I did not say anything about a pope. Why do you keep misquoting me? — Nobeernolife

That was not a quote. Where do you see quotation marks?

However, I am sure you know that various clerics in the islamic world carry various degrees of respect. Al-Quaradafi has an enormous influence in Sunni islam, just like Al Sistani has in Shia islam. If you did not know that, check it yourself. — Nobeernolife

No, no, no. As far as I am concerned, "who" exactly says something, does not matter, simply because that is the core principle of manipulation. All that matters, is that religious advisories entail syntactically from scripture. Therefore, only "how" he says it, can be of import.

I subdivide the world in two types of people:

• The epistemically inept, aka, the plebs: who believe that the world consists of people whose opinion is important on the one side, and people whose opinion does not matter, on the other side.
• The epistemically enlightened: who believe that there are conclusions/theorems that can be drawn from legitimate formal systems versus stupidities that emerge out of system-less bullshit.

I despise the epistemically inept. I view them with contempt only.

As I see it, there are no such religious scholars who "carry various degrees of respect". Only what they say, can "carry various degree of respect". If their advisory syntactically entails from scripture then I will carefully accept what they say. Otherwise, I won't.

You see, the epistemically inept learn to trust the voice and appearance of the newsreader on television. They pretty much automatically believe what he says.

My theory of deception says that it is the aggregate belief itself in the deceptive statement (i.e. that a=b) that fuels the growth in the total amount of deception ( (b-a)² ).

Hence, it is exactly because large numbers of epistemically-inept individuals believe that the newsreader on television is telling the truth, that he increasingly starts telling outrageous lies. If his audience were even only moderately skeptical, he would immediately start reining in his inclination to lie. In other words, it is his audience, i.e. the plebs, i.e. the populace of epistemically inept, who fuel most of the problems in the world. These people are truly despicable.

And Yussuf Al-Qaradafi is not just "a" random cleric, he is the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood and massively influential in the (sunni) islamic world. — Nobeernolife

There is no Pope in Islam. A mufti's advisory only binds himself. What's more, I am quite sure that his views are not the consensus ("ijma") view on this matter. In fact, it is rather a matter of asking him if he really approves of forbidden behaviour. For example, ask him for a jurisprudential advisory about:

Sisak children's concentration camp officially called "Shelter for Children Refugees" was a concentration camp during World War II located in Sisak, set up by the Ustaše government of the Nazi-puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, for Serbian, Jewish and Romani children. It was part of the Jasenovac extermination camp.[1][2] The camp's commander was Dr. Antun Najžer, a physician known as the "Croatian Mengele".[3][4] — Sisak children's concentration camp

If he writes a religious advisory approving of Sisak children's concentration camp, then I will change my mind on this issue. For the time being, however, I just think that he does not know what he is talking about.

It was carried out by Nazis and assisted by muslims. — Nobeernolife

No, no. It was carried out by Nazis.

Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers. — Nobeernolife

This cleric does not seem to be familiar with the details of the Holocaust. The Nazis also mass-murdered Jewish women and children. In spite of their ahl al-kitab status, the Nazis also mass-murdered Jewish noncombatant men. Someone needs to update this cleric on these matters, because the Quran strictly forbids Muslims to participate in that kind of things.

On the other hand, the Zionist apartheidsstate of Israel will always end up at the negotiation table; if they are reasonable, in order to sign the dissolution of their apartheidsstate and to discuss the details of the successor state, or if they are unreasonable, to sign the instrument of unconditional surrender. The choice of instrument is theirs, really.

What the heck is "European ideology"? Something you just made up? — Nobeernolife

Was Nazism then rather a Chinese ideology?

As for the islamic view on the holocaust, the leading Sunni cleric confirms that it is Allas will:
"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them—even though they exaggerated this issue—he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them."
(Yusuf al-Qaradawi) — Nobeernolife

First of all, everything that happens in the universe is deemed to be Allah's will. Allah is considered to be Aristotle's first mover.

Of course, that does not mean that it is appropriate or even anywhere tasteful to gleefully designate a painful calamity as a "serves you right" event. The doctrine is meant to be used as a general guideline and not as an opportunity to make fun of someone who has just suffered a debilitating setback.

When we read the holy Quran and Hadiths minutely, we can conclude three points:
1. Natural disasters are punishment of Allah Subhanahu Wa Taala for those people who are either disbelievers or cross His limits;
2. Natural disasters are warning for the sinners;
3. Natural disasters are test for the believers. — Natural disasters and calamities in light of Quran and Sunnah

,,,,,and get murdered. — Nobeernolife

Well no, that was a Nazi idea. That was not an idea that came from the Middle East. You are again trying to shift the blame for the Holocaust to others. The Holocaust was perpetrated by Europeans on Europeans because of European ideology.

Yes, the Gestapo and SS were originally ordered to facilitate Jewish deportation to the historical Jewish homeland in the British Mandate of Palestine, while the Mufti of Jerusame and muslim clerics in general preferred the mass murder of Jews, that is correct. — Nobeernolife

No, these European Jews were just supposed to stay in Europe. The Palestinians were not keen on their mass deportation to Palestine.

Where do you get that from? Any source for this truly bizarre idea? — Nobeernolife

I have posted two links for that.

Also, what does your "long list of legal clauses in the Qoran" say about the Armenian genocide, carried out by the Ottoman empire, which quite rivals the Nazi holocaust? — Nobeernolife

After a long series of "reforms", and especially after the Young Turks had taken over power, the Ottoman empire had become a nationalist, secular state. The Sharif of Mecca started the Arab Revolt in 1916 exactly for that reason:

The Sharif of Mecca proclaimed the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, accusing the Committee of Union and Progress of violating tenets of Islam and limiting the power of the sultan-caliph. — Wikipedia on the Arab Revolt

Large parts of the Middle East were already at war with the Ottoman empire when the Armenian genocide took place. The successor state to the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, is also a nationalist, secular state, that is prone to ideological manipulations. The entire Kurdish conflict also started only after the Ottoman empire became a nationalist, secular state.

So now you are bashing Al Al Husseini? I would agree he is worthy bashing (just as his friend Adolf Hitler is), but you are pretty alone in that assessment. — Nobeernolife

My opinion on him is mixed. I agree with his anti-Zionist efforts but I do not agree with his Faustian pact with the Nazis. But then again, it is not as if the Zionists weren't good friends with the Gestapo and the SS either:

The Gestapo and the SS inconsistently cooperated with a variety of Jewish organizations and efforts (e.g., Hanotaiah Ltd., the Anglo-Palestine Bank, the Temple Society Bank, HIAS, Joint Distribution Committee, Revisionist Zionists, and others), most notably in the Haavurah Agreements, to facilitate emigration to Mandatory Palestine. — Wikipedia on the Zionist love affair with the Gestapo and the SS

Look at this here:

The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הֶסְכֵּם הַעֲבָרָה Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some German circles to be a possible way to solve the "Jewish problem." — Wikipedia on the Haavara Agreement

The Zionists were more than happy to help the Nazis with solving their "Jewish problem". In what other ways, did they offer to help the Nazis, huh? So, the Zionists apparently went around Europe, travelling left and right, offering to help with solving other countries' "Jewish problem" ... with a view on creating a new one in Palestine.

Husseini is a well respected cleric and went on to be come teacher of Hassan Al Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful and influential Sunni islamist organization today. Well, I am glad you are distancing yourself from the Muslim Brotherhood, but you are also distancing yourself from islamic teaching then. — Nobeernolife

I have not made any representations or comments about anybody named Hassan Al Banna or about the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an organization that can only be assessed on their own merits or lack thereof.

Do not bother to reply, I don't want any more of your garbage directed at me. — Sir2u

In that case, do not address your own garbage to me. Capito? Furthermore, who the hell do you think you are that you can give orders to other users on this forum? You, arrogant loser!

I talked about the ideology, just like the Mufti of Jerusalem did. — Nobeernolife

For a starters, an alim acting in the capacity of mufti is supposed to produce religious advisories that are syntactic entailments from scripture. None of what the Mufti of Jerusalem wrote, referred to scripture in any fashion, let alone, syntactically entailed from scripture.

Secondly, I even wonder why he was even called a mufti?

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is the Sunni Muslim cleric in charge of Jerusalem's Islamic holy places, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque.[1] The position was created by the British military government led by Ronald Storrs in 1918.[2][3] The creation of the new title was intended by the British to "enhance the status of the office".[4] When Kamil al-Husayni died in 1921, the British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel appointed Mohammad Amin al-Husayni to the position. — Wikipedia on Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

I personally always reject, out of hand, religious advisories originating from clergy appointed by or under control of secular authorities. That type of clergy can simply not be trusted for advice. Furthermore, I also always reject, out of hand, religious advisories originating from public figures, since they will obviously always be under pressure from secular authorities. Furthermore, the secular authority which bestowed this Islamic title onto Amin al-Husseini was not even Islamic.

Thirdly, sourcing religious advisories always requires a substantial effort in "mufti shopping". It is not because one mufti advises in one particular way that there would be consensus ("ijma") on his advisory amongst the religious scholars ("ulema").

Fourthly, Amin al-Husseini had been trained as an Ottoman administrator meant to join its bureaucracy, and not as a cleric:

In Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini attended a Qur'an school (kuttub), and Ottoman government secondary school (rüshidiyye) where he learned Turkish, and a Catholic secondary school run by French missionaries, the Catholic Frères, where he learned French.[21] He also studied at the Alliance Israélite Universelle with its non-Zionist Jewish director Albert Antébi.[22] In 1912 he studied Islamic law briefly at Al-Azhar University in Cairo and at the Dar al-Da'wa wa-l-Irshad, under Rashid Rida, a salafi intellectual, who was to remain Amin's mentor till his death in 1935.[23] Though groomed to hold religious office from youth, his education was typical of the Ottoman effendi at the time, and he only donned a religious turban in 1921 after being appointed mufti.[21] — Wikipedia on the educational background of Amin al-Husseini

In my impression, he was not even qualified to produce religious advisories. I do not endorse the use of the clerical designation 'mufti' for members of the secular bureaucracy:

A mufti (/ˈmʌfti/; Arabic: مفتي‎) is an Islamic jurist qualified to issue a nonbinding opinion (fatwa) on a point of Islamic law (sharia).[1][2] The act of issuing fatwas is called iftāʾ.[3] Muftis and their fatwas played an important role throughout Islamic history, taking on new roles in the modern era.[4][5] — Wikipedia on the term mufti

Therefore, even though I do not necessarily reject the soundness of his secular decisions or of his political leadership in Palestine, my opinion about Amin al-Husseini is that he was merely some kind of Ottoman bureaucrat with very weak reference to Islamic law and who was masquerading as a mufti without actually being one.

What case?? — Nobeernolife

You are saying that the Jews "might actually have been safer" with people whom you portray as being full of "hatred of Jews".

If that view is not contradictory, then I really don't know anymore what is.

You keep conveniently ignoring that the Holocaust took place in Europe, and that this genocidal, organized mass murder was an exponent of European ideology and European behaviour. As I mentioned earlier, in terms of Islamic morality, this kind of behaviour is despicable.

As far as I am concerned, you have simply failed in your attempt to shift the blame for what happened right in the centre of Europe onto the Middle East, which was not involved, and certainly not in charge, and which, on the contrary, had even made the effort to protect European Jews from earlier occurrences of horrific persecuting in Europe.

At one point, you wrote:

the hatred of Jews is part of islamic doctrine — Nobeernolife

And now you write:

they might actually have been relatively safer in the Ottoman empire — Nobeernolife

I rest my case.

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

If x and y are sets, then there exists a set which contains x and y as elements. — Example of a widely-accepted unjustified and unjustifiable statement

Why? Possibly, because God says ... who knows? Other justifications are not readily available for this otherwise widely-accepted speculative claim.

(You can try to justify but your justification will almost surely be rejected.)

Now historically, christianity, with it's valuation of truthfullness, was involuntarily the germ from which the scientic method sprung. Faith in God wasn't enough anymore, God needed to be proven with reason, just to be sure. — ChatteringMonkey

In the meanwhile, we also came to understand that the basic rules in a formal system of rules cannot be justified from within the system. Any attempt to prove these basic rules from nothing at all, is just a futile exercise in infinite regress.

One never just proves a theorem. One proves a theorem from the basic rules.
It is not "proving" but "proving from".
Proving the basic rules from themselves, is obviously futile.

Furthermore, the scientific method does not apply whatsoever to formal systems. It is the axiomatic method that deals with them.

Therefore, we can only conclude that they wanted to use reason but did not understand the tool. That is the prime reason why their very poor results are so incredibly nonsensical.

It absolute is, which everybody who has read the Korann and Haddiths knows, and which islamist leaders have clearly stated — Nobeernolife

Your opinion is not even necessarily shared by other Jews. If they expected to be mishandled by the Muslims, why did the Sephardi Jews flee to the Muslim Ottoman Empire?

Eastern Sephardim comprise the descendants of the expellees from Spain who left as Jews in 1492 or prior. This sub-group of Sephardim settled mostly in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, which included areas in the Near East (West Asia's Middle East such as Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt), the Balkans in Southeastern Europe. They settled particularly in European cities ruled by the Ottoman Empire including Salonica in what is today Greece, Constantinople which today is known as Istanbul on the European portion of modern Turkey, and Sarajevo in what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina. — Wikipedia on Sephardi Jews

If the Muslims were full of hatred of the Jews, why on earth did these Sephardi Jews prefer to flee to an Islamic country? They could also have fled from Spain and Portugal to the north, for example, to France, Germany, or Britain, but they chose not to.

You want to depict the Muslim opposition to the racist apartheidsstate of Israel as a form of racism, but your story simply does not add up.

Is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 also a form of antisemitism in your view? What about the 2009 World Conference against Racism, which voted to maintain the decades-old designation of 'racist country' for the Zionist apartheidsstate of Israel? Are they also antisemitic?

Whatever Israel does or does not do is irrelevant to the similarity between islam and nazism, which I was pointing out to you. — Nobeernolife

It is perfectly relevant to the uncanny similarity between Zionism and Nazism. They are both undeniably racist.

Has it ever occurred to you that the hysterical hatred of Israel by the muslim world is precisely because the hatred of Jews is part of islamic doctrine? — Nobeernolife

It is not part of Islamic doctrine.

You are deliberately confusing the utter dislike of the racist apartheidsstate of Israel with an imaginary non-existent antisemitism that only exists in your fantasy and not in the Middle East.

Furthermore, you conveniently keep ignoring that the holocaust took place in Europe and not in the Middle East.

As I have mentioned earlier, the holocaust could simply not have taken place in the Middle East or in any other Muslim-majority country because the Nazi policy of die Endlösung der Jüdenfrage is in violation of a long list of legal clauses in the Quran.

The reason why the holocaust could and did take place in Europe, is because multiple, elaborate racist ideologies were commonplace in that era, very similar to Zionism, while an already substantially weakened Christianity turned out to be no barrier against pseudo-scientific racism and against scientific genocidal extermination procedures of unwanted populations.

No, I do not know that, and the claim is quite absurd. Zionism is the claim for a territory for Jews. Nazism is a totalitarian ideologys that includes a rabid hatred of Jews, which it shares with islam (as Ali Al Husseini pointed out). — Nobeernolife

Well, that depends how you define "racism". — Nobeernolife

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being", — 'United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), 'determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination' .

And this, despite the fact that in the documents prepared for the rendezvous in Geneva, apart from a few minor improvements, a basic approach has been maintained equating Israel with a racist country rather than a democracy. — 2009 World Conference against Racism

If there is one thing that the Zionist apartheidsstate of Israel fundamentally shares with Nazism, it is their well-attested racism. Seriously, how many times does the apartheidsstate of Israel need to be indicted for their disgusting racism before they will finally acknowledge the despicable error of their ways?

No, the mufti explained clearly why he like Nazism, and that affinity is inherent in islam and continues today. Consider that the holocaust is widely considered Allah`s good work, that muslims should continue today. So, no Faustian pact here, but congruent ideologies. — Nobeernolife

You very well know that any elusive connection between Islam and Nazism is much more of a stretch than between Zionism and Nazism.

Zionism and Nazism are obviously much closer to each other, since they are both a pile of very racist, system-less bullshit. The core of both ideologies is unadulterated racism.

On the other hand, if you listen to even the most extreme and radical Muslims, such as Osama bin Laden or so, or even to some people in the ISIS crowd, have you ever heard them referring to Nazi literature?

Have you ever heard them making the kind of racist remarks that both Nazis and Zionists routinely make?

Racism is not part of Islam, while it is the core foundation of Nazism and Zionism.

The technical condition is that PA and ZF-infinity (read "ZF minus infinity") are bi-interpretable. — fishfry

Bi-interpretability looks like an interesting subject, but unfortunately the Wikipedia page does not elaborate PA versus ZF-infinity as an example.

the output of the completed induction ... There is no such term of art in set theory. — fishfry

Well, you did use the term "complete" in the sense of induction-complete. I clearly used it in the same way, and then you suddenly backtrack to claiming that induction-complete would be "no such term of art in set theory".

Completeness of the real numbers
Not to be confused with Completeness (logic).
There are many equivalent forms of completeness, the most prominent being Dedekind completeness and Cauchy completeness (completeness as a metric space). — Completeness of the real numbers

Since our conversation had absolutely nothing to do with completeness of the real numbers, I wonder why you mention Cauchy completeness? It just adds to the confusion.

It's not really analogous to an axiomatic system IMO but sort of works as a vague metaphor. — fishfry

Relational algebra is itself obviously also an axiomatic system. I do not believe that anybody even questions that.

So is materializing the same as completing? — fishfry

It is used as a term for induction-completing (A term you actually introduced by yourself yourself). It has obviously nothing to do with logic completeness, Cauchy completeness, Dedekind completeness, and so on.

Of course the natural numbers with the usual metric (absolute arithmetic difference) is Cauchy-complete. (Tricky. Why?) — fishfry

That is another context in which the term "completeness" is used.

A is perfectly "complete" in your sense, it contains the conclusions of all its axioms. — fishfry

That is about completeness in logic, which is not directly related to the "output of the completed induction". I was not referring to "logically complete".

You can't say the axiom of infinity completed it using your made-up definition, when it's NOT complete by everyone's standard definition. — fishfry

There is not one definition for completeness. It depends on the context. You may have misunderstood what context I was referring to, but that kind of confusion occurs relatively easy with the term "complete".

In fact, I never used the term induction-complete or induction-completed before. I only used it because you used it first. I tend to use the term "materialized" instead of induction-completed. Furthermore, it is probably better not to further overload the term 'complete' with additional meanings.

To sum up, all I can see is that you're saying that PA is complete with respect to the axioms of PA, and ZF is complete with respect to the axioms of ZF, and ZFC is complete wrt the axioms of ZFC, and so forth. — fishfry

No, of course not. That is about logical completeness. I didn't make even one single remark in that context. I don't see why you would understand any of the above in terms of logical completeness.

When a discussion degenerates in "who is smarter than whom", "who knows more than whom", i.e. the typical, ridiculous conversations in the academia, in which they engage because they simply have nothing else to show for, then I tend to back out. That kind of conversations are simply not interesting. In that case, I even prefer -- God forbid -- the slightly less ridiculous conversations in business about whom makes more money than whom, because amounts of money are at least objectively measurable while amounts of knowledge are not.

You are not a historian, and your selected Wikipedia snippets ... — Nobeernolife

I am not interested in figuring everything that you are not, because I do not consider you personally to be a sufficiently interesting subject for that purpose. By the way, should I be flattered by the fact that you seem to have nothing better to do than analyzing and studying my person?

In fact, I rarely object when pretty, young women do that in the physical world, but in my opinion, it does not make sense to do that here online because, in the end, there is no convenient way to act on it.

The Mufti was also busy recruiting Islamic Nazi SS regiments ... — Nobeernolife

Well, apparently he was lying in bed with the devil for reasons of political expediency, assuming that the end would justify the means. Some people will end up making Faustian pacts. So? Would that be the first time in the history of mankind? And now, feel free to tell me something interesting instead.

There was no concept of Israel at the the time. However, there was the ongoing holocaust, which the mufti admired. And he expressed his point of view clearly:

"The friendship between Muslims and Germans has become much stronger because National Socialism corresponds to the Islamic world view in many respects. The points of contact are: Monotheism and unity of leadership. Islam as an organizing force. The struggle, the community, the family and the offspring. The relationship to the Jews. The glorification of work and creation."
Muhammed Amin Al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, Berlin, October 1944 — Nobeernolife

In an earlier period, there was not particularly much of a political mutual understanding, because Nazi Germany was expelling Jews out of Germany who then ended up in Palestine:

Nazi policy for solving their Jewish problem until the end of 1937 emphasized motivating German Jews to emigrate from German territory. The Gestapo and the SS inconsistently cooperated with a variety of Jewish organizations and efforts (e.g., Hanotaiah Ltd., the Anglo-Palestine Bank, the Temple Society Bank, HIAS, Joint Distribution Committee, Revisionist Zionists, and others), most notably in the Haavurah Agreements, to facilitate emigration to Mandatory Palestine.[48] This precipitous increase in the Jewish Palestinian population stimulated Palestinian Arab political resistance to continued Jewish immigration, and was a principal cause for the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. The Mufti opposed all immigration of Jews into Palestine. — Wikipedia on Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world

In fact, at that point in time, the Nazis were much more interested in collaborating with Zionist organizations than with the Mufti. It is only in 1938 that Germany's policy became aligned with the Mufti, when Germany finally agreed to stop expelling Jews to Palestine:

In 1938 the German policy toward the Jewish homeland in Palestine appears to have substantially changed, as indicated in this German Ministry of Foreign Affairs note from 10 March 1938:

The influx into Palestine of German capital in Jewish hands will facilitate the building up of a Jewish state, which runs counter to German interests; for this state, instead of absorbing world Jewry, will someday bring about a considerable increase in world Jewry's political power.[51] — Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world

So, in 1944, the Nazis had already switched from collaborating with Zionist organizations to siding with the Mufti on the issue of expelling German Jews to Palestine. The Nazis had stopped sending European Jews to Palestine by then. Any positive declaration by any of the parties involved, can only be understood in that light.

Not just some muslims. The Mufti of Jerusalem was in Germany during WW2, advising Hitler on the Jewish issue and raising muslim troops for the Nazis. And Mein Kampf is a bestseller in the muslim world even today. I think the source you found tries to whitewash that a bit. — Nobeernolife

The Mufti of Jerusalem was obviously trying to create alliances left and right with a view on preventing the creation of the apartheidsstate of Israel. That does not mean in any fashion that he subscribed to the Nazi ideology, which is simply not compatible with Islam. It is also obvious that it is rather the racist apartheidsstate of Israel that is ideologically close to Nazism.

You see, Islamic law is a complete formal system with rules concerning morality. It is not possible to just mix it haphazardly with system-less bullshit such as nazism or communism. At best, it is possible to lift single, individual concerns, one by one, from such ideology and then figure out in what way Islam would agree to address such concern. So, don't count on any serious mufti or any other alim to join that kind of parties. He just won't do it.

I don´t know what the inspiration for Mein Kampf was, and I said nothing about that.
I was pointing out to you that contrary to what you claimed, Hitler admired islam, that influential muslim figures did and do support nazism, and that that nazism is popular in the muslim world even today, There is no need to misquote me. — Nobeernolife

Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.

Surely, the Nazi leaders thought, Muslims would see that the Germans were their blood brothers: loyal, iron-willed, and most important, convinced that Jews were the evil that most plagued the world. “Do you recognize him, the fat, curly-haired Jew who deceives and rules the whole world and who steals the land of the Arabs?” demanded one of the Nazi pamphlets dropped over North Africa (a million copies of it were printed). “The Jew,” the pamphlet explained, was the evil King Dajjal from Islamic tradition, — The Nazi Romance with Islam

Ok, I see what Hitler apparently said about Islam and how he tried to endear himself with the Muslim community. Fine, I get that.

Concerning what the Muslim community thought about Hitler:

The Nazis’ anti-Jewish propaganda no doubt attracted many Muslims, as historian Jeffrey Herf has documented, but they balked at believing that Hitler would be their savior or liberator. Instead, they sensed correctly that the Nazis wanted Muslims to fight and die for Germany. As Rommel approached Cairo, Egyptians started to get nervous. They knew that the Germans were not coming to liberate them, but instead wanted to make the Muslim world part of their own burgeoning empire. In the end, more Muslims wound up fighting for the Allies than for the Axis. — The Nazi Romance with Islam

As I suspected, the Muslims did not trust him, and they were obviously right. Even though they did not know the nitty-gritty details of Hitler's true nature, they were suspicious of his intentions. Now, the author suggests that the Egyptians may have felt some kind of loyalty to the British, but I seriously doubt that too.

You see, some Muslims may have fallen for Hitler's propaganda. I am quite sure that some must have done that. Hitler was undoubtedly excellent at shit talking about the British and their colonial politics. However, we can all sense that you should not trust this kind of persons without thoroughly investigating their character first. Hitler's character was utmost ugly. Just read what he wrote in Mein Kampf and how he spewed hate on an endless list of enemies. He never said anything good about anybody. He was just hating and hating and hating. I am confident that Muslims who read his venom understood that you cannot ever trust a person like that; and according to the author, they clearly didn't.

I don´t know what you are trying to say. I am pointing to the deep connection between islamic ideology and nazism, and you keep writing obscure denials. — Nobeernolife

So, according to you the inspiration for Mein Kampf was the Quran? Or something like that?

Islam is a book. All information about Nazism is also a book. What would according to you be the deep connection between these two books?

Oh really now. Would that include Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Yussuf Al-Qaradafi, its current head cleric? — Nobeernolife

These clerics are not as close as you or me to what happened in the 1930ies and 1940ies in German-occupied Europe. They would never advocate things like "All the Gypsies have to die". Come on, on what grounds would they be able to justify such a thing as clerics?

For a starters, in Islam you cannot do something like "kill all the Gypsies", because that is incompatible with confiscating their girls, whom you cannot kill, because that is utmost contrary and incompatible with the true biological goal of males fighting in the mating season, i.e. "war".

The Nazis were a regime of hate, about sheer hate only, and run by born haters, who in their hate even managed to overrule very basic biological principles, such as through their policy of Rassenschande. The Quran is totally opposed to that.

I am quite sure that these clerics just lifted a few sentences out of context and then reused them in another conflict in order to score quick and easy political points. In fact, you'd better quote exactly what they have said, because you may even be seriously misrepresenting their views.

Well, that is good for you, however keep in mind that Hitler was and is vastly popular in the muslim world, so a lot of your co-religionists disagree with you there. — Nobeernolife

Not vastly.

Some Muslims may conclude things too quickly on grounds of short-sighted political considerations, but anybody who understands what he really meant to say, cannot possibly like his vast collection of endless hate speech, unless he is a born hater himself.

As soon as they would get to know the details of his true nature, they would repudiate and disavow him. It is the same mentality as later on Milosevic: a born and professional shit talker of vitriolic hate speech.

Oh really now. Do you have a source for that? How many Chinese, African, or non-muslim Arabs have you asked about that? None of the philosophy students that I know would call Schopenhauer a "piece of shit".

Do you also think Voltaire is a "piece of shit"?

The Koran teaches fear, hatred, contempt for others. Murder as a legitimate means of spreading and maintaining this devil's doctrine. It denigrates women, divides people into classes and demands blood and more blood. (VOLTAIRE) — Nobeernolife

Well, there are so many people, including our dear friend Leonard Euler, who thought that Voltaire was a piece of shit that there is no need to further swell the ranks. Voltaire was simply known, even famous, for being a witty, funny, professional shit talker.

By the way:

Shah Kazemi, Reza. The Spirit of Tolerance in Islam. pp. 5–6. "Voltaire also 'pointed out that no Christian state allowed the presence of a mosque; but that the Ottoman state was filled with Churches.'" — Wikipedia on Voltaire

That seems like the only factual statement Voltaire made about Islam. It wasn't even a subject that he wasted particularly much time on. He vastly preferred talking shit about Christianity.

Voltaire was a funny guy, but besides mocking other people, has he actually contributed anything worth mentioning to humanity? I have ran into Euler's work while doing stuff that has made me good money. Who has ever been able to put Voltaire's calumnies to good use? Obviously, not anybody.

Ah, I forgot to mention: Both Nietzsche and Hitler were fond of islam.
So you do have some influential voices on your side. However Nietzsches brain was affected by Syphillis, and Hitler... well, maybe you count him among the great philosophers, but I do not. — Nobeernolife

Well, I doubt it matters. When a person writes a complete book, such as 'Mein Kampf', that only shit talks about other people and nothing else, then what are we supposed to think about the author? Seriously, he does not say anything good about absolutely anybody in that book. It is one long rant about everybody he hates. Sorry, but I have no respect for that kind of people.

Schopenhauer is one of the great philosophers of all time (and you are not). — Nobeernolife

That is just a typical western ethnocentric view on philosophy. If you ask a Chinese, an Arab, or an African about Schopenhauer, they will all say that he is just a filthy piece of shit. And I agree with that point of view, because what the hell did that idiot know about other cultures and civilizations? Did he ever even go there? How far did that imbecile retard manage to travel outside Germany? Huh?

At the same time, there are lots of Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Africans who would love to use the Coq proof assistant. They think it is great!

Schopenhauer, Nietsche, and all the other imbeciles have no universal appeal whatsoever. At best, they are popular with a limited audience in a few western countries (not even all). This audience is deeply invested themselves in infinite regress and other system-less bullshit. That is why they like that kind of useless crap. Seriously, it may be moderately amusing to talk bullshit about "Ubermenschen" and "Untermenschen", but what other value could it possible have? Yeah, maybe Hitler will like too, That is the only use it has. Seriously, it is idiots writing bullshit for other idiots.

Schopenhauer studied the content of islam critically (and you obviously did not.) — Nobeernolife

No, no, no. System-less bullshit is not the same as critical thinking.

For example, it is not because you do not understand mathematics, not even to save yourself from drowning, that you are "critically thinking about" mathematics. Again, that is just liberal-arts bullshit. They think that they know but they obviously don't. It is just a bunch of ignorant and arrogant idiots. Furthermore, I am not the only person who thinks like that. Employers clearly believe that too. That is why these liberal-arts born losers should just go coffee slinging in their part-time job at Starbucks.

By the way, all great thinkers who studied islam came out with similar warnings. Of course, today in the current PC climate, they would all be accused of "islamophobia" or similar BS. — Nobeernolife

But it really is ignorant bullshit. It does not just "seem" like that. It really is. Seriously, what do they actually know about the subject? These guys are just a bunch of imbecile retards.

In fact PA is equivalent, as a theory, to ZF minus infinity; that is, ZF with the negation of the axiom of infinity. — fishfry

I would like to discuss this because it is absolutely not self-evident to me that two sets of different rules, i.e. PA versus ZF minus infinity, would be completely equivalent. The rules do not even look like each other. Just look at the axioms. They are simply different. Still, if their equivalence is provable, then I would consider that to be an amazing result.

In fact, in that case, it should be possible to take the axioms of PA, push them through some kind of algebraic transformation process, and then end up with ZF minus infinity. I cannot imagine what this transformation process could look like.

The axiom of infinity allows us to take the "output of the completed induction," — fishfry

That is exactly what I mean by "materializing".

The reason why I used this term, is because this is the term used when you fully calculate and store the output of a view formula in relational databases, instead of keeping it around as a merely virtual construct. So, taking the "output of the completed induction" is called "materializing" in that context.

I just accidentally used a term (materialized view) en provenance from another domain.

In fact, it is not a completely different domain, because relational algebra is a downstream domain from ZF set theory. It completely rests on standard set theory. It is only much closer to practical applications:

Relational algebra, first created by Edgar F. Codd while at IBM, is a family of algebras with a well-founded semantics used for modelling the data stored in relational databases, and defining queries on it. — Wikipedia on relational algebra

Your use of complete is nonstandard and I don't know what you mean. — fishfry

I wasn't aware of the fact that the notation, N = { 0, 1, 2, ... }, is considered complete in set theory (through the axiom of infinity). (It is obviously not considered complete in PA.) So, yes, my use of the term "complete" is not standard in set builder notation in reference to ZF (but not in reference to ZF minus infinity). These things are extremely subtle. It depends on whether the theory in the context of which it is used, has an axiom that can "take the output of the completed induction", i.e. "materialize" it in relational-algebra lingo.

It is also very related to the concept of list comprehension where a similar problem occurs. You can create the list of natural numbers as a virtual construct, but you cannot "materialize" it, because that will cause your system to run out of memory.

Here, the list [0..] represents $\mathbb {N}$ , x^2>3 represents the predicate, and 2*x represents the output expression. List comprehensions give results in a defined order (unlike the members of sets); and list comprehensions may generate the members of a list in order, rather than produce the entirety of the list thus allowing, for example, the previous Haskell definition of the members of an infinite list. — Wikipedia about using virtual constructs that represent the infinite list of natural numbers

So Burali-Forti is a theorem that follows from the axioms of ZF: that the class of ordinals can not be a set. And non well-founded set theory is a thing, but an obscure thing. These two ideas are NOT at some opposite ends of a pendulum or related to one another at all. You are wrong about any important connection or insight here. — fishfry

if Ω is the set of ordinals but Ω is also itself an ordinal, then this situation will result in Ω being a set that contains itself, and therefore, result in a set that is not well-founded.

There are no infinite downward chains of membership. — fishfry

Yes, but that is exactly what would happen if Ω is the set of ordinals but Ω is also itself an ordinal. That is in my impression another reason why Ω cannot be termed a set but must be considered a proper class.

Therefore if the class of ordinals were a set we could take its union to get another ordinal that must be a member of itself. That violates regularity, so there can be no set of ordinals. — fishfry

Yes, that was indeed the connection that I saw.

The problem is that islamic morality is pretty abhorrent. So while I am not in principle against a religious society (sharing a religion is good for society), in this particular case we should be careful.

"Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism."
(Arthur Schopenhauer) — Nobeernolife

Imagine that we design a horror moral system with the following basic rules:

rule 1: You must kill everybody else
rule 2: Since everybody else will also be trying to kill you, keep ducking for the bullets
rule 3: and so on

In that case, I would still be interested in a project to figure out if the justification for conclusions/theorems in the horror moral system can be verified mechanically from its basic rules. It still looks like an interesting project to me. So, I want to fire up the Coq proof assistant and see where I can get.

What Schopenhauer was doing, was something completely different. He was rather interested in shit talking other people by incessantly using infinite regress, fake blank pages, and other system-less bullshit. That is a completely different exercise in a completely different subject matter. I am simply not interested in that kind of nonsense. It is rather something for the liberal-art idiots. Schopenhauer would never have been able to use the Coq proof assistant (let alone to write a program like that), because he was just too stupid for that.

I understand that and I agree with you, and if you've sided more to the theistic side I'm fine hearing your explanation for why that is. Personally, I was raised Jewish. I am now agnostic. If we're going to engage theistic thinking I'm partial to Jewish lines of thought when it comes to questions of God's nature. — BitconnectCarlos

God's nature is not part of religious law, which is limited to the morality of human behaviour only. Rabbinic (Jewish) law is also pretty much a formal system of morality (just like Islamic law). Therefore, I believe that a project to mechanically verify the justification of religious advisories in Jewish law could also be successful. It is just that there seem to be fewer advisories available in Jewish jurisprudence. So, it could be harder to validate the scripts against an existing knowledge database (because it is so much smaller).

I am personally not much of a hero in the realm of discussing God's nature. I do not peruse that type of literature often enough to be familiar with any deeper insights.

It is mostly because I like formal systems in general that I am so attracted to religious law.

Religious law (in Islam and Rabbinic orthodox Judaism but not necessarily in other religions) is clearly also a formal system but then for morality (instead of number theory or so). I find it truly fascinating. So, yes, I would also be interested in a project around mechanical verification in Jewish law.

I give up with you.
You consistently refuse to answer any question that is asked and you are a bullshitting hypocrite.
Don't bother to answer. — Sir2u

Ha ha ha!

Exploiting a government subsidy system is not considered to be a form of theft by lots of people while breaking into your neighbour's house to steal money certainly is.

Seriously, if any demographic manages to bankrupt the state treasury by extracting and exacting all kinds of benefits out of it, this will only bring a smile to my face. It is a stupid system anyway. So, yes, please, sink it!

For the record, I am agnostic: God may or may not exist. — BitconnectCarlos

That question is relevant to religion but not to religious law.

Religious law is a formal system of rules. In that sense, it just behaves as any formal system of rules. It has a foundation of basic rules and then a whole body of conclusions/theorems that syntactically entail from these basic rules.

Seriously, "God may or may not exist" is not a relevant question in religious law.

Example: "You ought to place the fork on the left of the plate." — BitconnectCarlos

East Asians generally do not even eat with a fork and knife. They rather use chopsticks.

Since there is no rule in religious law that mentions what tools you should use to eat with, this question does not even come within the purview of religious law.

All I was asking you is how do you incorporate non-moral oughts into your system. — BitconnectCarlos

In that case, it will no longer be a formal system of morality. A legitimate formal system of morality can only mirror the relevant moral rules.

By the way do you plan on answering any of my questions or are you just going to continue spouting articles from the internet? — Sir2u

You ask 178432 different questions and then you still expect just one answer.

So, no, I just pick one question of your 178432 questions, and I only deal with that. Once we are finally done with that one question, we can move on to the next question.

So, what is the one next question? And not the 178432 next questions ...

That's the famous Burali-Forti paradox, that the collection of ordinals can't be a set. — fishfry

Wow. That is very interesting!

It is named after Cesare Burali-Forti, who in 1897 published a paper proving a theorem which, unknown to him, contradicted a previously proved result by Cantor. — Wikipedia on Burali-Forti

The proof based on Von Neumann ordinals is also straightforward. In that definition, (some interpretation of) $\mathbb{N}$ itself is also an ordinal. However, with "each ordinal is the well-ordered set of all smaller ordinals", it leads to $\mathbb{N} \lt \mathbb{N}$, i.e. the ordinal $\mathbb{N}$ being smaller than itself. Apparently, Cesare Burali-Forti already managed to prove it without using set-theoretical constructions (but Wikipedia does not explain the older proof strategy).

Yes, you can't define the ordinals in PA because you can't get to the first transfinite ordinal ω by successors. You have to take a limit; or what amounts to the same thing, you have to consider the completed set of natural numbers. That in fact is the definition of ω. — fishfry

Yes, I should probably not have used the symbol $\mathbb{N}$ (above) to designate the ordinal ω. I already sensed this because Wikipedia explicitly stays clear of doing that:

"Let Ω be a set that contains all ordinal numbers."

So, in this context, the subtlety is that $\mathbb{N}$ = { 0, 1, 2, ... } is not complete, while ω = { 0, 1, 2, ..., ω } is complete but then rests on something ultimately contradictory, i.e. a non-well-founded set expression of the type A = { B, A } which is then equivalent with A = { B, { B, A } } = { B, { B, { B, { B, A } } } } and so on, ad nauseam.

It looks like there is a strong (but unexpected) link between and Cesare Burali-Forti's work and what Dmitry Mirimanoff pointed out:

The study of non-well-founded sets was initiated by Dmitry Mirimanoff in a series of papers between 1917 and 1920, in which he formulated the distinction between well-founded and non-well-founded sets. — Wikipedia on non-well-foundedness

So, this result is understandable if we keep the subtlety in mind that $\mathbb{N}$ is not materialized while Ω is materialized. The act of materializing $\mathbb{N}$ substantially changes its nature. The work of Burali-Forti is quite interesting. In my opinion, it is surprising and even intriguing!

I'm not really aiming to get into another conversation about atheist morality right now. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, that is obvious. The problem is full of contradictions, and you clearly have no solution for that.
I was just pointing out how silly the simplistic atheist views are in that realm. Atheists do not think things through, because if they did, they would see by themselves that their point of view is highly inconsistent.

I'd like to stick with the social rules/norms issue: Do you not believe in social norms/social rules or etiquette because there is no one God-given source which includes all of them? — BitconnectCarlos

In a formal system of morality, it will not be possible to justify its first principles from within the system itself. The reason for that is very simple: It is never possible to justify the first principles of any formal system from within the system itself.

I'm just curious as to your thoughts on how these rules are justified, if they are at all in your opinion. — BitconnectCarlos

For example, how are the first principles in number theory justified by number theory?
They obviously aren't, simply, because that is not possible.

The atheist view fails at a very, very basic level already.

Again, as I have mentioned earlier already, there are no blank slates. You cannot start reasoning from a blank page, because (propositional) logic itself is a formal system that rests on 14 basic beliefs, i.e. axioms, that from the point of view of logic appear as arbitrary, speculative, unjustified, and unjustifiable.

Hence, the seemingly blank page is governed by libraries full of consequences derived from these 14 basic beliefs. It is not blank at all !

The atheist approach is a silly exercise in infinite regress resulting from total ignorance about how formal systems work. Either you reason within the system, or else you reason about the system, because in all other cases, you are just doing some unfeasible form of system-less bullshit.

Endlessly proclaiming the sanity of atheism seems to be something for liberal-art idiots who have never been asked to reason about something that is actually "hard". The typical employer in the labour market is right: Liberal arts are stupid. These fake subjects teach you to reason in an imbecile way. These people are only going to cause trouble with their rampant stupidity.

Nobody needs a written rule that tells you when you can or cannot beat your wife. They apparently have those written into islamic moral laws though. — Sir2u

Under particular, explicitly stated conditions it is acceptable in Islam. In fact, it was reasonably acceptable in western society too, until they changed the rules. The same is true for corporal punishment of children. It simply depends on the rules of your moral system.

How many atheist are condemned to prison for immoral acts? How many religious people are sentenced for the same crimes? — Sir2u

That phenomenon is relative to secular laws. The count would be different if it were relative to religious law. The term "crime" simply does not mean the same thing in different legal systems.

When you have that information then I will believe that atheists are the bad guy that the data shows them to be. — Sir2u

I never said that "atheists are the bad guy". That is not what it is about. In fact, that cannot possibly be what it is about, because we are talking about systems that define what "the bad guy" means. Depending on the moral system that you use, the term "the bad guy" obviously means something else.

Where is written, as you insist on things being written down to be valid, that there HAS TO BE written moral laws or tenets to guide human behavior? — Sir2u

I use the fact that the information is available in written form as evidence for the fact that information actually exists. You can indeed try to use another principle to provide evidence for the existence of information. I am not against that. However, if information exists, it should be possible to write it down. So, when you claim that information exists, I will simply ask for a copy of its written form.

Why is your little book any more authorized to be the guide to human morality than the bible, the Torah, or The Lord of the Rings. Personally I would adopt the last if I had to make a choice about moral guidelines for my life, it is much more realistic. — Sir2u

Again, there is not one, single religious community which keeps the rules of just one scripture. Each religious community has its own scripture. As I have mentioned before, I do not assume that the scripture of another religious community would be wrong. This is also not the view in Islam. On the contrary, the Torah, the Gospels, and the Psalms are specifically mentioned in the Quran as holy books, i.e. alternative legitimate scriptures.

Not accepting a god's law and behaving properly according to the society in which one lives are not at all contradictory. — Sir2u

In all practical terms, it could very well mean "not accepting God's law but still keeping God's law", which is effectively contradictory.

So if you live in a society that is not islamic, you would not respect their ideals, laws and so on? — Sir2u

In the Islamic view, non-Muslims cannot be required to keep Islamic law. Therefore, in an Islamic society, each religious community has its own legal system. There are a few complications with that approach but they are certainly not insurmountable. There are quite a few countries that operate along traditional, pre-colonial lines, such as India, Malaysia, and Lebanon, just to name a few.

Except for some British former colonies, where the British colonial power was wise enough to understand why it was better to leave things as they were (with a legal system per religious community), western colonization has dramatically disturbed the legal situation in these former colonies. For example, it took a long civil war in Lebanon to reinstate the former Ottoman system of one legal system per religious community and in that way achieve peace again.

The ever ongoing wars in the Middle East are actually about two things: (1) getting rid of the colonial project of creating the apartheid state of Israel (2) reinstating the Ottoman-Islamic principle of one legal system per religious community.

So if you live in a society that is not islamic, you would not respect their ideals, laws and so on? — Sir2u

No, because each religious community must have its own legal system. As far as I am concerned, it is unreasonable to expect believers of one religion to keep the laws of another religion.

If you look at the situation in Europe right now you will see that the muslims that go there to take advantage of the freebie system fail drastically to adapt the their new home and spend most of the time trying to live exactly as they did in the old country which they were too happy to escape from. — Sir2u

I do not have any moral qualm in exploiting freebie systems either. Morality emerges from your moral system. Unless your moral system forbids particular behaviour, this behaviour is deemed permissible. Therefore, I see no problem in helping to bankrupt a flawed freebie system by sucking it dry of its freebies. I would do that with a big smile on my face.

Furthermore, the gap in economic performance with the home countries of these immigrants is rapidly shrinking and has in quite a few cases already disappeared completely. For example, Malaysians are generally no longer be interested to move to the UK. That wouldn't make sense economically for most Malaysians. The economic imbalances in the world are disappearing and therefore the era of massive population movements too. It will have been a temporary phenomenon associated to the end of the colonial era.

First you say that you can tell the schools what to do, then you say that you had to take your kids out of school to do what you — Sir2u

Isn't it obvious that I created my own school for the year? Currently, they are at a local, private school to learn and practice reading/writing local language, which uses even a completely different alphabet. So, that will take a bit of time. In fact, it is a combination of private schools. As soon as they are finished doing that, the question will be: What are they supposed to do in high school? I do not like the schools' take on that either. Therefore, I may have to create my own school again by hiring a local (or Filipino teacher), and instruct that person to teach a particular curriculum.

Apart from the fact that you have not shown any data to even prove that this crisis exists — Sir2u

Ha aha ha! The student debt crisis in the US would not even exist! What a joke!

If you read the article you provided a link to it says that many students are using other methods of obtaining an education, so there are alternative ways if the people were not too lazy to look for and consider other ways to do things. — Sir2u

Well, yeah, some people still have a brain while others don't. Welcome to the real world!

What the fuck have you done with your pompous little life? — Sir2u

I don't want to brag about that because that will quickly sound arrogant, but I am more than happy with my life! ;-)

And, as I pointed out, it is possible to construct an ethical code without referring to religion. — Nobeernolife

If it is possible, then why don't you do it?
And if you did it, then where is it documented?