Excel to Analyze Q Verses in 1400 Themes - Useless??

[godelian]

These are universal values, e.g. of evil acts to be avoided by any normal human being are;
1. No human wants to be killed by other humans or non-humans.
2. No human wants to be enslaved
3. No human wants to be raped
4. No human wants to be subject to violence
5. No humans wants to be suppressed in terms of freedom and peace
6. No humans wants to be dehumanized as apes, pigs, etc.
7. Etc.

So, is this the canonical atheist theory of morality? How many other people subscribe to exactly this definition? Is it published somewhere else too?

By the way, "7. Etc" is not a valid clause in a canonical definition. In fact, it could make your entire definition invalid. What if "8." says ",not 1 and not 2 and ... and not 6" ?

Another problem. "No human want ..." is not a categorical imperative. It does not forbid anything to the person who commits to these rules. It merely expresses a wish.

By the way, how would you convince anybody to commit to obeying these rules (if they were phrased as rules)? Islam has around two billion people committing to its rules. How many people besides yourself do you expect to adopt your theory? Is there anybody else who actually does that?

[Age]

So, because, "alice in wonderland", is documented, it does not need to defend itself, right?

No, it means that we have something to discuss because at least it is clear what it is. Go ahead and criticize "alice in wonderland". Why not?

What are you on about now?

you 'logic' was, because it is documented, it then does not need to defend itself. Which is just Truly illogical. I was just pointing out and showing how, exactly.

And, how could any undocumented thing possibly be an alternative to, "alice in wonderland" also, correct?

An undocumented thing cannot possibly be an alternative to "alice in wonderland" because we cannot even read it. So, what is there to talk about?

So, what you are more or less stating here is that because something is not documented, and the 'quran' and 'alice in wonderand' is a document of written words, then the 'quran' and 'alice in wonderland' do not need to defend, themselves, and anything that is not document could not be a possible alternative, right?

If yes, then 'alice in wonderland', which does not need to defend, itself, could actually be an alternative to the 'quran', because 'alice in wonderland' is documented, right?

[Age]

I have already done it, when I try to ask AI to do an analysis of the themes of the Quran based on certain criteria, AI was reluctant giving excuses it has to follow guidelines. However, AI did advise me my own analysis using a spreadsheet.

The above analyze the above into 16 themes which is quite informative but not VERY informative in contrast to analyzing in into main themes with 1400 sub themes.

Discuss??
Views??

At least, it is possible to do categorize Islam into themes, because Islam has definitive documentation.

Where is the definitive documentation for atheism or its otherwise completely undocumented moral theory? It is baffling that atheists try to compete using their undocumented views against something that is completely documented.

The inferiority of atheism stems from its complete lack of documentation. Isn't that obvious? Something that is documented does not need to defend itself from something that is undocumented. Seriously, how could the undocumented thing possibly be an alternative?

What is the use if a theistic religion has definitive documentation but its documented charter sanction evil acts.

But, the quran does not sanction evil acts, at all. So, your remark and claim here has absolutely nothing to do with the quran.

The fact is the definitive documentation enable the verification that the religion is inherent evil as supported by the relevant verses.

Here is another prime example of 'confirmation bias'.

If the definitive documentation of a theistic religion is verified as inherent evil then something need to be done about it.

Just because one or more people think or believe and claim that something is 'inherent evil', then this in no way means that that thing is, actually, 'inherent evil'.

For example, if someone start a political party with a constitution that demand all enemies to be killed, that is obviously inherent evil and such a political party should be banned and made illegal.

you, obviously, still, do not, yet, know what the word 'killed' is in reference to, exactly.

There is no need for any undocumented to judge something that is documented. An definitive documented religion that is evil laden is verified by its contents which is agreeable by all rational people.

But the quran does not have evil in it, let alone 'laden' with evil.

Atheism means not-theism, there is no definitive documentations to support anything. So there is nothing one can judge about non-theism.

A non-theists can start an ideology that is good or evil but that has nothing to do with atheism itself but rather it is based on the personal beliefs of the group.

Personal beliefs of a group is more or less just what a 'religion' is, exactly, anyway.

For example a non-theist may start a belief or ideology [no God involved] that no human ought to be killed; this has nothing to do with non-theism per se.

So, then another 'religion' is born.

Also, and by the way, you have the belief and subscribe to that some human beings should be killed, what you are trying to allude to, say, and claim here is rather very contradictory.

This has nothing to do with their belief there is no God but merely based on their personal human beliefs.
Similarly a non-theist may start a belief or ideology [no God involved] that all opponents ought to be killed and eaten; this has nothing to do with non-theism per se.

Atheism -lack of belief in God is not an issue at all.

Though it is actually just another 'religion'.

What is critical is the specific beliefs of individual and groups regardless of whether they are theists or non-theists.

Very True.

[Age]

The fact is the definitive documentation enable the verification that the religion is inherent evil as supported by the relevant verses.

At least it lends itself to verification. Where can we verify your alternative?

An definitive documented religion that is evil laden is verified by its contents which is agreeable by all rational people.

Religion is a moral theory, i.e. a definition for good and evil. Since you want to judge religion in terms of another definition for good and evil, where can we find your alternative definition?

I have discussed >100 threads relating to morality in the Ethical Theory section.

Morality is the management of the reduction of evil to facilitate its goods to emerge.
What is evil is acts and thoughts that are negative to the well being and flourishing of the individual[s] and that of humanity. This is can be judged by any normal human being to be evil without reference to any definitive document.

These are universal values, e.g. of evil acts to be avoided by any normal human being are;
1. No human wants to be killed by other humans or non-humans.
2. No human wants to be enslaved
3. No human wants to be raped
4. No human wants to be subject to violence
5. No humans wants to be suppressed in terms of freedom and peace
6. No humans wants to be dehumanized as apes, pigs, etc.
7. Etc.

you, obviously, still have some more to learn and understand about you human beings.

The fact is your[?] definitive documented religion has a definitive document that permit believers [as supported by relevant verses as analyzed] to commit 1-6 and other evil acts [7] upon non-believers.

Again, you still have more to learn and understand here.

[godelian]

you 'logic' was, because it is documented, it then does not need to defend itself. Which is just Truly illogical. I was just pointing out and showing how, exactly.
So, what you are more or less stating here is that because something is not documented, and the 'quran' and 'alice in wonderand' is a document of written words, then the 'quran' and 'alice in wonderland' do not need to defend, themselves ...

That is a straw man. My logic is that the fact that it is documented means that we have something to discuss. If it is not documented, i.e. not even defined, then what exactly are we talking about?

These documents are simply a commitment to what exactly we are discussing. That is a prerequisite to discussing something. At the very least, it must be clear what we are talking about. I have never said that you must accept the Quran because it is documented. I have also never said that you must like "alice in wonderland" because it is documented.

This is a problem with, for example, "British values". Where exactly is that thing documented? What exactly are we committing to when mentioning "British values"? What are we even talking about?

Same problem with atheist morality. What exactly is it? Where is it documented?

[Age]

you 'logic' was, because it is documented, it then does not need to defend itself. Which is just Truly illogical. I was just pointing out and showing how, exactly.
So, what you are more or less stating here is that because something is not documented, and the 'quran' and 'alice in wonderand' is a document of written words, then the 'quran' and 'alice in wonderland' do not need to defend, themselves ...

That is a straw man. My logic is that the fact that it is documented means that we have something to discuss. If it is not documented, i.e. not even defined, then what exactly are we talking about?

So, when you say and claim:
Something that is documented does not need to defend itself from something that is undocumented.

you do not mean, 'Something that is documented does not need to defend itself', right?

These documents are simply a commitment to what exactly we are discussing. That is a prerequisite to discussing something. At the very least, it must be clear what we are talking about. I have never said that you must accept the Quran because it is documented. I have also never said that you must like "alice in wonderland" because it is documented.

This is a problem with, for example, "British values". Where exactly is that thing documented? What exactly are we committing to when mentioning "British values"? What are we even talking about?

Same problem with atheist morality. What exactly is it? Where is it documented?

Are you not yet aware that 'what is documented', can be misinterpreted, misconceived, misunderstood, and/or just missed?

For surely 'your interpretation' is very, very, very different from others. So, who of you has the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct version and interpretation?

Just because 'some thing is documented' does not mean that any one of you has been reading it Correctly.

Obviously, you nor "veritas aequitas" have been reading the quran from what was actually meant, and intended.

[godelian]

So, when you say and claim:
Something that is documented does not need to defend itself from something that is undocumented.

Yes, because something that is documented is superior to something that is undocumented on grounds that it is documented. It does not even matter what exactly it is. Something undocumented must be documented first, before it can try to compete with something that is documented already.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are ignorant.

Are you familiar with Data Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_science
The minor subject here is Data Analysis which previoulys was Data Mining.

My above is Data Analysis re the Quran.
Obviously we have to intelligence enough to establish an objective that is relevant for the individual or humanity.

Putting the Quran into a spreadsheet was a dumb and pointless idea. There is no need to data mine the Quran.

Why do you say there's no need to "data mine" the Quran? Is it inaccurate to do so?

You could datamine it for data that are actually present I guess, such as linguistic information about the gramatical arrangements that repeat throughout the text. VA isn't doing that, he's engaged in a fascist effort to prove as a fact that one particular religion is especially evil, this vendetta is why he posts hundreds (maybe thousands now?) of threads about moral realism and all theother weird things he does. It's all directed to say that Islam is evil, and VA has the numbers in the lists that prove it.

In this instance he thinks he can just manually analyse every passage in the Quran, and then manually tag each passage with a couple of headlines (this one is about #infidels and #soft_cheeses) and then casually apply more manual steps to assess that the soft cheeses are from goat milk and the infidels are stealing the cheese so his analysis becomes that infidels are thieves and he moves onto the next passage, which must be atomistically seperated out because it has to go into its own categories. And if that passage is about the Infidels giving back the cheeses then that is just an unrelated category.

VA only thinks about getting what he wants. He never stops to think if the tool he is using works for the purpose he is putting it to. If he thinks an output supports his claims he is all for it even if it obvoiously stupid and something he should take a pass on. What he is doing here is not data science because you cannot analyse a story as a set of unrelated sentences. Also you cannot convert quantitative to qualitative data in secret.

But quite aside from that. Spending years learning Arabic so that you can then spend years putting the Quran into a spreadsheet that proves it's evil is not time well spent. It's autism.

[Age]

So, when you say and claim:
Something that is documented does not need to defend itself from something that is undocumented.

Yes, because something that is documented is superior to something that is undocumented on grounds that it is documented.

But how many times do you have to be informed or shown that just because something is documented that that does not mean that that does not need to be defended?

It does not even matter what exactly it is. Something undocumented must be documented first, before it can try to compete with something that is documented already.

Yes, this is very straightforward and obvious. But, this in no way defends your claim that just because something is documented that it does not need to be defended.

you just keep going on about something that does not even exist because this detracts, somewhat, away from the fact that you cannot defend your documents here, and especially not your misguided and misinterpretation of those documents here.

[godelian]

But how many times do you have to be informed or shown that just because something is documented that that does not mean that that does not need to be defended? But, this in no way defends your claim that just because something is documented that it does not need to be defended.

I never said this.

[Age]

But how many times do you have to be informed or shown that just because something is documented that that does not mean that that does not need to be defended? But, this in no way defends your claim that just because something is documented that it does not need to be defended.

I never said this.

So, once again, when you actually did say and claim:
Something that is documented does not need to defend itself,

you 'now' say and claim that you never said that, right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

These are universal values, e.g. of evil acts to be avoided by any normal human being are;
1. No human wants to be killed by other humans or non-humans.
2. No human wants to be enslaved
3. No human wants to be raped
4. No human wants to be subject to violence
5. No humans wants to be suppressed in terms of freedom and peace
6. No humans wants to be dehumanized as apes, pigs, etc.
7. Etc.

So, is this the canonical atheist theory of morality? How many other people subscribe to exactly this definition? Is it published somewhere else too?

It has nothing to do with atheism at all.
It has everything to do with the universal inherent human nature within ALL human being.
Do YOU want to be killed, enslaved, raped, subject to violence, dehumanized as apes, pigs, etc.?
Do a survey with your mother, father, brothers, sisters, relatives, friends and strangers, what are the chances, they will agree to the above evil to be acted upon themselves?
Show me evidences where any normal human beings had agreed to the above evil upon themselves?

I don't have the exact reports published, however, I believe whatever had been reported throughout the history mankind, no normal human beings had voluntarily [without threats or coercion] agreed to be victims the above evil acts.
The exceptions are when a religion rewards its believers extraordinarily for being suicide bombers.

By the way, "7. Etc" is not a valid clause in a canonical definition. In fact, it could make your entire definition invalid. What if "8." says ",not 1 and not 2 and ... and not 6" ?

Ignorant of the context above is childish thinking.

Another problem. "No human want ..." is not a categorical imperative. It does not forbid anything to the person who commits to these rules. It merely expresses a wish.

As I stated, the above are evil acts that are inherently and universally avoided by all humans as part of human nature.
E.g. if no human wants to stop breathing, then the oughtness to breathe [human nature] is a categorical imperative.
Same applies to the above 1-6.

By the way, how would you convince anybody to commit to obeying these rules (if they were phrased as rules)? Islam has around two billion people committing to its rules. How many people besides yourself do you expect to adopt your theory? Is there anybody else who actually does that?

I don't believe morality-proper is about obeying rules.
Morality is about cultivating and development the human moral function within all humans [as guided by the categorical imperative] such that one acts morally in a spontaneous way [not obeying rules upon threats or force], naturally and without being aware of it.
This is already happening in some ways where the majority of humans naturally and spontaneously do not go about killing another human arbitrary.

The morality of religion is pseudo-morality because threats of hell are used to enforce compliance with God's moral commands.
If God's definitive documented moral code in his holy-text is to kill non-believers because they disbelieve [or are of the slightest threat], then the believer must kill non-believers [else non-compliance mean going to hell] which is against his normal moral instinct of not wanting to kill humans.

[godelian]

But how many times do you have to be informed or shown that just because something is documented that that does not mean that that does not need to be defended? But, this in no way defends your claim that just because something is documented that it does not need to be defended.

I never said this.

So, once again, when you actually did say and claim:
Something that is documented does not need to defend itself,

you 'now' say and claim that you never said that, right?

By completely documenting, we commit to our position. We cannot just change it on the fly. Where is your commitment? If you do not commit, then your position is a moving target. Why do we need to defend our commitment from an opponent who refuses or is incapable of committing to his position? What exactly is your position anyway? Where can we find a complete copy of your moral theory?

[godelian]

I don't believe morality-proper is about obeying rules.

This explains exactly why you cannot document your rules. You do not believe that there should be any rules to begin with.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't believe morality-proper is about obeying rules.

This explains exactly why you cannot document your rules. You do not believe that there should be any rules to begin with.

You are so ignorant.

Are there definitive documented rules for normal humans to eat, sleep, fuck, play, talk, and whatever is instinctual and natural of any human being.
It is same with doing good which is inherent and natural within all humans.

Why rules [to act good] are necessary is where because humans are not yet evolved sufficiently yet in time to be be fully natural and spontaneous in their moral acts.
This does not obviate the fact that all humans has an inherent moral nature inherent within them.

As humans evolved higher and higher in time they will naturally need less and less rules re doing good and other acts.
The problem with your fully documented rules in your holy text is that it will eternally keep believers in an animal and primitive state that they need to comply with rules eternally.