I still don't understand why so many people have so hard a time with that.
It seems to me that people generally have a pretty good idea of whether they are theists.
Admittedly, there are exceptions. This thread shows that clearly.
It might be fair to say that while you presume that people will have a god even if they do not know of the idea of god, I disagree and instead say that anyone is free to call anything or anyone - real or imaginary, concrete or abstract, hypothetical or known to exist - a god as long as they accept the responsibility for using and abusing that idea that comes with the decision.
Those, of course, are very different understandings of gods and their roles and consequences.
I see them as nearly inconsequential and very much a personal responsibility when they are used. Actually, I see them as a couterproductive idea, particularly when shaped after Abrahamic expectations.
You seem to see them as unavoidable and to perceive the personal responsibility as being that of not placing belief in the wrong god or gods instead.
That is very, very alien to me.
Nor can everyday people, although there are many who would rather not dwell on pointing that out because they prefer to build on a sense of community or perhaps just to avoid difficult disagreements with the people close to them.
But that is not quite as important as it may appear to be at first glance. We should, however, be aware that religion means many different things and it is dangerous to assume that any two uses have similar meanings without some effort at clarification.
Would not that mean that religion is a bit of an accident, and of perhaps lesser or no significance?
As do many theists and other non-atheists as well. It is in fact very common; syncretisms are just one of the many mechanisms that people use for that purpose.
This I will dispute firmly; ethical development is considerably more chaotic inside an Abrahamic framework than it is outside of those. People are very capable of developing ethical thought and values on their own, particularly when they live in stable, well educated communities.
I don't know why scripture would be infinite in knowledge; it is, after all, unable to actually perceive real situations and learn from those.
You may or may not be familiar with the ideas of Dharma and of its transmission. The bare bones of it are that we all have a duty and the ability to learn from the wisdom of others and to accept that it becomes our own to care for and improve upon to the best of our skills. I don't think that is all that more true of people who actually learn of those concepts; I think it applies to literally everyone.
Doesn't that put the authority of the Qur'an itself into question?
They do not? Why not?
What I do know of the Qur'an and of the Ahadith does indeed fail to strike me as inspired or particularly informed or wise.
I don't think that is true. At least, I think it is less true of atheists than of most other groups, such as the Abrahamics.
Your mention of laws suggests a deontological perspective. That is not very appealling nor very promising if agreement with atheists is a goal. We tend not to believe in moral laws; there are better sustentations for morality, based on discernment and acknowledgement and perception of the specific circunstances and consequences of each situation.
How would that work, beyond simply saying that it is so (which should be self-evident indeed)? How do you expect Muslims would respond?
This too I find difficult to imagine, unless we are willing to discuss the meaning of the concepts to the point that they become optional and arguably meaningless.
It is proper and fair to discuss the morality of sexual relationships and the duties towards offspring that arise from them. But it seems to me that you are using too rigid a framework here when you present Marriage and Muta as the only forms worth discussing. Not just due to more casual relationships, but also because there are other, perhaps more significant matters to consider beyond awareness of biological filiation and financial responsibilities. There are other family models and other ways of distributing duties and responsibilities, and they should not be neglected.
I am not sure that I agree that those dangers and problems have that exact significance when contrasted to each other, but neither do I see why that would be all that important. Clearly they must be faced with seriousness regardless of how they are placed in any scale.
But you are mentioning that along with Hijaab, thereby suggesting that avoidance of looking into the eyes of other people is in some way necessary or highly advisable to avoid those problems. That may even be true, but is that the best remedy? The one that deserves the most attention?
I would think not. We have better measures and we deserve to employ them.
Fair enough. But it somewhat sidesteps the matter of ethics of sexual behavior. Here we are discussing whether Muta can be abused (of course it can). We should then consider what better options can be realistically chosen.
I would say instead that paying much attention to the text of any scripture instead of considering the actual reality of how vulnerable people are or may potentially become and planning our actions from there is what leads to abuse; it is not a matter of Ahadith vs Qur'an. Nor of God/Allah, nor of having proper fear of him nor reverence towards him.
There are systematic ways of studying ethics. And there is a very genuine need to learn to transcend those systems and learning better. It is not caprice, but rather necessary questioning and the exercise of moral courage.
This I can't quite parse at the current time.
