Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and Sam Harris walk into a bar... (Atheism, Islam and liberalism: This is what we are really fighting about)

[blastula]

Yet the book was widely panned by NT scholars who usually cited poor engagement with current scholarship, indicating he did overstate his credentials. For example, Reza Aslan—Historian? - Elizabeth Castelli

There is a world of difference between accusing someone of doing lackluster research and accusing them of wholesale fraud. The latter is hyperbolic nonsense,

Not if the person adamantly claims to be a qualified expert in the field. Quoting from the review above:

Aslan’s broader claim to working as a historian, however, is another matter. Frankly, he would probably have been cut a good deal more slack by specialists had he simply said that he was working as an outsider to the field, interested in translating work by scholars of early Christianity for a broader audience. But his claims are more grandiose than that and are based on his repeated public statements that he speaks with authority as a historian. He has therefore reasonably opened himself to criticism on the basis of that claim.

and hence it only appears to be coming from people with axes to grind against Aslan.

Even if so, it wouldn't make it false.

Nobody else particularly cares.

Says the guy who bothered to weed through youtube comments to find some quotes to try to defend the person in question.

 

[Warpoet]

Not if the person adamantly claims to be a qualified expert in the field. Quoting from the review above:

The article does not call Aslan a fraud and I've yet to see any credible source call him such. Plagiarizing someone's work and calling it your own, or claiming to have a degree from a college you never attended is fraud. The best case any of this makes is that Aslan oversold himself to try and shut down a hostile interviewer and possibly boost sales of his book; trying to equate the above is just fucking silly hyperbole and the only reason anyone would do so is because they don't like the man personally.

Says the guy who bothered to weed through youtube comments to find some quotes to try to defend the person in question.

I followed two links to a blog and scrolled down to the comments, which were ripping the author apart; I then had to highlight a few, press CTRL+C, and then CTRL+V. Thoroughly exhausting; I had to go take a nap afterwards to recuperate. You're the one who sees fit to continue talking about this even though it's clear that the case is underwhelming and there's no reason anyone should care, so you don't have a lot of room to talk.

 

[Warpoet]

An ad hominem you admit to, and feel justified in displaying because of the subject matter. Fortunately the majority of us don't think two wrongs make a right.

As evidenced by your steering the discussion away from substance and entirely onto me, thus making it one giant ad hominem. Even though I've made it clear that A) I don't care what you think B) I am not altering my behavior on your account.

So, again, real smooth.

No, this is what's called an OPINION. You are fond of using words like "self-evident", "obviously" and so on about topics that are anything but clear and succinct, except to you, because damn it, you have right on your side and people better listen to you. So keep poisoning that well, but all thinking people of intelligence can obviously see right through your transparent attempts to desperately change the subject.

Actually, as I said above, you're the one who's changed the subject - to me, specifically. Which, again, makes it fairly self-evident that I've gotten under your skin. And each post you make focusing on me is actually providing more evidence to back up my hypothesis - so, no, it's really not just my opinion. That's usually how this works, because over the years I've learned to read people pretty well in these discussions and thus I'm usually right about this sort of thing. Not always, but usually; this particular exchange surely isn't hurting my batting average.

Wrong again, oh great Kreskin! I already stated that I'm not interested in a Sam Harris discussion, so I'm not going to take your bait to change the subject yet again.

Which would be why you chose to insert yourself into a Sam Harris discussion rather than, oh, I don't know, not fucking posting in this particular thread. And of course, this entire exchange, and that wordy, half-baked psychoanalysis you posted, focusing exclusively on me, wouldn't suggest my tone when discussing Harris chaps your ass. Not at all.

As I said, I'm glad you feel justified in your assholish behavior, and I'm sure if your goal is to really help the Muslims you claim to care about, your tone is absolutely sure to positively influence the minds of those trying to grapple with these complex issues. Well done sir!

I never said that was my goal. My goal is mostly to act as a check against some of the ignoramuses who post here; if they're aware that there's a real chance that they might be called out on their assertions and embarrassed then they're more likely to watch what they say, or, ideally, just go post their bullshit somewhere else. At least a few of the axe-grinding posters I've dealt with here over the years have toned it down or fucked off altogether; I don't think my impact matters much in the bigger picture, but then, that's true of really everything that's posted here, especially in recent years.

As far as me wasting bandwidth, it's mine to waste. There are others here that think I contribute positively, and I do not seek nor desire your stamp of approval for me to continue posting, as I am sure to do. So, I'll fuck on, I'll fuck off, I'll fuck wherever I damn well please.

The bandwidth is yours to waste; my time is not. I'll remind you again that you initiated this exchange, and you decided to focus it exclusively on me. Whereas I'm totally indifferent and largely just amused by the whole thing.

Truthfully, I don't have any feelings about you one or the way other; we may have butted heads a few times in the past but I don't really have anything against you personally. That said, I'm not going to apologize if my tone when talking about people who I consider to be twats (like Sam Harris) pisses you off.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is most easily summed up in the experiment of Palestine. The Christians of Palestine are just as, if not more, oppressed than the Muslims in that region. Yet there have only been 1 or 2 Christian suicide bombers and scores and scores of Islamic ones. If Christianity were equally as bad as Islam we would have far more Christian suicide bombers.

That's some pretty questionable logic you're using there. First of all, your claim that there have been "1 or 2" Christian suicide bombers requires a source; actual research indicates that secular groups have had a significant presence with regard to suicide attacks in Palestine, and quite a substantial number of suicide attacks elsewhere in the region have been carried out by secular groups, who could easily have used Christians as suicide bombers. But even if there have never been any Christian suicide bombers, ever, it doesn't prove that Islam is "worse," since A) suicide bombing is a crappy metric for judging how bad a religion is, since it is a relatively new phenomenon that is primarily meant to terrorize rather than destroy; Christians have certainly murdered on a much larger scale than any terrorist organization, and cited their religion as a justification, and B) there are obvious sociopolitical reasons why Islamic terror groups in the Mideast would be more likely to gain traction, or to choose pious Muslims as candidates for martyrdom.

To suggest that simply comparing the numbers of suicide bombers between faiths "proves" which is inherently worse is reductive reasoning, and a pretty good illustration of why Harris and his ilk are generally ignored by people who take the issues seriously.

Agree with Warpoet. Beyond the reasons he states there is the simple fact that Christians comprise about 1% of the area's population, and it is relative % that matters and not raw numbers with never mean anything without base-rates. Plus, their tiny numbers are insufficient for them to plausibly have their own State and most of them likely realize this and have no interest in one. Thus, they do not have the same territorial and political conflicts that interact with their religious beliefs to motivate suicide bombings.

Their basically are no modern societies that are dominated by true believing Christians. Those cultures with the most Christians are predominately secularized, such that most of the "Christians" are such in label only and the real ones are constrained by the secular values of the political and social systems around them. The proper comparison is to historical societies where Christianity ruled unrestrained by secularism, such as the medieval societies of Europe. Their violence, misogyny, and complete disregard for human rights and liberties are what the true face of Christianity looks like when allowed to realize its inherent tendencies.

 

[blastula]

There are only "true believing Christians" in Christian theocracies????

 

[blastula]

The article does not call Aslan a fraud and I've yet to see any credible source call him such. Plagiarizing someone's work and calling it your own, or claiming to have a degree from a college you never attended is fraud.

No, fraud is just any kind of deceit.

The best case any of this makes is that Aslan oversold himself to try and shut down a hostile interviewer and possibly boost sales of his book; trying to equate the above is just fucking silly hyperbole and the only reason anyone would do so is because they don't like the man personally.

Even when you desperately try to put it in the best light, it's still fraud.

Says the guy who bothered to weed through youtube comments to find some quotes to try to defend the person in question.

I followed two links to a blog and scrolled down to the comments, which were ripping the author apart; I then had to highlight a few, press CTRL+C, and then CTRL+V. Thoroughly exhausting; I had to go take a nap afterwards to recuperate. You're the one who sees fit to continue talking about this even though it's clear that the case is underwhelming and there's no reason anyone should care, so you don't have a lot of room to talk.

More desperate attempts and bother to explain away that you don't care. The more you say, the more you prove you do care.

 

[Warpoet]

Actually, that I have to keep repeating the same fucking thing to you, and that you keep failing to grasp it, suggests the problem is on your end. You're the one who keeps dwelling on the issue; only you and other axe-grinders are using the word "fraud," and in fact, you're the only ones who care at all two and a half years later. You've not presented any reason for the rest of us to.