Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is morality and Ethics is inherent with human nature that is why its concepts are so ubiquitous within human activities.
From the empirical evidences of human activities ...

Natural morality exists. This is indeed what most people believe. In Islam, natural morality is called "fitrah".

The problem is not the existence of natural morality. The problem is that it is encoded in our genetic material and that we do not have the technology to read it. Hence, we do not have a documented copy of natural morality.

You do not have access to a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality as encoded in humanity's genetic material but you incessantly claim to know exactly what it contains. That is an arrogant point of view.

Christianity's moral model support natural morality that is related to empathy for the 'other' while Islam do not exercise empathy and compassion for non-believers.

Again, without access to a transcript of humanity's natural morality as encoded in humanity's genetic material, you cannot know any of the above with certainty. You cannot possibly justify such knowledge because you do not have such knowledge. Believing that you know when you obviously do not, amounts to being arrogantly stupid.

There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality just as there is no precise transcript of humanity ways of life.
However, there are basic principles of life, i.e. the drive and need to breathe, eat, fight or flight, f..k and the like plus the inherent drive to be moral.
These [including morality] drives and needs can be inferred from the empirical evidences of human activities since humans first emerged.

As such, we can evidently infer scientifically the natural moral elements, e.g.
there is a moral oughtnotness that humans are not to torture and kill babies for pleasure; surely you would not deny this moral obligation?
There are other natural moral maxims which are obvious.
As I had stated, the above are supported by the psychological state of empathy which can be verified and justified by science-biology and science-psychology.

With the trend [as evident] of the exponential expansion of neurosciences and genetics at present, humanity would be able to track these moral elements to the genetic codes in their various combinations.
Then humanity will be able to expedite and continually improve the average moral quotient and competent of humanity [which is evident and ongoing at present].

With the immutable Q5:33, there is no room for empathy [must be suppressed and overridden]; upon the slightest threat [fasad] believers are obligated to kill non-believers [babies included] or even the whole of the human species with WMDs since they have nothing to lose when there is the promise of an assurance of eternal life in heaven regardless of what happened on Earth.

[godelian]

There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality

Exactly.

There is, however, a precise transcript for the basic rules of religious morality. Such transcripts certainly exist for Jewish law and for Islamic law.

What you are trying to do, is to compare a documented set of rules (religious morality) to an undocumented and simply unobtainable one (natural morality).

Obtaining a transcript of natural morality from the human genetic material for the purpose of comparing it, requires a technology that may some day in the future exist but that does not exist right now already.

Your word salad is not a legitimate substitute for the transcript of natural morality. Therefore, your conclusions are inevitably spurious.

You are merely inventing stupid and unsubstantiated nonsense with the purpose of black mouthing Islamic morality.

You are not defending a particular idea.

You seem to be mostly interested in attacking and shit talking. You are not doing anything constructive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality

Exactly.

There is, however, a precise transcript for the basic rules of religious morality. Such transcripts certainly exist for Jewish law and for Islamic law.

What you are trying to do, is to compare a documented set of rules (religious morality) to an undocumented and simply unobtainable one (natural morality).

Obtaining a transcript of natural morality from the human genetic material for the purpose of comparing it, requires a technology that may some day in the future exist but that does not exist right now already.

Your word salad is not a legitimate substitute for the transcript of natural morality. Therefore, your conclusions are inevitably spurious.

You are merely inventing stupid and unsubstantiated nonsense with the purpose of black mouthing Islamic morality.

You are not defending a particular idea.

You seem to be mostly interested in attacking and shit talking. You are not doing anything constructive.

I stated the fact "There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality " but there are inferred principles of morality which is the important matter.
It is the principles that are important.
It is the principles that all human must eat nutritious food, but the type of food, the way it is produced and prepared for consumption that vary with different conditions is not the critical thing.

Islam has its own transcripts of moral within the immutable Quran, but the transcripts are not in alignment with the evident principles of natural morality.
Instead of the principles of morality is getting rid of evil, the Islamic morality promote and encourage evil.

[godelian]

There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality

Islam has its own transcripts of moral within the immutable Quran, but the transcripts are not in alignment with the evident principles of natural morality.

If the principles of natural morality are so "evident", then why can't you precisely document them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality

Islam has its own transcripts of moral within the immutable Quran, but the transcripts are not in alignment with the evident principles of natural morality.

If the principles of natural morality are so "evident", then why can't you precisely document them?

I have already given you examples and its association with natural mirror neurons in the brain.

Those with damaged mirror neurons are likely to be psychopaths and the malignant ones will commit evil and immoral acts.
The Quran's threat of heaven or be burnt in eternal hell somehow suppress the empathy function of believers towards non-believers.

[godelian]

There is no such thing as a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality

Islam has its own transcripts of moral within the immutable Quran, but the transcripts are not in alignment with the evident principles of natural morality.

If the principles of natural morality are so "evident", then why can't you precisely document them?

I have already given you examples and its association with natural mirror neurons in the brain.

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the principles of natural morality are so "evident", then why can't you precisely document them?

I have already given you examples and its association with natural mirror neurons in the brain.

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

I did not say "rules" but rather that are natural moral 'outhnotness' as evident within human nature and humanity, e.g.

'ougthnotness' of
-no humans to kill humans
-no genocides
-no rapes
-no incest
-no harm -mind to serious
-no violence
-no torture and killing of babies for pleasure
-no evil acts of any sorts.

the above is justified with evidence the majority of humans [say 90%] do not commit the above naturally or voluntarily.
Some % of humans do commit the above evil but that is because their natural moral function is not active, is dormant or is damaged.
Some % of humans do commit the above evil to comply with the commands of their religion, e.g. Q5:33 of Islam.

[godelian]

I have already given you examples and its association with natural mirror neurons in the brain.

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

I did not say "rules" but rather that are natural moral 'outhnotness' as evident within human nature and humanity, e.g.

'ougthnotness' of
-no humans to kill humans
-no genocides
-no rapes
-no incest
-no harm -mind to serious
-no violence
-no torture and killing of babies for pleasure
-no evil acts of any sorts.

the above is justified with evidence the majority of humans [say 90%] do not commit the above naturally or voluntarily.
Some % of humans do commit the above evil but that is because their natural moral function is not active, is dormant or is damaged.
Some % of humans do commit the above evil to comply with the commands of their religion, e.g. Q5:33 of Islam.

Have you compiled this list by yourself? Or has it been published somewhere as a transcript of human morality? Can you also indicate how exactly we can read this list from a human's genetic materials?

[puto]

Helke, Theresa. “Taylor Swift’s Liar Paradox,” “Philosophy Now,” Issue 145 August/September 2021, Digital.
Hutto, Daniel. “Foundations of Analytical Philosophy, Part 1: Early Analytical Philosophy,” “Philosophy Now,” Issue 8: 1993/94,
Digital.
Hutto, Daniel. “Foundations of Analytical Philosophy, Part 2: Logical Atomism and Logical Positivism,” “Philosophy Now,” Issue 9,
1994, Digital.
Taylor, Richard. “Religion and Truth,” “Philosophy Now,” Issue 47, August/September 2004, Digital.
These articles from are from an academic source and should help you out to understand that a dogmatists are opinions not by senses or education but by their own fancy and sure of everything. A skeptic is a seeker and places of study and uncertain that is probable the predicate and a subject, and become certain or doubtful of the proposition. Methods

[Belinda]

If the principles of natural morality are so "evident", then why can't you precisely document them?

I have already given you examples and its association with natural mirror neurons in the brain.

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

Perhaps Veritas A bases his belief in natural morality upon man as an animal that is alienated from its origins in mammalian societies. The rules of mammalian societies include care of the young, care of the injured and sick, colonising geographical areas where food and water are to be had, mating according to species whether monogamous or otherwise, foods to be consumed according to species, progress in acculturalisation (sorry!)according to species, obedience to the demands of circadian rhythms, and so forth.

The above argument may be countered by our knowing that human nature is cultural not genetic (except in the very very long term or artificially engineered).

[godelian]

The above argument may be countered by our knowing that human nature is cultural not genetic (except in the very very long term or artificially engineered).

I believe that some of it is genetic. That is actually also a core Islamic belief:

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

Fitra or fitrah (Arabic: فِطْرَة; ALA-LC: fiṭrah) is an Arabic word that means 'original disposition', 'natural constitution' or 'innate nature'.
The Quran states that humans were created in the most perfect form (95:4), and were endowed with a primordial nature (30:30).

Some part of human morality is innate and some part is indeed acquired later in life:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innate-acquired/

The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics

The idea that some characteristics of an organism are explained by its intrinsic nature, whilst others reflect the influence of the environment is an ancient one. It has even been argued that this distinction is itself part of the evolved psychology of the human species.

The part acquired later on is necessary but it also causes deviation from its foundations in natural morality. In Islamic doctrine, natural morality is considered to be potentially "maimed" by people's upbringing, and not just "completed":

In the prophetic traditions (hadith), the term gets new attention: "Every child is born in a state of fitrah. His parents then make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)."[11]

We do not have the technology to read natural morality out from the human genetic material, but I believe that the description of natural morality is actually stored in it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

I did not say "rules" but rather that are natural moral 'outhnotness' as evident within human nature and humanity, e.g.

'ougthnotness' of
-no humans to kill humans
-no genocides
-no rapes
-no incest
-no harm -mind to serious
-no violence
-no torture and killing of babies for pleasure
-no evil acts of any sorts.

the above is justified with evidence the majority of humans [say 90%] do not commit the above naturally or voluntarily.
Some % of humans do commit the above evil but that is because their natural moral function is not active, is dormant or is damaged.
Some % of humans do commit the above evil to comply with the commands of their religion, e.g. Q5:33 of Islam.

Have you compiled this list by yourself? Or has it been published somewhere as a transcript of human morality? Can you also indicate how exactly we can read this list from a human's genetic materials?

What is morality is the management, elimination, prevention of evil acts [as listed above] within humanity to enable whatever the related good to emerge.
This is evident based on empirical evidences within human nature.

The above list is not published anywhere but it is valid and undeniable by an average person based on basic rationality, critical thinking, wisdom and common sense.

Morality is parallel and complementary but independent from politics.
You will note the above listing of ougthnotness of evil is published within the criminal code of politics re legislature and the judiciary and the degree of evilness is represented by the severity of the punishment.

Why the "ougthnotness of evil" is managed politically and religions is because the majority of humans are being-more-animal than being-more-human but humans are continually evolving to be more moral driven by the inherent natural moral function. Humanity must find ways to expedite the activeness of natural morality.

The problem with "ougthnotness of evil" from religions and politics is they are not fully aligned with natural morality, e.g. Islamic morality [Q5:33 and others] even promote evil in motivating believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.
It is also the same with politics where there are governments which condone 'evil' acts [wars, death penalties, violence, etc.] for self-protection and survival.
At present the natural oughtnotness of evil is not very align with what is natural morality.

Because of the impending global threats [WNDs, Islamic terrorism, climate change and the like] to humanity, there is a need to expedite natural morality where the majority are spontaneously moral and not threatened not to commit evil acts by threats of punishment from religions and political laws.

As such, towards the future [not possible now], humanity must wean off the evil laden politics and religion* [especially Islam] and expedite to cultivate spontaneous morality without threats of punishments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already given you examples and its association with natural mirror neurons in the brain.

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

Perhaps Veritas A bases his belief in natural morality upon man as an animal that is alienated from its origins in mammalian societies. The rules of mammalian societies include care of the young, care of the injured and sick, colonising geographical areas where food and water are to be had, mating according to species whether monogamous or otherwise, foods to be consumed according to species, progress in acculturalisation (sorry!)according to species, obedience to the demands of circadian rhythms, and so forth.

The above argument may be countered by our knowing that human nature is cultural not genetic (except in the very very long term or artificially engineered).

Human nature [what is essentially and uniquely a human] is fundamentally genetic as encoded in the DNA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nat ... erstanding

What is cultural is Nurture not nature, but with the possibility of culture effecting and adapted as 'nature' in the long run, say, over 100K or million of years.

The morality function represented by its neural correlates is inherent within human nature; on the basis of optimality of existing constraints the moral function is not active within the majority of humans.
It is just like the intelligence function where there is trend of improvements since 200K years ago to the present to be exponentially expanded with AI.

The moral function due to current constraints and optimality is evolving and improving very slowly on average but there are already signs it has improved since since 200K years ago to the present. Take for example the improvement in Chattel [ownership] Slavery which is banned in all nations at present.
Also note Steven Pinker's

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

The serious problem with morality related to Islam is the moral dictates of Islam are carved in stones, i.e. the Quran with its inherent malignant evil elements is immutable. As such Islam suppresses the evolution and progress of the inherent natural moral function within its believers.

In contrast within Christianity, morality is driven by its Ideal pacifist maxim, i.e. love all even enemies, give the other cheek.
As such, it give a lot of room for the natural moral function to improve towards the impossible-to-achieve ideal where nevertheless, the striving naturally motivates gradual progress.

It is not moral to be an Islamic apologetic and be an ostrich to its glaringly inherent evil which is so evident via its true believers.

[AlonsoAcevesMX]

The Clash of Civilizations argues, in short, that the wars of the future will not be fought between countries, but between cultures, and that Islamic culture represents one of the greatest threats to Western culture.

Western culture is primarily clashing with itself. It really does not need enemies to fall apart. The future is demography. That is where a civilization either survives or doesn't. Western civilization can no longer reproduce from generation to generation. The birth rate will keep collapsing. It can never recover. Western civilization has adopted beliefs concerning inter-gender dynamics that guarantee is demographic extinction. Any culture that does not adopt these beliefs will survive, while the West will not. Islam is such culture, but quite a few other cultures also manage to stick to their traditional beliefs.

Various academics, religious leaders of different faiths and spiritual practitioners propose an ambitious project: the unification of spirituality. Although at first glance it may seem far-fetched, it is not an unattainable goal.

Unification possibly means two things.

The other culture adopts the beliefs that are destroying the West. That is known as "westernization". It just means that this culture will collapse just like the West will.

The alternative choice is that this culture does not adopt these beliefs. In that case, it remains culturally separate. Long-term survival of a civilization requires it NOT to adopt the beliefs that are currently destroying the West.

So, the question is what are these beliefs that are destroying the West? You will find the greatest analysts of these destructive beliefs in the so-called "manosphere":

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

The manosphere is a diverse collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism.[1] Communities within the manosphere include men's rights activists (MRAs),[2] incels (involuntary celibates),[3] Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[4] pick-up artists (PUA),[5] and fathers' rights groups.[6] While the specifics of each group's beliefs sometimes conflict, they are generally united in the belief that society is biased against men due to the influence of feminism, and that feminists promote misandry, or hatred of men.[7] Acceptance of these ideas is described as "taking the red pill", a metaphor borrowed from the film The Matrix.[8]

A good number of men in the manosphere may indeed be deemed bitter and misogynist, but most are actually not. Instead, the main influencers and philosophers naturally rediscover what the true differences are between men and women, resulting in a description of the natural gender inter-dynamics. In fact, they end up saying many of the things that traditional religions such as Christianity and Islam also say.

The West will never achieve "unification" with the growing manosphere, let alone, with a religion such as Islam. The core of Western culture is an inferior, self-defeating ideology that is incredibly self-destructive. Unifying with it, amounts to cultural suicide. Therefore, nobody else will ever want to adopt that, and certainly not the Muslims. On the contrary, the manosphere ideas are increasingly going mainstream in the West itself.

Let's celebrate the diversity within Western culture! Rather than seeing it as a single entity, we can appreciate the many different perspectives and opinions that make it rich and vibrant.

When it comes to the relationship between Western culture and Islam, it's true that there are significant differences in values, beliefs, and practices. But let's not forget the many amazing examples of cultural exchange, mutual understanding, and cooperation between Western and Muslim societies.

I firmly believe that with new thinking and a willingness to learn from each other, we can achieve a beautiful blend of ideologies in just a few generations. In fact, I'd say it can happen in as little as five generations!

[AlonsoAcevesMX]

As Brazilian president, the thinly-veiled theocratic Evangelical Jair Bolsonaro had allowed the Amazonian rainforest to be razed by both meat farmers and wildfires. Incredibly, in the midst of yet another unprecedented wildfire three summers ago, the evangelical-Christian president declared that his presidency — and, I presume, all of the formidable environmental damage he inflicts while in power — is somehow divine:

“It is difficult to be president of Brazil because it is a president that has less authority. I am fulfilling a mission from God.”
(Strangely enough though not surprising, early on Nov.6 Donald Trump stated: “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness.”)

Canada’s previous prime minister, the also thinly-veiled-theocratic Evangelical Stephen Harper, was similarly unrelenting in his pro-fossil-fuel/anti-natural-environment war against science. ... There’s a generally shared bizarre belief amongst such 'Christians' that to defend the natural environment from the planet’s greatest polluters, notably big fossil fuel, is to go against God’s will and is therefore inherently evil.

Some even credit the bone-dry-vegetation areas uncontrollably burning in California each year to some divine wrath upon collective humankind’s ‘sinfulness’. ... Apparently, there is a serious hazard in such theologically inclined people getting into and remaining in high office.

I propose forming a new belief system, one that is spiritual but not religious. This approach would focus on personal growth, mindfulness, and a connection with nature, rather than adhering to specific dogmas or institutions.

By embracing a spiritual but not religious approach, we can foster a deeper sense of connection with ourselves, others, and the natural world. This, in turn, can inspire a more compassionate and sustainable way of living.