godelian wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:32 am
I wasn't born into Islam. I was born a Catholic. In fact, I saw the writings on the wall (figuratively). Christianity is collapsing. So, since the Torah + original Gospel are bi-interpretable with the Quran, I did not really change scripture. At most, I had to drop Paul and his epistles.
I mentioned that people come to Islam as a choice or grow up in it. Of course you had to change the scripture. Trying telling Muslims your scripture is the same. But, then what I said about those accepting the culture of their parents holds. An intuitive process.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:23 am
Once they have a value, they can then argue in consequentialist terms from that value with the aid of science.
No, that is just a word salad. I want to see an actual copy of their moral theory. Simple, no? Where is it?
[/quote]1) it's not word salad.
Let's look at the discussion in order.
I said this....after you asked about documentation - a term I still consider strange in context.
They can, like anyone else, when arguing for certain behaviors or against others in a consequentialist way refer to sociology, psychology, various sciences, etc. For the foundational values, again it comes from their own values.
(See, that's me granting that the core values come prior to any use of science. Though actually the Muslim is in a similar position, since they must choose to call the Koran the authority and this is based on their values and intuition - but heck I already said this a couple of times, with no response from you.)
In response to that you told me that science describes the world and so isn't suitable for developing a moral theory. No response or seeming to have noticed that I said the core values have to come from themselves. Without actually interacting with the points I make you keep telling me things I know and even made or dismissing things without attempting to integrate what I actually said in your responses.
2) I compared the process of choosing to be in Islam which is based on intuition and one's values to the process an atheist, like anyone else, can use to develop their morals. I did this twice. No response to that.
3) no response to the point about how expecting atheists - a non-unified group that precisely does not have a scripture and is more like monists, or ontological antirealists, or dualists or rationalists - to have A moral theory and documentation is confused.
4) I asked for documentation of THE process by which Muslims decided to become Muslims and/or decide to continue their inherited beliefs. No response on that. IOW there is no documentation for a parallel process in Muslims you are expecting from atheists. No response to this.
If you're not going to respond to what I write, peachy. Perhaps start the first sentence of your post by saying that so I can save time and ignore it.
As the Koran says: Mohammed had a good ear. The Koran, there, [Sūrat al-Tawba (Chapter 9), Āyat (Verse) 61] emphasizes listening when in discussion even, perhaps especially, when one disagrees. You have not been listening to me. You certainly haven't responded to the core points I made. Even this last question makes no sense, given what I wrote. I can only hope you develop a good ear. But, I'm not waiting around to see if you will any time soon. I'll ignore you.