Ok let me go back to address what is I consider your fundamental misconception, and lets just stick to this because out of this ALL our disagreements arise. Putting aside pure subjective taste.
Firstly, like Plato reacting to Cleitophon's statement of absolute relativism I could walk away since arguing is pointless. BUT, I like to think we've learnt something in the intervening 2500 years.
Don't you understand this whole conversation is an exercise in futility ? You keep hysterically referencing other ideologies and school of thoughts when I'm asking you to give me the factual evidence of their superiority.
You didn't address the central point and another question : do you genuinely think there is an absolute truth in the philosophic texts you reference (I'm asking for your opinion, and it's fine if you do) ?
It's sad you waste your time learning nothing of interest or use in the Qu'ran while your mind would consume classical philosophy and then ultimately Hume, Kant, Mills, Wittgenstein...Kuhn, I lose interest in the latter philosophers of the 20th century like Sartre since scientific exploration like the study of Cognition in the last decade has over turned the need for philosophers in the areas I find interesting. Philosophy is the cradle out of which sciences arise, once they develop methodologies and become testable they can be handed into the eager hands of Scientists...
Ah fuck I have to go to my Ars Magica game soon, I'm running a campaign of Magi travelling from Rome in 1105 to the Levant to set up a covenant - much political intrigue follows, so I'm going to keep this along the lines of a polemic and an exercise where I challenge you to think about it...
Apples and oranges, the Qu'ran is a framework it has clear indications to seek knowledge and science, it is the foundation of what I think but not all of it. You're asking for the Qu'ran to be :
Magical book that keeps changing over the centuries by itself
Ultimate source for everything
Literal and definite answer to the universe that can be verifiable by factual data
If it was all this then it would contradicts the prerequisite of faith (remember : we are talking about levels of faith) and its own scriptures. Shall we apply the same stupid standards to the books you reference ?
You're not very rational and don't understand one of the most basic concept regarding religion, it's even more hilarious since you're criticizing schools of thoughts and reports on top of that.
empirical naturalism, look it up - no assumptions about the universe - except that there is an objective reality, in which we function - now that objective reality could be a hologram, it could be a simulation, it doesn't matter. What matters is that by observing and measuring it we are able to derive consistent laws, and hence make predictions.
assume abiogenisis happened - Read - Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter by Terence Deakon
You keep referencing ideologies, I'm sure that they are based on factual data and the same standard that you criticize the Qu'ran with can be applied to them, right ?
go back and read and understand my trees of knowledge bit, and you'll stop asking me if I think religious people are stupid.
Glad to hear that.
Our entire existence is on a series of bootstraps, self replicating cells came into being 3.blip blillion years ago, for nearly 2.x billion years nothing else existed, after initial explosion of self replication happened. (yes I'm sure you know evolution, but if you're american usually you've got some stupid version if it)
Yes, that's an observation not an answer.
The Zeroth law of evolution seems to be that complexity begats complexity
Once you have an information processor things start ticking over exponentially
Since complexity builds upon complexity there needs to a massive amount of foundation work done before even more complexity arises
Are you under the impression that observations like that disprove faith ? This kind of insecurity is so common here it's pretty funny, and by funny I mean sad.