslims in his home town want nothing to do with him.

Hi 👋

Theists keep saying the universe had a beginning, but that's not what the big bang theory actually says. The big bang theory says where the universes matter was 13.8 billion years ago - and nothing beyond that point (to the contrary: it is probably impossible to find out anything beyond that point).

Nothing can be shown to have been created or destroyed.
But let's assume your idea of an uncaused causer. That doesn't show that it is in any way sentient. It may very well be a natural process.
However, even if sentient, it still does not show it to be an omnipotent being, much less a specific omnipotent being.
If you want to show the existence of your god, you still have all of your work ahead of you.
Get to work, and then see me after class.

Mo. Hijab is clown among clowns
He is stupidest of already stupid group called islamic apologetics, who themselves are stupidest among apologetic fools😂😂

it's really telling that the best arguments for one religion are the best arguments for every other religion. the less they describe their religion, the more sense it makes

I like posit number one "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Physically, yes. That does not imply devine guidance.

Love the Kalam, two unsound premises and an irrelevant conclusion, followed by the nonsequitor shuffle... can't really scream any louder into the void "I'VE GOT NOTHING!!!!!!"

I'm an Agnostic Polytheist

There could be an all powerful creator
But I doubt s/he it/they are so focused on this immeasurably small speck of cosmic dust

I actually thought he was going to convince me, He said he would "Conquer my Atheism" But NO.
He just Convinced me I need to drink more Whiskey, and stop watching these God Botherers.

To religious people I have this to ask, Do you think what I would refer to as your god believes in a god that created your god? If the answer is yes then that raises all sorts of questions about your religion and if the answer is no then that makes your god an athiest. Also I have a real issue with a religion (islam) that is based around a pedophile who consummated his relationship with a 9 year old girl.

If everything has a cause, then how is it the beginning?

Surely it just a continuation of the cause...

Personally I'm starting to think, The term "beginning" is just an arbitrary point humans place on something.

Personally, I call myself agnostic because it's slightly more accurate to both how exactly I feel about it and how I came to that conclusion. It pisses me off when people act like "agnostic" means "please proselytise to me," sure, but I have other ways to scare off asshole proselytisers and politely stop other ones.