MEMRI CLASSIC : ATHEIST BULLIED LIKE A DOG ON EGYPTIAN TELEVISION

[Deleted member 16384]

 

[Deleted member 15338]

I hate people who make atheism a part of their identity

 

[justadude]

no one is going to watch this btw

 

[Deleted member 15338]

no one is going to watch this btw

Watching rn

 

[Deleted member 16384]

no one is going to watch this btw

 

[Deleted member 15338]

Lol at this cuck he is right but give him power he would make his country roastie central

 

[HOLYFUARK]

I thought u dislike muslims since u called me kafir and hoped i die

 

[Deleted member 16384]

I thought u dislike muslims since u called me kafir and hoped i die

>dislike muslims

>insulting kafirs

 

[metagross]

The guest is correct, but you can clearly see who has higher Testosterone levels in this discussion.

 

[Deleted member 15338]

The guest is correct, but you can clearly see who has higher Testosterone levels in this discussion.

Yeah. Are smart people more cucky tbh ?

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

The guest is correct, but you can clearly see who has higher Testosterone levels in this discussion.

Lol at this cuck he is right but give him power he would make his country roastie central

Why is he right? He spoke about the Big Bang theory, which not only denies a Creator but, in fact, completely opens the door to the idea of a Creator.

When the Big Bang theory was discovered and addressed, it is well known that the atheist Soviet Union tried to hide it to their population and debunk it because the leading theory back then was that the Universe was eternal, which means there was no need for a Creator.

Now that we know that the Universe is not eternal, the idea of a Creator is completely open. I don't see how he is right, especially given that he also committed the fallacy of saying there isn't a single evidence for a Creator, and that his best argument doesn't even undermine nor deny a Creator.

Learn the evidence for parallel universes (which is a famous """scientific""" theory), and how many scientists believe on it, and then learn the evidence for the existence of God, and after that try to tell me with a straight face that the atheist scientific community is being somehow unbiased, neutral, etc etc

I say atheist scientific community because probably the majority of scientists are not even atheists anyways, scientists who have studied for 70 years a specific field and are specialists on it can't even agree between themselves, let alone about something like this. The idea that the scientific community and that science is always agreeing and all of that is just a myth that the media tries to sell us to replace religion for science, now instead of people saying "Don't do such because God says so", they say "Don't do such because science say so", but when you start learning the field of science and it's philosophy, anyone can realize that we are taught more myths than truths.

Like that false myth going on the west which says "Homosexuals are born genetically natural, science says so" and skips the fact that the majority of them were raped or abused at a young age and the lots of other countless of studies. Or i remember i once heard a funny one which said that "50% of women are gamers" to promote feminism in the west, etc etc etc.

I don't understand how something as important as the philosophy of science and the constant disagreement in the scienctific community is not taught in school.

 

[Deleted member 15338]

Why is he right? He spoke about the Big Bang theory, which not only denies a Creator but, in fact, completely opens the door to the idea of a Creator.

When the Big Bang theory was discovered and addressed, it is well known that the atheist Soviet Union tried to hide it to their population and debunk it because the leading theory back then was that the Universe was eternal, which means there was no need for a Creator.

Now that we know that the Universe is not eternal, the idea of a Creator is completely open. I don't see how he is right, especially given that he also committed the fallacy of saying there isn't a single evidence for a Creator, and that his best argument doesn't even undermine nor deny a Creator.

Learn the evidence for parallel universes (which is a famous """scientific""" theory), and how many scientists believe on it, and then learn the evidence for the existence of God, and after that try to tell me with a straight face that the atheist scientific community is being somehow unbiased, neutral, etc etc

I say atheist scientific community because probably the majority of scientists are not even atheists anyways, scientists who have studied for 70 years a specific field and are specialists on it can't even agree between themselves, let alone about something like this. The idea that the scientific community and that science is always agreeing and all of that is just a myth that the media tries to sell us to replace religion for science, now instead of people saying "Don't do such because God says so", they say "Don't do such because science say so", but when you start learning the field of science and it's philosophy, anyone can realize that we are taught more myths than truths.

Like that false myth going on the west which says "Homosexuals are born genetically natural, science says so" and skips the fact that the majority of them were raped or abused at a young age and the lots of other countless of studies. Or i remember i once heard a funny one which said that "50% of women are gamers" to promote feminism in the west, etc etc etc.

I don't understand how something as important as the philosophy of science and the constant disagreement in the scienctific community is not taught in school.

All cope tbh 500 years ago they were saying Earth is flat too, now religious people say big bang is proof for a creator lol. It is easy to adapt everything when you have a so called all mighty being backing you and your claims, but if u think you can see they are just coping because science and religion cant go hand in hand in current year. When scientists find immortality what would religious copers do, they would probably say it is actually in Bible jfl.

 

[Deleted member 15338]

Why is he right? He spoke about the Big Bang theory, which not only denies a Creator but, in fact, completely opens the door to the idea of a Creator.

When the Big Bang theory was discovered and addressed, it is well known that the atheist Soviet Union tried to hide it to their population and debunk it because the leading theory back then was that the Universe was eternal, which means there was no need for a Creator.

Now that we know that the Universe is not eternal, the idea of a Creator is completely open. I don't see how he is right, especially given that he also committed the fallacy of saying there isn't a single evidence for a Creator, and that his best argument doesn't even undermine nor deny a Creator.

Learn the evidence for parallel universes (which is a famous """scientific""" theory), and how many scientists believe on it, and then learn the evidence for the existence of God, and after that try to tell me with a straight face that the atheist scientific community is being somehow unbiased, neutral, etc etc

I say atheist scientific community because probably the majority of scientists are not even atheists anyways, scientists who have studied for 70 years a specific field and are specialists on it can't even agree between themselves, let alone about something like this. The idea that the scientific community and that science is always agreeing and all of that is just a myth that the media tries to sell us to replace religion for science, now instead of people saying "Don't do such because God says so", they say "Don't do such because science say so", but when you start learning the field of science and it's philosophy, anyone can realize that we are taught more myths than truths.

Like that false myth going on the west which says "Homosexuals are born genetically natural, science says so" and skips the fact that the majority of them were raped or abused at a young age and the lots of other countless of studies. Or i remember i once heard a funny one which said that "50% of women are gamers" to promote feminism in the west, etc etc etc.

I don't understand how something as important as the philosophy of science and the constant disagreement in the scienctific community is not taught in school.

Also if anything it would be proof for deism not for any Abrahamic religion. I agree with scientism tho it is pretty cringe nowadays.

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

All cope tbh 500 years ago they were saying Earth is flat too, now religious people say big bang is proof for a creator lol. It is easy to adapt everything when you have a so called all mighty being backing you and your claims, but if u think you can see they are just coping because science and religion cant go hand in hand in current year. When scientists find immortality what would religious copers do, they would probably say it is actually in Bible jfl.

I don't believe that Religion and science go hand to hand to begin with, nor that they are comparable, they are 2 completely different matters.

What we know as "Science" is completely changing, theories change, scientists change, it is dependant on humans, etc, my Religion (Islam) doesn't change, it says 'things are like this, that and that, there are certain things which the human race will achieve (prophecies), others which it won't achieve (like immortality for example)", it never claims nor searches the approval of the scientific community, which, again, is always changing, dependant on human beings and i would dare to say that in a lot if not in the majority of occassions only to the benefit of the state, the ones who finance studies, etc, just like Journalism.

About the immortality thing, first as a Muslim i don't believe it will ever happen, and second, both sides can play this game anyways.

For example, before any scientist in the entire world said that we had 360 joints (The closest registered to him was a Chinese scientist who said that we had 365 joints), The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, every human being among the children of Adam was created with three hundred and sixty joints. Whoever exalts Allah, praises Allah, declares Allah is one, glorifies Allah, removes a rock from the roads of people, or a thorn, or a bone from the roads of people, and enjoins good and forbids evil by the number of those joints, he will walk on that day delivering himself from the Hellfire.”

Or before any archeologist and historian, or even older books and sources knew some facts about the ancient Egypt, Islam already addressed them correctly, like for example when the Qur'an says that the people of Pharaoh had him as a "God" and worshipped him, something which the Bible never mentions. Or that there was a time in which the King of Egypt wasn't called a Pharaoh and in which the Qur'an calls him "King, and another time in which he was called "Pharaoh", and, in which the Qur'an also calls him correctly "Pharaoh", while the Bible completely "forgets" or isn't aware of such difference.

Or for example, primary source material from the Pyramid Texts indicates that a common motif in Ancient Egypt was the personification of the heavens and the Earth. In particular, when pharaohs died, the heavens and the Earth would be depicted as weeping for them, as indicated in the following ‘utterance’:

‘The sky weeps for thee; the earth trembles for thee’ (Utterance 553: 221)

This motif, although not in the Old Testament and other Jewish sources, can be found in the Qur'an.

Allah states in Al Qur'an about the Pharaoh of Musa (alayhi a salam) after his death the next (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Neither the heaven nor the Earth wept over them, nor was their fate delayed’

This is the reason i believe in God and specifically in Islam, because of the claims of a 7th Century Man outside of his time and place, which are not only random claims which were difficult to fulfill but big leaps at his time.

But i don't believe everything of my religion is alongside with the actual understanding of science, there are theories in science that are against it, and others that support the claims of my religion. The only thing that i believe is that if science was to end tomorrow with a 100% accuracy on it's claims, it would be completely in line with my religion, and i do believe it because of the claims outside of the time and space of my Religion.