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

Stick around pal, we are working on it as you try to get the knot out of your knickers.

Religion can be good, it should be artistic. It should put hope in the hearts of the hopeless, richness in the hands of the poor. I prefer, not purely a book of wisdom, but a book of art.

This is the art of life.

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! ;-)

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

So where is the information about it. One article does not prove anything. If the crisis exists it must be written down somewhere. Let's see the numbers, how many students, how much money, that sort of thing might be believable.

Welcome to the real world! — alcontali

It is a shame that more people are not wealthy enough to live in your real world.

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

Where I come from we only brag about things when something can be gained from it. It is usually better to state the facts.

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

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.

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.

Yeah, that is obvious. The problem is full of contradictions, and you clearly have no solution for that.

***Disclaimer: Drunk post here, but still probably sensical as I'm not too drunk***

I am not an atheist. This is not a "hey, I see you're religious, let me argue with that" conversation. That would be a waste of time. For the record, I am agnostic: God may or may not exist. I am amenable to considering either line of thinking or implications for either line of thought.

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.

Okay, but we're not talking about morality here. Every "ought" statement is not necessarily a "moral" statement.

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

2: "You ought to travel down highway A as opposed to highway B if you're going to this walmart."

I didn't engage you here to destroy your belief system. I'm engaging you here because I genuinely want to learn what you have to say so that it can help me. That is the purpose of this discussion so stop viewing it as a battle. If you have ideas you'd like to bounce off me I'm happy to do that as well. That is, after all, philosophy. It is a selfish endeavour.

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

If you want to teach me about number theory I'm all ears. I dropped Calc 1 because it was too difficult.

I also don't believe in "blank slate" either. All I was asking you is how do you incorporate non-moral oughts into your system. I have my own thoughts on this, but I would rather hear yours because I already know my own.

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 ...

I am completely opposed to freebies. As I have said already, I do not want a ministry for the provision of gratis clothes to the populace. For a long list of reasons, too long to enumerate here, clothing should not be free of charge. The same is true for education and healthcare. I simply do not share that kind of culturally Marxist beliefs. — alcontali

You see, their views are totally contrary to mine. As a man, I do not just pay for myself. I also pay for wife, children, subsidies and allowances to extended family, and charity to neighbours in the wider community. I cannot imagine seeking to ask for freebies from other men. The idea alone is horrifying to me. Other men don't owe me anything. I simply do not want to live in a country with that kind of freebie mentality. — alcontali

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. — alcontali

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.

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

And you cannot even count. Where the hell is the facepalm smilie when I need 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.

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!

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

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.

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.

It is nonetheless an issue and a social norm in the US. It just is a reality whether we like it or not. I understand it is social custom; it is always the way I was taught. There are a billion of these social rules that we abide by in everyday life.

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.

Fair enough, but they are still truths. They are an interesting category of truths because despite most people having an implicit understanding of them they are rarely made explicit. I mentioned this point earlier when it came to autistics. I think a similar thing could be said those without an innate moral sense or sense of rhythm.

Ancontali hates the West so much that he says he wants to destroy it. All because he thinks a book that was written by murderers is a better guide than the human spark in everyone. What a moron. Would it be wrong for his wife to beat him?

If it is possible, then why don't you do it? (construct an ethical code without referring to religion)
And if you did it, then where is it documented? — alcontali

It is possible, I did it, and actually most humans do it inately (principles like fairness, empathy, and compassion do not need some religious books, they are inate to humans).

If you want documentation, again, read Sam Harris.

Aquinas said men are spiritually greater than women. But at least Mary was the holiest for him. In the Catholic church there is a current fierce debate over female deacons. Those who think like alcontali hate the idea. Those who are modern and think man and women are equal are for it. Females wouldn't be priests because the sexes have different roles. But holy orders being confirmed on women says they are equal. Spiritual development for alcontali looks like him shaking his ass at a Miley Cyrus concert. Seriously. Grow

I am not actually against using religion as a basis for morality. In principle, religion is philosophy of idiots (since it gives ready-made answers to complicated questions), and since most people are in fact idiots, that is a working solution for society. However, we have to pick which religion we choose. In particular islam with its its Sharia is a horrible choice. If a society chooses to base its morality on i.e. Bahaism, Zoroasterism or Buddhism that is fine with me.

It is a dim view indeed to consider religion to be humanity's comfort object - an immature child's blanket or teddy. Personally I view religion, in the forms we're familiar with today, as an awakening, a collective realization of not only the facts as they stand but also the possibility that the situation could be better and, for better or worse, being the only creatures to have realized this, we could at least try and do something about what can be termed appalling conditions we, all life in fact, have to face. The ability to know both what is and what ought to be, the essence of what we call morality, is in my opinion, a big leap for not only us but all life. Religion is, at its core, about morality isn't it?

Yes, religion, quite unfortunately in my opinion, doesn't stand up to scrutiny even in the very area it's supposed to be an authority, the moral domain, and to aggravate the situation, its claims about the world and universe at large have been disproved by science, negatively impacting its credibility as a whole. However, we can't deny the fact that morality's core claims are about how the world should be and ergo should be exempt from testing against facts, the way the world is; the only relevance of facts to morality is as a comparison, an undesirable state of affairs, to an envisioned better world. In other words, it matters not that science contradicts religion on the matter of things like when the earth was formed or whether the earth is the center of the universe, etc. for these are irrelevant to the sine qua non of religion - morality.

es, religion, quite unfortunately in my opinion, doesn't stand up to scrutiny e — TheMadFool

We should not generalize about "religion", just like we should not generalize about "ideology". There are very different ones out there, with very different outcomes for society. Some of them do not even have a god or gods, so they do not even tangent the whole atheism debate.

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.

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)

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.

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. — alcontali

Schopenhauer is one of the great philosophers of all time (and you are not).
Schopenhauer studied the content of islam critically (and you obviously did not.)

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.

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.

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. — alcontali

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)

[quote="alcontali;383682"Yeah, maybe Hitler will like too, That is the only use it has. Seriously, it is idiots writing bullshit for other idiots.[/quote]

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.

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.

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. — alcontali

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.

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.

As soon as they would get to know the details of his true nature, they would repudiate and disavow him. — alcontali

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