Excel to Analyze Q Verses in 1400 Themes - Useless??

[godelian]

I did a search
"scientific proof"
About 4,740,000 results (0.38 seconds)

scientific proof of islam
About 17,400,000 results (0.30 seconds)

It is not "proof of Islam" but "proof in Islam". It is obviously possible to prove that a particular conclusion necessarily follows from the Quran. This proof is established by using premises from the Quran and demonstrating logically that a particular conclusion necessarily follows. Such proof is logical. It has nothing to do with the experimental testing of a stubborn observable pattern, as in science. There is no scientific laboratory in which religious scholars conduct and repeat experiments in order to experimentally test the Quran.

You are contradicting yourself.
You insisted ''proof" is only relevant to mathematics, now you are accepting the above sort of "proof" as defined generally.

My point is 'prove' and 'proof' [as defined generally] are applicable anywhere as long as the meaning is defined and agreed upon. So we can have scientific proofs, legal proofs, etc.

Proof means that a conclusion necessarily follows from (possibly system-wide) premises. Proof is always deductive. When providing inductive evidence, it never constitutes proof. That is why the term "proof" is forbidden in science. All evidence in science is inductive.

Mathematics and logic are deeply connected. First of all, logic is a sub-field in mathematics, i.e. mathematical logic.

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

Mathematical logic is the study of formal logic within mathematics. Major subareas include model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory (also known as computability theory). Research in mathematical logic commonly addresses the mathematical properties of formal systems of logic such as their expressive or deductive power. However, it can also include uses of logic to characterize correct mathematical reasoning or to establish foundations of mathematics.

And indeed, concerning the foundations of mathematics, the logicist ontology considers all mathematics to be essentially just logic:

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

In the philosophy of mathematics, logicism is a programme comprising one or more of the theses that – for some coherent meaning of 'logic' – mathematics is an extension of logic, some or all of mathematics is reducible to logic, or some or all of mathematics may be modelled in logic.[1]

To an important extent, mathematics and logic are indistinguishable.

In legal matters, legal proof is only possible in jurisprudence. You can prove that a derived rule necessarily follows from existing rules. Laymen confuse this notion of legal proof with legal evidence which is used to argue the plausibility of alleged facts. For example, it is not possible to prove a murder. It is only possible to provide evidence for it. So, in legal matters, both proof and evidence exist. There are deductive arguments, which can be proof, and inductive arguments, which can only be evidence.

Here is a Question:
[I presume you understand the Principles of Contract - explicit and implied?]
Does your religion necessitate you to sign a "CONTRACT" [covenant] with your God?
If so, are the terms of the contract confined within the sole holy text from your God?

First of all, the laws of nature are part of the laws of God. These laws apply from as soon as you get born on earth. Whether you accept or reject them, does not matter particularly much.

Concerning a religious scripture, you choose to either accept or reject its rules. If you do, you implicitly also accept the rules that can be derived from them or that necessarily follow from them, i.e. its jurisprudential rulings. But then again, most religious rules exhort to self-discipline. You are supposed to enforce them by yourself against yourself. It is entirely up to you, if you really want to do that. If you make victims or disturb public order, however, there could be a need for external enforcement, but that is a rather small part of the moral theory in religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a Question:
[I presume you understand the Principles of Contract - explicit and implied?]
Does your religion necessitate you to sign a "CONTRACT" [covenant] with your God?
If so, are the terms of the contract confined within the sole holy text from your God?

First of all, the laws of nature are part of the laws of God. These laws apply from as soon as you get born on earth. Whether you accept or reject them, does not matter particularly much.

Concerning a religious scripture, you choose to either accept or reject its rules. If you do, you implicitly also accept the rules that can be derived from them or that necessarily follow from them, i.e. its jurisprudential rulings. But then again, most religious rules exhort to self-discipline. You are supposed to enforce them by yourself against yourself. It is entirely up to you, if you really want to do that. If you make victims or disturb public order, however, there could be a need for external enforcement, but that is a rather small part of the moral theory in religion.

You don't seem to be very familiar with your holy text which is sole constitution of your religion?? am I mistaken??

In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.

According the above, to be a believer-proper one must explicitly [or implicitly] enter into a 'contract' with God where God promised salvation and the believer must comply with all the terms of the contract to the best of his abilities.
There is no other way with your God other than the above requirement.
Do you agree with the above?

My point is the terms of contract must thus be solely be within the holy book that God had conveyed via his messenger and no where else [not in the hadiths which are interpretations].
Whatever the interpretations and jurisprudence, they are invented by humans and thus secondary and has no divine binding on the contract.

God [omniscient] will make his final judgment on the believer's acts in compliance with his dictated terms of contract on judgment day without giving a damm and reference to different interpretations nor those of jurisprudence.
Do you agree with this?

[godelian]

Here is a Question:
[I presume you understand the Principles of Contract - explicit and implied?]
Does your religion necessitate you to sign a "CONTRACT" [covenant] with your God?
If so, are the terms of the contract confined within the sole holy text from your God?

First of all, the laws of nature are part of the laws of God. These laws apply from as soon as you get born on earth. Whether you accept or reject them, does not matter particularly much.

Concerning a religious scripture, you choose to either accept or reject its rules. If you do, you implicitly also accept the rules that can be derived from them or that necessarily follow from them, i.e. its jurisprudential rulings. But then again, most religious rules exhort to self-discipline. You are supposed to enforce them by yourself against yourself. It is entirely up to you, if you really want to do that. If you make victims or disturb public order, however, there could be a need for external enforcement, but that is a rather small part of the moral theory in religion.

You don't seem to be very familiar with your holy text which is sole constitution of your religion?? am I mistaken??

In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.

According the above, to be a believer-proper one must explicitly [or implicitly] enter into a 'contract' with God where God promised salvation and the believer must comply with all the terms of the contract to the best of his abilities.
There is no other way with your God other than the above requirement.
Do you agree with the above?

My point is the terms of contract must thus be solely be within the holy book that God had conveyed via his messenger and no where else [not in the hadiths which are interpretations].
Whatever the interpretations and jurisprudence, they are invented by humans and thus secondary and has no divine binding on the contract.

God [omniscient] will make his final judgment on the believer's acts in compliance with his dictated terms of contract on judgment day without giving a damm and reference to different interpretations nor those of jurisprudence.
Do you agree with this?

What I know about religion, are mostly the jurisprudential rulings that I have read. But then again, I only read them because I am interested in them for personal reasons, usually because there is a situation in my life that they may apply to. I have never had to deal with covenant theory in a situation in my personal life. So, I don't know anything on the matter. Jurisprudential rulings are a source for personal guidance. If the problem does not apply to you, then why would you try to get guidance on the matter?

As I pointed out before, I am not a religious scholar. I don't read tafsir -- commentary on verses -- either. I am a user of the database for jurisprudential rulings. That's about it, really.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First of all, the laws of nature are part of the laws of God. These laws apply from as soon as you get born on earth. Whether you accept or reject them, does not matter particularly much.

Concerning a religious scripture, you choose to either accept or reject its rules. If you do, you implicitly also accept the rules that can be derived from them or that necessarily follow from them, i.e. its jurisprudential rulings. But then again, most religious rules exhort to self-discipline. You are supposed to enforce them by yourself against yourself. It is entirely up to you, if you really want to do that. If you make victims or disturb public order, however, there could be a need for external enforcement, but that is a rather small part of the moral theory in religion.

You don't seem to be very familiar with your holy text which is sole constitution of your religion?? am I mistaken??

In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.

According the above, to be a believer-proper one must explicitly [or implicitly] enter into a 'contract' with God where God promised salvation and the believer must comply with all the terms of the contract to the best of his abilities.
There is no other way with your God other than the above requirement.
Do you agree with the above?

My point is the terms of contract must thus be solely be within the holy book that God had conveyed via his messenger and no where else [not in the hadiths which are interpretations].
Whatever the interpretations and jurisprudence, they are invented by humans and thus secondary and has no divine binding on the contract.

God [omniscient] will make his final judgment on the believer's acts in compliance with his dictated terms of contract on judgment day without giving a damm and reference to different interpretations nor those of jurisprudence.
Do you agree with this?

What I know about religion, are mostly the jurisprudential rulings that I have read. But then again, I only read them because I am interested in them for personal reasons, usually because there is a situation in my life that they may apply to. I have never had to deal with covenant theory in a situation in my personal life. So, I don't know anything on the matter. Jurisprudential rulings are a source for personal guidance. If the problem does not apply to you, then why would you try to get guidance on the matter?

As I pointed out before, I am not a religious scholar. I don't read tafsir -- commentary on verses -- either. I am a user of the database for jurisprudential rulings. That's about it, really.

God dictated who is supposed to be and qualified to be a true believer of his religion in the holy book he conveyed via his messenger.
It is only a true believer that will get the appropriate reward as promised by God.

Thus logically, if you do not comply with the contractual terms of God, then you cannot be a true and a good believer.
As such, you have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract as offered by God.

There is no way one can rely Jurisprudential rulings with certainty as there are loads of individual and groups with personal and selfish interests.

This is why the OP is useful.
You MUST be fully acquainted with the holy books and comply with the terms of contracts within the contract with God.
Agree?

There are only 114 chapters, 6236 verses, around 77K words of God's message, so it is not difficult to understand God's intent for wannabe believers to enter into a contract with God. One can easily do that with Excel or some more sophisticated computer program [which you seem to be familiar?]
Do you agree what is presented in the OP could be very useful for believers and anyone interested to know the real themes of the holy text from God?

I mentioned:
In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.
For a start you'll need to read all verses related to the above terms and in their proper context.

[godelian]

You don't seem to be very familiar with your holy text which is sole constitution of your religion?? am I mistaken??

In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.

According the above, to be a believer-proper one must explicitly [or implicitly] enter into a 'contract' with God where God promised salvation and the believer must comply with all the terms of the contract to the best of his abilities.
There is no other way with your God other than the above requirement.
Do you agree with the above?

My point is the terms of contract must thus be solely be within the holy book that God had conveyed via his messenger and no where else [not in the hadiths which are interpretations].
Whatever the interpretations and jurisprudence, they are invented by humans and thus secondary and has no divine binding on the contract.

God [omniscient] will make his final judgment on the believer's acts in compliance with his dictated terms of contract on judgment day without giving a damm and reference to different interpretations nor those of jurisprudence.
Do you agree with this?

What I know about religion, are mostly the jurisprudential rulings that I have read. But then again, I only read them because I am interested in them for personal reasons, usually because there is a situation in my life that they may apply to. I have never had to deal with covenant theory in a situation in my personal life. So, I don't know anything on the matter. Jurisprudential rulings are a source for personal guidance. If the problem does not apply to you, then why would you try to get guidance on the matter?

As I pointed out before, I am not a religious scholar. I don't read tafsir -- commentary on verses -- either. I am a user of the database for jurisprudential rulings. That's about it, really.

God dictated who is supposed to be and qualified to be a true believer of his religion in the holy book he conveyed via his messenger.
It is only a true believer that will get the appropriate reward as promised by God.

Thus logically, if you do not comply with the contractual terms of God, then you cannot be a true and a good believer.
As such, you have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract as offered by God.

There is no way one can rely Jurisprudential rulings with certainty as there are loads of individual and groups with personal and selfish interests.

This is why the OP is useful.
You MUST be fully acquainted with the holy books and comply with the terms of contracts within the contract with God.
Agree?

There are only 114 chapters, 6236 verses, around 77K words of God's message, so it is not difficult to understand God's intent for wannabe believers to enter into a contract with God. One can easily do that with Excel or some more sophisticated computer program [which you seem to be familiar?]
Do you agree what is presented in the OP could be very useful for believers and anyone interested to know the real themes of the holy text from God?

I mentioned:
In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.
For a start you'll need to read all verses related to the above terms and in their proper context.

Your point of view is not practical. Only religious scholars, the ulema, need to study extensively the core religious text along with the various databases in which it is used to interpret and elucidate. Ordinary believers can just search for the things that happen to be relevant in the moment in their personal lives. If I intimately know particular verses from the Quran, it is usually because they were used as justification in particular rulings that were relevant to my situation.

If you really want to be a religious scholar, an alim, then you can enroll for the lengthy study and take it from there. Not everybody needs to do that. I am not an alim, i.e. a religious scholar, and I do not see why I would need to be one. It is a professional vocation. Not everybody needs to be an alim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I know about religion, are mostly the jurisprudential rulings that I have read. But then again, I only read them because I am interested in them for personal reasons, usually because there is a situation in my life that they may apply to. I have never had to deal with covenant theory in a situation in my personal life. So, I don't know anything on the matter. Jurisprudential rulings are a source for personal guidance. If the problem does not apply to you, then why would you try to get guidance on the matter?

As I pointed out before, I am not a religious scholar. I don't read tafsir -- commentary on verses -- either. I am a user of the database for jurisprudential rulings. That's about it, really.

God dictated who is supposed to be and qualified to be a true believer of his religion in the holy book he conveyed via his messenger.
It is only a true believer that will get the appropriate reward as promised by God.

Thus logically, if you do not comply with the contractual terms of God, then you cannot be a true and a good believer.
As such, you have sinned in accordance to the terms of the contract as offered by God.

There is no way one can rely Jurisprudential rulings with certainty as there are loads of individual and groups with personal and selfish interests.

This is why the OP is useful.
You MUST be fully acquainted with the holy books and comply with the terms of contracts within the contract with God.
Agree?

There are only 114 chapters, 6236 verses, around 77K words of God's message, so it is not difficult to understand God's intent for wannabe believers to enter into a contract with God. One can easily do that with Excel or some more sophisticated computer program [which you seem to be familiar?]
Do you agree what is presented in the OP could be very useful for believers and anyone interested to know the real themes of the holy text from God?

I mentioned:
In your holy text, there are two critical terms, i.e. 'ahd' and 'mīthāq' which represent 'covenant' or I prefer "divine Contract" which is easier to understand for the layman.
For a start you'll need to read all verses related to the above terms and in their proper context.

Your point of view is not practical. Only religious scholars, the ulema, need to study extensively the core religious text along with the various databases in which it is used to interpret and elucidate. Ordinary believers can just search for the things that happen to be relevant in the moment in their personal lives. If I intimately know particular verses from the Quran, it is usually because they were used as justification in particular rulings that were relevant to my situation.

If you really want to be a religious scholar, an alim, then you can enroll for the lengthy study and take it from there. Not everybody needs to do that. I am not an alim, i.e. a religious scholar, and I do not see why I would need to be one. It is a professional vocation. Not everybody needs to be an alim.

Now I can say, you are not familiar with your own religion.
I being a non- understand your religion more than you.

When you meet your god on judgment day and IF found to have sinned terribly, you cannot use the excuse, my alim told me to do it.
Not even your prophet can intercede on your behalf, thus least your alim.

Shafa'at (Arabic: شفاعة, "intercession")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafa%27a
Shafa'at (Arabic: شفاعة, "intercession") in Islam is the act of pleading to God by an intimate friend of God (a Muslim saint) for forgiveness of a believing sinner.

Your point of view is not practical.

Why not?
If I were to give you my excel analysis [>1400 themes], you will be able to understand your own holy texts and God's message quite easily and quickly.
Unfortunately I cannot do that.

[godelian]

Now I can say, you are not familiar with your own religion.
I being a non- understand your religion more than you.

I am not a religious scholar. I am just a user of the documentation and databases.

When you meet your god on judgment day and IF found to have sinned terribly, you cannot use the excuse, my alim told me to do it.
Not even your prophet can intercede on your behalf, thus least your alim.

I am not an expert on the judicial law of the Day of Last Judgment, i.e. the Last Day.

Your point of view is not practical.

Why not?
If I were to give you my excel analysis [>1400 themes], you will be able to understand your own holy texts and God's message quite easily and quickly.
Unfortunately I cannot do that.

Try to publish your file and to get scholars to comment on it. Not sure what subsection of Islamic theology it would fall under. I don't write or publish anything original on religious studies. I merely use capita selecta search results, mostly in "fiqh", i.e. jurisprudential rulings.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now I can say, you are not familiar with your own religion.
I being a non- understand your religion more than you.

I am not a religious scholar. I am just a user of the documentation and databases.

When you meet your god on judgment day and IF found to have sinned terribly, you cannot use the excuse, my alim told me to do it.
Not even your prophet can intercede on your behalf, thus least your alim.

I am not an expert on judicial law of the Day of Last Judgement, i.e. the Last Day

Your point of view is not practical.

Why not?
If I were to give you my excel analysis [>1400 themes], you will be able to understand your own holy texts and God's message quite easily and quickly.
Unfortunately I cannot do that.

Try to publish your file and to get scholars to comment on it. Not sure what subsection of Islamic theology it would fall under. I don't write or publish anything original on religious studies. I merely use capita selecta search results, mostly in "fiqh", i.e. jurisprudential rulings.

.... fiqh is considered fallible and changeable. Fiqh deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam as well as economic and political system. In the modern era, there are four prominent schools (madh'hab) of fiqh within Sunni practice, plus two (or three) within Shi'a practice. A person trained in fiqh is known as a faqīh (pl.: fuqaha)
-WIKI

You are not a religious scholar, but you are a "contracted" believer.
1. Do you have the religious sense or duty to be a good believer?
2. Are you concern with salvation after death in the afterlife and the rewards as promised by your God?

If yes to the above, then following figh which is fallible and changeable may not guarantee you will be a good believer from the perspective of God, the source and origins of his message.
While there maybe consensus with the madh'hab which is man-made interpretations, there is no guarantee it is what God intended.

Thus, to ensure you are a really good believer you ought to understand the effective 'contractual terms' you are a contractee is obliged and duty bound to comply with.
To do so, you should read the full terms of the contract which is only in the sole-holy-book supposedly sent by God via his messenger.

It is not difficult to understand the terms of the contractual terms of your divine contract [covenant] with God especially with the current IT, AI and other technology.
So I believe you must read, analyze and be very familiar with your terms of contract.

If you really understand your religion, you would wisely advise me [as a non] not to publish my analysis in the present state of threats towards the nons if they are involved in the holy text.

Do you know why your God created you?

• [51:56] I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me.
  wamā khalaqtu l-jina wal-insa illā liyaʿbudūn
  وَمَا خَلَقۡتُ ٱلۡجِنَّ وَٱلۡإِنسَ إِلَّا لِیَعۡبُدُونِ ۝٥

The 'worship me' liyaʿbudūn لِيَعْبُدُونِ is also associated of being worship as a 'slave' to God, this is why so many believers names are Abdoo, Abdulah and the like.

To make it official and to gain the promised rewards, the believer must enter into a contract explicitly [saying the sahada, etc.] or implicitly.

If you were to analyze the holy texts you will come across the above and your responsibilities directly from the words of God and not from secondary sources which is fallible and changeable.

[godelian]

To make it official and to gain the promised rewards, the believer must enter into a contract explicitly [saying the sahada, etc.] or implicitly.

If you were to analyze the holy texts you will come across the above and your responsibilities directly from the words of God and not from secondary sources which is fallible and changeable.

I like to use the Islamic database of jurisprudential rulings, "al fiqh", because it gives me practical guidance as to what behavior is halal or haram. It suits me perfectly fine.

In a similar fashion, I like to use linux on my computer. I don't like microsoft windows. Why do I like linux? Because it is very practical. I also subscribe to the philosophy of the GPL, i.e. the General Public License, i.e. its moral theory.

What would an atheist say about that?

Well, "You cannot prove linux", so don t use it. "You cannot prove the GPL", so don't use it. In fact, "You cannot prove windows either", so don't use it either. You cannot prove any foundation for anything. And what are we supposed to use in that case? Well, nothing. Or try to quickly concoct your own alternative, and miserably fail at that, and then give up. The following is a suitable operating-system approach for atheists:

https://github.com/xosnitc/xosnitc.github.com

About -- The project XOS or Experimental Operating System is a platform to help in developing a toy operating system.

After fiddling with it for a while, you will have almost surely nothing to show for. You certainly won't have any serious applications that run on top of it, because it doesn't even have a functional POSIX layer. That is truly atheism. You cannot accept any foundation. So, you end up without any system. You end up with nothing usable.

I am perfectly fine with the choices that I make. I like the tools. I like the foundations, which I do not needlessly expect to be provable. That is how I get ahead in life. Atheism is too nihilistic to my taste. Seriously, where are the systems that allow you to do anything?

[Veritas Aequitas]

To make it official and to gain the promised rewards, the believer must enter into a contract explicitly [saying the sahada, etc.] or implicitly.

If you were to analyze the holy texts you will come across the above and your responsibilities directly from the words of God and not from secondary sources which is fallible and changeable.

I like to use the Islamic database of jurisprudential rulings, "al fiqh", because it gives me practical guidance as to what behavior is halal or haram. It suits me perfectly fine.

I would be interested in your answer to the following'
As a "contracted" believer.
1. Do you have the religious sense or duty to be a good believer?
2. Are you concern with salvation after death in the afterlife and the rewards as promised by your God?

If you are a rational person,
as a "contracted" believer with God.
1. you have to be a good believer?
2. you are also concern with salvation after death in the afterlife and the rewards as promised by your God?

As I had shown, figh is fallible and changeable thus not reliable.
I understand the majority who are less educated and intelligent will have no choice but to follow their chosen figh Madhab.
You are educated, intelligent and rational, thus you have an obligation to use your ability to understand what is the direct word from God in the holy texts.
On judgment day, you cannot give excuses because God is omnipresent and all knowing, i.e. knowing you are competent but did not attempt to understand God's message directly.

In a similar fashion, I like to use linux on my computer. I don't like microsoft windows. Why do I like linux? Because it is very practical. I also subscribe to the philosophy of the GPL, i.e. the General Public License, i.e. its moral theory.

What would an atheist say about that?

Well, "You cannot prove linux", so don t use it. "You cannot prove the GPL", so don't use it. In fact, "You cannot prove windows either", so don't use it either. You cannot prove any foundation for anything. And what are we supposed to use in that case? Well, nothing. Or try to quickly concoct your own alternative, and miserably fail at that, and then give up. The following is a suitable operating-system approach for atheists:

https://github.com/xosnitc/xosnitc.github.com

About -- The project XOS or Experimental Operating System is a platform to help in developing a toy operating system.

After fiddling with it for a while, you will have almost surely nothing to show for. You certainly won't have any serious applications that run on top of it, because it doesn't even have a functional POSIX layer. That is truly atheism. You cannot accept any foundation. So, you end up without any system. You end up with nothing usable.

I am perfectly fine with the choices that I make. I like the tools. I like the foundations, which I do not needlessly expect to be provable. That is how I get ahead in life. Atheism is too nihilistic to my taste. Seriously, where are the systems that allow you to do anything?

Btw, I am not preaching non-theism here.
I believe religion [theistic and non-theistic] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present [not necessary the future] in their present psychological state.
The majority in their present psychological state has to rely on blind faith.
However, I believe you in a present state can do better than that in making an attempt to understand your holy texts and contractual terms of your divine contract more thoroughly.

It is not rational to group atheism as a one distinct group with a distinct doctrine.
Atheism mean those who oppose theism.
Those who oppose theism adopt different beliefs and religions.

You are ignorant about other religions.
Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

I believe Buddhism-proper is the most sophisticated religion of all, but Buddhism proper is too advanced to be effective and optimal for the majority. Ordinary Buddhism is not very effective for the majority in contrast to Christianity or Islam.

I am not a Buddhist officially, but I adopt the fundamental principles of Buddhism and the like.
Buddhism has an absolute pacifist moral system and also a practical Problem-Solving Technique for life.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Do you have any counter for the above?

At present there is the UN Moral System which is directed as humanity in general with its guidelines on human rights, slavery, racism, and other human issues.
It is by the prompting of the UN that all sovereign nations has banned chattel slavery, which slavery is still condoned within the immutable doctrines of of Islam's and Christianity.

From the above, you have to admit you are somewhat ignorant of many areas of religions and spiritualities plus the human self.
You deny this?

[godelian]

To make it official and to gain the promised rewards, the believer must enter into a contract explicitly [saying the sahada, etc.] or implicitly.

If you were to analyze the holy texts you will come across the above and your responsibilities directly from the words of God and not from secondary sources which is fallible and changeable.

I like to use the Islamic database of jurisprudential rulings, "al fiqh", because it gives me practical guidance as to what behavior is halal or haram. It suits me perfectly fine.

I would be interested in your answer to the following'
As a "contracted" believer.
1. Do you have the religious sense or duty to be a good believer?
2. Are you concern with salvation after death in the afterlife and the rewards as promised by your God?

If you are a rational person,
as a "contracted" believer with God.
1. you have to be a good believer?
2. you are also concern with salvation after death in the afterlife and the rewards as promised by your God?

As I had shown, figh is fallible and changeable thus not reliable.
I understand the majority who are less educated and intelligent will have no choice but to follow their chosen figh Madhab.
You are educated, intelligent and rational, thus you have an obligation to use your ability to understand what is the direct word from God in the holy texts.
On judgment day, you cannot give excuses because God is omnipresent and all knowing, i.e. knowing you are competent but did not attempt to understand God's message directly.

In a similar fashion, I like to use linux on my computer. I don't like microsoft windows. Why do I like linux? Because it is very practical. I also subscribe to the philosophy of the GPL, i.e. the General Public License, i.e. its moral theory.

What would an atheist say about that?

Well, "You cannot prove linux", so don t use it. "You cannot prove the GPL", so don't use it. In fact, "You cannot prove windows either", so don't use it either. You cannot prove any foundation for anything. And what are we supposed to use in that case? Well, nothing. Or try to quickly concoct your own alternative, and miserably fail at that, and then give up. The following is a suitable operating-system approach for atheists:

https://github.com/xosnitc/xosnitc.github.com

About -- The project XOS or Experimental Operating System is a platform to help in developing a toy operating system.

After fiddling with it for a while, you will have almost surely nothing to show for. You certainly won't have any serious applications that run on top of it, because it doesn't even have a functional POSIX layer. That is truly atheism. You cannot accept any foundation. So, you end up without any system. You end up with nothing usable.

I am perfectly fine with the choices that I make. I like the tools. I like the foundations, which I do not needlessly expect to be provable. That is how I get ahead in life. Atheism is too nihilistic to my taste. Seriously, where are the systems that allow you to do anything?

Btw, I am not preaching non-theism here.
I believe religion [theistic and non-theistic] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present [not necessary the future] in their present psychological state.
The majority in their present psychological state has to rely on blind faith.
However, I believe you in a present state can do better than that in making an attempt to understand your holy texts and contractual terms of your divine contract more thoroughly.

It is not rational to group atheism as a one distinct group with a distinct doctrine.
Atheism mean those who oppose theism.
Those who oppose theism adopt different beliefs and religions.

You are ignorant about other religion.
Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

I believe Buddhism-proper is the most sophisticated religion of all, but Buddhism proper is too advanced to be effective and optimal for the majority. Ordinary Buddhism is not very effective for the majority in contrast to Christianity or Islam.

I am not a Buddhist officially, but I adopt the fundamental principles of Buddhism and the like.
Buddhism has an absolute pacifist moral system and also a practical Problem-Solving Technique for life.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Do you have any counter for the above?

At present there is the UN Moral System which is directed as humanity in general with its guidelines on human rights, slavery, racism, and other human issues.
It is by the prompting of the UN that all sovereign nations has banned chattel slavery, which slavery is still condoned within the immutable doctrines of of Islam's and Christianity.

From the above, you have to admit you are somewhat ignorant of many areas of religions and spiritualities plus the human self.
You deny this?

Concerning Buddhism, maybe their scriptures have some merit -- who knows and why not? -- but where is their database of jurisprudential rulings?

Concerning the "UN Moral System", it is a complete joke. It does not classify behavior in permissible or impermissible. It claims that we have all kinds of "rights". A moral system is not about "rights". It is about personal obligations.

For example, "Thou shalt not steal" is a legitimate rule in a moral theory.

"Everybody has the right to an education" is not.

What personal obligation does that represent anyway? And for whom exactly? This so-called right to education allows the government to hijack education away from the parents, confiscate ample resources from the tax-paying public, and force-feed the children with harmful woke ideologies. In the meanwhile, this so-called right to education has materialized in the real world as a large-scale attempt at gender-confusing the children to the point that they now routinely castrate little boys whom they have confused into believing that they are actually little girls. Therefore, in reality, it is a disguised castration policy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, I am not preaching non-theism here.
I believe religion [theistic and non-theistic] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present [not necessary the future] in their present psychological state.
The majority in their present psychological state has to rely on blind faith.
However, I believe you in a present state can do better than that in making an attempt to understand your holy texts and contractual terms of your divine contract more thoroughly.

It is not rational to group atheism as a one distinct group with a distinct doctrine.
Atheism mean those who oppose theism.
Those who oppose theism adopt different beliefs and religions.

You are ignorant about other religion.
Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

I believe Buddhism-proper is the most sophisticated religion of all, but Buddhism proper is too advanced to be effective and optimal for the majority. Ordinary Buddhism is not very effective for the majority in contrast to Christianity or Islam.

I am not a Buddhist officially, but I adopt the fundamental principles of Buddhism and the like.
Buddhism has an absolute pacifist moral system and also a practical Problem-Solving Technique for life.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Do you have any counter for the above?

At present there is the UN Moral System which is directed as humanity in general with its guidelines on human rights, slavery, racism, and other human issues.
It is by the prompting of the UN that all sovereign nations has banned chattel slavery, which slavery is still condoned within the immutable doctrines of of Islam's and Christianity.

From the above, you have to admit you are somewhat ignorant of many areas of religions and spiritualities plus the human self.
You deny this?

Concerning Buddhism, maybe their scriptures have some merit -- who knows and why not? -- but where is their database of jurisprudential rulings?

There are loads of stipulated precepts within the various schools of Buddhism;

Five precepts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

The Ten precepts
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sila-Buddhism

The Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-fourteen- ... -buddhism/

For monks:
List of the 227 rules of pātimokkha
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

You have to admit you were wrong and was ignorant of the above and in addition ignorant of many other areas of religions and spiritualities.

Concerning the "UN Moral System", it is a complete joke. It does not classify behavior in permissible or impermissible. It claims that we have all kinds of "rights". A moral system is not about "rights". It is about personal obligations.

For example, "Thou shalt not steal" is a legitimate rule in a moral theory.

"Everybody has the right to an education" is not.

What personal obligation does that represent anyway? And for whom exactly? This so-called right to education allows the government to hijack education away from the parents, confiscate ample resources from the tax-paying public, and force-feed the children with harmful woke ideologies. In the meanwhile, this so-called right to education has materialized in the real world as a large-scale attempt at gender-confusing the children to the point that they now routinely castrate little boys whom they have confused into believing that they are actually little girls. Therefore, in reality, it is a disguised castration policy.

As I had stated what the UN has presented are merely guides of the ideals of morality.
You cannot deny there is success with the UN approach and model with respect to morality, i.e.
1. all sovereign nations had banned chattel slaver and others all forms of slavery.
2. the majority [except a handful] has ratified the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination"
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... rms-racial

I agree a moral system is not about rights or wrongs. I raised a thread on this;
Morality is not about Rightness or Wrongness
Morality = Rightness or Wrongness is WRONG
viewtopic.php?t=40331

Morality is also independent of politics and I would say religion as well.

Morality as I had always argued is about the development of the natural inherent moral function within the individual as a human being regardless of politics, laws, or religion which are merely facilitators [are fallible].

The point is the UN is guiding the above toward the said personal direction.

[godelian]

There are loads of stipulated precepts within the various schools of Buddhism;

Five precepts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

The Ten precepts
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sila-Buddhism

The Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-fourteen- ... -buddhism/

For monks:
List of the 227 rules of pātimokkha
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

Those are foundational rules of their moral theory. These are not a database of jurisprudential rulings assessing whether every imaginable behavior is permissible or impermissible. That kind of database is much, much larger. Example of a ruling: Is it moral to perform an abortion in the 7th month of pregnancy?

As I had stated what the UN has presented are merely guides of the ideals of morality.
You cannot deny there is success with the UN approach and model with respect to morality, i.e.
1. all sovereign nations had banned chattel slaver and others all forms of slavery.
2. the majority [except a handful] has ratified the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination"
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... rms-racial

This is about the laws that governments enforce. They have nothing to do with morality either. Morality is exclusively about personal obligations. It is not about what laws a government would be obliged to introduce.

The point is the UN is guiding the above toward the said personal direction.

I am not interested in what the politicians at the UN say about morality. In fact, I am not interested in what any politician says about morality. Politicians are never a legitimate source for morality. The goal of proper morality is exactly the opposite. The purpose of morality is to be a solid counterweight to the deceptive and manipulative lies by governments and politicians. That is why I spit, pee, and shit on the UN and its politicians.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are loads of stipulated precepts within the various schools of Buddhism;

Five precepts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

The Ten precepts
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sila-Buddhism

The Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-fourteen- ... -buddhism/

For monks:
List of the 227 rules of pātimokkha
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

Those are foundational rules of their moral theory. These are not a database of jurisprudential rulings assessing whether every imaginable behavior is permissible or impermissible. That kind of database is much, much larger. Example of a ruling: Is it moral to perform an abortion in the 7th month of pregnancy?

There are pros and cons on whether rules related to human behaviors are related to principles or stipulated precisely for every possible human behavior.

On a first take, it is very irrational, not pragmatics [and idiotic = having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.] to cater for every possible human behavior.

As I understand, in politics, laws are based on general principles and not every possible acts, and it is left to the judge or jury to decide.
Even within corporations, they have Standard Operating Procedures [SOP] which are authoritative and details in manuals with are only guides. It is then up to the management of the company to decide what is compliance and non-compliance.
It is the same with religions and other groups with their main constitution.

I have highlighted to you, figh are man-made thus fallible and changeable, as such you cannot place a high reliance on them in contrast to God's words as doctrines.

As I had stated what the UN has presented are merely guides of the ideals of morality.
You cannot deny there is success with the UN approach and model with respect to morality, i.e.
1. all sovereign nations had banned chattel slaver and others all forms of slavery.
2. the majority [except a handful] has ratified the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination"
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... rms-racial

This is about the laws that governments enforce. They have nothing to do with morality either. Morality is exclusively about personal obligations. It is not about what laws a government would be obliged to introduce.

The point is the UN is guiding the above toward the said personal direction.

I am not interested in what the politicians at the UN say about morality. In fact, I am not interested in what any politician says about morality. Politicians are never a legitimate source for morality. The goal of proper morality is exactly the opposite. The purpose of morality is to be a solid counterweight to the deceptive and manipulative lies by governments and politicians. That is why I spit, pee, and shit on the UN and its politicians.

As I had explained, morality-proper is about personal development of one's inherent moral function which is independent from laws, customs, religions, politics and group ideologies.

But as it is, we need transitional ladders [UN, politics, religions, customs] to facilitate that personal development.

You can spit on politicians and UN personnel, committees [the worst are those with Islamists in them] but not on the generic human principles the UN was founded upon.

[godelian]

There are pros and cons on whether rules related to human behaviors are related to principles or stipulated precisely for every possible human behavior.
On a first take, it is very irrational, not pragmatics [and idiotic = having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.] to cater for every possible human behavior.

Jurisprudential questions are cases brought forward by the general public, leading up to jurisprudential rulings. Example:
Ruling on Appetite Suppressant Patches While Fasting. If the imaginable behavior is relevant, then someone will ask about it, and then there will be rulings. This results in a large database of rulings. If you never explore or search such databases, you will obviously have no clue about what they contain. It is irrational to have an opinion without doing any research whatsoever. What do you base your opinion on iin that case? Mere fantasy?

As I understand, in politics, laws are based on general principles and not every possible acts, and it is left to the judge or jury to decide.
Even within corporations, they have Standard Operating Procedures [SOP] which are authoritative and details in manuals with are only guides. It is then up to the management of the company to decide what is compliance and non-compliance.
It is the same with religions and other groups with their main constitution.

Well, we have a database with practical cases to consult for that. They may not have a database but we certainly do. That is the difference.

As I had explained, morality-proper is about personal development of one's inherent moral function which is independent from laws, customs, religions, politics and group ideologies.

That is how it works for you. In my case, I use a distributed online database with jurisprudential rulings.

But as it is, we need transitional ladders [UN, politics, religions, customs] to facilitate that personal development.

We reject the UN and politics. They are not a legitimate source for morality. Instead, we use a distributed online database with jurisprudential rulings.

You can spit on politicians and UN personnel, committees [the worst are those with Islamists in them] but not on the generic human principles the UN was founded upon.

I believe that the so-called "generic human principles the UN was founded upon" is a pile of deceptive and manipulative lies that I reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn. The proof is even in the pudding. One of the first decisions made by the UN was to give away half of the land of the Palestinians, leading them to be expelled and ethnically cleansed out of their native lands. The UN is simply despicable; has always been and will always be.