That period lasted for hundreds of years, so for an extremely long time, muslim morality was simply transmitted orally... something you claimed is impossible. — Nobeernolife

It does not "reject" any ethical system, it simply does not address any. — Nobeernolife

Living in a society of ourse requires a code of ethics, and as I said it is possible to create one without referring to Allah, Yahwe, Neptune, Zeus, or Hoitsipotsli. — Nobeernolife

I understand that and I completely agree but I think rational people can agree that just because something is written down or it's in a beautiful book somewhere doesn't immediately give it authority or make it a source of authority. — BitconnectCarlos

The disbelief in a god does not mean there is no need for ethics. — Nobeernolife

Since atheism is not a belief system in itself, just the absence of one, it is absurd to ask for atheist rules. — Nobeernolife

If I just listed a bunch of rules now those rules would be written down but I don't know how that would suddenly validate them. — BitconnectCarlos

The Haddith, the other leg of islamic morality, actually show this islamic telephone game clearly. It is all "as narrated by xxx who heard it narrated from yyy who heard it narrated from zzz" etc. So no, you do NOT need paper to pass on information, although of course it helps. — Nobeernolife

Atheism is not a worldview. It is merely disbelief in a God/Gods. There are no tenets or rules. — Susu

Trivialism (from Latin trivialis, meaning 'found everywhere') is the logical theory that all statements (also known as propositions) are true and that all contradictions of the form "p and not p" (e.g. the ball is red and not red) are true. In accordance with this, a trivialist is a person who believes everything is true.[1][2] — Wikipedia on trivialism

The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it. This is known as deductive explosion.[2][3] The proof of this principle was first given by 12th century French philosopher William of Soissons.[4] — Wikipedia on the principle of explosion

Yes, you could write them down. — BitconnectCarlos

Constitutions are written by people, so yes we are back to a definition based on society. As opposed to morality based on religion, which supposedly comes from god, so can not be discussed. Don´t really see how what you write contradicts what I said. — Nobeernolife

We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe

Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be constitutional. — Bug fix

For me, it's not so much a matter of "validation" as it is just that the rule itself exists. — BitconnectCarlos

Why is a document needed? — BitconnectCarlos

If there were a document written up, what would validate it? — BitconnectCarlos

Think about it, do you really go to the school and tell them how to educate the kids and what to teach them? — Sir2u

How many islamic countries have college level education systems that anyone can get financial help to study in? — Sir2u

Every day, there are news stories about the college tuition crisis. But what is the crisis we are seeking to solve? Is it the staggering amount of student debt? The rapidly rising cost of higher education? The interest being collected on student loans? The high default rate on student loans? Or all of the above? — hbr.org on 'What Will It Take to Solve the Student Loan Crisis?'

Morality is based on scriptures, while ethics is a code for good and bad behaviour agreed on by society. — Nobeernolife

via the Peano axioms, in which N is a collection but not a set — fishfry

In work on Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the notion of class is informal, whereas other set theories, such as von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory, axiomatize the notion of "proper class", e.g., as entities that are not members of another entity.

A class that is not a set (informally in Zermelo–Fraenkel) is called a proper class, and a class that is a set is sometimes called a small class. For instance, the class of all ordinal numbers, and the class of all sets, are proper classes in many formal systems. — Wikipedia on class versus set

In set theory, an ordinal number, or ordinal, is one generalization of the concept of a natural number that is used to describe a way to arrange a (possibly infinite) collection of objects in order, one after another. Any finite collection of objects can be put in order just by the process of counting: labeling the objects with distinct natural numbers. Ordinal numbers are thus the "labels" needed to arrange collections of objects in order. — Wikipedia on ordinal numbers

Sets are those things given by the axioms you use, and it results that the notion of set becomes relative to the theory being considered. Something may be a set in one theory, but not in others. “Collection” is, as far as I can imagine, an informal word for aggregate or amount of things, standard things like pebbles and cats, which of course can be represented by sets, but have nothing to do with abstract mathematics. — Quora answer on sets versus collections

We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe

Do you think that gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a feasible undertaking? — even

you were taught and learned all the right things before you were thrown out into the world — Noah Te Stroete

Some people need freebies — Noah Te Stroete

Do woman get freebies by becoming wives? — Gregory

If you are so smart — Gregory

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1] — Wikipedia on Dunning-Kruger

I for one reject all miracles that imply a God, while accepting all the other incredible things that happen strangely in this world because you can't accept all of them. — Gregory

Inheriting wealth is a freebie (Trump). — Gregory

You can pick all of the phrases you want, but answer the question I asked. So far you have not answered a single question of mine, you always sidestep them. — Sir2u

I asked about the predisposition of people against getting an education, are they or are they not predisposed to avoid getting an education. And to make sure it is clear what I am asking let us define education as any form of gaining knowledge. — Sir2u

If people are not predisposed towards avoiding an education, why should they not be asked to pay for it? — Sir2u

How many islamic countries have free educational systems for their inhabitants? — Sir2u

I agree, there are a lot of people with useless degrees out there and no job. But who's fault is it? As you say, they were stupid enough to fall for the lies. — Sir2u

Even if we accept the notion that the Roman Catholic Church somehow "owns" the bible, it is clear that such ownership only applies to the New Testament. — EricH

Nevertheless Martin himself—and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this—the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation ... he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same. He has now been declared a heretic ... — Decet Romanum Pontificem, excerpt

Copyright Only Applies to New Testament
Even if we accept the notion that the Roman Catholic Church somehow "owns" the bible, it is clear that such ownership only applies to the New Testament. — EricH

Even if you accept the possibility of a transcendent origin there is no way to evaluate the correctness of such claims. — EricH

Now if the leaders of all the religions of the world could get together and come up with a set of rules of morality that they could agree upon? — EricH

Design by committee is a disparaging term for a project that has many designers involved but no unifying plan or vision. The term is used to refer to suboptimal traits that such a process may produce as a result of having to compromise between the requirements and viewpoints of the participants, particularly in the presence of poor leadership or poor technical knowledge, such as needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision. — Wikipedia on 'design by committee'

And on top of that - each religion has it's own system of moral rules and these rules differ wildly among religions. Things which are permitted in one religion are forbidden in another. — EricH

So the obvious next question is how can we construct a system of morality in the absence of transcendental authority. I confess - I do not have a definitive answer to this question. — EricH

How can human beings be naturally predisposed to never want an education. — Sir2u

"Worthless" is the single most important book young men and women can read before they attend college. While teachers, guidance counselors and even parents are afraid to tell you the truth in an effort to spare your feelings, “Worthless” delivers a blunt and real-world assessment about the economic realities and consequences of choosing various degrees with a necessary and tough fatherly love. Don’t lie to yourself. And certainly don’t waste four years of your youth and thousands of dollars in tuition on a worthless degree. Buy this book and understand why it is important you choose the right major. The book itself could be the wisest investment you ever make. — Amazon's description of 'Worthless'

As I earlier said, many don't see the subtle difference between Russell's paradox and Gödels (or Turings) finding. — ssu

Just as the real number that Cantor shows cannot be in any list. Of course, we do see the relation between the real number and the list of real numbers. Same thing. Not a paradox. — ssu

perhaps the problem lies is that the correct model would be something that falls into the category of the incompleteness results, in a way is a Gödel number the Gödels incompleteness theorem (is it the first theorem?) talks about. — ssu

• In theory provable means in practice true. (semantic completeness)
• In practice true does not necessarily mean in theory provable (syntactic incompleteness)

But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete. — Hawking in Gödel and the end of physics

Let f: N→N be the function defined by:

f(#(θ)) = #(θ(°#(θ))) — Wikipedia, start of the proof for Carnap's diagonal lemma

How does the scientist proceed? — Gregory

The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate Reviewing the ways in which psychology is and is not a science. For clarity of communication, it is often a good idea to start with some basic definitions, so let’s start with some generally agreed upon definitions of science from reputable organizations. — Psychology today

Is psychology a “real” science? Does it really matter? Fellow Scientific American blogger Melanie Tannenbaum is flustered by allegations that psychology is not a science and I can see where she is coming from. Berezow's definition of science is not off the mark, but it's also incomplete and too narrow. — Scientific American on psychology as science

Alternatives to the Scientific Approach. However, some psychologists’ argue that psychology should not be a science. There are alternatives to empiricism, such as rational research, argument and belief. The humanistic approach (another alternative) values private, subjective conscious experience and argues for the rejection of science. Despite having a scientific methodology worked out (we think), there are further problems and arguments which throw doubt onto psychology ever really being a science. — simplypsychology.org on whether psychology is a science

We make models of reality, for example mathematical formulas that portray some aspect of the complex reality around us. — ssu

As long as the theory is consistent, then, one can always add new axioms to the theory to expand its power and magnitude. — Wallows

Hilbert's program got demolished by Gödel. — fishfry

Because first, Gödelian incompleteness does not apply to physical theories. — fishfry

What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. — Stephen Hawking, Gödel and the end of physics

It applies (loosely speaking) to axiomatic systems of a particular logical structure, that support mathematical induction. Secondly, incompleteness is not a statement about mathematical truth. It's a statement about axiomatic theories. — fishfry

Presburger arithmetic is an axiom system for the natural numbers under addition. It is both consistent and complete. Gödel's theorem applies to the theories of Peano arithmetic (PA) and primitive recursive arithmetic (PRA), but not to Presburger arithmetic. — Wikipedia on the completeness of arithmetic

As mentioned above, Henkin proved that the standard deductive system for first-order logic is sound, complete, and effective for second-order logic with Henkin semantics, and the deductive system with comprehension and choice principles is sound, complete, and effective for Henkin semantics using only models that satisfy these principles. — Wikipedia on the possibility of completeness in the context of second-order logic

I can't comment any more on the Catholic thing. To my ears what you're saying sounds a bit conspiracy minded. But what do I know? I can't dismiss your arguments. — EricH

Religions are far more that simply a system of rules — EricH

Is this what the perfect society looks like? The god of these people lets their servants, the rulers of their nations, be tyrants over their brother believers. Sounds just like the other religions to me. — Sir2u

Catholic Church is Somehow Hiding the Rules — EricH

Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?

Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. — Catholic Encyclopedia on the Living Magisterium

The existence of Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, and the Divine institution of the living magisterium to defend and transmit revealed truth and the prerogative of this magisterium. — Catholic Encyclopedia on why the Living Magisterium is needed

Our legal system - while not perfect - provides an excellent road map on how to live a good decent life. If I obey the laws of the USA & my state & municipality, I'm pretty much there. — EricH

Regulatory capture (also client politics) is a corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group[1].[2] When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies." — Wikipedia on regulatory capture

So the imans are mouthpieces of the powers that be? He can only say what the government lets him. — Sir2u

So how is a person to choose one out of this bewildering variety of options? — EricH

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings? Must it be admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men? The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. Such are in this respect the two main points of controversy between Catholics and so-called orthodox Protestants (as distinguished from liberal Protestants, who admit neither supernatural Revelation nor the authority of the Bible). — Catholic Encyclopedia on Living magisterium

Remember, only one can be completely correct - and if you choose wrong you could burn in hell for all eternity. That's a pretty serious penalty for guessing wrong. — EricH

I doubt that. It sounds completely implausible to me. — Isaac

The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) may be applied to the secularist: “Wretched is the slave of the dinar and the slave of the dirham and the slave of the khameesah (a kind of luxurious garment made of wool with patterns). If he is given he is pleased and if he is not given he becomes discontent. May he be wretched and doomed, and if he is pricked with a thorn may it not be pulled out (i.e., may he have no help to remove it).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2887). — Sunnah on the problem of prioritizing the corporate oligarchy

Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
And, weak men create hard times. — G. Michael Hopf, Those Who Remain

Supposedly there were exceptions, such as people motivated by a higher moral philosophy or purpose. Generally, I'm against the notion of "anarchy", and I think there is enough evidence and legal and moral philosophy indicating that, at least some, would potentially act immoraliy in an anarchist scenario in which there was no centralized legal system — IvoryBlackBishop

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom he pleaseth. To set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. — Quran 4:48

OK - so a person can live an exemplary life as a non-believer and get into Paradise. But if you accept the faith but then later in life choose another religion, then you are denied Paradise even if you have otherwise lived an exemplary life. Correct? — EricH

I doubt that any society advocates bad behavior, they do permit it though. — Sir2u

So the church when the church says that you cannot use birth control because it is not beneficial for mankind and therefore incorrect behavior I should believe them? — Sir2u

Muslim scholars have extended the example of coitus interruptus, by analogy, to declaring permissible other forms of contraception, subject to three conditions.[25]
(1) As offspring are the right of both the husband and the wife, the birth control method should be used with both parties' consent.
(2) The method should not cause permanent sterility.[25]
(3) The method should not otherwise harm the body. — Wikipedia on birth control in Islam

So the church when the church says that you cannot have sex outside of marriage(even though they do) because it is not beneficial for mankind and therefore incorrect behavior I should believe them? — Sir2u

So the church when the church says that you cannot separate from your spouse that is beating you because it is not beneficial for mankind and therefore incorrect behavior I should believe them? — Sir2u

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) strike them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things. — Quran 4:34-35

You seem to be contradicting yourself. — EricH

The Tafsir for the above Aya is: The following was revealed regarding those who apostatized and became disbelievers: — islam.stackexchange.com

If I follow you, anyone can get into Paradise - Christian, Jew, Atheist, etc - as long as they behave decently and avoid major sins. Correct? — EricH

According to Islam, are all non-Muslims going to hell? The short answer is ‘No’. In Islam the decision of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is left entirely to God as He alone knows people’s hearts and is aware of their deeds. What Islam claims is that it is the perfect religion for mankind and a religion for all time and all people. — www.alislam.org, Library / Frequently Asked Questions

Sufi Islamic preacher Habib Ali al-Jifri said that it is not true that non-Muslims will not enter Paradise, citing an Islamic belief that states that “God will not torture people who did not receive the message of Islam”. He added that Islam has not reached some non-Muslims in its proper form. — Habib al-Jifri, Some non-Muslims may still enter Paradise

Do non-Muslims have chance to go to Paradise? If they were following their prophet at his time, then they have a chance to go to heaven. For example Jews have a chance to go heaven at the time of Moses (pbuh) and Christians also have that chance at the time of Jesus (pbuh). But if any one follows any religion other than Islam after Mohammed (pbuh) became the prophet then no chance to go to heaven as stated clearly in Quran: وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. [Quran 3:85] The Tafsir for the above Aya is: The following was revealed regarding those who apostatized and became disbelievers: Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him and in the Hereafter he shall be among the losers, because he will end up in the Fire, made everlasting for him. — islam.stackexchange.com

"Do Muslims believe that everyone will burn in Hell-fire except Muslims"? Simple response is "NO". Unfortunately it's not up to Muslims to decide who goes to hell-fire and who doesn't. That decree is going to come from Allah SWT and our belief is on the basis of what Allah swt tells us in Quran, "All sins can be forgiven except Shirk (creating partners with Allah)". Muslims don't have a free-ride either. The tribulations that one goes through in life will wash-away some of the sins. Some of the sins will be forgiven for the pain & sufferings of death and the grave. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that the Day of Reckoning will be a very tough day. — www.interfaith.org