Defense Issues

Military and general security

  • Follow Defense Issues on
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 272 other followers

  • July 2016
    M T W T F S S
  • Categories

Richard Dawkins Upsets Liberals and Muslims by Confronting Them with Reality

Posted by picard578 on July 16, 2016

Staffan's Personality Blog

Just hate this guy and everything will be fine. Just hate this guy and everything will be fine.

On Thursday this week the well-known biologist, atheist and author Richard Dawkins tweeted,

All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.

The reactions to this true and easily verifiable statement have been pretty negative,

The Guardian: “as rational as the rantings of an extremist Muslim cleric”

Telegraph: “Dawkins has gone from criticising the religion itself to criticising Muslims, as a vast bloc.”

Daily Mail: “Half of the ten Muslim laureates were awarded the prize in the 21st century, during which Trinity College has only had one prize winner.”

New Statesman: “…on what planet are Nobel Prizes the best metric for achievement or progress?”

The blogosphere, being more representative of the Western population, is less polite but more balanced with peopledefendingDawkins.

View original post 922 more words

10 Responses to “Richard Dawkins Upsets Liberals and Muslims by Confronting Them with Reality”

  1. Well, using the word “Muslims” is inappropriate for an Atheist, because the concept of “Muslim” is a matter of ISLAMIST debate. Thus, using “Muslim” (then, implicitly, who is, who is not, who was, and is not anymore, so should be killed, etc.) is to convert, philosophically to the core debate in Islam.
    I have known plenty, and do know plenty of very nice Muslims (some even partisans of Erdogan!) And I am most amused by the Qur’an. However, that precisely enable me to observe it is a hate book, unfriendly to civilization.

    The achievements of “Muslims” during the Middle Ages are neither here, nor there, as Islam had just acquired control of the world’s largest empire. Anybody living in (most of the) richest part of the world had to be a Muslim (many of the great scholars were either Judeo-Christian, or recently converted, ran into very heavy trouble for lack of faith, and got killed, etc. I don’t know of any who were Arabs…) Moreover, some of said achievements were transmitted through the Islamist empire, and were made somewhere else. Example: “Arabic” numerals, which were truly (Greco-)Indian…


    • picard578 said

      Actually, most “Arab” or “Muslim” achievements were either made by non-Muslims, recent converts to Islam, or were transmitted via Muslim countries from one non-Muslim area to another. Islam by its nature is against science – if it is contrary to Muslim holy texts, it should be destroyed. Concept of zero and “Arabic numerals” were taken from India, as were algebra and geometry (both Hindu advances). When an astronomer Taqi ad-Din constructed a great observatory in the freshly consquered Istanbul in 1577., Muslim clerics convinced the sultan do demolish it in 1580. Islam is inherently anti-intellectual, totalitarian ideology.

      And “I have known plenty, and do know plenty of very nice Muslims” has little relation to question about Islam itself. Humans are hugely adaptable, and minority will typically adapt to majority. If those same people were in Muslim-majority area, it is possible they would be too busy cutting off heads to make friends. Among my own friends, I had neonazis, communists, liberals, anarchists… all of them genuinely nice people.


      • Indeed. People are people, Abrahamism, Judeo-Christianism, Islam are systems of thought. People and systems of ideas are completely different notions. This is that meta-notion which seems to completely elude those who equate racism and criticizing systems of thought. Lower intelligence is characterized by less capability to go meta.


  2. There is a vast gap between reality, and the perception of Islam as superior, in the Middle Ages:

    Liked by 1 person

    • picard578 said

      Indeed. BTW, have you read Henri Pirenne?


      • Yes. I own his book. “Charlemagne and Mahomet”.
        And I know his thesis: Islam created Charlemagne.

        Much of this thesis is mostly right, and archaeology confirms it… As long as one realizes the franks sent spies to Arabia, 150 years before Charlemagne…

        Indeed, Pirenne’s is not the whole story. By a long shot. I am a sort of meta-Pirenne.

        Roman plutocracy and theocratic fascism came first. Then it caused a weakening (see Valens, Hadrianopolis 376 CE)… All the way to an idiotic, lethal war with Persia (in defense of Roman intellectuals!)…. Which Muhammad pounced on.
        This makes all the easier to hate Islam as a system of thought. A very similar system of thought, Christo-fascism, caused, was the proximal cause, of the collapse of the Roman State.

        Only the Frankish piece survived, barely so. Pirenne talks about Charlemagne a lot. However, Charlemagne was the crown jewel. He did not invent the big stuff. His father and grandfather were more innovative civilizationally.

        And the Merovingians were very innovative civilizationally: after all, they domesticated the Church, and outlawed slavery. The latter, 12 (twelve) centuries before Lincoln…

        So… 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The relationship between liberals and muslims is much like the relationship between reed warblers and the common cuckoo. Muslims plant their egg (sharia law) into the liberal nest, and when the egg hatchs, it pushs all the other eggs (I.E, liberal values) out of the nest. Its very disconcerting, especially since the liberals have taken over many western nations! Their refusal to throw the intruder from the nest can endanger us all.


    • picard578 said

      Agreed. Just as intolerance can be a crime, tolerance can be a crime as well. Hitler managed to start World War II because he was tolerated, and Islam is far more dangerous than Nazism.


      • Do you give any credit to the idea that islam is being deliberately brought into the west so as to facilitate some kindof agenda by the super rich? I have heard rumors of an international group who have been lobbying politicians to allow surges of unvetted muslims into europe.


        • picard578 said

          Actually, that is the most logical explanation. Historically, conflict was used to control people, and Islam brings conflict wherever it appears. Moreover, Islam itself is a totalitarian ideology, *the* most comprehensive totalitarian ideology which has ever appeared, and thus perfect for controlling people. Islam is against critical thought, individuality, human rights… in other words, it is against all the things that are actually dangerous for capitalists controlling the West. Islam and multiculturalism are being used as weapons against working class in the West, but neither the so-called “right” nor the so-called “left” see it, and any socialism on national(istic) basis, which is the only ideology actually dangerous to capitalists, is preempted by cries of Nazism (and Nazis themselves, ironically, were corporatists, not actual socialists).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: