How to have a successful career in YouTube,
you ask?
Oh easy; first, you find a group of gullible
people; then you feed them some videos supporting
whatever their belief is, and have a click-bait
thumbnail. That’s all. Then watch the views
roll in.
Let’s debunk one of these today. we would
be looking at a video titled:
Richard Dawkins Believes Theres Nothing Really
Wrong With Rape!!! SHOCKING!
So let’s jump into it.
Hold on Imran; are you saying that the behaviour
or viewpoint of one individual who belongs
in the same group you do would make you reflect
on your personal viewpoint? Are you sure that
is a path you want to go down. Now this is
my first thought without seeing the clip you
are going to show us: I might agree with what
Dawkins has to say; or I might disagree. How
is that relevant to what I think about your
sky daddy? But I am a good sport, so I will
play along. How about this: for every evil
atheist or agnostic you find, I will find
you ten evil muslim. That is a 10 to 1 odd
I am giving you. I’ll then reconsider the
existence of Zeus, and you would have to
do the same. That’s your logic, right?
Yes, but again, some
morality is subjective. Let me introduce to
my favourite trolley problem. In a nutshell:
a trolley is hurling down a track and there
are some people that are about to get run
over. You have access to this lever, and by
pulling it, that trolley would get diverted
into a different track where it would kill
one person. So the moral dilemma is, do you
pull the lever? Another variation amps it
up even more by making that single person
related to you, may be a lover, parent or
a child.
Some argue that not doing anything is the
moral thing to do. Me: I would pull that lever
in a heart-beat. Well, not maybe for some
people. Suppose it’s a large enough number,
like a million; hell yes, I would sacrifice
one to save a million.
Things change over time; I would like to ask
you three questions on how you feel about
the following:
One: is it morally right for a man to have
four wives; and I’m not talking about if
he has consent or not. If you answered yes,
then a follow-up: is it okay for a woman to
have four husbands?
Two: when parents passes away, Muslim law
dictates a very specific ratio for the inheritance
to be distributed between the children based
on their gender. Is that morally correct?
Final question: not really moral based, but
what would you say is the minimum age should
be for someone to get married and forced into
– because that’s what one does – to
consummate their marriage. You know where
I’m going with this, right?
At one point we burned brides; we kept fellow
humans as slave; hell, we didn’t even let
those female vote and buried gay people. If
everyone thought those things were morally
detestable, we wouldn’t be talking about
it today, would we?
As obviously you failed to understand his
point: allow me to elaborate.
I don’t go around looting people. Why not?
Well, because I think it’s wrong. Not because
I am worried that the society would punish
me; not because some sky-daddy would put me
in hell, or send me back as a maggot. No!
It’s simply because I think it’s wrong.
Then again, I understand some human psychology.
Now, I think I’m an honest guy. If I’m
walking down the street, and I find a wallet
with an ID and £1000, I’m immediately going
to call the number to return it. If it’s
a £10000; yeah; £100,000: well… yeaaah.
How about if it was a million pound? Truthfully,
that hasn’t happened, yet. What would I
do in that scenario? Well, I only hope I would
do the right thing, but I wouldn’t know
until I’m faced with it. It’s got nothing
to do with sky daddy.
So, yes; morality is subjective. There is
no absolute morality: I just gave you a dilemma
where by actively killing one person, you
can save many. Even something like a murder
that should be an absolute wrong can be correct
at times.
If you had the chance to go back in time and
kill Hitler, would you do it? Knowing that
it would save countless lives. Do
I need to say any more?
Great; another arm-chair psychologist; yes,
I’m aware of the irony as I did say earlier
that I understand human psychology. Well,
first to clarify that I’m not talking about
clinical psychologist here. That being said,
the best psychologist I have seen are psychics
and palm-readers. In those business, you need
to be able to read people; from their body
language, and then use warm and cold reading
to gain trust. After them, there are mentalist.
They are down the list, because, well we don’t
get beaten up if we are wrong. Yes, I’m
one of them.
What you did there is what most ignorant NLP
practitioner do: that is to come to a conclusion
with very small data sample. For example,
most people would touch their face before
making up a lie. Now someone touching their
face once doesn’t automatically mean they
are lying; they might just be itchy. Dawkins
might just be thinking, what kind of stupid
question is this.
Yes, he doesn’t want to answer that question.
And that’s very telling, right? I’ve a
question for you. Do you still beat your wife?
Actually, no. Let’s try something better:
should non-believers be put to death. Well,
before you answer that:
For those not verse in the beautiful arabic
language, that’s a passage from Quran: Surah
An-Nisa [4:76]
Translates to: Those who believe fight in
the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve
fight in the cause of Satan. So fight against
the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan
has ever been weak.
Imran, I don’t believe in Allah; neither
do I believe in any other deity. Because there
is no god, there is no reason to believe in
his opposition, Satan. Yet, you would say
I fight in his cause. So would you like to
answer it?
It wouldn’t apply in your case, but in other
cases, there are some questions that doesn’t
require an answer.
Once again, the evolutionary phase Dawkin
is talking about: well, in York, there is
an amazing museum: In fact, it’s the best
museum I’ve ever been to. York Castle Museum
shows you how life was in old Britain, with
how the houses looked, how the shops operated
and even the old time jail. And in that jail,
you can visit the cells and listen to the
stories of the inmate. The first time I was
there, I was shocked: not because all the
lifers were heinous murderers… hell no.
Most of them were people unable to pay their
debt. And we cast them in prison and threw
away the bloody key. Do you know what happens
to people like that now a days. Well, they
become presidents.
With our understanding today, we wonder how
child marriage was ever allowed; why would
we burn brides; why would we stitch up female
genitalia or stone adulterers; well, some
of those practices are still followed. Either
way, that’s a history we can not refute.
So, those people in those golden old days:
were they all evil, or stupid; or was it socially
norm back then.
And Imran, just because you sway your hands
back and forth while saying Dawkin can not
account for atheism and evolution doesn’t
make it so. Good try though. I use that trick
myself: highly effective.
The part you are showing us in the interview:
well, it is talking about evolution from a
social perspective. You know that, right?
It’s not evolution from biological perspective.
Social Darwinism is any of various theories
that applies biological concepts of natural
selection and survival of the fittest to sociology
and politics
That is akin to saying, look: primates reciprocate
just like us: when the main food gather is
unwell, the other party looks after that entity;
knowing that their survival depends on that
sick primate’s recovery. So they help each
other to survive: that social evolution has
nothing to do with saying there is no God.
How in Darwin’s name did you come up with
something that ingenious? Honestly, I have
never heard that before.
I’ll try to explain it one more time so
it would get through your thick skull. I might
be the most honourable person you know; I
might be the kindest; I might be as righteous
as Solomon; as strong as Hercules; or as evil
as Mao zedong or Stalin; and that has nothing
to do with if I believe in a god or not.
Is it really that hard to understand? While
I am at it; I respect Dawkins, but he is no
god. See, that’s the whole thing about being
an Atheist. So even if Dawkins went around
doing horrible deeds, that doesn’t mean
anything to how I feel about an imaginary
figure. I’m guessing you are muslim, as
you started with assalamualaikum; If existence
of “Yazid ibn Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan”
commonly known as “Yazid”: does his existence
make you change your faith? If not then why
do you think trying to find something evil
in Dawkins saying should change mine?
Simply because most people understand what
it means; unless of course….
Listen man, there is no presupposition; exactly
the opposite. You see, we don’t start with
the presumption that God exists because in
our feeble mind, we can’t explain the natural
things before us; instead, some of us, well,
we try to learn. We try to discover the unknown.
Once what we thought was god’s anger; well
now we known that an electrical discharge
caused by imbalances between storm clouds
and the ground, or within the clouds themselves
that causes lightning.
We don’t need Sun God Ra any more: well,
sun is just another star; a vital one, but
still, just a star. Though the story from
Hindu mythology explaining how the cunning
demon Rahu is the cause of eclipse is super
fun to read: we now know what causes eclipse.
Gone are the days of flat earth on four elephants:oops:
scratch that. Some equally stupid people like
you believes in flat-earth.
When a Christian in a discussion asked Stephen
F. Roberts why he ignored the evidence for
the Christian God, he asked in turn why the
Christian chose to ignore the evidence for
Shiva, Zeus, or any of the other possible
gods. He used this quote to point out that
believers in any given god are in fact atheistic
toward all other possible gods: “I contend
we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours”.
When you understand that one simple logic,
you would understand how morally we would
both behave as any other human being, regardless
of what we choose to believe in.
Especially if I know
Bismillah hir rahman nir raheem
Alhamdu lillahi rabbil a lameen
Ar rahman nir raheem
Maliki yawmid deen
Iyyaka na'a budu wa-iyyaka nasta aeen
Ihdinas sirataal mustaqeem
Siratal latheena an a'amta alayhim ghayril
maghdoobi alayhim walad daalleen
Amen
Quick note: for those who thinks my Arabic
is good; is the same way non-english speakers
think my English is good. Me: I speak LISP
(that’s a programming language: a super
nerd joke)
For the remaining video, Imran would drone
on and on: isn’t it annoying when someone
with a wrong premise keeps going on. Blithering
idiot.
This video is not a personal attack on Imran;
though it should be.
Thank you for watching. Anyway, if you have
liked this video, please give it a thumbs
up and maybe subscribe. If nothing else, Imran
is beating me hands-down with subscribers
count: over 10K.
Wait; does that mean he is right? Damn.
