Study: How Many Atheists Are There? Be Suprised!

[Spectrum]

Hi again Spectrum. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
I was hoping to address your argument.

I wrote a reasonably long reply to your question. Part of it is quoted by Londoner above. Wonder why my post was deleted??

-- Updated Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:01 pm to add the following --

E.g. in the Quran, Allah stated the Sun settled into a muddy pond. Scientific knowledge contributed to expose such irrationality out of psychological desperations.

I want to believe you have done all the studies you claim, even though they have lead you to some peculiar conclusions, but then you write stuff that suggests you have made no effort at all.

For those that are interested, the verse about the sun setting in a pond comes as part of a story about a being that travels not only past the setting sun, but also past the rising sun, and builds a great wall to keep the giants Gog and Magog from destroying our world, which wall will stand until the Day of Judgement. It is plainly not meant to be understood in the same way as a physics text book. In the same chapter is the story of the 'seven sleepers', who remain sleeping in a cave for 300 years. Did you read that and conclude that religion claims we can, or do, sleep for 300 years?

I think you must be a terrible sufferer from 'confirmation bias'. It is no good spending years studying if you do so with a closed frame of mind! You have some theory and everything you read or come across is interpreted to fit with that theory.

• 18:86 - Arabic
  حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا
  
  Transliteration
  Hatta itha balagha maghriba alshshamsi wajadaha taghrubu fee AAaynin hami-atin wawajada AAindaha qawman qulna ya tha alqarnayni imma an tuAAaththiba wa-imma an tattakhitha feehim husnan zoom
  
  (Word by Word)
  Until, when he reached (the) setting place (of) the sun, he found it setting in a spring (of) dark mud, and he found near it a community. We said, "O Dhul-qarnain! Either [that] you punish or [that] you take [in] them (with) goodness."

I understand there many contentious arguments re 18:86 but the overall point is this;

First of all the Quran was not written by a God otherwise the Quran would not have included such a stupid point as 18:86.
The Quran was written by a person or a group of people.

The Quran is claimed to be easy to read as it was revealed in Arabic so that the local Arabs can understand it easily.
The phrase "he found it [the Sun] setting in a spring (of) dark mud" is to be understood as a fact [from a supposedly omnipresent God] by the majority of the Arab readers and not sophisticated scholars. Obviously the majority of simple readers of the Quran will accept that as a fact since it is God's word.

Similarly, since the Quran is God's words, the majority of Arabs and Muslims will take it literally there are people who survived for 300 years in cave during that certain period. This is their Confirmation Bias, not mine.

My point only confirm the many stupid and evil laden statements in the Quran are not from a supposedly all powerful omniscient God [if it ever exists] but rather the Quran was written by a person or group of people.

[-1-]

(Londoner replies to Spectrum]
I think you must be a terrible sufferer from 'confirmation bias'. It is no good spending years studying if you do so with a closed frame of mind! You have some theory and everything you read or come across is interpreted to fit with that theory.

Either it's a confirmation bias, or else it's a truly fitting snap-on theory that is airtight. How can we know the difference? By testing it, I suppose.

I've been suffering from confirmation bias with regard to neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory. Every step I take, every thing I think of, reaffirms me that the theory is solid and true and valid. Do I challenge it in my own mind? No, but I do read a lot of challenges that actually do not stand up to the theory.

Confirmation bias is only bad if the theory does not merit it.

A theist world view had all the valid confirmation bias for thousands of years. A person must have been a fool not to believe in god.

Things change, our collective knowledge of the world changes. Now it's good to have a confirmation bias about the general relativity theory or the gravitational force theory. Right now it is NOT a good thing to have a confirmation bias about human-generated global warming and it is not good to have a confirmation bias about the opposite of human-generated global warming. We are in the throes of finding that out.

Is it good to have a confirmation bias about the scriptures (Jewish, Christian, Islamic) having been written by men and / or women, and the authors lying straight-faced that the book had been inspired by god? In my opinion that's a hundred percent truer confirmation bias than the opposite. All the scriptures are so faulty in their approach to the truths of the world, that they can be picked apart now very easily and criticised to prove they are written by not only humans, but not even bright ones, let alone by an omniscient, all-wise god.

Believing that the scriptures were written by a god, and believing in a god are two VERY different things. Believing in a god is a private affair, and nobody else has the right in philosophical terms to deny someone else's faith. But believing in the divine truth of the scriptures is different, and invalid. The scriptures are so poorly written, that they're impossible to have been insinuated by a smart spirit.

[Sy Borg]

Believing that the scriptures were written by a god, and believing in a god are two VERY different things. Believing in a god is a private affair, and nobody else has the right in philosophical terms to deny someone else's faith. But believing in the divine truth of the scriptures is different, and invalid. The scriptures are so poorly written, that they're impossible to have been insinuated by a smart spirit.

Yes, but consider that many millions of people have based successful lives on that. Many are using the transparently fictional Mormon beliefs to lead good and productive lives.

What this tells me is that people like to have some kind of conduit or system on which to base their lives, I suppose, to navigate the perilous terrain of identity politics. I see it as akin to a blinkered racehorse. There's an interesting video by research psychologist Dan Gilbert about happiness, where he find that subjects tended to be more content with free paintings when their choices were limited. The group with limited choices made their easy decisions and moved on while the subjects with many choices tended to agonise about their (more close run) decisions afterwards. The overall result is that the subjects with fewer choices were happier with their freebie than the others.

[-1-]

What this tells me is that people like to have some kind of conduit or system on which to base their lives, I suppose, to navigate the perilous terrain of identity politics. I see it as akin to a blinkered racehorse. There's an interesting video by research psychologist Dan Gilbert about happiness, where he find that subjects tended to be more content with free paintings when their choices were limited. The group with limited choices made their easy decisions and moved on while the subjects with many choices tended to agonise about their (more close run) decisions afterwards. The overall result is that the subjects with fewer choices were happier with their freebie than the others.

I see what you mean, and I could cite several examples from my own life where my learning and/ or my decision was stifled by "precognizing the future" wrongly. It hindered me, in almost all instances of it, but the instances were there. One notable one was my inability to learn how to program arrays (an easy enough concept) in one particular computer language. Another one is the inability to know the difference between, or know in the first place what they mean, "ontological" and the other one, which I can't remember now. These two words refer to one or another feature of knowledge.

While people may have been happier with fewer choices, it also curbed their ability to adapt in crucial survival conditions. Those crucial survival conditions never came up in the Americas, because the population density is so low. In Europe the Amish and the Mormonic lifestyles simply did not have the wide spaces and room to develop and survive. Or in the far east.

Also, most people with fewer choices may have been happier, but a minority of people with fewer choices may have been unhappier. That is not measured, so I don't have the right to claim this as fact, only as a possibility.

Say, the Church of Science followers have fewer choices in receiving medical treatment. They may be happier living than the rest, or happier dying, but they are piggy-backing on humanity for things to do for them that they could not do alone due to their own limitations.

So is happiness the most important thing there is? Probably yes, but I would be weary of being so happy, that I'd lose my ability to survive. (Drug users come to mind who live on the street and walk around in rags and eat at soup kitchens, because the day the "cheque" arrives, they spend it all in one spot on their manna, their heaven on Earth, that is, on their choice of drugs.)

[Londoner]

• 18:86 - Arabic
  حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا
  
  Transliteration
  Hatta itha balagha maghriba alshshamsi wajadaha taghrubu fee AAaynin hami-atin wawajada AAindaha qawman qulna ya tha alqarnayni imma an tuAAaththiba wa-imma an tattakhitha feehim husnan zoom
  
  (Word by Word)
  Until, when he reached (the) setting place (of) the sun, he found it setting in a spring (of) dark mud, and he found near it a community. We said, "O Dhul-qarnain! Either [that] you punish or [that] you take [in] them (with) goodness."

I understand there many contentious arguments re 18:86 but the overall point is this;

First of all the Quran was not written by a God otherwise the Quran would not have included such a stupid point as 18:86.
The Quran was written by a person or a group of people.

Once again, you only see what you want to see.

You read my post as if I disputed the existence of the verse. But I did not deny the existence of the verse, I pointed out that it's context was of an account of a fantastic journey to the realm of Chaos. In such stories, you are not supposed to take such things literally. Are you similarly baffled by the song 'Somewhere over the rainbow'?

The Quran is claimed to be easy to read as it was revealed in Arabic so that the local Arabs can understand it easily.

It was not 'easy to read' because it was not a book. It was spoken. The book was compiled later. The language is not modern Arabic and there is a lot of disagreement about its meaning, as you can see if you look at the various translations. You realise all the stuff in square brackets is a gloss, put in by the translators; that it differs between additions? But I'm wasting my time since you are not going to take in what I'm saying, are you?

The phrase "he found it [the Sun] setting in a spring (of) dark mud" is to be understood as a fact [from a supposedly omnipresent God] by the majority of the Arab readers and not sophisticated scholars. Obviously the majority of simple readers of the Quran will accept that as a fact since it is God's word.

Yet elsewhere in the Koran the sun is described as orbiting the world! Baffling? No, because even very simple readers, including children, can understand that different types of stories are to be understood in different ways. It is only you who has a problem.

My point only confirm the many stupid and evil laden statements in the Quran are not from a supposedly all powerful omniscient God [if it ever exists] but rather the Quran was written by a person or group of people.

Exactly the same is true of your own theory.

-- Updated August 17th, 2017, 5:56 am to add the following --

I've been suffering from confirmation bias with regard to neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory. Every step I take, every thing I think of, reaffirms me that the theory is solid and true and valid. Do I challenge it in my own mind? No, but I do read a lot of challenges that actually do not stand up to the theory.

Confirmation bias is only bad if the theory does not merit it.

But if we suffer from confirmation bias, how would we know the theory merits it? If we refuse to look at anything that contradicts our theory, how can it be tested? Confirmation bias isn't the same as 'being convinced'.

Believing in a god is a private affair, and nobody else has the right in philosophical terms to deny someone else's faith.

So do they have a reason that they believe in God? Reasons are not private, they involve evidence and logic. If I said 'I believe in God because...' then certainly that can be disputed. For example, you say you do not think it makes sense to say that scripture originated from God, so if X said I believe in God because of the Bible' (as many do) then you would be claiming the right to deny his faith. So why can't I deny the faith of people too, if I think their reasons do not make sense?

Or do they have no reason? When we say they have 'faith' does that mean they have somehow decided; 'I'm just going to decide I will believe something is true, while simultaneously being aware that I have no reason to think that it is'. In that case, I would think that their position was senseless. We might ask them: 'Do you think God exists?' and get the answer 'Yes'. But then ask them 'Do you think it is true that God exists?' and get the answer 'I have no reason to think so'.

[-1-]

Response to Londoner:

The sequence that leads to a confirmation bias on a merited theory can take two paths:

1. By randomly choosing what to believe and by chance the one thing chosen to believe is the true one.
2. By considering several things that are possibly true, eliminating the false ones, and / or proving the right one, thus convincing one self of its truth; then entering the "throwing it into neutral and coasting" phase, which is the confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias also means stating arguments to prove a person's own foregone conclusion. However, a conviction which seems to describe the truth, or the true affair of things, is both a foregone conclusion and a valid theory.

Your second part with the "reason behind belief in God" is trickier to answer. I said that a belief in a god is a private affair no matter what, it is sacrosanct to the individual. You countered, what if it is based on reason, that is, what if the faith is based on reason? Then if the reason is false, the belief is false, and another person has the right to deny the faith of the believer.

I counter to that with this: I claim that all reasons stating there is a god and all reasons stating there is no god are irrelevant reasons. This is so because the existence of god: is always possible, if to be proven it is to be done empirically, can't be disproven empirically, and in the ultimate, nothing empirical can be proven to be true in all aspects of what is "true".

Another way to counter the "wrong reason to believe" is that ATTRIBUTES of a god or aspects of the faith can be shown to be false; but the essence of god in which one has faith can be and do get removed from the described god in the wrong reason. That is to say, "I beleilve in a god which has a long, white beard, and is the father of Jesus the Christ" can be the wrong reason to believe, but it's the wrong reason to believe in those aspects god which are clearly misrepresented in the bible. The belief in a god with possible attributes is still a go, even if the reasons to start to believe in one are wrong.

-- Updated 2017 August 17th, 1:38 pm to add the following --

Spectrum says: My point only confirm the many stupid and evil laden statements in the Quran are not from a supposedly all powerful omniscient God [if it ever exists] but rather the Quran was written by a person or group of people.


Londoner says: Exactly the same is true of your own theory

-1- says: Not exactly. The writer(s) of the Koran (have) insist(ed) that its wording had been inspired by god. Spectrum is not claiming that his theory is inspired by god. QED, claiming equivalence is false.

[Dark Matter]

This thread is not about the veracity of religious texts, but rather about the sustainability of religion in an increasingly non-theistic world.

The article linked to in the OP uses the term “atheist” to refer to people who disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. Okay, fine. But what does it mean by the terms "god" or "gods"?

-- Updated August 17th, 2017, 8:22 pm to add the following --

I maintain that studies showing the steady increase in the numbers of atheists are meaningless because they don't say anything at all about what atheism entails or the logic — if any — behind it.

[Spectrum]

Once again, you only see what you want to see.

You read my post as if I disputed the existence of the verse. But I did not deny the existence of the verse, I pointed out that it's context was of an account of a fantastic journey to the realm of Chaos. In such stories, you are not supposed to take such things literally. Are you similarly baffled by the song 'Somewhere over the rainbow'?

In my earlier post [deleted] I had highlighted how theist get desperate and attribute ridiculous statements by a God [Allah]. I highlighted 18:86 re 'Sun setting in a muddy pool' as one example. There are tons of such ridiculous statements attributed to Allah when it is written by desperate humans.

The point is, based on what is known now, "Sun setting in a muddy pool" is absurd but it was taken as truth by the majority before the fact was known. If you read 18:86 and the related verses in context, the various statements supposed from all all knowing God can be taken as fact because it is God's words.

Note in 18:90 the majority of Muslims will brag about the knowledge of 'iron' and 'copper' in the Quran. Should they take 'copper' and 'iron' literally or as merely imaginative metals in the context of that story?

• 18:90
  آتُونِي زُبَرَ الْحَدِيدِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا سَاوَىٰ بَيْنَ الصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ انفُخُوا حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَعَلَهُ نَارًا قَالَ آتُونِي أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْرًا zoom
  Atoonee zubara alhadeedi hatta itha sawa bayna alsadafayni qala onfukhoo hatta itha jaAAalahu naran qala atoonee ofrigh AAalayhi qitran
  Give me pieces of iron - till, when he had levelled up (the gap) between the cliffs, he said: Blow! - till, when he had made it a fire, he said: Bring me molten copper to pour thereon

My point [again] re the deleted post was;

My point only confirm the many stupid and evil laden statements in the Quran are not from a supposedly all powerful omniscient God [if it ever exists] but rather the Quran was written by a person or group of people.

It was not 'easy to read' because it was not a book. It was spoken. The book was compiled later. The language is not modern Arabic and there is a lot of disagreement about its meaning, as you can see if you look at the various translations. You realise all the stuff in square brackets is a gloss, put in by the translators; that it differs between additions? But I'm wasting my time since you are not going to take in what I'm saying, are you?

You got it wrong!
The words were revealed to Muhammad.
Then Muhammad communicated the words to scribes there and then or as soon as possible.
The separate individual chapters written in parchments were then distributed and read by his followers.

What can I take from you when you are wrong.
I have covered the Quran fully and sufficiently to have a very reasonable understanding of its message which is predominantly evil and malignant.

There are diverse range of interpretations of the verses of the Quran not only from the translators but even those who read the Quran in classical Arabic.
The point is the Quran was not revealed by a God [supposedly all powerful] but was written and compiled by a very bad person or evil group of people.

An all powerful or all knowing God [if it exists] would have revealed a holy text in very simple language in line with the literal standards of the said readers then and would not have included tons of evil laden elements in the Quran.

[Londoner]

In my earlier post [deleted] I had highlighted how theist get desperate and attribute ridiculous statements by a God [Allah]. I highlighted 18:86 re 'Sun setting in a muddy pool' as one example. There are tons of such ridiculous statements attributed to Allah when it is written by desperate humans.

Why do you keep using the word 'desperate'? I have explained the context of the verse.

It was not 'easy to read' because it was not a book. It was spoken. The book was compiled later. The language is not modern Arabic and there is a lot of disagreement about its meaning, as you can see if you look at the various translations. You realise all the stuff in square brackets is a gloss, put in by the translators; that it differs between additions? But I'm wasting my time since you are not going to take in what I'm saying, are you?

You got it wrong!
The words were revealed to Muhammad.
Then Muhammad communicated the words to scribes there and then or as soon as possible.

'Koran' means 'recitation'. It may be that scribes recorded his words at the time; we do not know. But the question here is not what it says but what it means, which is not obvious since (a) it is written in classical Arabic, (b) it is highly poetic and (c) it concerns God, who cannot be described using normal language. For example, here we are disputing the meaning of a particular verse. The Koran is accompanied by lots of accounts of other things Muhammed said, his answers to questions, (including questions on the sun). Some of the reports of what he said contradict each other. That is why Muslims can disagree, that is why the bits of the Koran printed in brackets that explain the verses will differ from edition to edition. That is why if you seriously bothered to research things you will discover a continuing debate. Exactly as within Judaism, Christianity...and the interpretation of Kant.

An all powerful or all knowing God [if it exists] would have revealed a holy text in very simple language in line with the literal standards of the said readers then and would not have included tons of evil laden elements in the Quran

But when the Koran uses simple language and stories to convey its message you complain it is unscientific. The basic message in Islam is very simple. That message is very similar to that of other religions.

And it is a bit much you complaining about the language of the Koran, when you are prone to making remarks like 'tons of evil laden elements'. What on earth are you talking about? There is no substance 'evil', such that it comes in tons! All your posts are full of this stuff. Here is a different verse, from a different religious book:

For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

[-1-]

From the above, I surmise it can't be that difficult to write a religious book and claim it's god's inspiration.

The recipe:

Take a bunch of trite, overused and cliched truths, write them down with bad grammar, and dress them up in a slightly different form of metaphors than they were in the metaphor you originally read them in. Then publish the collection as God's Own Words.

An illustrative example:

"Judgment is meted out to the meter as to the metee, with the same vehemence and onslaught. Why judge others, when you can just as easily judge yourself?" -- this failed at the actual authentical flowerism of expression.

"You see a sky-bird swoosh down on its prey. Do you see the wrong in your brother's post-modernist quasi-lingual pronouncement of disapproval? Well, verily I say unto you, piss on his high-brow judgmental ways, and seek the path of thine own feet for your shaft will never return into its slate without watering the length of thine journey crosswise." -- maybe a bit better, but still not there. Shoot, it's not as easy to follow the recipe as I had originally thought.

Maybe there is something to the Holy Scriptures. Maybe, just maybe, their wording was really inspired by god.

[Londoner]

From the above, I surmise it can't be that difficult to write a religious book and claim it's god's inspiration.

The recipe:

Take a bunch of trite, overused and cliched truths, write them down with bad grammar, and dress them up in a slightly different form of metaphors than they were in the metaphor you originally read them in. Then publish the collection as God's Own Words.

An illustrative example:

"Judgment is meted out to the meter as to the metee, with the same vehemence and onslaught. Why judge others, when you can just as easily judge yourself?" -- this failed at the actual authentical flowerism of expression.

"You see a sky-bird swoosh down on its prey. Do you see the wrong in your brother's post-modernist quasi-lingual pronouncement of disapproval? Well, verily I say unto you, piss on his high-brow judgmental ways, and seek the path of thine own feet for your shaft will never return into its slate without watering the length of thine journey crosswise." -- maybe a bit better, but still not there. Shoot, it's not as easy to follow the recipe as I had originally thought.

Maybe there is something to the Holy Scriptures. Maybe, just maybe, their wording was really inspired by god.

Like it or not, people find meaning in scripture. If its truths are taken as trite, and are overused, if they become cliches, that is also a sign that they are widely seen as both true and useful.

Plainly they are not truths in the same sense as science, but evidently people do not feel science can answer certain sorts of question. That just seems to be a fact about people. Personally, I'm OK with that; I'm not religious myself but nor can I pretend I am some sort of robot, whose mind is pure logic.

Mr Spectrum is no different with his 'tons of evil laden elements' and other mystical verses that frequently appear in his posts. I don't mind if he has found some sort of idea to sustain himself; what annoys me is his contempt for anyone who thinks differently to him.

[LuckyR]

From the above, I surmise it can't be that difficult to write a religious book and claim it's god's inspiration.

The recipe:

Take a bunch of trite, overused and cliched truths, write them down with bad grammar, and dress them up in a slightly different form of metaphors than they were in the metaphor you originally read them in. Then publish the collection as God's Own Words.

An illustrative example:

"Judgment is meted out to the meter as to the metee, with the same vehemence and onslaught. Why judge others, when you can just as easily judge yourself?" -- this failed at the actual authentical flowerism of expression.

"You see a sky-bird swoosh down on its prey. Do you see the wrong in your brother's post-modernist quasi-lingual pronouncement of disapproval? Well, verily I say unto you, piss on his high-brow judgmental ways, and seek the path of thine own feet for your shaft will never return into its slate without watering the length of thine journey crosswise." -- maybe a bit better, but still not there. Shoot, it's not as easy to follow the recipe as I had originally thought.

Maybe there is something to the Holy Scriptures. Maybe, just maybe, their wording was really inspired by god.

You left out the part about the peep stone.

[Sy Borg]

Another one is the inability to know the difference between, or know in the first place what they mean, "ontological" and the other one, which I can't remember now. These two words refer to one or another feature of knowledge.

Epistemology, thought the term isn't important as long as one is aware of the dangers of mistaking "the thing in itself" for how we perceive it. My old (late) forum pal, Obvious Leo (who was even more of a ratbag than you hehe) used to refer to people mistaking the map with the territory. Or, in referring to certain figures who annoyed him such as Descartes and Newton, a pet criticism was "he doesn't know his epistemological ar$e from his ontological elbow" :)

While people may have been happier with fewer choices, it also curbed their ability to adapt in crucial survival conditions. Those crucial survival conditions never came up in the Americas, because the population density is so low. In Europe the Amish and the Mormonic lifestyles simply did not have the wide spaces and room to develop and survive. Or in the far east.

It's an interesting point how fewer choices make us happier, but weaker. If It exists, in terms of survival over the long term, God most rewards those who strive and struggle to the point of agony and most punishes those who would like to kick back and enjoy life. So, if any kind of god/s exist, we humans are not the main game to God/the gods but just either collateral damage like other animals en route to entities that can either balance joy and survival, or they will suffer in ever more refined and abstracted ways.

Say, the Church of Science followers have fewer choices in receiving medical treatment. They may be happier living than the rest, or happier dying, but they are piggy-backing on humanity for things to do for them that they could not do alone due to their own limitations.

That sounds reasonable enough - many parasites, symbionts and commensalists do more or less the same. Some animals prefer to get around by riding on the back of bigger ones.

So is happiness the most important thing there is? Probably yes, but I would be weary of being so happy, that I'd lose my ability to survive. (Drug users come to mind who live on the street and walk around in rags and eat at soup kitchens, because the day the "cheque" arrives, they spend it all in one spot on their manna, their heaven on Earth, that is, on their choice of drugs.)

Happiness is a state, like weather, so it usually must change (aside from deserts). Emotionalism is the weather of animals, and Zetigeists are climate. So small "systems" - trends, fashions, witch hunts - sweep through each "environment" (person). As with environments, some people have more features that make them ore or less susceptible to surrounding conditions, eg. mountains, lakes, caverns, coastal fringes.

About happiness. Too much sunshine and the environment lacks the conduit of water (a solvent and thus chaotic agent) so the soil does not bond well and will ultimately dry, atrophy and break apart.

Too much rain and chaos is so prevalent that it also prevents effective soil bonding and it again breaks apart as it's washed away. So we again return to the idea of optimal balance points rather than at extremes, eg. height, weight. Even more wealth is not better for everyone as many people prefer a simple, freer lifestyle with fewer responsibilities.

So ultimately we seek a balance that will emphasise stability but still includes enough chaotic agents to mix things up and create new connections, but controlled enough so as to not break things down. For many, religion provides that stability. Technology and globalisation have brought us a rapidly-changing world, like a flood or a mudslide sweeping through societies and many people are clinging to fixed ideas as if they were rocks. Everything, bar the scriptures and various humanist and simple prejudiced ideologies, appears to be changing, so they cling. And well they may cling, because they are amongst the most vulnerable.

So I doubt you will find any bursts of theology in northern Russia, where I expect they anticipate a time of warming, greening, the opening up of new arable land and fresh glacier water, a time when the US, China, India and other competitors are struggling with wildfires, storms and displaced people and Russia becomes the world's great superpower. No, it's in Africa, the middle east and SE Asia where people whose existence is most threatened who cling to the (ostensibly) stabilising lifeline of religion.

Dammit, I'm trying to give up babbling. Oh well :lol:

[Spectrum]

In my earlier post [deleted] I had highlighted how theist get desperate and attribute ridiculous statements by a God [Allah]. I highlighted 18:86 re 'Sun setting in a muddy pool' as one example. There are tons of such ridiculous statements attributed to Allah when it is written by desperate humans.

Why do you keep using the word 'desperate'? I have explained the context of the verse.

My hypothesis is being religious [theistic or otherwise] is driven by an existential crisis of a range of degrees which drive people to do desperate acts.
At the worst end of the existential crisis, sufferers are in terrible desperation and will do anything in attempt to soothe the cognitive dissonance. The most common of this act of desperation is inventing a God revealing his words in a holy text containing ridiculous statements. In their existential desperation believers will do whatever it takes to obey God's command, e.g. Abraham willing to the extreme to killing his own son.

'Koran' means 'recitation'. It may be that scribes recorded his words at the time; we do not know. But the question here is not what it says but what it means, which is not obvious since (a) it is written in classical Arabic, (b) it is highly poetic and (c) it concerns God, who cannot be described using normal language. For example, here we are disputing the meaning of a particular verse. The Koran is accompanied by lots of accounts of other things Muhammed said, his answers to questions, (including questions on the sun). Some of the reports of what he said contradict each other. That is why Muslims can disagree, that is why the bits of the Koran printed in brackets that explain the verses will differ from edition to edition. That is why if you seriously bothered to research things you will discover a continuing debate. Exactly as within Judaism, Christianity...and the interpretation of Kant.

Note the use of Scribes:

Some scholars believe that up to 48 scribes including Zayd ibn Thabit and Ubay ibn Ka'b recorded verses of the Quran. This provides an explanation as to how the Quran existed in written form during the life of Muhammad, even if it was not compiled into one text.
- wiki - Esack, Farid (2005). The Qur'an: A User's Guide. Oxford England: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1851683543

(a) I am not an expert but I am familiar with the basic structure of Quranic Arabic and there is nothing special about it. Once one is familiar with the basic structure, one can understand the central message of the Quran, its nuances and most important its central ethos.

(b)The Quran is also not poetic per se although sounding is one critical factor to facilitate reading and memorizing. The Quran generally hate poets & their poetry, they are killed because the poets then used clever poetry to criticize Muhammad as a fraud.

(c) That the Quran or anything that concern God (albeit psychologically useful) is a high certainty the knowledge therein is irrational because it is impossible for a God to exists as real, thus God is illusory.

That is why Muslims can disagree, that is why the bits of the Koran printed in brackets that explain the verses will differ from edition to edition. That is why if you seriously bothered to research things you will discover a continuing debate.

This is the central reason why the Quran is so dangerous.

The Quran contains tons of evil elements & [see graph below] and some good [comparative rare] elements directed at the infidels.
Where there are disagreements in the Quran as to what God is commanding, the evil prone Muslims will merely believe [the evil laden elements] what they deem as their duty as good Muslims to please Allah. Unfortunately what they believe to be 'good' turned out to be 'evil' to humanity, i.e. the terrible evils and violence committed by the jihadists and other evil prone Muslims.

When the evil prone Muslims commit what they deemed [believed] as their duty to please Allah, e.g. killing non-Muslims, no one [moderates, me, you, etc.] on Earth can decide and tell them they are wrong.
The fact is God do not exists and Allah will never ever appear to tell the evil prone Muslims the exact meaning of the statements in the Quran.
The jihadists believe it is only up to Allah to judge them on Judgment Day, so they will continue to kill non-Muslims or become martyrs so that they can be highly rewarded as promised by Allah in the Quran.

Point is a theistic holy text must never contain any thing ambiguous especially if there are evil laden elements. The Quran contains tons of evil laden elements and these compel the evil prone Muslims to kill and commit terrible evils on non-Muslims in the belief that is their divine duty to please Allah in exchange for eternal life in Paradise [with virgins].

Therefore since
1. there are a % [good guess of 20%] of evil prone Muslims;
2. there are tons of evil laden elements in the Quran
3. Allah will never ever appear to confirm the meaning of the verses,
there will always be certain Muslims committing terrible evils and violence.
This is point is justified and verifiable with the glaring evidence that has been going on since Islam emerged 1400+ years ago till the present.

Thus your "Muslims can disagree" is a very weak point for your argument that Islam is a peaceful religion like all other religions.

But when the Koran uses simple language and stories to convey its message you complain it is unscientific. The basic message in Islam is very simple. That message is very similar to that of other religions.

A holy texts must contain simple statements all the way and must not contain ambiguous statements.

And it is a bit much you complaining about the language of the Koran, when you are prone to making remarks like 'tons of evil laden elements'. What on earth are you talking about? There is no substance 'evil', such that it comes in tons! All your posts are full of this stuff. Here is a different verse, from a different religious book:

For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

We have gone through with ontological evil before. There is no ontological evil. Satan the Father of All Evils do not exists ontologically.

• I have defined 'evil' as any human acts or thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individual[s] and therefrom the collective. Such evil come in a range of degrees from low [petty evil acts, crimes] to high [genocides, mass rapes, torture and the likes.].

I have done more refined research and analysis, but for quickie sake, note this analysis;



http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts.html

The above graph represent the percentage of verses in the various holy texts where the word 'kafir' i.e. non-Muslim is used which is mostly in contemptuous, anger, hatred mood and feelings.

The above graph show 64% of the verses in the Quran contain the term or element of Kafir in general, infidels or non-Muslims who are not specifically Abrahamic believers.

The used of the term 'kafir' in a contemptuous mood has evil potentials albeit this is of low degrees but high on frequency thus potentially fatal to humanity. This is a manifestation of the primal 'us versus them' impulse. This impulse when use so frequently is a basis for genocides. Note the 8 stages of Genocides;

The 8 Stages of Genocide have now been revised and updated to 10 Stages of Genocide.
You can find it here: http://genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenst ... ocide.html
By Gregory H. Stanton, President, Genocide Watch

1. Classification 2. Symbolization 3. Dehumanization 4. Organization 5. Polarization 6. Preparation 7. Extermination 8. Denial

Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process.

1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality:

The above is the basis for the genocides of the Yazidis, the Amenians and the root cause is the evil laden elements in the Quran as committed by SOME Muslims who are evil prone.

Point is the situation is such, no one on Earth can tell them [jihadists] they are wrong, but only Allah can on Judgment Day but not on Earth.
So, as long as Islam exists, those evil prone Muslims will continue to commit terrible evils and violence in the sincere believe such acts are sanctioned by and pleasing to Allah.

[Semtek]

Hi. I don’t quite know how to use the quote function in my replies… So hopefully I can give enough info to connect my comments to things other people have said…

Spectrum wrote:
“… God as an ideal cannot be proven to exists empirically.” Proof is hard to come by. A sketch of what is meant by proof would be helpful…

“God is akin to something like a square-circle [full of contradictions] thus an impossibility.” This is the second time you have asserted this and the second time I have asked for clarification. Care to name the (logical) contradiction(s) you have in mind?

“Basically it is the rational factor that contribute to the reduction of theists.”
A conclusion you have asserted now on multiple occasions with no argument. Your initial argument seemed to be the bare fact of a survey indicating decreasing numbers of people self-identifying as theists. You also say there is some “natural” trend toward better understanding via improved rationality among all… or at least generalized to all on the basis of a small majority of the “ultra-rational”… If you do the math perfect rationality (which scientists do not have qua scientists and especially not as normal people) among some would tell us very little about what others are up to… It doesn’t make sense to average out rationality over a population…

You suggest we “replace theism and religions with fool proofs spiritual methods to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis…”
Isn’t theism a spiritual method?

Londoner wrote:
“it concerns God, who cannot be described using normal language… “ I think this is an important point. The being of God is thought to by some to be ultimately beyond human conceptions and in itself totally unknowable. (We are not likewise opaque to God). The question becomes how we know about such a “god”.

-1- wrote:
“well, verily I say unto you… seek the path of thine own feet for your shaft will never return into its slate without watering the length of thine journey crosswise.”
Hahaha. Where do your disciples congregate? Can I make a financial contribution?

Greta, I appreciate your emphasis of the middle way. This is especially important in human conduct.