So what did this “proof” consist of?
If was a YouTube clip by a well-known Islamic apologist called Dr. Zakir Naik. If you are familiar with him, then this is the point at which you face-palm, because this guy is a complete …(insert your favourite expletive here). “Ah ha” you might respond, “an Ad hominem”. Actually no, you can pick almost any derogatory term you like and it would still be a factual statement, the evidence for that is contained within the YouTube clip itself.
OK, so looking at the clip, what claims and “evidence” do we find, lets take a look …
I’m betting that you don’t get further than the first four minutes, because of the degree of crass stupidity.
He starts out with a claim that most atheists are first generation atheists, but cites no statistics, it is simply his opinion. The basis for this is the observation that most religious people are religious because they inherited their beliefs from their parents. That is indeed probably correct. He then suggests that atheists don’t believe because they have been thinking about it all.
So he is telling his rather large Muslim audience that those who have given belief a bit of thought come to the no-god conclusion, and those that don’t stay religious.
Well yes, this “Apologetics” thing is not going all that well for him so far, I’m really buying into this idea of thinking critically.
Next Claim: The reason why atheists are atheists
He then moves on to claim that atheists are atheists because they “believe” in science and technology … wrong.
The are two rather glaring flaws here
- People do not “believe” in science and technology, it is evidence-based, not “belief” based.
- The reason people reject god claims has nothing to do with science and technology, but rather because generally those making god claims are unable to present anything at all to verify that their claim is true.
When you point this out, as I did, I was offered “atoms” which I cannot see with my eye, or “wind” which I also cannot see with my eye, yet I accept them to be real. Sadly of course if you take a bit of time (two seconds perhaps) you can work out that atoms and wind, unlike Allah, can in fact be measured and detected.
You will then be assured that there are “100 million proofs”, so you say, “Well that’s good, so just pick the very best, the strongest example and present it”, and yet strangely enough, nothing ever comes to light.
His Next step: It’s a first cause argument
He starts out with the “Suppose a new machine is given to you, you know nothing about it, so how do you find out about it? You ask the manufacturer”. And so he soon quickly expands that to the entire universe. In essence …
- Everything has a maker, no exceptions
- So who made the universe? … why obviously my 7th century Allah concept did it
I’m sure you can see the flaws here …
- Why pick Allah, in fact you can pick any god you like, both known and unknown to humans. The argument is just as valid for desists as it is for theists.<
- The fatal flaw is that if you do indeed have a rule that says “everything has a cause”, no exceptions, then all you have done is to add an additional layer of pointless complexity for no reason and with no evidence. Even further. If indeed everything has a cause, and god is the ultimate cause, then what caused god
The usual get-out clause is to claim that god has no cause, and the reason for that, or evidence of that, un-caused claim is ….. (insert sound of tumble weed here).
This is of course palaeolithic thinking at best, when faced with something mysterious, just invert a god as the cause, and while it might indeed be an answer, it is not the right answer. In all of human history the “god did it” claim has been proven false every time for all previous claims – lightening, weather, etc… This instance will be just the same.
This insanity is not evidence, nor is it proof, it is simply making up stuff.
The Big Bang
He makes reference to the big bang being the origin of the universe and asserts that atheists claim that it is the cause of the universe. Wrong, the Big Bang simply describes the early expansion of the universe from a singularity. If he is going to attempt to talk science, he should at least gain a basic understanding.
It then leads to the usual nonsense – “Look, here is a vague poetical verse I plucked out of the Quran. This describes the big bang, it’s a miracle, God must have told the author”. It us usually a vague poetical verse into which you can crowbar almost anything at all. So which do you think is the right answer here ?
You don’t need to think too hard about that one (I hope).
The Moon Reflects sunlight, its a miracle
He continues on the theme of modern science in the Quran, and strives to be even sillier. He next claims humans only discovered that the moon reflected sunlight 100-200 years ago. Er no, that has been known for thousands of years prior to the existence of the Quran. The Greek philosopher Thales wrote about the moon reflecting the sun in 585 BC.
This claim leaves you two choices here …
- Naik is lying
- Naik is an idiot
Your choice, but either way I don’t think I really care, because once you get to this point then any further analysis is utterly pointless because you already have enough to seriously question the integrity and credibility of Mr Naik.
What follows is more of the same, for example he claims the Quran describes the earth of spherical, but it does not, it actually describes the world as flat, or the claim that the Quran describes an expanding universe or … well you get the idea. It might indeed fool some, but do some analyse for any of these claims and it rapidly falls apart.
What About Naik, is he just a harmless crank?
He is in fact not just a nut, he is also a very dangerous violent individual. Not only does he promote silly claims, he also promotes intolerance, violence and murder.
- He promotes the idea that ex-muslims who criticise islam should be murdered
- He supports terrorism and openly endorsed Osama Bin laden – for this reason he has been banned from entering the UK and Canada
He merits attention, not because he promotes daft claims (most beliefs do that), but because he promotes ideas that if embraced cause real harm, and for that reason he deserves the spotlight. His ideas should be ridiculed and mocked, and he should also be revealed as the violent thug that he really is.