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)

[untermensche]

So the Islamic fundamentalists lack sufficient agency to be responsible for their own acts. Any abhorrent regime in the Middle East, whether supported by America or opposed by it, is mostly America's fault. You stand exhibits extreme Eurocentric condescension. The real actors are always and practically only Americans.

The US is the nation that launched an unprovoked attack on the Iraqi people and carried out years of massive terrorism and torture.

We now have ISIS because of all this US killing.

What is the bigger problem?

Massive US violence or the ugliness that arises as a result of all that violence?

 

[Perspicuo]

Since 2001 the US has been killing Muslims nonstop.

Targeting Muslims and killing Muslims.

In Gulf War 2 again versus Hussein and democracy was constituted there. That wasn't a war against Muslims (and at most what can be said it was a war for petroleum).

It was the deliberate and unprovoked attack of Muslims and the killing of many Muslims and it has resulted in ISIS.

Now there is [sort of] a war against ISIS (Muslims) to defend Iraqis (Muslims), Kurds (Muslims) and Syrians (Muslims).

Yes, more killing of Muslims.

And certainly there is no connection between stating Islam contains the most vile ideological venom outside of the first ten books of the Tanakh (BTW tacitly abrogated in the Talmud)... and any war waged by a Western power in the last 700 years.

Again, the books say many things.

If Muslims are being attacked and killed nonstop for over a decade many Muslim leaders will use the books to wage war.

That's like saying that in the 1940s Americans were out to destroy Europeans because they were killing Europeans nonstop!

Does your barrage of fallacies ever end?

 

[untermensche]

That's like saying that in the 1940s Americans were out to destroy Europeans because they were killing Europeans nonstop!

Does your barrage of fallacies ever end?

If this is the 1940's the US is the Germans.

But this isn't the 1940's.

This is the US trying desperately to control major oil supplies with force.

And the reaction to the chaos created by the US in its wake.

 

[Perspicuo]

That's like saying that in the 1940s Americans were out to destroy Europeans because they were killing Europeans nonstop!

Does your barrage of fallacies ever end?

If this is the 1940's the US is the Germans.

But this isn't the 1940's.

This is the US trying desperately to control major oil supplies with force.

And the reaction to the chaos created by the US in its wake.

(I don't agree with your simplistic and cynical oil thing, but let's take your word just for the sake of discussion.)


Response: Oil not Islam.

Your position is incoherent. When the US fights in Europe, you say it's "Germans" not Europeans (and BTW, it wasn't "Germans" it was Nazis --the fact that Americans had no grudge with Germans is the fact that the Americans [Allies, actually] went in and de-nazified Germany and rebuilt the country), but when it's Middle East you say "Muslims", not "murderous dictatorships". In short, you make important distinctions when it's WW2, but in this war you choose not to make distinctions in your attempt to show somehow there's a war against Islam.

And now cornered you say "Oil", and you're right, if only about G.W.Bush's war in Iraq. It was oil not Islam (In the rest of the cases has been (1) picking up the mess by G.W.Bush and (2) the continuous battle against brutal terrorist organizations).

Congratulations, you have successfully rebutted your previous position.

 

[untermensche]

(I don't agree with your simplistic and cynical oil thing, but let's take your word just for the sake of discussion.)

That is because you want to totally dismiss history and just give opinions.

But if we actually look at history since the discovery of large amounts of oil in the region we see example after of example of Western interference resulting in the rise of the power of fundamentalism.

From the Shah in Iran, to the support of the Saudi dictatorship, to the support of fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, to the support of Israeli oppression, to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we see Western interference in the region resulting in increasing power in the hands of fundamentalists.

Only a fool would wonder why fundamentalists have so much power in the region or would blame it on some ancient books.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is no one thing that has fucked-up the ME. Colonialism, oil, reactionary religion (fundamentalism), out-dated and over-rated monarchies, too much sand, you name it. All contribute to the troubles.

 

[untermensche]

There is no one thing that has fucked-up the ME. Colonialism, oil, reactionary religion (fundamentalism), out-dated and over-rated monarchies, too much sand, you name it. All contribute to the troubles.

Religions are not reactionary, people are.

And fundamentalism grows when people are threatened or attacked by forces too great to withstand. In those circumstances people cling to religious leaders and cling tightest to radical leaders.

The religious books are dead objects. But living leaders can use them to many purposes.

And if people are attacked religious leaders can use the books to fight back.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is no one thing that has fucked-up the ME. Colonialism, oil, reactionary religion (fundamentalism), out-dated and over-rated monarchies, too much sand, you name it. All contribute to the troubles.

Religions are not reactionary, people are.

And fundamentalism grows when people are threatened or attacked by forces too great to withstand. In those circumstances people cling to religious leaders and cling tightest to radical leaders.

The religious books are dead objects. But living leaders can use them to many purposes.

And if people are attacked religious leaders can use the books to fight back.

There still is no one thing.

Now we can quibble and work ourselves up into a right tizzy, but the fact remains, no one thing. History is shaped by many things, some tragic, some noble, some comical, and some simply bizarre.

 

[untermensche]

Religions are not reactionary, people are.

And fundamentalism grows when people are threatened or attacked by forces too great to withstand. In those circumstances people cling to religious leaders and cling tightest to radical leaders.

The religious books are dead objects. But living leaders can use them to many purposes.

And if people are attacked religious leaders can use the books to fight back.

There still is no one thing.

Now we can quibble and work ourselves up into a right tizzy, but the fact remains, no one thing. History is shaped by many things, some tragic, some noble, some comical, and some simply bizarre.

It is not quibbling to look at recent major historical events, and the consequences of these events.

And it is not to say that these major events are the only events.

It is just to say the region is highly tainted by these major violent intrusions.

 

[Perspicuo]

(I don't agree with your simplistic and cynical oil thing, but let's take your word just for the sake of discussion.)

That is because you want to totally dismiss history and just give opinions.

But if we actually look at history since the discovery of large amounts of oil in the region we see example after of example of Western interference resulting in the rise of the power of fundamentalism.

From the Shah in Iran, to the support of the Saudi dictatorship, to the support of fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, to the support of Israeli oppression, to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we see Western interference in the region resulting in increasing power in the hands of fundamentalists.

Only a fool would wonder why fundamentalists have so much power in the region or would blame it on some ancient books.

So, now you admit there's no war against Islam, it's oil (oversimplifying, but at least you've overcome your mono-theme).

Q.E.D.

 

[Perspicuo]

There is no one thing that has fucked-up the ME. Colonialism, oil, reactionary religion (fundamentalism), out-dated and over-rated monarchies, too much sand, you name it. All contribute to the troubles.

Basically, yes.

People love to oversimplify reality, presumably in order to cognitively manage the subject. That's why many times when I get together with friends and discuss politics after some minutes I want to laugh and I end up saying something like "That was productive. Now that we fixed the world, let's _________ ", and everyone smiles or laughs and we all seem to realize what has happened.

 

[untermensche]

That is because you want to totally dismiss history and just give opinions.

But if we actually look at history since the discovery of large amounts of oil in the region we see example after of example of Western interference resulting in the rise of the power of fundamentalism.

From the Shah in Iran, to the support of the Saudi dictatorship, to the support of fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, to the support of Israeli oppression, to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we see Western interference in the region resulting in increasing power in the hands of fundamentalists.

Only a fool would wonder why fundamentalists have so much power in the region or would blame it on some ancient books.

So, now you admit there's no war against Islam, it's oil (oversimplifying, but at least you've overcome your mono-theme).

Q.E.D.

Go back to my first post in this thread and I have said the same thing over and over.

The violent encroachment by the West to make money off the distribution of oil has led to increased power in the hands of fundamentalists.

Without all this violent encroachment we don't know what the region would look like.

But it is laughable to conclude the major contributor to problems in the region is some ancient book. People are the problem, not books. Books are just what some people are able to use to get people to support them.

 

[barbos]

I was browsing youtube and stumbled upon this:

I never liked this guy and now I am convinced he is nothing but a shameless self-promoter.
And now seems he "creatively" "exaggerated" his credentials.
We all have to apologize to FoxNews

 

[Underseer]

I want to focus on Harris, the neuroscientist and “New Atheist” philosopher, because he’s a fascinating and troublesome figure who embodies many of these contradictions. His premise that the primary role of religion in human history has been as “failed science” – as a set of factual claims about the universe that have now been proven false (or are inherently unfalsifiable) – lies at the core of his atheist worldview. It’s also dramatically at odds with the standard view in religious studies, and would provoke eye-rolling from a sophomore seminar in the subject. At best, it’s a partial account of one of the roles filled by religion, and an account that ignores overwhelming evidence that believers interpret religious doctrine and scripture different ways in different contexts. Did the ancient Greeks literally believe that Zeus and Athena and Apollo lived in palaces on top of Mt. Olympus? It would take a sociologist with a time machine to supply a definitive answer, but the best available evidence suggests a situation we ought to recognize: Some did, some did not and a great many weren’t sure or hadn’t really thought about it.

What a delusional nutjob. I'm done reading.

As for the topic, yes, there are liberals who still insist that any criticism of any religion is wrong under any circumstances, but honestly there seems to be few of them left. Most are starting to accept that we need to be able to discuss and criticize the ideas of religion or else Christianity and Islam will continue to radicalize.

On the flip side, Sam Harris' "there's no such thing as Islamophobia" looks even more demented and out of touch with reality given recent events in America.

 

[J842P]

On the flip side, Sam Harris' "there's no such thing as Islamophobia" looks even more demented and out of touch with reality given recent events in America.

Sam Harris hasn't said that and doesn't believe it.

 

[Warpoet]

I was browsing youtube and stumbled upon this:

I never liked this guy and now I am convinced he is nothing but a shameless self-promoter.
And now seems he "creatively" "exaggerated" his credentials.
We all have to apologize to FoxNews

You necroed a thread that's over a year old, to post some YouTube video no one will watch in its entirety, basing its argument off of some silly articles that are over two years old? Hell, the second article is filled with comments from people accusing the author of misrepresenting the evidence, including Aslan's own thesis adviser. Who gives a shit about any of this anyway? How does it make the FOX interview any less preposterous?

 

[Warpoet]

Sam Harris hasn't said that and doesn't believe it.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mosque

"Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.”

...

There is no such thing as Islamophobia."

Coincidentally, Harris just happens to be a self-important twat who's not worth anybody's time or consideration.

 

[barbos]

You necroed a thread that's over a year old, to post some YouTube video no one will watch in its entirety, basing its argument off of some silly articles that are over two years old? Hell, the second article is filled with comments from people accusing the author of misrepresenting the evidence, including Aslan's own thesis adviser. Who gives a shit about any of this anyway? How does it make the FOX interview any less preposterous?

Blame youtube, they suggested it to watch. And I checked wikipedia and confirmed that the guy does not have PhD in history of religion and he is not a professor of religion.
I find the guy annoying and it is a shame that Jon Stewart could not see through this nutjob.
As for Fox interview they are right but accidentally. I mean muslims can in principle write a book about jesus but in this particular case the book is utter garbage and author is lying about his credentials. Having said that, let be honest here, we are all atheists here and I think we all agree that good research on religions require certain amount of religious disbelief, after all, religious belief is a disorder.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Sam Harris hasn't said that and doesn't believe it.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mosque

"Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.”

...

There is no such thing as Islamophobia."

Coincidentally, Harris just happens to be a self-important twat who's not worth anybody's time or consideration.

Many feel this way about those that knee-jerk to racism without any other consideration, or attack with an ad hominem, feeling justified in doing so because their opponent is "racist". They can never even get to the actual topic of conversation without first wading through accusation after accusation, definitions, misrepresentations, misquotes, and so on. I think many of them prefer it this way. Better to stay focused on the evil racist bastards than actually have an uncomfortable but adult conversation. It's a shutting down of the argument.

ETA: What really gets to me about this behavior is that crying wolf all the time can bring deaf ears when actual cases of racism are evident.

 

[Warpoet]

Blame youtube, they suggested it to watch. And I checked wikipedia and confirmed that the guy does not have PhD in history of religion and he is not a professor of religion.
I find the guy annoying and it is a shame that Jon Stewart could not see through this nutjob.
As for Fox interview they are right but accidentally. I mean muslims can in principle write a book about jesus but in this particular case the book is utter garbage and author is lying about his credentials. Having said that, let be honest here, we are all atheists here and I think we all agree that good research on religions require certain amount of religious disbelief, after all, religious belief is a disorder.

Maybe you should stop foaming at the mouth over your personal dislike of Aslan and examine the issue rationally. Here are several comments on the article your video is sourced from:

Since i was Reza's thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza's PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a "historian of religion" in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is.

...

The author needs to understand that the study of Religion falls under The Department of Sociology, at many schools.
As was noted in the article, the title of his dissertation is "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework".
It is, clearly, a study of religion, in a sociological framework (as it should be)

Further, if you'd care to open up the dissertation, you'll note the first point in the abstract denotes that the work has a religious, rather than societal or cultural basis.

Here it is:
1. Appealing to a set of familiar symbols (in this case, religious, rather than cultural or societal) to construct a collective identity that transcends all cultural, national, ethnic, and gender boundaries, with the aim of mobilizing individuals to rise up and effect radical social change.

Green (or her producers) either did what they set out to do (a hit job to rile up viewers) or failed to perform even the most basic research, like the author above.

Unfortunately, this article misses the forest, for the trees, and does little more than parse words, while missing the essential meaning behind them.
C'est la vie.

...

My father was the chairman of the Religious Studies Department at Boston University. His specialty was what he referred as the "life world" that gave rise to Christianity--exactly the focus of Aslan's new book. My father always referred to his field of study, which by any measure was historical, as the sociology of religion. These attempts to discredit Aslan are simply silly.

So the picture appears to be much more complicated than your narrative allows, and largely boils down to the question of what threshold of academic work gives you the right to call yourself an authority on a given subject. Whether you like Aslan or not, he certainly has lots of credentials relevant to this area, and so calling him a fraud is fucking stupid.

And you still haven't answered my question - who gives a shit, outside of a handful of people with an axe to grind against the man (like you)? And how the hell does his being Muslim matter when Christians write books about other religions all the fucking time?