Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Debate in Westland, Michigan

74 comments:

Zack_Tiang said...

Sami Zaatari?

So far, the debates I recall watching him in, he often ignores whatever arguments, reasonings, explanations given by his opponents and just keeps recanting his reasons and arguments as if they were never answered or responded to. =_=

Michael Schueckler said...

Zack,

It would be good for the debate moderator to recommend the audience members take a notepad and note each debater's arguments and see which points were responded to or not. I saw Bill Shishko make that recommendation once before.

kiwimac said...

I look forward to this debate- In my humble opinion, Zaatari is one of the 'better' Muslim debaters going around. Although he's no match for David! Good luck and God Bless you David!

Luke said...

Hmmmmm.... Not too far from my hometown. I might make a guest appearance.

Nakdimon said...

Right Zack. When I debated him on Paltalk on the deity of Messiah Yeshua thats all he did. I addressed his arguments one by one and my opening presentation remained untouched. Often his arguments are so childish one is taken aback at the nonsense of its content.

Oh well.

I bet that Sami will appeal to the Bible to try to make a case for unitarianism. What will be indesputable and what Sami will HAVE to address, are not so much the claims Yeshua made about his deity because Muslims will always go for an a-contextual interpretation of Yeshua's words, but the explicit references to Yeshua's claims to be 1) the unique Son of God and 2) the sacrifice for our sins and rising from the dead. Even these are detrimental for any Islamic claim that Yeshua was supposedly a Muslim. The only way Sami can get around that is "but the Bible isn't trustworthy".

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

I see what your saying and all apologists have their strengths and weaknesses but I think that Sami Zaatari is definitely a worthy opponent to David. Should be an interesting debate.

John Lollard said...

I don't know about skill or anything, but Sami seems like a very nice guy. Like the sort of debater who, when he's in town, you and your wife bring he and his wife out to a restaurant and talk about your kids, and then debate him on Christology the next day. He seems like a gentleman, is what I mean. I want him to do a good job in the debate, and hope he makes good and clear points. I know David will make even better points of course, but the truth becomes stronger with stronger criticism, and Sami seems like a right guy for that job.

Derek Adams said...

It doesn't really matter whether an opponent is worthy or not, people like William Craig use this to copt out of debates with a certain notorious Austin you tube Atheist, yet have the audacity to attack Dawkins for doing the same to him. Rogers almost tried pulling this on me with our correspondence since he prefers Michael Martin etc.

Anyway, Zaatari has become a much better debater than his former days with us on pal. What I mean is he is a better presenter, and at least his arguments have 'evolved' to the point where he doesn't always repetitiously repeat himself while ignoring the rebuttal (although still does it sometimes). There is hope for Zaatari, he hasn't quite broken through the box of being objective (you can tell normally in his introduction speeches), but the more he starts thinking, the least likely he will remain a Muslim.

Foolster41 said...

@Samatar: How can they be a "worthy opponent" if they don't actually addresses arguments?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Foolster

I didn't say or believe that Sami does not address arguments. Of course Sami addresses the arguments by his opponents or he would not have been noted as one of the good muslim debaters. However, Sami used to have a bit of a tendency to ignore some of the points brought up by his opponents. As Derek pointed out Sami really has evolved and matured as a debater. I say to the point that he is one of the top muslim apologists after Bassam Zawadi and Shabir Ally. Shabir does a great job of debating topics that have to do with Jesus and the bible in general while Bassam spends more time on defending Islam with topics such as "Has the Quran been perfectly preserved" and "Was Muhammad (pbuh) assured of his salvation". Anyways, this should be a good debate.

José Atento said...

Why these debates always take place in churches and not in places where Muslims will be exposed to them? They are the ones who need to listen.

Search 4 Truth said...

Last time I debated Zatari on youtube he ignored all of my arguments until they were impossible to ignore any more. And then he finally just called me names and then ran and called me an Islamaphobe. And i told him I dont hate Muslims. All I did was present the evidence consistently with logic and reason. He finally realized he couldnt lie any more and fled. i dont think he has evolved much. This was about 3 months ago. He is better than Nadir Ahmed and Osama Abdullah. But that isnt saying much.

aaron said...

well anyone is better then Osama at debating even nadir ahmed is better then Osama but only slightly.

@jose i agree, it has occurred to me as well. Are mosque not places where we can see what the other side have to say?

curly said...

@Search 4 Truth,
I wish I can hear the debate. Sami Zaatari is better than Osama Abdullah ! Oh really, I am little surprise. I did remember I read Sami Zaatari's essay once longtime ago, it was not impress me. I can imagine how Osama Abdullah is.. what more? I think Osama Abdullah is older than Sami Zaatari !

Haecceitas said...

Derek,

"It doesn't really matter whether an opponent is worthy or not, people like William Craig use this to copt out of debates with a certain notorious Austin you tube Atheist, yet have the audacity to attack Dawkins for doing the same to him."

Do you really think that there was some kind of inconsistency on Craig's part in declining to debate some guy who's only known via Youtube and at the same time wanting to have a debate between Dawkins (one of the leading public figures for atheism) and himself (perhaps the leading Christian debater)?

Kraven Amica said...

I've watched many of Sami's debates and always felt that Sami never responds the points raised by his opponents.

Unlike Shabbir Ally, Sami is another inconsistent Muslim Taqiyyist!

Fernando said...

@ José Atento...

good question, but we all know the answer, don't we?

Nakdimon said...

Hi Search, which debate was that? Is it on youtube?

Nazianzen II said...

That should be interesting.

Apollos26 said...

Brother David,

I am a bit surprised that you debate Zataari again...

He mocked and blasphemed our LORD and GOD so many times, in unthinkable way, that he is not even worth to crawl in the dirt. Debating him is throwing pearls before swine.

I wouldn't bother a second with this filth.

Apollos26 said...

@John Lollard: "but Sami seems like a very nice guy. Like the sort of debater who, when he's in town, you and your wife bring he and his wife out to a restaurant and talk about your kids, and then debate him on Christology the next day. He seems like a gentleman, is what I mean." ???? Sorry, pal, but it is obvious that you didn't listen to any debate of Sami. He is everything but a gentleman.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Naddimon

It was on a video that i posted a response about wife beating and the status of women. he responded. And then we caught each other at the same time and corresponded back and forth on the video. It went on for about an hour, until he gave up and just called me names. it wasnt an official debate. But it was me against two Muslims. The first was dawahfilms. A crazy connedvert who moved to Malaysia, and then he called in Sami to try and aid him. It didnt help. LOL!

SGM said...

Any good moslem debator is a bad debator and any bad christian debator is a good debator.

A Christian debator, even if he is a bad debator, is defending the truth, for he is a representative of THE TRUTH.

A moslem debator, even if he is a good debator, is defending a lie and is is a deceiver for he is a representative of THE BEST OF THE DECEIVERS.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Apollos

"He mocked and blasphemed our LORD and GOD so many times, in unthinkable way, that he is not even worth to crawl in the dirt. Debating him is throwing pearls before swine."

Out of curiosity, what do you think about Sam Shamoun in his debates.

Locrian said...

Why? David, you can't be this hard up to debate. Shoot for debating their real scholars. These are just waste of time. I can't imagine a Christian ever thinking you've lost to any of the 3 bad Islamic apologist, and the matches where you beat them so bad the Muslims just fragged their own and threw them under the bus. I mean unless it's some cat and mouse thing and this is your way mocking (1kin 18:27) their Allah I'm just not getting it.....

Jason Crusader said...

Praise and glory be to God Almighty, King of the universe and possessor of Heaven and earth.

This Sami individual is anything but nice. I've listened to two of his debates. One with David and the other with Sam Shamoun. In both debates he lied to no end (not surprising coming from a muslim) and even blasphemed the Holy Spirit in his debate with Sam.

It's true that he doesn't address all the arguments put before him. I predict another victory for Christ. SGM, I agree with you totally my brother.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Jason Crusader

" In both debates he lied to no end (not surprising coming from a muslim) and even blasphemed the Holy Spirit in his debate with Sam."

Haha, gotta love your bias their. In the debate against Sam shamoun Sami did insult The Holy Spirit which was wrong of him and he even apologized, but did you forget to add that Sam called Allah (swt) drunk, and the prophet (pbuh) a pervert or did you conveniently leave it out. I do not recall Sam apologizing for his action while there is evidence that Sami actually apologized for what he said. Lets try to be a bit more consistent shall we. If you will rebuke Sami, then rebuke Sam shamoun for what he said. Thanks.

Sam said...

Samatar, I know you can't help yourself from having to lie in order to defend your ikhwaan. Did you even listen to the debate carefully? Your Sami started with the insults and blasphemies and I gave him a taste of his own medicine so he can learn to respect himself and not insult our God and think he can get away with it. You and him need to learn what your own god told you about insulting the faith of others in Surah 6:108.

So please make sure to speak honestly next time you want to come to the defense of your ikhwaan.

BTW, I am still waiting for Sami to honor his word and debate me on the prophethood of Muhammad, which he was supposed to do that very same day of our debate. But he ran from humiliation afterwards since he knew better than to debate me on the credibility of his prophet.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

It is an accurate statement to call Mohamed a pervert. The list of his perversions are long. He married a 6 year old when he was in his 50"s, he took female captives and raped them, he permitted his followers to take female captives and rape them, he married for more than the permitted four wives, which reveals his hypocrisy and the old, "do as I say and not as I do" he would have sex with all of his wives in one day, he tongued boys etc...

So when we present the factual evidence, Muslims call it insults. But they are facts sup[ported by YOUR history and doctrine. We use adjectives that accurately describe Mohamed and Islam and Muslims think its an insult when it is actually the truth. Sami, like this other fool who said we worship foreskins are LIARS.

A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (Mohammad) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Muslim 8:3310

Had sexual intentions for another baby girl
(Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu'lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, 'If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.' But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. 'Abdu'l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab...

He preferred young virgin girls to play with and fondle
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, 'What makes you in such a hurry?" I replied, I am newly married " He said, "Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, "A matron." He said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:16

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:17

Search 4 Truth said...

He allowed a new-born baby boy to suck his tongue

…For it was narrated by Fatimah Bint Asad, the mother of Ali – may Allah be pleased with her – who related that when she gave birth to her son, it was the prophet who named him Ali and the prophet spat in Ali’s mouth then allowed him to suck on his tongue till he fell asleep.
Al-Amin Al-Ma’moun - Biography of Muhammad, Chapter: “The first people to believe in the prophet.”

He kissed boys

Narrated 'Aisha: A bedouin came to the Prophet and said, "You (people) kiss the boys! We don't kiss them." The Prophet said, "I cannot put mercy in your heart after Allah has taken it away from it."
Sahih Bukhari 8:73:27
[edit]And sucked their tongue
Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy, and narrated by Mua’wiya who said, “I saw the prophet (pbuh) sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him . For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).[4]
Musnad Ahmad - Hadith No. 16245

He even fondled them when they were menstruating.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 300:
Narrated Maimuna:

When ever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.

He couldnt even keep the semen stains off of his clothes!

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:
Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

What do you call that Samatar? A perfect example? LOL!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Sam

" Your Sami started with the insults and blasphemies and I gave him a taste of his own medicine so he can learn to respect himself and not insult our God and think he can get away with it."

TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT

You are aware that Sami is not the only muslim who worships Allah (swt), but there are 1.6 billion muslims all over the world who worship Allah (swt). Not only was Sami offended when you said that, but I myself was very offended when you insulted my lord. You know Sam that just because Sami offended your God, it doesn't excuse your action in any way. Very recently someone insulted your wife Sam in a horrendous manner. Does that give you the license to all of a sudden insult his wife. You know it doesn't, but I still have not heard you apologize for your insults. Remember, Sami acknowledged and apologized for his wrong doing but you continue to act as if it is a total non issue. Well, hopefully one of these days you do apologize for what you said.

blessed z said...

Oh my goodness!! Thank you Search 4 Truth for all these information about this man Muhammad who called himself a prophet and had blinded 1.5bil people on earth to believe him. I hv many Muslim friends in Indonesia, and sometimes it's difficult to blame how naive they are for being so proud as Muslim and think that others are just garbage. Well they only know maybe 5% of what Quran and Hadith and other Muslim book said, as they don't speak Arab. What they do is only to sing the Quran and proudly conduct Musabaqoh Tiwalatil Quran, even for the young children. Hahaha....they don't know what they read/sing....(some are satanic verses.....like to comaneci Muslim to fight Christian and Jew).

Oh gosh...all these information about Muhammad will make any normal person wants to puke.

Samatar....so you want Sam to apologize for statements that are not created by him?? He did nothing wrong but just brought out those things from your own sources! Why should he apologize? Why don't you demand the writer of that information to apologize?? Or, better still just burn your Quran and Hadith and all Islam books that embarrass you, so nobody on earth will ever talk about it anymore.

Samatar, you are a typical Muslim. Muslim people are like monkey being given a mirror. When he sees his ugly face in the mirror he gets angry and breaks the mirror.

Thank you Lord for the blessing of technology you bring upon your children, that the evil teaching Muhammad had brought on people on earth be made known to all people in the world very soon. Lord almighty will open the eyes of all Muslim in His time.

Thank you all brothers and sisters in Christ for your tireless effort to defend the truth. I am so happy for you guys. Since I found Sam and David websites and ABNsat my knowledge about our faith has been much better and it has opened my eyes about Islam teaching. Now I am confident and just laugh if my Muslim friends ask me to convert to Islam.

Praise be to God. He bless us and protect us all.

To brother David, may the Lord bless you in your next debate with samy.

Topsy Oya said...

David,once you are there with Sami,just know that back here in Nigeria some one is asking God on your behalf for utterance like you have never experienced before.Above all,this debate will relocate lost souls back to Christ.

Devapriya said...

The Debates with Muslims and Christians end up as each repeating the same thing they said and both side does not touch up on the Latest Archaeological truths which neither support Bible or Quran.

Paul and Jesus the end of world in their Life time.
http://devapriyaji.activeboard.com/t49213357/jesus-or-mohammed-who-is-christ/
As Per Hebrew speaking Sadduces Old Testament does not talk of arrival of a Messiah at all.
We can infer that Jesus-Paul were a heretic sect expecting world end in Ist Century and Islam copied it.

Both are lies.
I am putting a screen shot, as I doubt you may not approve this.

Sam said...

Samatar, it seems that you don't get it. Both the Bible and even the Quran agree that there is a time when a person can, and must, put a person in his place and give him/her a taste of his own medicine. I have already documented this fact in the following article where I publish the emails of your ikhwaan cursing and threatening to kill each other: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

However, since you are Muslim let me quote the example of your own prophet and his followers to illustrate my point:

Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, AND DO NOT USE A EUPHEMISM.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV – General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021; bold and capital emphasis ours)

{Sidenote: Sarah is a misspelling for Sharh, so that it should have read Sharh as-sunna.}

And:

And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to 'Urwah: "Suck Al-Lat's clitoris!"[2] – there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: "Bite your father's penis!"[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma'ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)

[3] Narrated by Ahmad, on the authority of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b. (Ibid.)

Continued in the next part.

Sam said...

This is a continuation from the previous post directed to Samatar.

Now here is how Abu Bakr treated the disbelievers:

... Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, 'Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!' – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – 'Would we flee and leave him?' …" (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76; bold and underline emphasis ours)

So Samatar, do you condemn your prophet and his companion from using such filthy, vulgar language? Are you ok with your prophet telling people to bite their fathers' penises and with Abu Bakr telling a person to suck al-Lat's clitoris?

More in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my third post to Samatar.

It gets considerably worse for you since I document in the following article from hadiths deemed to be sahih, authentic, where Muhammad would curse and abuse his followers for no good reason, even going as far as making an orphan girl cry for cursing her:

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/mo_curses.html

So again, do you condemn Muhammad for treating people in such an abusive and vile manner?

Continued in my final post.

Sam said...

This is now my fourth and final post to Samatar.

Let me now quote to you a Quranic verse which clearly states that you can argue and oppose people who oppose and criticize you:

Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, EXCEPT FOR THOSE OF THEM THAT DO WRONG; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered.' S. 29:46

In fact, you are even allowed to kill them if you have the opportunity to do so!

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion WITH DISAPPROVAL AND CRITICISM then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). S. 9:!2

Should they gain the upper hand over you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands AND THEIR TONGUES against you with evil, and they desire that you should disbelieve. S. 60:2

So Samatar, you are wrong since both the Holy Bible and even your own sources teach that it is perfectly valid to verbally attack a person who shamefully blasphemes and insults your faith.

I end this by posting another link which brings all these points togetther, and also provides quotes from another one of your ikhwaan who perfectly exemplifies the spirit of your deen: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/05/muslim-commenter-sinks-to-new-low.html

Enjoy!

Search 4 Truth said...

At some point you would think that people would realize and come to an epiphany that everything they think or thought about their beliefs were incorrect. if someone doesnt have that ability, what do you call that? Delusion, psychosis, schizophrenia, or just plain denial?

Jason Crusader said...

@ Samatar

I need not reply to you seeing as how Sam and Search 4 Truth have already put you in your place.

Sam, masterful performance my brother. May the Lord our God continue to empower and quide you.

-In Christ.

Derek Adams said...

"Do you really think that there was some kind of inconsistency on Craig's part in declining to debate some guy who's only known via Youtube and at the same time wanting to have a debate between Dawkins (one of the leading public figures for atheism) and himself (perhaps the leading Christian debater)?"

Dawkins is not a qualified theologian, historian, or philosopher or biblical scholar. So of course it is inconsistent for Craig to refuse to debate Matt and attack Dawkins for not debating him. That is obvious.

Can you NOT see the inconsistency? Or are you blinded?

Derek Adams said...

"Search 4 Truth said...
At some point you would think that people would realize and come to an epiphany that everything they think or thought about their beliefs were incorrect. if someone doesnt have that ability, what do you call that? Delusion, psychosis, schizophrenia, or just plain denial?"

I can comment on this. When your belief system is turned upside it disrupts and destroys your entire reality. If you remove or untangle just one web in your entire net of webs connecting all your beliefs together, you become crushed.

Coming out of belief system for very devout believers is a LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS. People who are Muslim by name it won't matter as much, it's just cultural like many Roman Catholics. If you are a Muslim by heart, it is a much longer, harder, drawn out process. This applies to Christians and Jews who leave their religion aswell.

The other point to note is that logic/evidence/reason alone is not sufficient to convince most people. People are subject to emotion, not reason. How do we know this? Well i'll point out a more obvious way.

Every time I have a conversation with someone and corner them. What do they always say?

"I'll get back to you on that", "I'll find out more, i'll look for the truth that reaffirms MY position" etc.

It is clear instead of deconverting the person wishes to find evidence to reaffirm already existant beliefs. Truth doesn't matter at all costs, what matters is emotional vindication, proving to yourself, you were right. What matters is how emotionally invested someone is in certain dogmas and concepts. How many times does a person recite "Jesus is Lord" or "there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his final messenger", this becomes apart OF YOU, apart of your very essence and identity. We protect our beliefs the same way we naturally protect our lives.

Remember the tools to convert someone are not reason and evidence, rather experience (religious experiences), emotions (drama, anger, excitement, "ultimate truth" etc).

So even when reason and their own sources fail, don't expect anything else.

Search 4 Truth said...

Nicely put Derek. You have a very sharp mind and very eloquent as well. And of course I agree with you. Thanks. Much respect.

Haecceitas said...

"Dawkins is not a qualified theologian, historian, or philosopher or biblical scholar. So of course it is inconsistent for Craig to refuse to debate Matt and attack Dawkins for not debating him. That is obvious.

Can you NOT see the inconsistency? Or are you blinded?"


Derek, are you joking? There's no inconsistency at all. Many atheists consider Dawkins to be the leading public spokesperson of atheism. Dawkins himself has made a lot of noise about how the theist side supposedly has no good arguments, etc and he has presented an argument (the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit) that according to him (and according to his large and noisy supporter base) is a knock-out argument agaisnt the existence of God. And on top of that, Dawkins is a leading academic figure even though it is in a subject matter that is only tangentially related to the theism vs. atheism debate (although it should also be noted here that Dawkins totally dismisses theology and belittles philosophy, as well as insists that the existence of God is a scientific question - so according to his own understanding, he isn't less qualified to debate the subject than any theist philosopher/theologian).

Combine all of these points and you have more than enough reasons to justify a reasonable expectation that Dawkins should be willing to debate the issues with the leading representatives of the Theist side - especially when he IS willing to debate theological lightweights. And regardless, your charaterization of Craig "attacking" Dawkins for not debating him is a bit misleading. It wasn't Craig's idea to put the "there's probably no Dawkins" bus ads during his UK tour, etc.

Jason Crusader said...

“Every time I have a conversation with someone and corner them. What do they always say?

"I'll get back to you on that", "I'll find out more, I’ll look for the truth that reaffirms MY position" etc.”

Derek, this statement is fallacious because those people that you’ve supposedly cornered may be ignorant of whatever topic you were discussing. Or, their knowledge may be limited on certain issues. There have been plenty of times that an objection has been presented to me by muslims and I didn’t have an answer. Does that mean that I should abandon Christianity because I didn’t have an answer at that moment? Certainly not!

In fact, I’ve learned so much more by researching and studying objections by people of other faiths. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with someone who doesn’t have answer at that moment to say, “I’ll get back to you on that,” or “I’ll find out more.” If you were cornered by a Christian and didn’t have an answer, does that mean you’ll stop being a skeptic and convert to Christianity based on your logic? May the Lord open your eyes, peace be with you.

VJ said...

@devapriya

Your material is totally crap,seems like you just starting learning from some bias school.
if you think you got some new thesis then please present it, any apologist on this blog will refute it even without preparation.

dstewart said...

When I read "youtube atheist" I don't naturally think of someone who has even one published best-selling book that is widely talked about all over the world...

Derek Adams said...

"There's no inconsistency at all. Many atheists consider Dawkins to be the leading public spokesperson of atheism."

There's MORE atheists that haven't been to his conferences or bought his book. Theres many atheists that are NOT ANTI THEISTS. Theres many atheist who don't agree with Dawkins arguments.

I mean anyone can make these claims it's entirely irrelevant.

What it comes down to is this. Craig refuses to debate anyone who is not an expert in the subject, yet wants to debate Dawkins but not Matt. It's INCONSISTENT. You yourself admit Dawkin's qualification are not directly relevant to the topic. Publicity is meaningless, Matt has millions of youtube views aswell, so what? That means that Craig ought to debate Matt aswell., using this reason.

Stop trying to make excuses for your apologist's inconsistency and tell him to stop saving face and debate Matt. Atleast Matt Slick didn't hide behind "Phd" dribble.

Derek Adams said...

Jason what you just wrote reaffirms what I just said. People are committed to positions they know nothing about, they are humiliated or shown something they have no answer to, THEN they go and do the study to "back up" their "already existent" position, same thing happened with me and Shamoun (something that motivated SAM to never not have an answer again).

Hence it is not logic, reason or evidence that are persuasive but emotional investment, time and rapport. These are the most powerful forces influencing beliefs. There is no way to be 100% pure objective BECAUSE we are human, which actually demonstrates the fallacy that someone can "possess absolute truth" or be "given it".

You asked does that apply to me aswell? I think it applies to everyone. The only way around this is to be a radical skeptic, agnostic (simply confess your lack of knowledge and lack of any world view), or fluctuating between worldviews.

Haecceitas said...

"There's MORE atheists that haven't been to his conferences or bought his book. Theres many atheists that are NOT ANTI THEISTS. Theres many atheist who don't agree with Dawkins arguments."

I know. But that doesn't negate the fact that Dawkins is much more notable in this regard.


"What it comes down to is this. Craig refuses to debate anyone who is not an expert in the subject, yet wants to debate Dawkins but not Matt. It's INCONSISTENT. You yourself admit Dawkin's qualification are not directly relevant to the topic. Publicity is meaningless, Matt has millions of youtube views aswell, so what? That means that Craig ought to debate Matt aswell., using this reason."

As far as I know, Craig's policy is to debate people who have a Ph.D. while allowing exceptions if the person is notable enough in other respects or if he's already scheduled to debate somewhere and the only persons available to debate are non-Ph.D. I can't blame him if he doesn't consider Matt (Dillahunty?) to be notable enough to warrant an exception to his general policy. I don't see this as comparable at all to Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig.


"You yourself admit Dawkin's qualification are not directly relevant to the topic."

But even here we should note that many contemporary atheist (to a large extent due to the influence of people like Dawkins and Krauss) regard scientists (rather than philosophers) as the real experts in the question of God's existence. This development shouldn't be ignored. Public debates are just one venue to put this view to the test.

Jason Crusader said...

@ Derek

Thank you for elaborating on the issue I commented on. However, I don't believe people will always go back and study simply because that's their religion or because they are emotionally invested. Faith is a huge contributor to their motivation.

For example, when a muslim presented an objection to me, I knew there had to be a resolution to his objection and therefore by faith I committed to study and investigate.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Sam

Sorry for the delay. Before commenting, I wanted to have an opportunity to listen to the debate again as it has been a while since I've heard it. Now I want everyone to note Sam's position here. Sam says that both Islam and Christianity allow someone to retaliate to put someone back in there place. Therefore, Sam is implicitly stating that his comments would have been wrong had he been the first one to throw stones. I decided to listen to the debate and guess who threw the first stone, none other then Sam Shamoun. Now for almost two hours in the debate, there were some insults thrown around but all of them were personal insults and had nothing to do with the deity or prophet of the respective religions. It was not until almost two hours into the debate when these types of insults began, and I will do a short play by play on what was said.

Samatar Mohamed said...

Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fOE-PTRvc

1:57:00 to 1:57:13
Sam said " ... Where your false God, repeats the same story, but can't repeat it exactly the same way because again, he is BRAINLESS!!!"

2:12:52 to 2:13:03
Sami said " ... You and your holy spirit, you're both DRUNK!!!"

2:14:11 to 2:14:40
Sam said " Your prophet (pbuh) was drunk in the lap of Aisha when she was menstruating and reciting the filthy Quran ... there is a lot to attack about that false prophet who is demon possessed ... You follow the spirit of your prophet, you're a demon possessed pervert."

2:15:17 to 2:15:22
Sam said " ... Cause even in the Quran, your prophet (pbuh) could not add math as well."

2:18:40 to 2:18:47
Sami said " ... I guess it's your holy spirit it inspires you, I guess you're both crazy then right."

2:22:08 to 2:22:12
Sami said " ... Your holy spirit is satan."

2:22:13 to 2:22:20
Sam said " Actually Muhammad's (pbuh) father was satan, and his mother was a child of satan."

Samatar Mohamed said...

So It is quite clear who threw the first stone in the debate and it was Sam. So now Sam are you going to apologize for what you said or are you still going to pretend you were right all along. Sami has already apologized for what he said but you continue to justify what you said.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Searchfortruth

The debate had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad (pbuh). The debate was titled "Is Jesus God". It was quite obvious to anyone who listened to the debate Sam said it with the intention of offending Sami. Now, had the debate been what Sami and David are going to be discussing " Is Muhammad (pbuh) a good role model to society" then I would understand someone bringing that point up seeing as it has to do with the topic. But the debate had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Search 4 Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Samatar,

you objected to the following comment by Sam.

Sam said " ... Where your false God, repeats the same story, but can't repeat it exactly the same way because again, he is BRAINLESS!!!"


end quote;


I say,

I'm not sure if I follow you are you saying it is wron to say that a paticular deity is false or are you saying that it is wrong to say that false gods are brainless?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Fifth monarchy man

"I'm not sure if I follow you are you saying it is wron to say that a paticular deity is false or are you saying that it is wrong to say that false gods are brainless?"

The insult is when Sam called Allah (swt) brainless. I understand that you do not believe in Allah (swt) but to say he is brainless in a debate against a muslim is an insult. Remember earlier when Sami called the holy spirit satan, I do not believe in the holy spirit, rather I believe that you are being influenced by satan, but when someone goes in a debate and calls the holy spirit satan it is an insult. Sami realized he was wrong and apologized for what he said. Now turn it around, if someone is having a discussion with you and calls your God brainless wouldn't you be offended. I am sure you would agree with me had the situation been switched around.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@searchfortruth

I'll re-post it for you if you want.

"Where your false God, repeats the same story, but can't repeat it exactly the same way because again, he is BRAINLESS!!!"

You really do amaze me though. I even capitalized the word "BRAINLESS" and you still do not get it. If you do not see how a muslim would be offended by this remark or how it is an insult against Allah (swt), then I feel quite sorry for you. It is not the fact that shamoun called Allah (swt) a false god, but the fact that he called Allah (swt) brainless.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

I had to go back and listen to it again to see if Samatar was consistent in his subjectivity and lack of integrity. And guess what i found. It was Saami who was the first to insult. At 54:20 he told Sam Shamoun to go and call his holy spirit.

Now Samatar do your ears only hear what they want you to hear? or are you intentionally lying?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fOE-PTRvc Everyone can go and hear for themselves who is telling the truth.

Search 4 Truth said...

And then @ 102:45 Saami mocks him and us again by saying Yes, Amen Hallelujah.

Samatar are you serious when you respond or are you just trying to get the other Muslims to blindly believe your lies?

Sam said...

I can't let Samatar get away with his boldface lies. He said:

I decided to listen to the debate and guess who threw the first stone, none other then Sam Shamoun. Now for almost two hours in the debate, there were some insults thrown around but all of them were personal insults and had nothing to do with the deity or prophet of the respective religions.

Samatar, I know it is virtually impossible for Muhammadans to speak the truth seeing that the Quran boasts that their god is the best deceiver of them all: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm

Since you can't be better than your own god it is be expected that you would have no shame lying the way you do. Yet, unfortunately for you, this isn't a Muslim blog which will allow you to lie to your hearts desire without suffering any consequences.

The fact is that it was your Sami who started with the insults. He came in the room challenging me to debate and I agreed and said we debate the topic "Is Muhammad a true prophet?" He told me he would debate me on that topic only if I first debate him on the deity of Christ, which I gladly accepted provided that we debate Muhammad's credibility immediately afterwards.

Joining him was Osama Abdallah who recorded the debate. Yet being a good Muhammadan he only posted an edited version of what actually transpired and tried to go into damage control by making comments before the debate in order to poison the well. Like I said, he was simply following the example of Allah and his messenger at that point.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my second post to Samatar.

Anyone who has heard even Osama's edited version of the debate will see that it was Sami who came in there talking like a street thug punk. You even basically admit, but in your typical deceptive way, you try to water it down or brush it aside since you were forced to admit that, "Now for almost two hours in the debate, there were some insults thrown around but all of them were personal insults and had nothing to do with the deity or prophet of the respective religions."

Notice folks the logic employed by Samatar. Personal insults are basically no justification for insulting someone's religion! I know why he says this because his prophet would insult and curse people, specifically his own followers, without Allah saying a word to him by way of rebuke or correction. So it is only logical that Samatar sees no problem with a fellow Muhammadan hurling personal insults at others since he is only following the example of Muhammad.

Since you went ahead and recorded all the times I insulted Sami in order to give him a taste of his own medicine, you need to go ahead and post the statemenrts Sami made before my comments at around the 1:57 so we can get the context of why I said what I said, in order to prove that you are a man of integrity.

So now prove to us that you are not like your messenger and provide Sami's remarks which led to my response. I am not going to do the work for you.

More in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my third post to Samatar.

I want everyone to notice how Samatar conveniently avoided addressing the quotes I provided where his prophet told people to go and bite their fathers' penises, insulted and cursed fellow believers for no reason at all, or when Abu Bakr told someone to suck the clit of the goddess al-Lat.

Nor did he bother to address all the emails I provided in the following article where Muhammadans like Sami where they not only insult me, but also curse and even threatening to kill each other: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

However, I am not going to let you off that easy.

Since you have a problem with people insulting others, do you condemn Muhammad for insulting and swearing at people? Do you condemn him for cursing innocent people such as an orphan girl who had done nothing to deserve such abuses? For the details please read the article: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/mo_curses.html

Do you also condemn Abu Bakr for telling someone to suck a goddess' clitoris? And do you condemn Sami and his fellow dawagandists for cursing and threatening to kill one another?

If you not then why not? If you do then why are you still a Muhammadan?

I eagerly await your answer this time.

And do excuse any typos since I rushed through these responses. I have better things to do than to waste time trying to convince a Muhammadan that he is wrong for justifying how his prophet and a fellow Muhammadan treat disbelievers.

Sam said...

Oops, I forgot to mention this. Just to show you what kind of lowlife Sami Zaatari truly is, he ran out of the room after he got humiliated in our debate on the Deity of Christ, even though he agreed to debate me right aftewards on the topic of Muhammad's prophethood. That tells you that he knew better than to stick around since he didn't want to get another shilacking after the one I gave him. For a review of that debate please check this article out: http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wildcat/shamoun_zaatari_debate.htm

However, my challenge to debate Sami on the topic of Muhammad being a true prophet still stands. Yet Sami, being the coward that he is, finds excuses to avoid accepting that debate topic with me.

So Samatar, be a good messenger boy and run to Sami and tell him that I am calling him out to debate me on this topic which he accepted but then ran off in order to avoid having to honor his word. Tell him that I know he won't accept my challenge since he is a coward who knows what will happen to him if he does.

Let me know his response.

Sam said...

BTW, I want to thank the Christian commenters such as Search4Truth for exposing Samatar's lies by showing that it was Sami who started insulting and blaspheming our God. This saved me the time from having to do it myself.

Lord bless all of you.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Searchfortruth

hahahaha. You gave me a great laugh there I must say. When Sami told shamoun to go get his Holy spirit it was an insult to Sam, not his deity. I will give you the direct quote.

"... You're telling me I need help maybe you need help, you should call your Holy Spirit to help you out."

It is obvious this was a retaliation on shamoun who countless times told Sami to get Osama to help him out because his arguments were supposedly terrible. With regard to your comment on the Amen/Hallelujah, Sami is speaking about the christians in the debate who just blindly say amen without really listening to the arguments of the muslim side. Also, you never fail to fascinate me seeing as one second you do not find someone calling another persons God brainless insulting, and yet you find these two offensive. You even removed your previous comment because you know it will show your inconsistency.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Samatar said,

The insult is when Sam called Allah (swt) brainless. I understand that you do not believe in Allah (swt) but to say he is brainless in a debate against a
muslim is an insult.

I say,

All false gods are brainless by definition. Only a true God can have a brain because false gods dont exist

To call a god false is to call it brainless

This is pretty basic logic. How come you don't see that??

peace

Sam said...

I got feedback from some of the brothers who watched the debate last night and they all told me that David pretty much schooled Sami who made some rather ridiculous arguments that backfired against him. To think that people actually believe this guy is a good debater. If he is one of Islam's best then that pretty much tells you the sad state Islamic apologetics finds itself in.

Search 4 Truth said...

Any time Sam. God bless you and yours. You and your work are such a blessing!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samartar

That is an insult to the Holy Spirit. Mocking the holy spirit. If you cannot see that then you are to far gone to be honest. That is a fact.

He was saying the Holy spirit is weak and not coming to his aid. When in fact the Holy Spirit was with him and he destroyed Saami. You have no integrity at all!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

how do you know they were not listening to the debate? They were responding top the debate. So that is a non sequiter. Prove they were not listening to the debate and responding to the rebuttals and arguments of Sam Shamoun. Provide the evidence. How can you speak for them and say they were not listening to the arguments. they were their. So I guess mocking the audience isnt an insult either huh? Your mind and soul is twisted Samatar.

I removed my comment because I went back and listened and heard Saami insult the holy spirit, Sam and the audience over an hour before you falsely claimed that Sam did it first.

You are exposed and refuted once again. No integrity whatsoever!

Sam said...

Hey saints, did you notice how Samatar once again failed to answer any of my questions concerning the foul mouth and manners of his prophet and companions? Did you notice also how he again tries to justify the insults and blasphemies of his fellow dawagandists by falsely accusing me of being the one who started up with the insults?

Samatar is a typical Muhammadan who fails to practice what he preaches and also fails to condemn his messenger for the very things he condemns in others who are not Muslims.

He makes his deity proud.

Jason Crusader said...

@ Sam,

May the Lord our God continue to guide and bless you my brother.

Just thought I'd let you know that Osama Abdullah has posted that debate you had with Sami on Paltalk; on youtube and added quite a lengthy introduction full of lies and distortions.

He actually claims that Sami never insulted you at all. He also claims, that Sami "thoroughly refutes Sam Shamoun."

Title of Video: Sami Zaatari thoroughly refutes Sam Shamoun on trinity in their Debate.

Here's the link: http: //youtu.be/CwN07c6-9Ko

-In Christ,

Crusader878.