There’s this insanely popular mullah, Zakir Naik, with lots of videos flooding youtube. He reminds me a lot of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham: the same ignorance, and the same absolute confidence that they’re always right, but with no evidence to support their conclusions other than their own belief. But then I ran across this video, and I actually agreed with Naik in the first part.
He argues that if a school is hiring a teacher, it ought to matter whether they believe 2+2=4 or 2+2=3, and they ought to employ only the one who’d teach the correct answer. I was floored! I’d argue exactly the same thing. Of course, he doesn’t carry through on that ideal: he’s also a creationist, of exactly the same primitive ilk as Hovind and Ham.
Where it all gets familiar and stupid is in his answer to the original question, which is why Islamic countries don’t allow places of worship for other religions, while Western nations allow a diversity of faiths to flourish. His answer is that that’s because Muslims know absolutely that Islam is true, so why should they allow false religions to proselytize? And how does he know that Islam is true? Because the Koran says so. When pressed on the fact that many Christians are as adamant about the truth of their beliefs, he simply asserts that the reason other countries allow mosques to be built is that they are less confident that their native religions are true.
It was a mistake to have Bill Nye debate Ken Ham. The debate I really want to see is Ham vs. Naik. They’re indistinguishable from each other, but both are totally convinced that the other is completely wrong. Please make it happen!
I couldn’t bring myself to listen to the video, but if he says that all countries with majority muslim populations don’t allow churches that is simply not true. There is a Politifact report from 2007 checking up on a similar statement of the brother of Rev. Naik in bigotry, Rev.Franklin Graham, and found that only Saudi Arabia does not allow Churches or Synagogues. I think Saudi Arabia makes up less than 2% of the muslim population.
“It was a mistake to have Bill Nye debate Ken Ham. The debate I really want to see is Ham vs. Naik. They’re indistinguishable from each other, but both are totally convinced that the other is completely wrong. Please make it happen!”
Won’t work. I’ve seen Naik debate christians and he completely wipes the floor with them. He doesn’t use logic, reason or facts, nor does he actually address any points they make, but he still leaves them looking like morons.
It’s so interesting when people achieve such certainty (especially about something so important!*) based on … uh. Humans do this all the time in lots of ways: someone reads a diet book and changes their life for a while. Or someone reads a piece of political screed and their attitudes shift, etc. I’m just fascinated by it. I wish they wouldn’t make decisions that affected me based on their false certainty, though.
(*Well, it would be important if it were real)
I’ve seen Naik debate christians and he completely wipes the floor with them.
That inspired me to look him up on youtube… Apparently he has the distinction of having debated Ravi Shankar. Uh. Um.
Now I want to see Sam Harris debate Bob Dylan!! (!*)
(* from watching some of Dylan’s old interviews, he’d out-glib Harris without much effort)
I’ve never (knowingly) heard of Zakir Naik, but a quick browse of Ye Pfffft! Of All Knowledge is, ah, illuminating. Several excepts:
And so on…
Apparently a Class A wacko, albeit a good speaker. Sam Harris apostles will, I am sure, disagree with the above analysis, since it is only based on that one article.
Several excerpts…
Bad Cheese!
+++ Out of Redo Error +++Bravo on the call that religionists ought to debate each other rather than line up to debate scientists or even to debate Bill Nye. We (scientists) have objective physical evidence about the age & history of the universe and the earth and evolution and so on. All they have are the respective holy texts.
Re: Julian Patel (#2):
Well, turnabout is fair play. Creationists – Christian ones – also tend to play fast and loose with truth and facts. Logic doesn’t have to be involved at all and a skilled christian apologist can dodge a question almost indefinitely. If they’ve found their match in this guy then it’s the least they deserve. For their sins, as the expression goes…
It’s good to see a religious apologist and hatemonger from my neck of the woods featured. I was getting jealous of the Hams, Craigs and Robertsons of the world.
If you really want to feel disgusted, watch his numerous videos about Sania Mirza’s tennis attire. You might literally vomit.
Can we lock the doors and turn the lights out after they get in the room?
Can we get out of the room first?
Being locked in a dark room with those two bogeymonsters — even with a fluffy blanket with bunnies on it — is so cruel and unusual the Vogons wouldn’t do it.
Definitely a must. The circular reasoning of deity –> holy book –> deity –> holy book will get toxic.
Yeah, if western dress was exclusively miniskirts. I guess he’s completely disregarding the existence of jeans (informal dress) and pants-suits for more formal wear. hint, the West now allows women to wear pants (literally, not metaphorically) which makes then a little harder to rape than even the extra long dresses Naid advocates.
he has infected me with the “earworm”, ‘Living In The Past’.
let me guess(without watching that video): His next line was “Islam is the correct Religion, therefore only employ teachers who teach it (as with maths)”
I have a radical suggestion for Naik – why shouldn’t women be able decide what they want to wear freely, while society uses the law to sanction rapists for, I don’t know, how about committing rape, no matter what ludicrous excuse they use to try to justify their crime? Wouldn’t that be more sensible, not to mention more ethical?
Oh yes, that wouldn’t work out so well for Naik would it, considering that;
So, we have the motivated ‘reasoning’ of a rapist-in-waiting – islamists like Naik really do have a lot in common with christianist dominionists, don’t they…?
Some one posted this at the RDF facebook page. A moderator said the post wasn’t germane to RDF which is just about promoting science and reason.
I posted that dealing with unreason was surely part of the remit. My post never got published, and then the thread was deleted. Go figure.
You can demonstrate maths, of course, and science to some degree of certainty, other subjects are less certain. Religious views are almost certainly all bogus.
That some religious zealots not just Religious freedom but freedom in general is no surprise. Perhaps Zaik should time travel back to the 13th century.
Opps! missed a word in 17. It should read:
“That some religious zealots hate not just Religious freedom but freedom in general is no surprise. Perhaps Zaik should time travel back to the 13th century.”
When I became an atheist, I didn’t spend a lot of time fretting about whether I needed to try other religions. I reasoned: Once all of the religious people agree about who/what I should worship, I’ll listen to their arguments. Saved me a lot of time.
don’t point out logical fallacies of nut cases… don’t point out logical fallacies of not cases … don’t… oh, screw it…
Being right doesn’t have any bearing on surety that one is right, and surety that one is right has no bearing on being right. If I grant that interpreting allowing other churches as lack of surety (which I don’t) then all you have demonstrated is that you are more convinced you are right. In utterly no way does your being more convinced make you more likely to be right.
Sheesh.
“only true religion…”
Always the infallible signal it’s time to switch to another channel. Immediately if not sooner.
Translation: I stick my fingers in my ears and sing LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU because I am so fucking confident that I don’t even have to listen.
“In utterly no way does your being more convinced make you more likely to be right”
But you see, the Holy Spirit informs the true believer in such a way that he can be certain, and by virtue of being omniscient and Truth itself, the Spirit will make the believer practically inerrant.
Reminds me of the conversations I run through my mind periodically in preparation for talking to people like this (I work in a place where a number of people believe in Noah’s flood).
Me: If Christianity is so obviously correct, why do people still believe in religions like Islam or Hinduism?
Other: I guess it’s because they were raised to believe in those religions.
Me: So why do you believe in your particular sect of Christianity?
Other: That’s the way I was raised.
This is a point that always seems to be beyond them.
THIS is exactly what we as non-beLIEvers should be doing. We need to pound the crazy right with the fact that they are exactly the same as the Islamists they hate. Playing “my god is better than your god” is dumber than most other dumb things we see from these people every day.
There is no better way to rile up the right than to point out time and time again they are pushing for Christian-Sharia!