Reza Aslan Made the Worst Case For Religion On The Daily Show

[trotsky]

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/05/reza-aslan-made-the-worst-case-for-religion-on-the-daily-show/

On Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Show, “religions scholar” Reza Aslan continued his audacious attempt to fundamentally change how religion has been understood from time immemorial. For Aslan, religion isn’t so much a system of belief in the supernatural, but instead a sort of cultural identity that’s extremely pliant depending on the personal and cultural whims of believers. To wit,

“The thing about religion that people have to understand is that it’s far more a matter of identity than it is just a matter of beliefs and practices. I mean, those things are important, but when you say, ‘I’m a Jew,’ ‘I’m a Muslim,’ ‘I’m a Christian,’ you’re making an identity statement far more so than a statement of the things that you believe.”

This assertion is not even wrong. It’s gibberish masquerading as profundity. Are not “the things that you believe” very much part of one’s identity, be they religious, political, or cultural in nature? When one speaks of “Muslim identity,” for example, does that not entail an identity that involves believing in Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet?

...

By shifting focus away from belief to some vague “identity” as a measure of religion, Aslan is engaged in a supreme act of obfuscation, and in the process has made himself a walking contradiction.

Reza Aslan: the Deepak Chopra of Islam?

[MellowDem]

1. It's the best part of religious privilege...

Identifying with a horrible belief system, even supporting it, and yet not having to be held accountable for the terrible beliefs.

Reza is amongst the most prolific of those defending and spreading the privilege. Of course it's great for him to define religion to suit his privilege, because then he doesn't have to answer for all the putrid shit his religion explicitly says and all the putrid shit done in name of said beliefs.

Reza's view of religion just screams entitlement and privilege. He wants to be seen as a liberal nice guy while identifying with a hateful conservative belief system.

I want to hold people like Reza accountable for identifying with such belief systems. If they can't give up their privilege, they don't get to ignore what their belief system says. It's people like Reza that are protecting hateful ideas from vigorous criticism.

[trotsky]

2. +1 n/t

[skepticscott]

4. Quite a lot of posters here

have been contaminated with the same "It doesn't matter if god exists" or "it doesn't matter if any of religion is true" memes. They know how foolish they'll look if they actually try to argue for the existence of god or the truth of religious claims, but they need desperately (believers and faitheists alike) to keep the legitimacy of religion alive, so they pretend that religious is all about "community" or some shit, and that the truth of what people believe is irrelevant.

[skepticscott]

12. Believe it or not, this got alerted on

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri May 15, 2015, 08:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Quite a lot of posters here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=198769

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"several posters here have been contaminated?". WTF.??? Is this DU or Stormfront??

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 15, 2015, 09:03 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: By regular forum standards, this is a lame alert. For the religion group? Yeah, alerter, ya might want to stay out of there if this bothers you.

Oh wait, right, I forgot. Alert-stalking is fun and makes all those mean atheists shut up.

DAWKINZZZZZZ!!!!1!1!!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "Quite a lot of posters here have been contaminated..." is a defacto broardbrush attack. Hiding...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Alerter said it all.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

But no...no such thing as alert-stalking in Religion...

[edhopper]

16. That someone alerted is one thing

that it barely got through 3-4 is dumbfounding.

[skepticscott]

17. I noticed that too

Of course, one of the Clan was in there..they just can't help throw the "broadbrushing" thing at the wall over and over, hoping it will stick. Gives them away every time. And I wouldn't be surprisd if they try an alert on this post too, just for the heck of it.

[rug]

18. One of the Clan was definitely there.

Oh wait, right, I forgot. Alert-stalking is fun and makes all those mean atheists shut up.

DAWKINZZZZZZ!!!!1!1!!

[mr blur]

19. A bit of a tacky alert there, don't you think?

Seems that way.

[Yorktown]

40. no such thing as alert-stalking in Religion...

I got one post 'hidden' thanks to the alert about a jab I took at rug.

rug himself understood it to be a joke. The alerter, not so.
Isn't it wonderful to see someone defended rug beyond what rug himself felt?

Other than that, there is obviously "no such thing as alert-stalking in Religion".

[beam me up scottie]

3. I love this part:

So if people bring their values to religion, then what is the point of religion? If god’s promulgated will is just something that’s adjusted in accordance with the prevailing social and cultural norms of the time, then god’s will means nothing; or better yet, god’s will is what we say it is because we made it up in the first place.

Lastly, Aslan took aim at those who fault religion for many of the world’s problems:

“If you’re going to blame religion for violence in the name of religion, then you have to credit religion for every act of compassion in the name of religion, you have to credit religion for every act of love in the name of religion, and that’s not what people usually think. They focus very much on the negative.”

Unfortunately for Aslan, his perspective here essentially lowers religion to a human undertaking, which, although it is, it is not intended to be. If religion is just as capable of inspiring bad acts as good acts, then it has utterly failed in its purpose of providing a workable moral framework. It can be argued that despite our changing moral norms, god hasn’t changed his, and that we humans just seem to be misunderstanding it. But if that’s the case, then god hasn’t done a very good job of explaining himself in his holy texts.

[Lordquinton]

6. That sounds so very familiar.

And there is something that feels so deeply flawed about it.

Going for the extreme it's like saying "At least the fuhrer made the trains run on time" The good does not outweigh the bad, especially when the bad is where the lion's share of their efforts are going, and the good almost always has a price tag attached.

The real catch is that we talk about religion as a whole, and they talk about religion as a single person, so they get to be always offended and shut down the conversation.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Equating criticism of religion with bigotry is common on both the left and right.

We're not supposed to criticize religious bigotry because ... reasons.

[Yorktown]

41. Critics of Nazism were bigots.

After all, who do the critics think they were to criticize and mock something followed by dozens of millions Germans. Ditto for Stalinism: Stalin was viewed favorably by 45% of the 150 millions or so Russians. Ditto for Maoism: lots of people in the countriside still revere Mao as a demi god; who are we to judge.

Next, I'm going to launch my cult religion which will involve cannibalism.
I fully expect my critics to be called bigots.
Unless some people use double standards. Which I do not think would happen here.

[msongs]

5. religion is learned cultural behavior. believers go along with their culture even tho they may

not actually believe the religious stuff. current religions are rehashes of oldies but goodies that have died out leaving the baggage behind

[Lordquinton]

8. Isn't he they guy who claimed to be a religious scholar, but it turns out he lied about it?

Which makes him just another anti-atheist bigot who has a platform.

The apologetics are getting tiring around here, and the privilege is stinking up the place.

[rug]

9. A "religious scholar"?

http://www.drew.edu/crcc/programsinitiatives/wallerstein-distinguished-visiting-scholars/dr-reza-aslan

[Lordquinton]

13. This is what I was looking for

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/reza-aslan-a-jesus-scholar-whos-hard-to-pin-down/2013/08/08/2b6eee80-002b-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html

He inflated his background.

He uses the same tierd arguments that we've all seem a million times. Apologetics in motion.

[rug]

15. That hardly makes him a fraud.

Or "just another anti-atheist bigot who has a platform". Especially since there are so many anti-religious bigots with a platform floating around.

[Lordquinton]

22. There are countless anti-atheists around, your Pope, for starters

A shocking amount of them even at DU, but strangely they never get called out, or when they do (just like right here) it gets brushed aside and lamely countered by DAWKINNNSES!!!!!!11!

[rug]

23. Actually, to your chagrin, he is not an "anti-atheist".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-francis-stirs-debate-yet-again-with-interview-with-an-atheist-italian-journalist/2013/10/01/9e7a6790-2acb-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html

I notice you have not denied the nmerous anti religious posters who, when challenged, gargle "PEDOPHILIA!!!!!11!

[Lordquinton]

25. No, because I am adamantly against Pedophilla

And the RCC has been, and still is, enabling it on a global scale. The last pope retired and went into hiding because of it.

[rug]

32. Who isn't? Do you want a medal?

But it is not the topic of every discussion about the RCC, much as you'd like it to be.

[Lordquinton]

34. You just compared Richard Dawkins to Pedophilia

You're really struggling here Rug, maybe throw in the towel while you can, eh?

[rug]

35. Lol, no I compared your lame caricature to one that is significantly more accurate.

[Lordquinton]

36. You seem confused

You're just reinforcing the callout. Whenever the whole issue of pedophilia, or whatever the RCC is being problematic about this week, apologists come up with a hit of the week, usually some misquote of Dawkins, so hopefully we'll forget that the international pedophile ring operated out or Rome is forgotten about.

So... gg rug, hoist by your own petard.

[rug]

37. Except the only one who mentioned Dawkins was you.

[Lordquinton]

38. You're still confused

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=198863

Especially since there are so many anti-religious bigots with a platform floating around.

And you were also the only one to bring up Pedophilia. Maybe when your church runs an international coverup ring for pedophiles you shouldn't use it as a means to score points with, cause it will never turn out well.

[rug]

39. Doesn't mention Dawkins. Does that description remind you of him?

And you just made my point.

[Lordquinton]

44. your post was very unclear

Maybe you should be more specific. I understood that you meant the usual bunch of atheists that scare you And you're always posting hit pieces about. If you meant someone else, please be more clear in your posts.

[rug]

45. Projection tends to cloud understanding.

[Lordquinton]

49. Your posts aren't making any sense.

Could you clarify?

[rug]

54. In a nutshell, I think you're making too many assumptions.

[Lordquinton]

71. I still can't figure out what you mean, please clarify

Who were you talking about?discourse only works if your words can be understood.

[rug]

10. Somebody hit somebody's nerve.

Several somebodys.

[tkmorris]

11. Yeah, no

What he hit was a rotted stump in the dirt about 50 feet wide of the broad side of the barn he was aiming at. Not only is his "argument" lacking in any sort of logic, it's utterly transparent why he is trying to disconnect identifying with a religion from the beliefs of the religion. It's comically terrible.

Oh, maybe the "nerve" you meant was the funny bone. In that case, good show.

[rug]

14. QED.

[tkmorris]

24. Yes, the fact that I think his argument is ridiculous

CLEARLY means that I have been gored deeply, and am sputtering my refutations through a face that displays dismay at how fatally I have been wounded.

And by the by, QED is awfully overused by those attempting to appear intellectual. You are smart enough to not need such affectations.

[rug]

33. QED squared.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. what you actually meant is "case in point".

But do continue, you are amusing.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic." -- Douglas Adams, from "A Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

[rug]

66. No, Warren, what I actually meant was what I actuallly typed.

I understand how dismayed you must be by your failed foray into clairvoyance.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Well I tried to help you out, but keep misusing QED. It is amusing.

[rug]

69. To be precise, it was QED squared.

As in rhetoric, not syllogism

I am very amused by your amusement. Although discomfit describes your reaction more accurately.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. which is of course meaningless if you had been using QED correctly to begin with,

which you weren't.

Although as you actually meant "case in point" while attempting to insult somebody, even then a second example wouldn't be "case in point" squared, it would be case in point plus one. One example squared is still one, whereas one example plus a second example is two examples. QED.

[rug]

72. Warren, do you really think you're in a position to lecture anyone on the proper use of words?

Any one, let alone me.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Yes.

I'm just trying to help you out here, as your new go to insult is "QED" and you are, quite amusingly, misusing it.

[rug]

75. Ok. Explain your credentials then.

Demonstrate why you are not simply a blowhard but actually have attained something to offer.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Wait. You are demanding "credentials" for responses on an internet message board?

That is just about the most preposterous thing you have uttered here rug.

[rug]

77. In your case, yeah.

You said you're in a position to lecture people. Otherwise, I'll just chalk it up to your usual pedantry.

QED cubed.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. project much?

But again you are misusing the phrase "QED" and as truth is a binary value, your affection for "QED squared", and now "QED cubed" is even more ridiculously misplaced as it is a meaningless assertion adding no new information. true == true*true == true* true*true etc. The exponential accumulation of true is meaningless. QED.

[rug]

82. I never project.

I am, however, a keen observer.

And 'truth" is not binary. You may be confusing it with true/false, as in middle school exams.

[hrmjustin]

21. Agreed. I like what he said about giving credit to religion when it does good.

[Yorktown]

20. Reza Aslan: the Deepak Chopra of Islam?

I like your question.

Tariq Ramadan too is good as a double speak salesman.

His debate with Christopher Hitchens was remarkable: he managed to try to 'sell' jihad

[doxyluv13]

26. Score: Aslan-1 Daily Banter - 0

Of course it's identity. This explains how some people can be such committed Christians without knowing beans about Christianity.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. No kidding.

Most Christians seem to be 'ala carte' Christians, who only believe in the things that agree with them. I would assume the same holds true for followers of most any other religion as well.

As a Catholic I know says 'I'm Catholic, we don't read the Bible.'

[deathrind]

27. Reza...

Is throwing everything against the wall to see if it sticks. Harris has destroyed Reza time and time again. In fact in one debate with Sam Harris, Reza said religion does not care about facts it is about belifes and now apparently is not about belifes but about identity. Reza is nothing more than a very articulate snake oil salesman just like Chopra. They will say whatever need be said to keep the $ coming in.

[LTX]

28. A rather peculiar article, and thread.

In explaining the persistence of religion, the point is frequently made by atheists that religious affiliation provides both a sense of community and a means for self-identification. In oversimplified terms, religion persists because tribalism exerts a powerful, evolutionary pull. I find this a reasonably compelling point.

In deriding "cafeteria christians" (along with similarly selective followers of other religions), the point is frequently made by atheists that morality is independent of scripture, as evidenced by the selective importation of moral precepts into scripture (and concomitant rejection of scripture that does not comport with predetermined moral stances), as opposed to the exportation of moral precepts from scripture (which would necessitate an acceptance of scripture in its entirety). I find this reasonably compelling as well.

However, judging by the article in the op and the responses in this thread, I guess the legitimacy of these points is now dependent on who makes them, not on the points themselves. An interesting form of tribalism in and of itself.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Do folks deride cafeteria Christians?

I'd far rather be surrounded by 'cafeteria Christians' than by ones who truly believe every word of the Bible.

Do you think it's a bad thing not to stone adulterers to death? Or children who do not honor their parents?

I think any atheist who actually gives it some thought would tell you that if there are going to be religious people around, it's far safer that they not be fundamentalists, but rather 'cafeteria' types.

[LTX]

31. I don't deride them, but the term itself is usually deployed derisively.

And I agree with your point. Selectivity is indeed preferable to dogmatism.

[nil desperandum]

42. Indeed

Once again, we in the non-believers camp are sent into frantic disarray by the deft, evidentiary, insightful polemics of a world view that necessarily includes a talking snake.

[LTX]

51. Setting aside your non sequitur,

what accounts for the persistence of religion?

[gcomeau]

47. It's not that Reza is wrong.

It's that he's right and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

That is a horrible defense of religion. "Oh, don't worry, nobody takes it seriously they just call themselves whatever they think they're supposed to be then do whatever they want".

That's effectively declaring your religion irrelevant.

[LTX]

52. First, why would a declaration that religion is irrelevant be a problem?

Isn't that the point atheists are trying to make?

Second, if religion satisfies some fundamental need for tribal affiliation, wouldn't that be a form of relevance in and of itself?

I don't see Reza defending religion so much as offering up explanations for its persistence and its scriptural selectivity. I don't view this as a bad thing. Neither do Daniel Dennett and many others who are interested in the phenomenon of religion.

[nil desperandum]

53. Perhaps

if religion satisfies some fundamental need for tribal affiliation

I agree with you on this statement, and I think this is perhaps part of the issue but I do not believe that religion from a tribal perspective is irrelevant it is in fact often problematic.

Tribal affiliations create subgroups that often can't coexist comfortably with the other subgroups who claim to worship the same god and often even the same prophet. One can take a historical look at Iraq to see that the British created a nation from three separate tribal groups who are so fundamentally opposed to the other variants of the same religion they result in murderous clashes over that variation. The only unifying factor in Iraq was a murderous dictator who so oppressed everyone that they dared not respond for fear of large scale annihilation by that dictator's forces. The current vacuum we created and the resulting murderous chaos indicates the inability of the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis to defend what is not an actual nation to each of those sub groups consequently ISIS style groups will always find a way to exploit that lack of cohesive multi-tribal affiliation.

We should not require tribes anymore, especially in the US where we should be a melting pot of cultures that results in a singular identification, American. Dozens of variations on that them doesn't enrich a culture through diversity unless those variations all carry the same respect for the other iterations, which never happens. There is always some suspicion that those other iterations have it wrong, so they are accommodated but not actually accepted. Ignorance and fear are often the recruiting tools of religion. There are far more picking a religion based on a fear of dying and no longer existing than are doing so out of an intellectual journey to find a cosmic meaning for their existence that hardly makes religion irrelevant.

I doubt one can remove religion in a single fell swoop from the masses who need to identify with that primal tribal affiliation, but a continued decline isn't necessarily a bad thing. Humans always seem to feel a need to group together often at the expense of other groups. We are certainly one of the more murderous species to inhabit the planet regardless of religious or tribal affiliations.

[gcomeau]

59. It's a problem...

... in the sense that it undermines the purpose of his argument. If he's trying to defend religion calling it an empty facade whose core teachings most people don't bother to take seriously is a weird way to do it.

The article simply pointed out that his argument was not very good *as a defense of religion*.

"Second, if religion satisfies some fundamental need for tribal affiliation, wouldn't that be a form of relevance in and of itself? "

A form of, sure. An insignificant, hypocritical, phony one if you want to believe Reza (or atheists for that matter). But if that's good enough for you, hey...

[LTX]

60. So I'll just ask you for your considered opinion:

How do you account for the persistence of religion?

[gcomeau]

62. Lots of factors..

In no particular order:

1. Childhood indoctrination.

2. Stigmatization of anyone who rejects the prevailing religious beliefs in society once they grow up.

3. The inability of large numbers of people to deal with their own mortality. Even for all the people who don't sincerely believe all the various nonsense claims of religion as long as they're not examined too closely they make a nice security blanket / excuse for not facing your mortality directly and just kind of ignoring it instead. (Which drives 1 and 2 btw, because you don't want other people forcing you to face the fact that this is all nonsense and actually have to think about it)

4. Actual believers. They do exist, and in numbers. And for them take factors 1, 2 and 3 and multiply them exponentially. Because if you're just going through the motions because it's easy and convenient that's one thing. If you think aunt Jane or cousin Bob is actually seriously going to be doomed to eternal torment unless you convert them on the other hand... or unless you prevent some other unbeliever from luring them away from salvation? Turn all that up to 11.

5. It does have some organizing utility. Not any utility that couldn't be achieved through non-magical-bullshit means, but it's still there. Which makes people engaging in 1 and 2 more effective at it.


Etc...

[LTX]

63. Thanks. A relatively thoughtful answer.

I will add that your numbers 1 and 2 could be classified as adjuncts to tribal affiliation, or "identity" (to use the out of favor term).

As for actual believers (your number 3), I think you weight the "doom" factor more than may be warranted. My own experience (and yes, you can legitimately discount what I am about to say as insignificant anecdote) is with true believers who are more perplexed by the mere existence of "us" and this (plainly) strange place we inhabit, as opposed to believers who fear doom. That disturbing sense of how perplexing this all is could be chalked up to scientific ignorance, if my experience wasn't with believers who are also scientists. That's an extremely small subset of total believers though, so I certainly can't speak to the general believer-populace.

I do, however, get a sense that religion is once again morphing into something new (as it has done so many times). The number of people affiliating with specific sects (setting aside Islam, which remains an outlier worth independent consideration) is declining rapidly in the west. But the people dis-affiliating seem to be, in fairly large numbers, nevertheless self-identifying as "spiritual," often in ways that are remarkably similar to otherwise hoary theological traditions (my personal favorite are the spiritual-atheists, a rather murky personal identification, coupled with a remarkably murky spirituality).

I tend to think that religion will continue, if in different forms, because we are hard-wired to attribute external causation irrespective of scientific rationality. It seems to be our fate.

[Yorktown]

64. That's a honest answer, but you concede irrationality

I tend to think that religion will continue, if in different forms, because we are hard-wired to attribute external causation irrespective of scientific rationality. It seems to be our fate.

Yes, humans are 'wired' to attribute causality because it's usually an efficient interpretation.

If you're Lucy in the savannah, hearing grass rustling should evoke a lion.
If you're living now, a horn sound should evoke a car coming.
Extrapolated, it means the world evokes a creator.

But reason tends to point to the fact the 'creator' hypothesis creates more problem than a material Universe.

[hrmjustin]

43. I was taught religion by non-believing parents and Catholic school.

Faith did not really come to me till I was 15.

It really was my decision to believe and no one else's.

[gcomeau]

46. Actually... he's not entirely wrong.

“The thing about religion that people have to understand is that it’s far more a matter of identity than it is just a matter of beliefs and practices. I mean, those things are important, but when you say, ‘I’m a Jew,’ ‘I’m a Muslim,’ ‘I’m a Christian,’ you’re making an identity statement far more so than a statement of the things that you believe.”

Let's face it, a large number of people in this country who call themselves Christians do so for social reasons without actually taking seriously all the superstitious magical bullshit associated with that label. I mean, if you cornered the average Catholic on the street and asked them if they *really* believed they were committing literal ritualistic cannibalism of their messiah in church I don't think you'd get a lot of yes answers.


Of course he probably didn't intend to argue that large numbers of "believers" don't actually believe in God and are really just paying the concept lip service because it's socially expedient... but it's still true.

[trotsky]

48. That is a very good point.

But as you note, not exactly the one he was trying to make.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Reducing religions to mere labels with no necessary beliefs behind them renders...

them meaningless, and the ones claiming such labels secular.

I generally don't have a problem with either of those, its probably a necessary step, demographically, in people becoming comfortable enough to shed the label entirely, once they realize they don't believe in the religion itself.

I don't understand why Reza Aslan would make such an argument though, he's a believer.

[On the Road]

55. You Don't Believe That Cultural Identity Exists?

or that people's experience of religion is largely a matter of that cultural identity?

Seriously, I cannot understand the objection to this statement. Seems perfectly sensible.

[trotsky]

56. See the post right above from Humanist_Activist.

If religion is just a normal part of identity and not special or significant in a cosmic sense, you've redefined religion in a way few believers can accept.

[On the Road]

57. Still Don't Get the Objection

“The thing about religion that people have to understand is that it’s far more a matter of identity than it is just a matter of beliefs and practices. I mean, those things are important, but when you say, ‘I’m a Jew,’ ‘I’m a Muslim,’ ‘I’m a Christian,’ you’re making an identity statement far more so than a statement of the things that you believe.”

That doesn't deny that any religion has particular beliefs. It is saying that religion is meaningful to people most prominently as a matter of social and cultural identity.

Maybe your experience differs, but this seems true of most Christians that I have known, even those with a lot of very particular doctrinal beliefs. It's even more true of the casual Christians who don't go to church

[trotsky]

58. Probably because there is no "objection" - it's funny that in his desperation to absolve religion...

from any atrocities, he is also stripping it if the supernatural meaning it was supposed to have in the first place.

As an atheist, I'm A-OK with that. But he's going to have to get buy-in from the believers, and from my experience, they actually do believe in the stuff their religion teaches.

[LTX]

61. I missed that part. What did he say that led you to understand that

he was desperately trying to absolve religion from any atrocities?

[trotsky]

68. Hint: Google "Reza Aslan"

Or read any of the other threads about him in this group. Helps to be familiar with his agenda.

[LTX]

73. I'm familiar with Aslan. I think he's generally rather superficial in his analyses.

But I have no recollection whatsoever of him desperately trying to absolve religion from any atrocities. Maybe you can help direct me to statements by him that you feel warrant that condemnation.

[trotsky]

80. Superficial, yes. Which he has to be in order to pull off stuff like this:

“People don’t derive their values from their religion — they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, (and) Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity. Two individuals can look at the exact same text and come away with radically different interpretations. Those interpretations have nothing to do with the text, which is, after all, just words on a page, and everything to do with the cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political prejudices and preconceived notions that the individual brings to the text.”

In other words, the religion is blameless. Doesn't matter that the text contains passages telling followers to kill, people somehow interpret that all on their own independently of it being right in the sacred text of the religion.

There is also an excellent dissection of his ridiculous assertions in this article written by former Muslims:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

[LTX]

81. Isn't that precisely the point made atheists and critics of religion?

Scriptural selectivity is indeed one of the vehicles by which religions fracture into a multitude of sects. I don't see what is controversial about that statement.

[trotsky]

83. Nope, completely the opposite.

The presence of foul, bad ideas in the foundational documents of religion, coupled with the notion that those documents are sacred, holy, and to be followed, are what lead to problems.

Or do you think everything written in the bible is a good example of morality or decency in behavior?

[LTX]

84. Ok, this is getting kind of odd.

Last edited Thu May 21, 2015, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it your position that "cafeteria christians" (for example) don't exist? That people of various sects and religious affiliations don't selectively pick and choose from their respective foundational documents?

I'll edit this post to add an answer to your question. You did posit a question first, after all (even if it was a rather preposterous question). In answer -- of course I don't "think everything written in the bible is a good example of morality or decency in behavior." It's a book, a compilation of mythologies, poetry, metaphors, genealogies and popular histories that has been edited, truncated, expanded, and bastardized in translations by fallible authors and editors. But that is kind of the point, isn't it.

[Humanist_Activist]

78. Its not an objection, but an observation, if belief is no longer necessary for...

people to be labeled a particular religion, that will, over time, reduce the label for that religion meaningless. What is puzzling to me is why a believer would not only make such an observation neutrally, but actually not seem concerned by it.

There's a reason why Christianity is dropping the surveys recently, people are shedding a meaningless label, a label whose utility is not apparent.