Timeline Debate Islam or Atheism which makes more sense Tzortzis Nomani v Perkins Robinson in Swinburne, Australia

Debate Hamza Melbourne
Debate Islam or Atheism which makes more sense Tzortzis Nomani v Perkins Robinson in Swinburne

non-segregated
remarkably unremarkable.

6:20 Perkins starts
violence worldwide, no benefit either moral nor society, does not make sense, atheism does make sense
being human makes sense and gods are not required. What does make sense? Does that make sense? Why does it make sense?
Explains why the Koran does not make sense. Science is wonderful, the Koran is not.
13:00 origins of Koran and Islam
16:40 it would not matter if it did not do any damage - but it is harmful. No democracy or secularism.
Knowledge is haram.
20:33

Here's a discussion on "Knowledge is Haram"

Hamza
21:00 wants to walk out.  Demands evidence that "knowledge is haram". Either lying or misinformed.
Says Perkins spews lies, is unethical, demeaning, disrespectful, shows bad on the atheist tradition.
... and if you're wrong I want an apology.

Perkins is right, of course.
20:114 Do not be in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, "O my Sustainer! Increase my knowledge."
3:190 contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth
58:11 who have been granted knowledge
there's 10 or 11 of sentences all talking about knowledge or reflecting - but always in connection with the Koran and the revelation. It's just not spelled out like that.

The culture and the tradition are anti-knowledge, but not the texts as such, so that's a bad move to say it without explaining it.

I would use 2:32 They (angels) said: "Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what you have taught us. Verily, it is You, the All-Knower, the All-Wise." to argue that nothing except which was taught by this god in the book he wrote is considered knowledge.

2:120 drives this further by saying that "after what you have received of knowledge (i.e. the Qur'an)"

2:255 "And they will never compass anything of His knowledge except that which He wills." repeats this.

Look at what happened to Malala, who was shot because she wanted knowledge from a school, not a Madrassa

So Hamza is just pounding his chest and acting. He gloats: I'm just trying to teach people manners.

Perkins gets stuck on Ghazali's "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and gets it wrong, making matters even worse for himself.
Ghazali does bring about the death of critical thinking and separates cause from effect to make his god with his angels possible, but uses sound logics to achieve this. Of course he drops rational thinking and reason to do this, but does not say so. He also kills the myth of all-powerful by saying a thinking mineral is impossible. Even for a god.

24:20 repeats myth about Islamic Spain, when Europe was dark
24:45 will present 2 key arguments why Islam makes sense, will repsond to some of the lies and distortions later.
Oh god! I thought he had learned from the humiliating and slow death he had received from Professor Krauss. Not so. He brings up the same stupid and non-sensical arguments as he did when he had the very same topic with Professor Krauss. Nothing changed, the speeches are interchangeable, word for word.

Actually, what is hilarious is that he makes the point Perkins made very apparent, showing that knowledge for him is haram, because he manages to confirm his ignorance when it comes to infinity and the origins of the Universe.

He then proceeds with his usual "the Koran is beautiful" argument as though this proved something.

I've been through this so many times it gets tiring. I'll just skip it.

Robinson
41:00 Why I am an atheist, why Islam does not make sense. Factual, rational, sound presentation, showing the superstitious base of Islam which requires gullibity and the denial of modern knowledge.

Nomani
58:30 Pigs and prophecy are his argument. What a strange character.
He calls Hamza's case convincing, even though he did not make a case for Islam. He changes the topic from why Islam makes sense to "why atheism does not make sense". I'm beginning to wonder whether he actually knows what atheism means.

1:01:20 This crackpot now says he has a problem with what he calls the "entire atheist narrative". He completely ridicules everything he says by now claiming that atheists believe theirs is the only belief which is rational and which can be proven. What a joker!! Where did they pick him up? He demonstrates why atheists laugh about Muslim apologist so much.

After a few minute of this clown I was in stitches, giggling hysterically.

1:02:30 cosmology, clueless
while Hamza nods wisely

1:04:40 epistemology, atheism = scientific method, my initial fears are confirmed, this guy has no clue what atheism is and simply makes stuff up

1:08:30 morality, continues his nonsensical and primitive rambling



Perkins rebuttal (bad audio)
1:16:00 Does Islam deny democracy? No answer. Explains how "knowledge is haram" was meant. Points out some discrepancies. Nothing special.

1:21:00 Robinson, debating tricks, lack of knowledge

1:25:00 Nomani, talks without saying anything, rattles off names

1:29:40 Hamza, names, names. names. Calls this evidence.



1:35:00 cross examine

Hamza, science, traps Perkins, a non-scientist, who answers, instead of keeping quiet
What does this have to do with Islam? Nothing.

1:40:00 Hamza has just a minutes earlier claimed that Muslims 1000 years ago were so scientific and actually invented the scientific method and is now tearing it down as "mere" transmission from authorities we need to blindly trust, calling it testimonial. Which is it? Man, he really does not have the slightest idea of what science is, yet doesn't shut up about it.

1:40:20 Hamza does not understand the onus of proof, telling the atheists they need to provide evidence that the Koran is NOT of divine origins. It is his claim, he needs to prove it. The atheist, quite rightly, does not see the inimitibility claim as proof or even evidence because humans have in fact provided unique books and the challenge is as firmly worded as the Koran, nameley, not at all.

He does not understand science and calls the results "scientific truths", which is nonsense, and then claims people need to blindly trust scientists when they explain evolution. He does not understand that you can't believe "in" evolution and that any human can go and verify the claims or disprove them.

1:42:00 the joker asks whether the atheists question the truths Muslims believe, a preconceived notion, a loaded question and a presuppositional argument. What makes him assume that what he believes is true, when the Koran gets almost every factual claim wrong.

Both Hamza and the Nomani guy now provide a superb show of their ignorance, equivocating the fabricated hadiths with the scientific method. Astonishingly primitive, amazingly obtuse and delightfully inane.

Hamza must be the most retarded person I have seen in a debate. He says that the atheists have not provided any evidence except testimonial evidence, where he has quoted scholars. Is he really too stupid to realise that him rattling off names is nothing else? He says Perkins has not performed the scientific experiments regarding evolution himself and has to rely on others.
Then he goes and says someone wrote about Muhammad, centuries after he dies and this proves the existence of Muhammad.

This is the level of intellectual debate Hamza delivers. Mind-boggling.


Hamza later lies, when he says "It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon" and they "each  swims along in  its own orbit" in 36: 40 is accurate and correct and represents reality.

We also have "By the Sun ... By the Moon as she follows him…  91: 1-2

Bukhari then confirms this by stating the sun orbit Earth during the day and then waits to rise again the next morning.

He goes off into his old-fashioned rhetoric and rambles on, trying to knock science without understanding it.

Has he gone gay now? He calls Perkins my darling and pretends as though in the UK you call everyone "my darling". Do you?


1:54:00 Perkins apologises in advance and asks whether 65.4 is an example of morality, where girls are allowed to be married.

The joker asks whether the girl has menstruated as though this were the sole criteria. Despicable.

He does concede the point thay Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl. He tries to justify it and the Muslims in the audience appload with ecstatic cries. That is what Islam does to people.

Hamza claims that the legal age in Greece for marriage is 13, Google provides the following:
The legal minimum age for marriage in Greece is 18 years for both men and women.
http://greece.angloinfo.com/family/marriage-partnerships/

What Hamza is referring to is this:
Muslim girls living in Thrace, north-east Greece, can expect to be legally married by the age of 13, without the state uttering a word against it. This is a violation of EU rules for the protection of childhood.

http://forum.sofeminine.co.uk/forum/carriere1/__f15_carriere1-Young-girls-legally-married-in-greece.html

It's really going for the worse here.

2:00:00 SMS Q&A

2:12:00 concluding statements

What do we learn at the end? Secularism is a disease.