Professor Lawrence Krauss Agrees to Debate

The Big Debates has invited Professor Lawrence Krauss to debate the topic “Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?”. Professor Krauss has agreed to engage with us on this topic. The date and venue is yet to be finalised, however the potential dates are 22 and 27 January 2013, with the discussion to be held in London or Toronto.

Professor Krauss is a popular theoretical physicist and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology, as he was one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as “dark energy”. He wrote “A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing” with an afterword by Richard Dawkins. The book became a New York Times Bestseller within a week of its release, and is being translated into 18 languages.

Professor Krauss is an active atheist defending scepticism and the atheist world-view. A July, 2012 article in Newsweek written by Krauss explained that the Higgs particle could get rid of the idea of a supernatural creator permanently. He also wrote a longer piece in the New York Times explaining the science and significance of the Higgs. He is the director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University and has been Hailed by Scientific American as a rare public intellectual. Professor Krauss has described Islam as a “curse” and its ideas as “nonsense”.[1]

Please follow The Big Debates blog to be regularly updated on this exciting forthcoming debate.


[fbcomments width=”550″]

Comments (20)

  1. By enforcing segregation of the audience, based on the outdated assumption that women are inferior to men, Islam lost the debate even before it began.

    • With all due respect, I think that’s a strong assumption to make, that Islam regards women as inferior. Infact, I would argue in contrary, that Islam regards women with the highest form of dignity and respect. Segregation of this kind exists to protect both women and men from physical and social harassment. I would kindly request that you do your research about what Islam thinks about women before making such sweeping statements. Thanks.

      • segregation is to protect???

        “those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither” Ben Franklin

    • This has totally overshadowed the actually debate…what a shame. I guess it won’t be long before the debate is out, then we’ll all have something worthwhile to talk about….or nothing, depends on your defenition 😉

      • It’s out. And Hamza is an intellectual baby incapable of grasping simple concepts without falling back on leering disdain and contempt. He’s more interested in scoring points with the hostile crowd of jeering Muslims than actual discourse.

  2. Dr. Krauss literally destroyed Hamza! “You can make a definition of something and assume the answer. I will try to figure out how the universe works. I’ll make progress, and you’ll just sit there.”

    • Dr Krauss was the one who’s arguments was destroyed. At the Q&A a maths student destroyed him. That response that Dr Krauss gave was pathetic and “throw your hands in the air” attitude, basically he got schooled by a student.

      • I’m assuming you’re religious? So you claim to be correct with your faith? Right? The faith that was pressured upon you by your culture. Please give up your religion, it does nothing but slow the world down.

        • Yes and proud. Your straw man argument about religion via heritage works equally against atheism (example a child born to atheist parents). Why should I give up that which is accelerating me both in this life and the one after? As for you what amazing bounty do you have from atheism? I’ll tell you, pure nihilism, no meaning, no purpose, no morality. In short you literally have nothing to live for. If you want to be an intellectual atheist follow its logical conclusion and kill yourself, its the only outcome.

          • Please, what logic do you have? Kill myself? not very religious of you. you understand that there have been over 1,000 different gods and thousands of religions mad up over time. what makes you think your faith is the correct one? and Who created your god? You know I’m right.. If you were born in America, your faith would most likely be Christian, if you were exposed to it.

          • Your comments really show how radical you are. You assume purpose. You assume that we have a purpose.. You think that with 400billion galaxies that you’re significant. Again all you are is assuming there is some cosmic dictator in the sky. Religion has been the result of some very very very evil things. I was born catholic, I was a devout Christian. Until I went to school, and got 2 degrees. I’ve seen both sides, I’ve experienced them. Maybe you should too. I technically have much more experience than you in both arguments.

          • Two degrees, excellent so do I what’s your point? Of course we are significant, we are the only entity that is able comprehend that we are able to comprehend (Conscious that we are conscious).

            My hobby pretty much lies in modal logic (being a programmer and engineer does that to you) and I have spent significant time in looking at Atheism from a formal logic basis. I collect atheist apologetics and run them through propositional logic to see if they hold. Its like debugging software, no matter how complex the bug, if you follow systematically you will find the bug.

            On a side note, I apologise regarding the comment on “killing yourself”, that was not meant as a personal attack. I was just expanding on a point.

          • “Who created the Creator”, that’s basically theology 101. In mathematical terms that translates to “what is greater than infinity”, the question is illogical.

            The logic is simple, atheism is nihilistic at its roots. You have no purpose in life so any reason you give to stay alive is meaningless.

            Restating your straw man argument about “religion via heritage” does not make it valid the second time round, as stated before the same applies to atheist families.

  3. Does intellectual atheism even have any rational “leg” to stand on?

    Its self collapsing logic makes me wonder what a deluded mind it takes to continue defending it?

Comments are closed.