So, is this what getting owned by a Muslim is supposed to look like?

This video, hilariously titled “Dan Barker gets OWNED by Muslim Hamza Tzortzis”, showcases perfectly the kind of pathetic, nonsense arguments you get into when talking to these apologists. Tellingly, the video does not offer a chance for Barker to reply, so I thought I might do him that solid. Let’s take a look at his argument, shall we?

Asinine Assumption #1: We know God exists, so arguments for God isn’t “God in the Gaps”

Buying into a belief system doesn’t make it true. For something to be “proven”, it needs to pass a number of rigorous tests. The first, and most important, is falsifiability: the ability for an idea to be disproved. This is perhaps the most difficult concept for god-pimps like Hamza to understand. In their limited world view, they simply accept, with no real evidence, that their all powerful creator simply exists and his very nature defies all attempts to categorize him. Such a conceit must be rejected immediately without effort: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a book inspired by an illiterate child rapist fails to impress.

Asinine Assumption #2: The specific wording of your God matters

When this guy starts blabbing on about how the word ‘the’ in ‘the merciful’ must inherently mean that God is superior to human beings, I just have to shake my head in profound disbelief at the childish nature of this kind of thinking. What the fuck does that prove?

Asinine Assumption #3: Islam invites differences of opinions, considers these a ‘mercy’

Either he’s deliberately being deceitful, or he’s decided to ignore the fact that Islam is still fighting its own theology with other variations of the faith. There has been very little ‘mercy’ in the way Sunni treat Shia, or Shia treat Sunni. And let’s not forget the efforts of the Taliban to destroy the cultural heritages of other faiths. Clearly, he’s in the minority opinion that his religion invites diversity.

Asinine Assumption #4: The Qur’an is a scientific book

This is a common trope of all religions: they claim their obscurist, vague book describes in detail real scientific phenomenon that would have been impossible for desert people to know. For instance, did you know that

1. Humans were created out of a clot of blood.
2. The Sun revolves around the Earth.
3. The Moon is further away than the stars.
4. Your sperm is produced in your spine.
5. Bees eat fruit, not pollen!
6. Birds fly because god wills it.
7. Mohammad flew into the heavens on a winged horse called Buraq.
8. Fresh water and salt water cannot mix.

Need I go on?

Asinine Assumption #5: We believe things based on testimony

If there’s one thing you can rely on, it’s the fact that human beings are the worst, least trustworthy witnesses around. Not only is memory a total wash: it’s notorious for fabricating things. In science, we actually plan for the human element, doing our best to take ourselves as much out of the equation as possible. The idea that knowledge is based on testimony is a religious idea, not a modern one.

Asinine Assumption #6: Islam has no problem with non-believers or apostates

The classic mistake most of these religious apologists make is that they assume their liberal interpretation of their religion is shared by others. That’s simply untrue. The fact remains the vast majority of Muslims do believe non-believers are doomed to hell, and apostasy is a crime punishable by death. Several Muslim countries have these laws in the books, and only international pressure has allowed the stay of executions for unlucky individuals who dare question the ‘truth’ of Islam.

Sorry, I’m a little confused now…who exactly got OWNED here?

Comments (2)

  • avatar


    Total Gish Gallup stuff. This sounds like it’s a round or two of exchanges into the “debate”, but this Muslim individual is simply asserting things counter to what we can barely imply Mr. Barker said. You know, someone should get a picture of a library or datacenter that is used to crunch and house scientific data. Show the audience a picture of that, and then contrast it with an image of a Qu’ran, the Bible, whatever. Then ask the audience who’s really on the side of truth when apologists are openly claiming we get hard, evidenced science from singular, millennia-old tomes of literature.

    This guy’s arguments are patently childish on their face. He calls Mr. Barker out for logical fallacies (which may not have been, since we don’t know how Barker made his arguments), and then buys the biggest fallacy imaginable, that simply believing something makes it true. This Muslim is a very unsophisticated debater who uses fairly obvious verbal rambling and bullying as a debate strategy.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top