Islam vs Atheism, UCD Thursday 17th Feb

Dades wrote: »

What a stupid motion on so many levels.

To be honest, they left out the "Which is right" part on the ucd posters.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Can't see Facebook from here, moar details!

okay:

facebook page wrote:

One of the biggest ISOC's in Ireland Vs one of the top 5 student societies in Ireland ie the literary & historical (L&H) SOC!

Motion: Islam Vs Atheism: Which is Right?

Time: 7pm, Thursday 17th February 2011
...
Venue: Theatre P, Arts Block, UCD

Speakers: Hamza Andreas Tzortiz vs. Micheal Nugent

Speaker Bio
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is an international public speaker on Islam, a writer and researcher. He has debated prominent intellectuals and academics. Some of his interlocutors include the leading humanist and best selling author Peter Cave, the editor of the Philosophy Now mazagine Rick Lewis and the highly acclaimed Professor Simon Blackburn. More recently Hamza debated one of the leading American atheists and secular activists Dr. Ed Buckner, the president of American Atheists.

Micheal Nugent (Head of Atheist Ireland)

Michael Nugent (born 1 June 1961) is an Irish writer and activist. He has written or co-written five books and the comedy musical play I, Keano. He has campaigned on many political issues, and he is chairperson of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland. He argues that atheism provides a better model of reality, and a better basis for morality, than believing in gods; that atheists can enjoy the benefits that many people get from religion, without the harmful effects; and that the state should be secular, promoting neither religion nor atheism. He writes a blog about happiness and atheism, and he supports Bohemians and Leeds United football clubs.

Here is Hamzas blog, which contains his popular arguments (against the likes of Dawkins, liberalism and "the problem of evil"). I wish I could have gone to the debate, as reading some of his arguments (he blames the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on secularism) it would have been a hoot.

robindch wrote: »

Spokesman for a deity who isn't there versus a spokesman who doesn't think there's a deity.

How on earth could you explain this to somebody new to religion?

Its like if George Lucas and Stephen Hawkins had a debate on exactly how big a spaceship Yoda could raise from a swamp, by using the force.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'll be debating Hamza again this evening at 6.30 pm in the Royal College of Surgeons on York Street, off Stephens Green.

The topic for this evening is The God Delusion or Solution?

Hamza has written about Dawkins on his blog. It has all the usual nonsense of theists arguing against Dawkins (or evolution), eg the cosmological argument (:rolleyes:), God is the simplest concept in the universe (:rolleyes:), a complete lack of understanding of evolution (:rolleyes:), grand assertions about the universe needing god for order (:rolleyes:), objective morality (:rolleyes:) but with one or two new (to me), eg (direct quote) "anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation!" as defence to the question of "if everything needs a designer, and god is our designer, who designed god?". (:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I,m rolling eye so much, I'm getting a headache).

After reading his blog, I'm actually half glad I haven't heard this guys talks, I think it would have turned out bad for my mental health.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Most of the RCSI debate (God Delusion or Solution?) is now online.

Part 1/4 Opening Address by Hamza Tzortzis
http://youtu.be/c2BYKS5oM_I

Wow. His two arguments are that god makes sense of the beginning of the universe and the cosmological argument.

He justifies that god makes sense of the beginning of the universe" by using the big bang as evidence of the universe having a beginning (side note: does anyone think that our space time is actually eternal?) but then brings out the "everything that has a beginning has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause" nonsense. He admits that this isn't necessarily allah or jesus, but argues that it must be a monotheistic god because 1) Occam's razor says we should keep to the simplest number of gods,1, (no seriously, go to about 7.20 and listen), 2) the cause of the universe must be uncaused (problems with infinite regression, apparently), immaterial and transcendent (itself must be outside of time and space) and 3) must have will (an eternal extant thing doing something spontaneously must have chosen to do so).
He counters quantum mechanical arguments against causality by claiming that the quantum vacuum isn't empty as it contains energy (as if the pre big bang state isn't believed to contain energy :rolleyes:) and that there are physicists moving away from non causal interpretations of QM.
He counters the "what causes god?" argument by claiming that causality only applies to things that begin to exist and god is extant so it doesn't apply to him and by claiming that such a question denies our existence because it leads infinite regression of what causes the cause of our cause etc. ( have no idea what the connection is between these points).
He then tries to deal with causality being dependent on time by claiming that, philosophically, there is no consensus on the definition of causality and that time doesn't effect causes because some causes are simultaneous with their effects.
I largely skipped through it, but the cosmological argument is exactly as inane as you'd expect and boils down to the universe fits us so well, therefore it must be made for us, with a little "change any universal constant even by a hairs breath and life wouldn't exist" sprinkled on. Basically he is thinking like a puddle remarking on the hole in the ground fitting him so well.

I was really really hoping for something new in his arguments, something I hadn't heard before and couldn't personally debunk just by pointing out the immediate internal contradictions, but his arguments were so full of face palm that you could plant them and get one of these:

I will watch the questions and answer section later.