The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Dawkins on Affleck....

Dawkins on Affleck....
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, October 20 2015, 18:04:57 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

....the more Dawkins and the rest continue their ignorance of Islam and what is really at issue, the more foolish they sound.

Dawkins, in referring to Afleck's comments on Harris being "racist" in his comments against Islam, smugly pointed out that Islam is not a race, but a religion, so Affleck's point was silly and wrong...if you can join the religion, and get out of it, it's hardly a Race.

I think Affleck was caught up in his indignation...let's not forget that Dawkins has admitted he's never read the Quran, yet describes it to us anyway. Besides which there is definitely an element of Race, that is most people think of Arabs when they think of Islam...as most people think of the White "race" when dealing with Christianity....Affleck was technically wrong and would admit his mistake in a minute...which is quite different from Dawkins who still maintains that he doesn't need to know the Quran to discuss Islam...one of the cardinal points Krause and Dawkins make when discussing science vs religion is that scientists LOVE to be proven wrong, and admit it when they are....but if you refuse to read the Quran and take your "knowledge" of Islam from the media, how can you ever know if you are wrong?

People can become Jews...they can also quit the religion...just like Islam...if you dislike Judaism why are you called "Anti-Semite"? Isn't it called a "Semitic" Race? And how do Europeans, who converted to Judaism get included with the Semites of the original Hebrews? By converting don't Europeans JOIN the "Semitic Race"? And when they stop believing in Judaism, don't they STOP being Jews...or Semites?

Anyway, Dawkins simply seized on a slight error to advance his ignorance-as-science, where Islam is concerned.

Nothing is more clear than that for the past 200 years it has been Western Christianity which has been attacking both Judaism and Islam...and, true to its character, has been blaming their victims for daring to retaliate...as if the only crime or sin here is to defend oneself and family and country...we've re-packaged attacking people as "liberty", "exceptionalism"...and "democracy", not to mention "saving them"....this last is best of all because it's exactly what Western missionaries claimed they were doing when they destroyed whole cultures...they were "saving their souls".

As much as Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens may disparage Christianity, they LOVE what Christianity earned for them...Christianity provided the cover by which whole peoples could be murdered in order to "save" them...and they're still at it and with all the same lies and propaganda and self-serving justifications.

Krause is more measured, more rational when discussing Islam....Dawkins, more than Hitchens or Harris, does a great disservice to science, especially as he IS a scientist. Rather than seek the truth, or more knowledge about a subject he gladly admits he is ignorant of, he makes a point of saying he doesn't NEED to learn about Islam, from Muslims, or anyone....hardly the scientific method he touts at other times....he just "knows", as if by miracle.

He has taken information and second and third-hand...mostly on hearsay and what he THINKS...much as he blasts religious folk for buying stories about the resurrection or Muhammad flying to Jerusalem...people believe these things without having or needing any actual knowledge, they just choose to believe....much like Dawkins believes what he reads or hears and is satisfied that this is sufficient.

The one, huge, glaring fact that is out there and can easily be researched is; why were Muslims and Islam not attacking the West before 1948, before the West planted Israel there among them and began the process of persecuting Muslims, as they had just finished persecuting Jews? There history books...one can read the history of what Islam and Christianity have done to kill and destroy in the last 200 years. Hitchens at least tried when he said Algerian pirates attacked American ships in their waters to steal Africans....but it was most lame and silly.

Other than that, no one has provided evidence for why Islam became a "threat" to the West...and that it has, in their minds, why won't they ask why? When?..and what caused Islam to all of a sudden "attack" the West?

They don't bother because the answer is not to their liking and most obvious...Islam is is DEFENDING itself after decades and centuries of attack and abuse by Westerners, who just happen to be Christian, though they'd have been just as pissed if Buddhists did the same to them. Ultimately it has NOTHING to do with religion...Muslims would be angry at anyone who killed their children....it is the Christian West which has used only religion as a reason for killing people...the Muslims are fighting back....that is all, there is no vendetta even though neo-cons try to make it happen.....only Christians killed people JUST for their religion...you may remember the Holocaust. No other reason was given at the time then that these were Jews...that was all that was necessary.

That was then, this is now. Today such a reason would not stand...something more is needed...and so Muslims have to be TURNED INTO a threat...and how do you do that? How do you get an innocent, mild, gentle, woman to attack you, to claw your eyes out and kick you in the balls? You do it by trying to rape her....you can get her to "attack" you if you RAPE her.....otherwise she wouldn't bother.

That's what our "policy" has been...and in classic style, we are blaming the victims, and Dawkins, as an educated man of science, is making the worst showing of them all.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9