/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7252790]

>about to have a debate on the merits of religion with this intellectual powerhouse in a couple of hours

I'm fucked aren't I? The guy has like 5 PhD's, an IQ of 180, and is fluent in biblical Latin, Greek, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and a bunch of other dead languages.

how do I keep from getting humiliated so badly that I have to commit suicide like Hitchens? Surely he has a weakness?

[Anonymous No.7252793]

>>7252790
Go for the jugular

[Anonymous No.7252802]

>>7252790
Is it being televised or recorded in some way?

[Anonymous No.7252804]

start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.7252813]

He is dumb though

from the wikipedia page of one of his books:

Dale Martin, the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, who specializes in New Testament and Christian Origins, writes in The New York Times that although Aslan is not a scholar of ancient Christianity and does not present "innovative or original scholarship", the book is entertaining and "a serious presentation of one plausible portrait of the life of Jesus of Nazareth". He faults Aslan for presenting early Christianity as being simply divided into a Hellenistic, Pauline form on the one hand, and a Jewish, Jamesian form on the other. Martin says that this repeats 19th-century German scholarship which now is mostly rejected. He also says that recent scholarship has dismissed Aslan's view that it would be implausible that any man like Jesus in his time and place would be unmarried, or could be presented as a "divine messiah". Despite his criticism, Martin praises Zealot for maintaining good pacing, simple explanations for complicated issues, and notes for checking sources.[6]

Elizabeth Castelli, the Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Religion at Barnard College and a specialist in biblical studies and early Christianity, writing in The Nation, argued that Aslan largely ignores the findings in textual studies of the New Testament, and relies too heavily on a selection of texts, like Josephus ; taking them more or less at face value (which no scholar of the period would do). Near her dismissive conclusion, she writes: "Zealot is a cultural production of its particular historical moment—a remix of existing scholarship, sampled and reframed to make a culturally relevant intervention in the early twenty-first-century world where religion, violence and politics overlap in complex ways. In this sense, the book is simply one more example in a long line of efforts by theologians, historians and other interested cultural workers."[7]

Craig A. Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor at Acadia Divinity College, writing in Christianity Today, states that Aslan made many basic errors in geography, history and New Testament interpretation. He said it "relies on an outdated and discredited thesis", consistently fails to engage the relevant historical scholarship and is "rife with questionable assertions".[8]

[Anonymous No.7252819]

how do I counter this?

>Me: This is why religion is bad
>Azlan: Only a fundamenetalist would think that. No TRUE religious person would...

or this?


>Azlan: Why are you even debating with me? You have a degree in math. I don't argue with you about topics in mathematics. <standing ovation from audience>

[Anonymous No.7252827]

>>7252819
>Only a fundamenetalist would think that. No TRUE religious person would...
Call him an essentialist cuck
>Azlan: Why are you even debating with me? You have a degree in math. I don't argue with you about topics in mathematics.
Going for the man. Address the argument

You're going to get humiliated, though

[Anonymous No.7252831]

>>7252790
> Aslan described Islam as "a man-made institution. It’s a set of symbols and metaphors that provides a language for which to express what is inexpressible, and that is faith. It’s symbols and metaphors that I prefer, but it’s not more right or more wrong than any other symbols and metaphors. It’s a language, that’s all it is."

Sounds pretty weak, tbh. You just have to get into the fact that he advocates handwavey primitive ways of viewing the world, apparently just because he likes them on a personal level.

Also
>advertising your IQ
Sounds like every Serious Christian Scholar (TM) I had to read when I was a kid because my parents were terrified I'd associate smart people with secularism. I suspect he's the Muslim version of that.

[Anonymous No.7252833]

>>7252827
I thought explicitly calling out fallacies is frowned upon in the debate community?

[Anonymous No.7252834]

>Azlan: Why are you even debating with me? You have a degree in math. I don't argue with you about topics in mathematics. <standing ovation from audience>

This guy has it right. That's all he does. Just watch some Sam Harris highlights and pretend to be him. It'll trigger Reza so fucking hard.

Also, 10/10 OP. If i actually believed you I would seek out this debate.

[Anonymous No.7252840]

>>7252819
no true scotsman fallacy

ad homenim

maybe reconsider debating

[Anonymous No.7252843]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKjcvZoxT9Q

Is there no way to beat this guy? No matter what your bring up he always goes back to the ol' "that's not religion, that's what a particular group of people call their religion, but religion is different for everyone".

[Anonymous No.7252848]

>>7252819
>>You: This is why religion is bad
>>Azlan: Only a fundamenetalist would think that. No TRUE religious person would...
>You: Explain to me why only a fundamentalist would think like that, and why that discredits my statement?


>>Azlan: Why are you even debating with me? You have a degree in math. I don't argue with you about topics in mathematics. <standing ovation from audience>
>>You: That's irrelevant. Do you have anything to say about my actual statement?

[Anonymous No.7252852]

>>7252848
>>7252827
>>7252840
You do realize the point of a debate is the win the audience, not your opponent right? It doesn't matter if you call out his fallacies if the audience is convinced he is more credible than you.

You'll just make yourself look more like a pedantic autist by doing so.

[Anonymous No.7252854]

>>7252843
That approach to religion is very unusual and lends credence to the more popular and damaging approaches while arguably (you'll then probably have to argue this) not making the believer any wiser.

You can also just accuse him of debating in bad faith and making up special snowflake definitions of things and going for the No True Scotsman attacks. He's a sophist and everything I hated about the church (yes, I know he's a Muslim) growing up.

[Anonymous No.7252858]

>>7252848
Sounds cuck as fuck tbh, your answers are defensive as fuck and give him more space to steer the conversation.

[Anonymous No.7252860]

>>7252790
>intellectual powerhouse
>converted from Islam to evangelical Christianity, then back to Islam

[Anonymous No.7252866]

>>7252852
>You do realize the point of a debate is the win the audience, not your opponent right?

For you, maybe.

[Anonymous No.7252873]

>>7252866
You're a big debater.

[Anonymous No.7252874]

He also does this annoying thing where he harks back to the "good ol times" of the enlightenment and jack of all trades rennaisance men and natural philosophers who dabble not only in the sciences but also philosophy and religion.

[Anonymous No.7252875]

>>7252831
>Aslan described Islam as "a man-made institution. It’s a set of symbols and metaphors that provides a language for which to express what is inexpressible, and that is faith. It’s symbols and metaphors that I prefer, but it’s not more right or more wrong than any other symbols and metaphors. It’s a language, that’s all it is."

What the fuck? That sounds like something a wishy-washy Episcopalian would say, is that even orthodox within Islam?

[Anonymous No.7252876]

>>7252873
xxxxxddddddDDDD

[Anonymous No.7252885]

>>7252875
that wouldn't be orthodox in any real religion.

[Anonymous No.7252886]

>>7252843
50:00

harris mentions 'islamic civilization'

aslan replies with, "it's not the religion itself, it's the context that it exists in..."

so, the... islamic civilization?

is his entire argument that if you place all religions in a vacuum and remove them from current events, they are all generally agreeable, and therefore islam in a modern context is generally agreeable?

that's like saying a rabid dog is harmless when you isolate it, so that harmlessness must carry over when you place it in a room full of other creatures

[Anonymous No.7252891]

Isn't the crux of his argument basically the religious equivalent of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

[Anonymous No.7252896]

>>7252875
He's not even a theist. He's a romanticist who fetishizes religion. The worst part is that OP is right to be intimidated by him in a debate, because I guarantee the audience will be mostly American Christians feeling super smug about how open-minded they are to come out and watch a Muslim defend their sacred cow for them.

[Anonymous No.7252908]

>>7252896
> romanticist who fetishizes religion

This. He views religion in a precious little bubble. Probably fantasizes every night about a utopia where all scientists are also religious and Allah smiles down on everyone and approves of this harmony.

[Anonymous No.7252910]

>>7252790
This douche is a professor at my school. How are you debating him?

[Anonymous No.7252916]

>tfw you will never see based Bishop Barron lay the smackdown on Aslan

[Anonymous No.7252917]

>>7252790
Tell him to stop being a cuck and accept reality instead of making excuses.

[Anonymous No.7252924]

>>7252916
>implying they wouldn't suck each other off

[Anonymous No.7252956]

>>7252874
Wish I lived then, tbh.

[Anonymous No.7252964]

Reminder that Azlan was at Hitchens' death bed when Hitchens converted.

It's never too late, not even for you /r/atheist teenagers going through your rebellious phase. Gods capacity for forgiveness is limitless.

[Anonymous No.7252972]

>>7252916
he makes pretty good videos for someone who can only move diagonally

[Anonymous No.7252987]

>>7252843
Is Aslan seriously comparing a degree in religion to a degree in neuroscience? AHAHAAHAH

[Anonymous No.7253014]

>>7252964
>Hitchens converted
Don't you have some Jewish holocaust victims to posthumously convert? I mean, at least pretend your passive-aggressive forgiveness doctrine is doing something.

[Anonymous No.7253031]

>>7253014
The holocaust didn't happen the way you think it did. It shouldn't really be called a holocaust.

[Anonymous No.7253039]

>>7253031
How did it happen? Jews killed themselves to blackmail the nazis?

[Anonymous No.7253042]

>>7252833
Fallacy Fallacy?

[Anonymous No.7253046]

This guy is a fucking joke. This is his favorite defense of the bible/quran/torah that he hides behind

>People back then had a different notion of "historical truth" than what it is now
>"truth" back then was not about actual happened but about writing down allegories and analogies that conveyed the spirit of the message
>therefore atheists are being "more liTTTTeral (accents the 't' so hard he spits in your eye') than the most liTTTTTeral fundamenTTTalist when they attack the historicity of the sacred texts

Does he not realize he's also attacking the way a signifant portion of the religious population reads their bible?

[Anonymous No.7253048]

>>7253014
>some Jewish holocaust victims

stopped reading there. back to tumblr you go!

[Anonymous No.7253053]

>>7253039
Eh, a bare minimum of 2 million Jewish noncombatants died in Germany and Eastern Europe in captivity or by violence. That seems like a lot to me.

>>7253042
Basically. Anyone in the audience who didn't roll their eyes at the initial fallacy isn't going to be swayed by your pointing it out, so it's just a waste of a fallacy. You've gotta go for the meat of the argument and not be distracted.

[Anonymous No.7253082]

how do we innoculate the American general public against these fallacies?

clearly teaching them in school doesn't work because American kids don't care about school

And pointing them out doesn't work either because the emotional payload has already been delivered

[Anonymous No.7253124]

>is fluent in [...] Sumerian

[Anonymous No.7253134]

>>7252831
It sounds Aslan's concept of religion is like Arthur the tv show or The Berenstain bears or some shit. All of them can be seen as a system of symbols and metaphors that teach important moral lessons to kids. And then the "extremists" are basically the bronies who take it too far.

[Anonymous No.7253139]

>>7253082
Plebs gonna pleb, nothing can be done.

[Anonymous No.7253142]

>>7252972
you are a smart and witty individual
thank you for the chuckle, friend

[Anonymous No.7253662]

>>7252790
>an IQ of 180
I'm sure that's what towelheads would like to hear. His IQ is less than 120

[Anonymous No.7253665]

>>7252819
Math teaches you hard logic. You can't think logically if you aren't good at math

[Anonymous No.7253802]

>>7252972
Ha!

[Anonymous No.7253813]

>>7252790
Point out that if he was REALLY that great the white witch would never have caught him in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7253868]

>>7252972
topkek

[Anonymous No.7253874]

>>7252843
If he uses "that's not religion, that's what a particular group of people call their religion, but religion is different for everyone"., then just ask him what religion is, then BTFO of him

[Anonymous No.7253879]

>>7252790

We'll he is religious so you smarter by default

[Anonymous No.7255260]

>>7253048
>the only people who don't deny the holocaust are radical feminist tumblaristas

My god, this one is too far gone to save.

[Anonymous No.7255286]

Just remind him that all of these works were made by humans and that humans are fallible by default

[Anonymous No.7255289]

>>7253879
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.7255294]

>>7252819
>Mathematician debating that religion is evil
This is top fedora shit right here.

[Anonymous No.7255652]

>>7252886

>is his entire argument that if you place all religions in a vacuum and remove them from current events, they are all generally agreeable, and therefore islam in a modern context is generally agreeable?

If by agreeable you mean not inherently problematic, then yes. I don't see what's wrong with that train of thought. He made a good case for the root-causes of the heinous acts people attribute solely on religion have a lot more to do with the cultural, socio-political context that those events took place in.

>that's like saying a rabid dog is harmless when you isolate it, so that harmlessness must carry over when you place it in a room full of other creatures

That's a bad analogy because there are a lot of examples in where religion does not result in heinous acts. A better analogy would be saying that a dog is harmless when it is left alone, but rabid when it is tempered with. (It's still a pretty bad analogy, but I tried to adapt your own to make more sense).

[Anonymous No.7255733]

>>7252804

[Anonymous No.7255736]

>>7253874
He explains what religion is at 1:14:00

[Anonymous No.7255771]

>>7252790
Why won't /pol/ just leave?

[Anonymous No.7255856]

>The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

>Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Turns out New Atheist types were BTFO over a century ago.

[Anonymous No.7255871]

>>7252910
Same. Taken any classes with the guy? He's an asshole.

[Anonymous No.7255938]

>>7252896
>romanticist who fetishizes with religion
Agnostic ex-Roman Catholic here, and this is me. I love Christian thought, but I've felt silly praying since the day my parents decided to show me Grave of the Fireflies.

[Anonymous No.7255995]

>>7252843
>check comments
>23:27 The Quran forbids slavery?!!!
>can't believe this
>check the time
>he actually says it
Surely after this the debate should've just ended. There is no point in going on if someone wants to tell such a blatant lie.

[Anonymous No.7256005]

>>7252819
>>Me: This is why religion is bad

Bad question. Religion is not bad, but men are corruptible.

[Anonymous No.7256011]

>>7256005
>hurr durr communism would work but people aren't perfect

pls leave christcuck, the adults are talking

[Anonymous No.7256028]

>>7252843
Yeah, that's classic Azlan alright.

He's really typical of that camp of religious intellectual apologist. By all means, they aren't mutually exclusive, but almost all of it comes down to no true scots man or special pleading because he refuses to conceive of people taking religion literally.

Its pretty dumb in debates to see so often.

[Anonymous No.7256075]

>>7255938
>my parents decided to show me grace of the fireflies
Child abuse, tbh. That movie's intense.

[Anonymous No.7256084]

>>7252790

Only one thing can save you, and that's the power of dank /lit/ memes.

God speed.

[Anonymous No.7256111]

>>7252819
>>Me: This is why religion is bad
>>Azlan: Only a fundamenetalist would think that. No TRUE religious person would...
He's never once said this. He has in fact said the opposite.

Why do you people get in a tizzy over shit you're not even familiar with?

[Anonymous No.7256121]

>>7255856
THIS TBH FAM
H
I
S

T
B
H

F
A
M

[Anonymous No.7256124]

>>7256111
>Why do you people get in a tizzy over shit you're not even familiar with?

For the glory of the Fedora, of course

[Anonymous No.7256169]

>>7255995
It's not a lie, but it is stated too abruptly to convey the nuance. If you were familiar with the history of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic hermeneutics you'd know there are a number of views here. It's a complicated matter but the long and short of it is that slavery was permitted at the time of the Prophet only as a temporary institution with the aim of eliminating it altogether. Keep in mind he's not saying that Muslims didn't practice slavery, that's a different claim altogether.

[Anonymous No.7256174]

>>7256124
It's an outdated hat tbh