Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[DrZoidberg]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

 

[JonA]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[ronburgundy]

Blech. You should read your own sources before drawing conclusions that they explicitly refute.

Before sharing the first set of results with you here today, due to the sensitive nature of this topic, I feel obliged to reiterate that this analysis represents only a cursory, superficial view of just the texts, themselves. It is in no way intended to advance any agenda or to conclusively prove anyone’s point.

First, the analysis is nothing more than counts of emotional words stripped of all context. It treats a quote like "hold those who harm others in contempt" as being more violent and less merciful than "hold those who show mercy in contempt", when by any reasonable analysis the latter is more pro violent and anti mercy.

Besides, the actual data show the Quran and Bible are quite different.

The Quran is 60% higher in fear and anxiety, and the OT is 15% higher in Anger. Violence stems from both fear and anger, so on whole the Quran would have more emotional expressions that promote violence than the OT or NT. Plus, his "positive" vs. "negative" emotion analysis is meaningless. He assumes "trust" is a positive emotion, but in fact many ideas of "trust" in these texts are that people should blindly trust in God's authority, including when God commands violence that seems immoral or unjustified from a secular or natural empathy viewpoint.

 

[4321lynx]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

Maybe if you look again at the state of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc for past 30-40 years you might see some difference in results. But you will say all this is a result of evil European colonialists. (Sweden excepted - it can do little wrong - right?)

You keep ignoring the fact that Xtianity underwent a Reformation, and Europe -- a Renaissance, Enlightment, American, French and other Revolutions, when that part of the world just underwent rule by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

 

[ronburgundy]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

Maybe if you look again at the state of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc for past 30-40 years you might see some difference in results. But you will say all this is a result of evil European colonialists. (Sweden excepted - it can do little wrong - right?)

You keep ignoring the fact that Xtianity underwent a Reformation, and Europe -- a Renaissance, Enlightment, American, French and other Revolutions, when that part of the world just underwent rule by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

The Reformation did not pacify or increase the tolerance of Christianity. IF anything, the sects that arose from the Reformation are the more intolerant and aggressive withing Christianity. Christianity, when sincerely believed, is the authoritarian and intolerant worldview it always was designed to be. What happened is the secularization via the Enlightenment which weakened Christianities influence and power in society and on the personal values and beliefs of people who live in countries where Christianity is the dominant (but still weak) religion. There are no Christian nations, and that is what subdues Christianity from being able to realize its full negative impact.

 

[Lion IRC]

...They might as well have been the same book.

A lot of similarities that's for sure. Muhammad the copycat. #wannabe

...Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

Hang on! LOL
Look somewhere else?
Arent the religious texts THE basis for comparison?

 

[4321lynx]

Both religions borrowed from the Jews. No surprise, seeing Xtianity started as a Jewish sect or heresy, and the Old Testament Bible got a boost at the Reformation; and Mecca and Medina were full of Jewish merchants.

 

[DBT]

Muhammad used the Torah as the foundation (in part) for his theology, and wanted the Jews of Mecca to accept his new religion but his advances were ultimately rejected.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Blech. You should read your own sources before drawing conclusions that they explicitly refute.

Before sharing the first set of results with you here today, due to the sensitive nature of this topic, I feel obliged to reiterate that this analysis represents only a cursory, superficial view of just the texts, themselves. It is in no way intended to advance any agenda or to conclusively prove anyone’s point.

First, the analysis is nothing more than counts of emotional words stripped of all context. It treats a quote like "hold those who harm others in contempt" as being more violent and less merciful than "hold those who show mercy in contempt", when by any reasonable analysis the latter is more pro violent and anti mercy.

Besides, the actual data show the Quran and Bible are quite different.

The Quran is 60% higher in fear and anxiety, and the OT is 15% higher in Anger. Violence stems from both fear and anger, so on whole the Quran would have more emotional expressions that promote violence than the OT or NT. Plus, his "positive" vs. "negative" emotion analysis is meaningless. He assumes "trust" is a positive emotion, but in fact many ideas of "trust" in these texts are that people should blindly trust in God's authority, including when God commands violence that seems immoral or unjustified from a secular or natural empathy viewpoint.

I agree on your critique if textual analysis. But how else compare religious texts?

I remember counting mentions of the importance of forgiveness. Twice as often in the Quran. Do Muslims forgive twice as often as Christians? Hardly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

Maybe if you look again at the state of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc for past 30-40 years you might see some difference in results. But you will say all this is a result of evil European colonialists. (Sweden excepted - it can do little wrong - right?)

You keep ignoring the fact that Xtianity underwent a Reformation, and Europe -- a Renaissance, Enlightment, American, French and other Revolutions, when that part of the world just underwent rule by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

Which just proves my point, context is more important than what's printed in our holy texts. People can and do justify any behaviour with the Quran.which is what Christians do as well with the Bible.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe if you look again at the state of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc for past 30-40 years you might see some difference in results. But you will say all this is a result of evil European colonialists. (Sweden excepted - it can do little wrong - right?)

You keep ignoring the fact that Xtianity underwent a Reformation, and Europe -- a Renaissance, Enlightment, American, French and other Revolutions, when that part of the world just underwent rule by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

The Reformation did not pacify or increase the tolerance of Christianity. IF anything, the sects that arose from the Reformation are the more intolerant and aggressive withing Christianity. Christianity, when sincerely believed, is the authoritarian and intolerant worldview it always was designed to be. What happened is the secularization via the Enlightenment which weakened Christianities influence and power in society and on the personal values and beliefs of people who live in countries where Christianity is the dominant (but still weak) religion. There are no Christian nations, and that is what subdues Christianity from being able to realize its full negative impact.

I agree with everything except the bit about what broke the churches social control. Or social control in general.

I think it was our modern economy. Having rigid and strict social positions in society doesn't pay off economically. It made sense back when we all were farmers. Any change was a potential threat. Today change is an opportunity. I think it's this that has help free us from the rigid confines of society.

The Enlightenment may have been necessary. But the Enlightenment isn't confined to Europe. Those ideas can travel well. Communism is a direct result of Enlightment ideas. It travelled just fine to USSR, China, Vietnam and Cambodia and North Korea. If that Enlightment idea can travel then so can all the others.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maybe if you look again at the state of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc for past 30-40 years you might see some difference in results. But you will say all this is a result of evil European colonialists. (Sweden excepted - it can do little wrong - right?)

You keep ignoring the fact that Xtianity underwent a Reformation, and Europe -- a Renaissance, Enlightment, American, French and other Revolutions, when that part of the world just underwent rule by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

The Reformation did not pacify or increase the tolerance of Christianity. IF anything, the sects that arose from the Reformation are the more intolerant and aggressive withing Christianity. Christianity, when sincerely believed, is the authoritarian and intolerant worldview it always was designed to be. What happened is the secularization via the Enlightenment which weakened Christianities influence and power in society and on the personal values and beliefs of people who live in countries where Christianity is the dominant (but still weak) religion. There are no Christian nations, and that is what subdues Christianity from being able to realize its full negative impact.

I think Islam has had a type of reformation. Two hundred years ago Muslim women didn't cover up. That's a new thing. And just like the European reformation it led to Militancy.

Karen Armstrongs theory is that a religion turns increasingly fundamentalist just before it's about to die. That's certainly the pattern all over the Christian world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A lot of similarities that's for sure. Muhammad the copycat. #wannabe

...Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

Hang on! LOL
Look somewhere else?
Arent the religious texts THE basis for comparison?

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

 

[Lion IRC]

Hey, you made an Op about the text.

If you wanna talk about True Scotsmen and women instead that's fine.

...not much difference

LOL

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey, you made an Op about the text.

If you wanna talk about True Scotsmen and women instead that's fine.

...not much difference

LOL

Ok... so what's your point? Where does the True Scotsman enter into this? My argument is that the Quran and Bible are equivalent. If Muslims and Christians behave differently that must mean that the reason for the differing behaviours must originate from somewhere else than their holy texts.

 

[Lion IRC]

Do you want to talk about textual analysis or how people behave?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Blech. You should read your own sources before drawing conclusions that they explicitly refute.

Before sharing the first set of results with you here today, due to the sensitive nature of this topic, I feel obliged to reiterate that this analysis represents only a cursory, superficial view of just the texts, themselves. It is in no way intended to advance any agenda or to conclusively prove anyone’s point.

First, the analysis is nothing more than counts of emotional words stripped of all context. It treats a quote like "hold those who harm others in contempt" as being more violent and less merciful than "hold those who show mercy in contempt", when by any reasonable analysis the latter is more pro violent and anti mercy.

Besides, the actual data show the Quran and Bible are quite different.

The Quran is 60% higher in fear and anxiety, and the OT is 15% higher in Anger. Violence stems from both fear and anger, so on whole the Quran would have more emotional expressions that promote violence than the OT or NT. Plus, his "positive" vs. "negative" emotion analysis is meaningless. He assumes "trust" is a positive emotion, but in fact many ideas of "trust" in these texts are that people should blindly trust in God's authority, including when God commands violence that seems immoral or unjustified from a secular or natural empathy viewpoint.

Violence isn't condoned in either so trust in that context had little to do with anything.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

A lot of similarities that's for sure. Muhammad the copycat. #wannabe



Hang on! LOL
Look somewhere else?
Arent the religious texts THE basis for comparison?

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

Observing the actions of hypocrites in no way displays what they are supposed to believe and how they are supposed to act.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[4321lynx]

A lot of similarities that's for sure. Muhammad the copycat. #wannabe



Hang on! LOL
Look somewhere else?
Arent the religious texts THE basis for comparison?

I obviously disagree. If you want to learn Muslim moral codes go and observe what Muslims do. It's always better to watch what people do rather than what they say. People talk so much shit

Religions are human creations so they "suit" the particular group of people who created them (or for whom they were created by their leaders). Thus they reflect to a varying extent the characteristics of those by whom, or for whom, they were created, or altered as in the case of the Reformation.

Because of the unprecedented information explosion brought about at that time by the invention of the printing press, society changed, and religion was changed. It changed from a religion that favoured the idol worship of saints, of the bones of alleged saints, of god's mother, of various wonder-working images and sculptures, a religion which AFAIR had over 150 "holy" days in the year when no work was done (even at times of sowing or harvest). The reformed church and the leaders of the reformation, enriched by robbing the churches and monastaries (by then despised as sinkholes of various vices), allowed only a few holy days and enforced the 50 or so Sundays in the style of the Jewish Sabbath, adopting much more of the Jewish Old Testament scripture int their new faith.

This went along well with the new "Protestant work ethic", and allowed trade and interest on capital to flourish, viewing the result as god's blessings on the righteous new middle classes.. Much of all of this was done subconciously, especially the part when the self-righteous new middle classes enforced the work ethic on their underpaid millions of illiterate minions working in the new businesses and enterprises for the next 400-500 years.

As someone said, Maryiolatry gave way to Bibliolatry; which was much more business-friendly.

The less educated parts of Europe, Catholic and Orthodox, remained as before, idol-worshippers to a great extent, with some changes in Catholic lands brought about by the Counter-Reformation.

So IMHO it is possible to judge groups and societies in general, by the shit they talk and believe in, as well as by the manner and nature of each such group or society. This of course does not apply to the judging of individual members of such societies, except by statistical guesses, which of course do not apply to any one given individual.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know

In Islam's case, the hadiths. Radical Islam's condemnation of music comes from the hadiths, not the Quran for example.