British Values

[godelian]

Atheists can make similar choices and find their way through a similar methodology.

Where is the result of all the work that they presumably have done, documented?

They can, like anyone else, when arguing for certain behaviors or against others in a consequentialist way refer to sociology, psychology, various sciences, etc.

Science tries to describe the world. It says how nature works. It does not say how it should work. Therefore, the sources that you mention are not suitable for constituting a moral theory. Since it is not even possible to do what you describe, I am now even more interested in looking at the final result of all this work. Where is it?

[Iwannaplato]

Where is the result of all the work that they presumably have done, documented?

Some of them have written about how their moralities arose. Where are the ways all Muslims came to decide Islam was correct or as adults who had been born into it decided that, yes, they would continue based on certain grounds? Where is that documented?

They can, like anyone else, when arguing for certain behaviors or against others in a consequentialist way refer to sociology, psychology, various sciences, etc.

Science tries to describe the world. It says how nature works. It does not say how it should work.

I didn't say it does that. That's the part they can use science for. Once they have a value, they can then argue in consequentialist terms from that value with the aid of science. They cannot form their values from science. Just as Muslims cannot justify their choice of Islam based on science.

Therefore, the sources that you mention are not suitable for constituting a moral theory. Since it is not even possible to do what you describe, I am now even more interested in looking at the final result of all this work. Where is it?

Again, my point was that an atheist can come to their morals in the same ways Muslims come to their religion: via intuition, via their own preferences and values, through being brought up in certain morals and beliefs.

Once the Muslim decides to be a Muslim based on such process, sure they can they appeal to the authority of the Koran and Imams, etc. But before that decision, they are using the same cognitive processes that atheists use when deciding on morals. Or like atheists are simply following the culture of their parents/village/group.

Regarding what I would assume for most Muslims is the most decision in their lives - the choice to be a Muslim or to continue to be one, they use certain cognitive processes that are similar to the ones that atheists use when arriving at their morals.

[godelian]

Where are the ways all Muslims came to decide Islam was correct or as adults who had been born into it decided that, yes, they would continue based on certain grounds? Where is that documented?

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.

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?

[Iwannaplato]

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.

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.

[godelian]

...

No, you first need to commit to something. Otherwise, you can change your moral theory on the fly. So, I do not want to discuss the specifics of how to invent your own rules. I just want a firm copy.

[Age]

Atheists can make similar choices and find their way through a similar methodology.

Where is the result of all the work that they presumably have done, documented?

They can, like anyone else, when arguing for certain behaviors or against others in a consequentialist way refer to sociology, psychology, various sciences, etc.

Science tries to describe the world. It says how nature works. It does not say how it should work. Therefore, the sources that you mention are not suitable for constituting a moral theory. Since it is not even possible to do what you describe, I am now even more interested in looking at the final result of all this work. Where is it?

Where is 'the work' of how nature or you human beings should work?

I am very interested in 'looking at' and 'discussing' 'this work'. Where is it?

[Age]

Where are the ways all Muslims came to decide Islam was correct or as adults who had been born into it decided that, yes, they would continue based on certain grounds? Where is that documented?

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.

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?

Just look at any writings of a so-called "atheist" and if in there there is absolutely any moral ideas, or theories, then that is where 'it' is, obviously.

[godelian]

Where are the ways all Muslims came to decide Islam was correct or as adults who had been born into it decided that, yes, they would continue based on certain grounds? Where is that documented?

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.

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?

Just look at any writings of a so-called "atheist" and if in there there is absolutely any moral ideas, or theories, then that is where 'it' is, obviously.

When you put 5 atheists around a table, you get 9 moral theories. Which one of the 9 alternatives is the definitive atheist moral theory?

[Age]

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.

No, that is just a word salad. I want to see an actual copy of their moral theory. Simple, no? Where is it?

Just look at any writings of a so-called "atheist" and if in there there is absolutely any moral ideas, or theories, then that is where 'it' is, obviously.

When you put 5 atheists around a table, you get 9 moral theories. Which one of the 9 alternatives is the definitive atheist moral theory?

And, when you put five "muslims" around a table, you get nine different versions and moral theories. Which one of the nine alternatives is the definitive version and theist moral theory?

[godelian]

And, when you put five "muslims" around a table, you get nine different versions and moral theories. Which one of the nine alternatives is the definitive version and theist moral theory?

Not true at all. If you put five muslims around the table, you get one, single moral theory. It may take time to reach consensus ("ijma") on a particularly hard question, but it goes very fast for most questions.

Islamic jurisprudence ("al figh") is quite a unified subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

Ijma' (Arabic: إجماع, romanized: ijmāʿ, lit. 'consensus', IPA: [ʔid͡ʒ.maːʕ]) is an Arabic term referring to the consensus or agreement of the Islamic community on a point of Islamic law. Sunni Muslims regard ijmā' as one of the secondary sources of Sharia law, after the Qur'an, and the Sunnah.

The hadith of Muhammad which states that "Allah will ensure my ummah will never collude en-masse upon error"[3] have been mentioned in the books of Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Musnah Ahmad, and Darimi. This is often quoted as the primary proof of Ijma from the Hadith from the Sunni View.

This is a heavily documented and debated subject with 1400 years of history.

[Age]

And, when you put five "muslims" around a table, you get nine different versions and moral theories. Which one of the nine alternatives is the definitive version and theist moral theory?

Not true at all. If you put five muslims around the table, you get one, single moral theory.

Really?

If yes, then what is that, supposed and alleged, 'single moral theory', exactly?

It may take time to reach consensus ("ijma") on a particularly hard question, but it goes very fast for most questions.

Okay. So, let 'us' see some examples.

Islamic jurisprudence ("al figh") is quite a unified subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

Ijma' (Arabic: إجماع, romanized: ijmāʿ, lit. 'consensus', IPA: [ʔid͡ʒ.maːʕ]) is an Arabic term referring to the consensus or agreement of the Islamic community on a point of Islamic law. Sunni Muslims regard ijmā' as one of the secondary sources of Sharia law, after the Qur'an, and the Sunnah.

So, it 'now' depends on what 'type' of "muslim" one is, before what 'consensus' is actually reached and agreed upon.

The hadith of Muhammad which states that "Allah will ensure my ummah will never collude en-masse upon error"[3] have been mentioned in the books of Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Musnah Ahmad, and Darimi. This is often quoted as the primary proof of Ijma from the Hadith from the Sunni View.

This is a heavily documented and debated subject with 1400 years of history.

But what is there 'to debate', exactly, if there is, supposedly and allegedly, 'consensus' on a 'unified subject'?

Look, you will have as much success obtaining and getting agreement and acceptance on a 'single moral theory' in "islam" as you would in "christianity" or in any other 'theologian religion'.

Which would be about as much success as you would get among "atheists", as well.

That is; until the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge is explained to all of you and understood by all of you.

Until then you will keep 'debating', arguing, bickering, and fighting over what you have been for hundreds and thousands of years, up to 'now' when this is being written.

And, this is said without even reminding you that all 'theories' are just assumptions and guesses anyway. So, even if you did get some sort of consensus on a so-called 'single moral theory', that 'single theory' will always just be a guess or assumption about what is morally Right and Wrong, in Life, anyway.

[godelian]

If yes, then what is that, supposed and alleged, 'single moral theory', exactly?
Okay. So, let 'us' see some examples.

Islamic jurisprudence, i.e. "al fiqh". If you are not familiar with the matter, have a look at for example:

https://islamqa.info

The scholars ("ulema" or in this case "mufti") of the site produce written answers to jurisprudential questions from the public. This practice creates and maintains a database of questions and answers -- with justification that necessarily follows from the Islamic scriptures. There are numerous sites with a similar approach, the collective of which is the virtual online jurisprudence database of Islam. You can use Google Search to query this virtual, distributed database. Except for the truly hard questions, for which it takes time for the dust to settle, the answers are mostly uniformly the same across the various sites.

But what is there 'to debate', exactly, if there is, supposedly and allegedly, 'consensus' on a 'unified subject'?

The debate between scholars is about the hard questions for which it takes time for a consensus to materialize.

By the way, this kind of online infrastructure does not exist in Christianity, because Christianity does not have a jurisprudence. In Christianity, as Paul wrote in Galatians, God's law is a curse. So, why try to figure out how the curse works?

[Age]

If yes, then what is that, supposed and alleged, 'single moral theory', exactly?
Okay. So, let 'us' see some examples.

Islamic jurisprudence, i.e. "al fiqh". If you are not familiar with the matter, have a look at for example:

https://islamqa.info

The scholars ("ulema" or in this case "mufti") of the site produce written answers to jurisprudential questions from the public. This practice creates and maintains a database of questions and answers -- with justification that necessarily follows from the Islamic scriptures. There are numerous sites with a similar approach, the collective of which is the virtual online jurisprudence database of Islam. You can use Google Search to query this virtual, distributed database. Except for the truly hard questions, for which it takes time for the dust to settle, the answers are mostly uniformly the same across the various sites.

So, the answers are not uniformly all the exact same, which is exactly what will be found when questions are asked to and answers are given by other "theists" and "atheists" alike.

But what is there 'to debate', exactly, if there is, supposedly and allegedly, 'consensus' on a 'unified subject'?

The debate between scholars is about the hard questions for which it takes time for a consensus to materialize.

So, you "theists" are absolutely no different here compared to "atheists".

And, there is no such things as easy nor hard questions.

By the way, this kind of online infrastructure does not exist in Christianity, because Christianity does not have a jurisprudence. In Christianity, as Paul wrote in Galatians, God's law is a curse. So, why try to figure out how the curse works?

Are you absolutely sure there are absolutely no question/answer online forums for other theologies?

And also, the False interpretations you adult human beings have and use for Godallah's so-called laws in the quran are also False or Wrong, and thus in a sense a curse, as well.

As you have already shown and proved here "godelian"

[godelian]

So, the answers are not uniformly all the exact same, which is exactly what will be found when questions are asked to and answers are given by other "theists" and "atheists" alike.

If you are not familiar with the subject, you can try to read up instead of basing your opinion on fantasy. I have pointed out where you can find the documentation. You really need to do your homework first.

Are you absolutely sure there are absolutely no question/answer online forums for other theologies?

There is some infrastructure available in Judaism but it is nowhere near as elaborate as for Islam. In Christianity, there is no infrastructure at all because it is not a legitimate moral theory. It is not permissible to derive jurisprudential answers from the Bible:

- Luther: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I am mistaken, I will retract what I have written.
- Prosecutor: The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each heretic of the past has drawn his deceptive arguments.


Amongst the different religions, Islam stands out with its elaborate jurisprudence. Unlike in other religions, it is a complete system.

[Immanuel Can]

As with social services, such as medical and dentistry currently in the news, which should be for absolutely everyone as needed and available, with no private elite.

Who pays the doctor and the dentist?