Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[Belinda]

Btw, do your care for the truths?
Do you have any counter to the above facts of the religion per se?

I do. Allah is merciful.

Allah is merciful but only to those who comply with his commands in the Quran.

To be intellectually fair and reasonable to yourself, you have to read the Constitution of the Religion [the Quran] to understand [not necessary agree with] the essential truths of the religion.

Here is the Pickthall's Translation of the Quran.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1.html
Note an analysis of themes on the side.

Even from Chapter 1, it gives an indication of a very threatening tone and attitude of the religion to non-believers which is not merciful as claimed:

• Chapter 1. The Opening
  1 Praise be to Allah,
  2 The Beneficent, the Merciful.
  3 Master of the Day of Judgment,
  4 Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
  5 Show us the straight path,
  6 The path of those whom Thou hast favoured;
  7 Not (the path) of those [Jews] who earn Thine anger nor of those [non-believers, Christians] who go astray.

Verse 7 is reflected throughout various verses in the Quran:
All non-Muslims [are inherently Muslims] have either gone astray (like the Christians) or have earned Allah's anger (like the Jews).
Allah has no mercy for those who follow another path.

Worse and what is so critical is the whole of Chapter 1 is asserted by every Muslim 17 times everyday throughout their life in their daily 5-times-a-day prayers.

How can Allah be merciful when it permit Q5:33?

Allah is merciful despite that a holy book of rules is a product of time and history. Muhammad is not God but is the holy prophet of God, a man who lived and worked in a time and a place and whose revelations were appropriate to that time and that place, Arabia 601 AD.
There is much that is not divisive in the Koran, and what unites peoples is apparent also in the Koran.
As a matter of fact, Christianity and Islam are aligned against the evil of genocide.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do. Allah is merciful.

Allah is merciful but only to those who comply with his commands in the Quran.

To be intellectually fair and reasonable to yourself, you have to read the Constitution of the Religion [the Quran] to understand [not necessary agree with] the essential truths of the religion.

Here is the Pickthall's Translation of the Quran.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1.html
Note an analysis of themes on the side.

Even from Chapter 1, it gives an indication of a very threatening tone and attitude of the religion to non-believers which is not merciful as claimed:

• Chapter 1. The Opening
  1 Praise be to Allah,
  2 The Beneficent, the Merciful.
  3 Master of the Day of Judgment,
  4 Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
  5 Show us the straight path,
  6 The path of those whom Thou hast favoured;
  7 Not (the path) of those [Jews] who earn Thine anger nor of those [non-believers, Christians] who go astray.

Verse 7 is reflected throughout various verses in the Quran:
All non-Muslims [are inherently Muslims] have either gone astray (like the Christians) or have earned Allah's anger (like the Jews).
Allah has no mercy for those who follow another path.

Worse and what is so critical is the whole of Chapter 1 is asserted by every Muslim 17 times everyday throughout their life in their daily 5-times-a-day prayers.

How can Allah be merciful when it permit Q5:33?

Allah is merciful despite that a holy book of rules is a product of time and history.

It is only your personal wish that 'Allah is Merciful' but how can you justify your personal claim?

The Quran is not a book of rules as a product of time and history. Allah never said that at all and humans as fallible beings can never give an absolute interpretation of the infallible omnipotent Allah.

Qur’an: the Eternal, Living Reality
The Qur’an is the word of the Ever-Living God; it has been sent down to guide man for all times to come. No book can be like it. As you come to the Qur’an, Allah speaks to you. To read the Qur’an is to hear Him, to converse with Him, and to walk in His ways. It is the encounter of life with the Life-giver.
[God—there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-Subsisting (by whom all subsist). He has sent down upon you the Book with the Truth] (Aal `Imran 3:2-3).
https://islamonline.net/en/quran-the-et ... g-reality/

Muhammad is not God but is the holy prophet of God, a man who lived and worked in a time and a place and whose revelations were appropriate to that time and that place, Arabia 601 AD.

That is only your personal views and those [the majority] who think alike but that is not the truth as proclaimed by the words of God in the Quran.

There is much that is not divisive in the Koran, and what unites peoples is apparent also in the Koran.

To be a Muslim proper, believer must enter into an agreement [Mithaq] with Allah.
The terms in the agreement are confined within the words from Allah, i.e. within the Quran only and no where else.
In the terms of agreement, Allah promised Muslims salvation with eternal life in paradise, and all Muslims are obligated to comply the full terms of the agreement* within the Quran to gain what is promised.
* to the best of their ability.

The covenant "divine-contract" is VERY critical to Islam especially with reference to Judgment Day which is the main focus of the Quran and for the majority of Muslims.
To understand Islam, it is imperative that you are familiar with the concept of covenant within Islam:

The Qur’an is a book of guidance for the God-conscious that presents the terms and conditions of human existence and coexistence.
It does so through the concept of covenant (‘ahd and mithaq).
Though covenants have been overlooked and under-reprepresented in discourses about Islam, they are pivotal to the Qur’anic narrative, as well as the Prophet’s worldview and diplomacy.
This presentation examines the various covenantal relationship categories of the Qur’an, including between Allah and humanity, the Prophets, people of scripture, and with Prophet Muhammad and people of his time, as well as covenants within families and between spouses. Professor Halim Rane discusses his ground-breaking article, Higher Objectives (maqāṣid) of Covenants in Islam: A Content Analysis of ‘ahd and mīthāq in the Qurʾān.
https://maqasid.org/blog/the-maqasid-of ... the-quran/

Therefore, where the Quran [Allah] dictates as in Q5:33 that a Muslim must kill non-believers for the slightest threat to the religion [fasad] e.g. disbelieving, blasphemy, drawing of cartoons, occupy Muslims' Land, etc. then the Muslim is duty bound as divine obligation to kill non-believers.
There is no time nor history elements to this because the threats [fasad] to the religions are always there since Islam emerged, the present and in the future.
I notice, you don't provide a counter to this evil?

In real life, the Shias [majority Iranians, Syrian, Hezbollah, Houthis] are arch enemies of the Sunnis [majority Palestinians in Gaza], but they in compliance to their Islamic duty assisted Sunni Gaza in attacking Israel [the Jews] their common enemy based on faith as compelled by Q5:33 in their common Quran.

Q1:7 Not (the path) of those [Jews] who earn Thine anger nor of those [non-believers, Christians] who go astray.[/list]

and driven by the loads of antisemitic verses within Quran and the religion.


They have to commit the above acts else they risk going to Hell for non-compliance to the commands of Allah in the Quran.

As a matter of fact, Christianity and Islam are aligned against the evil of genocide.

Can you justify your 'matter of fact' re Islam without full reference to the Quran?

It is obvious Christianity with its overriding pacifist maxims as commands of Christ/God in the Gospels, i.e. "love all, even enemies" do not permit a Christian to kill anyone, thus no potential genocide from those who are Christians.

But the Q5:33 and loads of hatred heaped upon infidels with the Quran, i.e. the words of Allah, Islam could even have the potential to exterminate the human species via WMDs. Muslims are assured of eternal life in paradise regardless of what happened on Earth or in the physical Universe; plus of they do so, they will get 10X the ordinary rewards [720 virgins instead of 72 ??]

• Q4:74 So let those fight in the cause of Allāh who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allāh and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward.
  
  Q6:160 Whoever comes with a good deed will be rewarded tenfold. But whoever comes with a bad deed will be punished for only one. None will be wronged.

Compliant with Q5:33 is regarded as a distinctly good deed.

[Belinda]

Veritas A, all moral codes regardless of the mythologies that accompany them are made by men. The Koran is no exception.

If a gang of Muslims were to break into my son's house today and beat people I'd blame them not Muhammad or the Koran.

I am sure there are Muslims who idolise the Koran and many other Muslims who are not Koranic literalists . Islam is generally authoritarian, and so are some sects of Christianity and Judaism. Literalism is also generally authoritarian. Your stance is shaky unless you oppose not only Islam but all authoritarian religious sects

Most Muslims, most Christians, and I daresay most Jews are morally aligned against those who are putting Muslims and Christians to death in the Holy Land now 11.34 Saturday, 27/12.24. There is enough of love , reason, and justice in the Koran, Hadith, OT, and NT to unite peoples.

[godelian]

all moral codes regardless of the mythologies that accompany them are made by men. The Koran is no exception.

This harks back to the eternal question:

Is X discovered or invented?

X-realism versus X-anti-realism?

We struggle with pretty much the same question in, for example, mathematics: is it discovered or invented?

Whenever there is a widely-shared understanding about some X, the same question keeps popping up.

The question is fundamentally undecidable, because it is not possible to describe the conclusive evidence that will be able to decide the question in one direction or in the other.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Philosophical realism—usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters— is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3][4] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[5][6] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself. However, realism may also include various positions which instead reject metaphysical treatments of reality altogether.[7][8]

A realist won't be able to convince an anti-realist, and vice versa.

I personally have a strong preference for abstract realism. However, I certainly acknowledge that anti-realism can sometimes be useful. For example, in mathematics, my default position is Platonism (i.e. realism) but I happily switch to formalism (i.e. antirealism) when that position is more suitable for the argument at hand. This actually seems to be quite a common strategy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso ... #Formalism

Davis and Hersh have suggested in their 1999 book The Mathematical Experience that most mathematicians act as though they are Platonists, even though, if pressed to defend the position carefully, they may retreat to formalism.

Realism versus anti-realism is not merely undecidable. It is even perfectly fine to believe both simultaneously and to exploit this undecidability.

[promethean75]

The way i see it, Allah is not merciful to you but through you. Because the islamic doctrine of occassionalism is the only metaphysics that's compatible with my spinozean monism and Big Mikean determinism, i must, through logical attrition, abandon the idea of God as a transcendental subject acting on creation and man as a freewill being who is given mercy by Allah according to the God's whims.

Thus i claim that in creation, there is no mercy except what is given by men to other men (and animals).

When you die of cancer, that is neither mercy nor no mercy. It would be silly to say Allah woke up one morning and decided to let you die of cancer, and this may be an instance of having no mercy. Likewise, winning the lottery is not an instance of being graced and given mercy by Allah. Even if you lived in a box prior to winning. Events in the world are not structured like that; pleasures and pains are not distributed according to some private panel of judges' being flattered or offended by a particular human deed.

An earthquake or not. A meteor or not. None of this is made to happen by a third party above and over the universe. Rather, Allah makes an appearance whenever someone gives mercy to another... and it only exists in discourse among men.

In a way, this model also eliminates some of the problem of evil because it relieves the mundane world of violent physical forces (tsunamis and diseases and wildfires, etc) of its malevolent nature; again, Allah does not stir up hurricanes or faulty genes to destroy people because God's don't make universes to experiment and play with. Everyone from the Greeks to the Jews got it wrong. They're all doing the Feuerbachean shuffle. That's when you attribute your human virtues and capacities to a transcendental character (God) and actually infuse your own human character and personality onto God, creating a representation of your highest ideals, etc.

That 'mercy' that you understand so well is not something given to you by God. It's a natural mechanism built into your brain piece, a million year long development and refinement of a human behavior. When you stay your sword and let the bastard live, if only for a moment, you imagine his pain and suffering- even if the guy murdered your whole family - and your spirit of revenge is replaced by mercy.

All this granting that the protagonist understands that there is no freewill, of course. Only by knowing that the guy couldn't have ever acted without his reasons, and that he cannot choose his reasons, his beliefs (can you choose to believe in santa clause or that democracy is the best?), can mercy be drawn for him by the protagonist. Otherwise, he's disgusted and enraged by irrational feelings of revenge and will most certainly shoot him.

[promethean75]

Merciful are you, my brothers and sisters, for through you do I see Allah.

[promethean75]

This model does have its problems, though. It was Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt who, after having studied under Al-Ghazali during a pilgrimage to the middle east, asked of him the question "if man is no more free to not murder a man's family (if he doesn't) than he is to not be able to have mercy (if he does) on a man who murders his own family, then none of this makes much difference. We end up with a clockmaker who determines the world to work a certain way... and then walks away for good. 'Mercy' would not be some special feature that was of the highest virtue. It'd be just another determined biological human behavior preprogrammed into the laws of physics and chemistry that make sentient life possible (and work)."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas A, all moral codes regardless of the mythologies that accompany them are made by men. The Koran is no exception.

Yes, to all rational people, all moral codes are man-made.
But the majority of humans appx 4 billions of Abrahamic theists would disagree with you and they believe all moral codes are established by a real God who deliver his message via his messengers.
Both Christians and Muslims are contractual [convenated] bound to obey and comply with all the moral laws from God to the best of their abilities.

If a gang of Muslims were to break into my son's house today and beat people I'd blame them not Muhammad or the Koran.

There are nuances to be considered here.
If a gang of people were to break into your son's house and beat up people, then the evil people as human beings involved are to be blamed; there should be no consideration of them being Muslims even though they appear to be so.

However, if they shout 'Allahu Akbar' in the midst of the break-in and robbery, or there is evidence they are doing it in the name of their religion or are somehow motivated by their obedience to the religion, then the religion and its constitution the Quran is to be blamed.

Normally, break-ins and robberies are not motivated by the dictates of the religion; but if the killing of innocents [murder, mass killings, genocides] accompanied by the shout of 'Allahu Akbar' and in the name of the religion, then obviously the religion, not the perpetrators, must take the main blame.

The fact is the religion support and permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat [fasad] re Q5:33. [this is very evident]
I am at present reading the very famous Isutzu's "Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’ān" where he mentioned 'fasad' which encompass all kinds of evil-doings and the focus is on 'disbelieving'.
Translators will often translate fasad in Q5:33 as corruption which does not represent the origin intent of 'fasad' the Quran.
Meanwhile the ulema and imans who spent their whole life studying the Quran would know what 'fasad' really means and they would influenced their followers to do what is expected of them by God and gain merits to be assured of eternal life in paradise.

I am sure there are Muslims who idolise the Koran and many other Muslims who are not Koranic literalists . Islam is generally authoritarian, and so are some sects of Christianity and Judaism. Literalism is also generally authoritarian. Your stance is shaky unless you oppose not only Islam but all authoritarian religious sects

Most Muslims, most Christians, and I daresay most Jews are morally aligned against those who are putting Muslims and Christians to death in the Holy Land now 11.34 Saturday, 27/12.24. There is enough of love , reason, and justice in the Koran, Hadith, OT, and NT to unite peoples.

You are still not getting the criticalness of Covenant within religion.

At present I am refreshing on my research on Covenantal Theology which is very critical with Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

As stated many times, both official Christians and Muslims had entered into a covenant [divine contract] with God where they must comply with the terms of the contract.

Once contracted, if the terms of the contract stipulated believers must kill non-believers upon certain conditions, then they must kill [as in Islam Q5:33], if it say, don't kill, then a believer cannot kill [Christianity love all even enemies].
If they do not comply with what is dictated by God, then they have sinned and may risked going to hell or reprimanded on Judgment Day.

Ali Khamenei of Iran had already stated they fight the Jews re Gaza based on common faith, i.e. the dictates of their contractual obligation.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the notion that the Islamic Republic uses proxy forces, during a public address on Sunday (December 22).
According to Reuters, he said: "The Islamic Republic does not have a representative force. Yemen fights because it has faith, Hezbollah fights because the power of faith brings it to the field, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fight because their belief forces them to do so.”
"They do not represent us. If we want to act one day, we don't need a proxy force," Khamenei said.
https://tolonews.com/world-192268 23-12-2024

If any 'Christians' were to fight a war and killed, they would not claim it is based on faith [in the name of Christ or God] but rather on duty as a political soldier of a country.
By default they cannot do it, even if they want to.

There is no way you can dispute the above?? the conditions are all in the holy texts from God.

Most Muslims, most Christians, and I daresay most Jews are morally aligned against those who are putting Muslims and Christians to death in the Holy Land now 11.34 Saturday, 27/12.24. There is enough of love , reason, and justice in the Koran, Hadith, OT, and NT to unite peoples.

Yes, most Christians as obligated to love their enemies would be against the killings.

Most Muslims would be the same but if only 10% minority agree to the Oct 7 genocides and killing of IDF soldiers in the name of their religion as permitted by God, that would be 150 million of them.
So they are a critical or impactful minority.
So the presence of an evil doctrine is critical.

[Belinda]

The way i see it, Allah is not merciful to you but through you. Because the islamic doctrine of occassionalism is the only metaphysics that's compatible with my spinozean monism and Big Mikean determinism, i must, through logical attrition, abandon the idea of God as a transcendental subject acting on creation and man as a freewill being who is given mercy by Allah according to the God's whims.

Thus i claim that in creation, there is no mercy except what is given by men to other men (and animals).

When you die of cancer, that is neither mercy nor no mercy. It would be silly to say Allah woke up one morning and decided to let you die of cancer, and this may be an instance of having no mercy. Likewise, winning the lottery is not an instance of being graced and given mercy by Allah. Even if you lived in a box prior to winning. Events in the world are not structured like that; pleasures and pains are not distributed according to some private panel of judges' being flattered or offended by a particular human deed.

An earthquake or not. A meteor or not. None of this is made to happen by a third party above and over the universe. Rather, Allah makes an appearance whenever someone gives mercy to another... and it only exists in discourse among men.

In a way, this model also eliminates some of the problem of evil because it relieves the mundane world of violent physical forces (tsunamis and diseases and wildfires, etc) of its malevolent nature; again, Allah does not stir up hurricanes or faulty genes to destroy people because God's don't make universes to experiment and play with. Everyone from the Greeks to the Jews got it wrong. They're all doing the Feuerbachean shuffle. That's when you attribute your human virtues and capacities to a transcendental character (God) and actually infuse your own human character and personality onto God, creating a representation of your highest ideals, etc.

That 'mercy' that you understand so well is not something given to you by God. It's a natural mechanism built into your brain piece, a million year long development and refinement of a human behavior. When you stay your sword and let the bastard live, if only for a moment, you imagine his pain and suffering- even if the guy murdered your whole family - and your spirit of revenge is replaced by mercy.

All this granting that the protagonist understands that there is no freewill, of course. Only by knowing that the guy couldn't have ever acted without his reasons, and that he cannot choose his reasons, his beliefs (can you choose to believe in santa clause or that democracy is the best?), can mercy be drawn for him by the protagonist. Otherwise, he's disgusted and enraged by irrational feelings of revenge and will most certainly shoot him.

I agree entirely!
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopophy:
----it might be helpful to characterize occasionalism as follows: one is an occasionalist for domain x iff one holds that God is the unique genuine cause within domain x and other alleged causes within this domain are not real causes but at most occasional causes.

In other words, the occasion of my dropping the egg and breaking it was my inattention, but the cause of my dropping and breaking the egg was the huge deterministic system which is sometimes known by the names 'God' or 'Allah'.

I could be more free if I paid more attention to what I was doing when I was doing it.The occasion of the success of learning and political freedom in Islamic Al-Andaluz was the Islamic doctrine that it's good to discover the workings of Allah. Or, similarly, Aristotle as Christianised by Thomas Aquinas endorsed the saying be all you can be that popularises the theory of Aristotelian forms.

Spinoza was/is both an Aristotelian and a strong determinist , which is why Spinoza has been characterised as 'God-obsessed'.

I agree that the mercy which I endorse is human and mammalian, and is what we mean when we say "civilised behaviour".
Thus, a healed femur is a sign that a wounded person must have received help from others. Mead is said to have concluded, “Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts. (Margaret Mead).
I also endorse the prayer of St Teresa of Avila:
Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours. ] St. Teresa of Ávila

[Belinda]

This model does have its problems, though. It was Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt who, after having studied under Al-Ghazali during a pilgrimage to the middle east, asked of him the question "if man is no more free to not murder a man's family (if he doesn't) than he is to not be able to have mercy (if he does) on a man who murders his own family, then none of this makes much difference. We end up with a clockmaker who determines the world to work a certain way... and then walks away for good. 'Mercy' would not be some special feature that was of the highest virtue. It'd be just another determined biological human behavior preprogrammed into the laws of physics and chemistry that make sentient life possible (and work)."

Please see St Teresa of Avila's prayer in my previous post.Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours. — St. Teresa of Ávila
At no point has anyone maintained that's an easy choice to try to imitate Christ. Freedom is quantified by the extent to which one imitates Christ. Evil is absence of God.The struggle for God is ongoing and frightening.

Clocks don't have a problem concerning struggling with conscience. As Sartre said, we are beings for ourselves whereas (clocks) are beings of themselves.

[godelian]

Yes, to all rational people, all moral codes are man-made.

It is clearly not possible to provide proof or other evidence for that proposition.
It is so obviously unsubstantiated.
Hence, any person who says that kind of things, is sorely lacking in rationality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, to all rational people, all moral codes are man-made.

It is clearly not possible to provide proof or other evidence for that proposition.
It is so obviously unsubstantiated.
Hence, any person who says that kind of things, is sorely lacking in rationality.

Can you demonstrate or give a clue as to how moral codes are not man-made, i.e. can we just pick moral codes from the thin air?

What is most rational up to the present is a resultant that is supporting by sufficient reasoning and critical thinking.

What is morality? {mine}

Morality is the categorization of intentions, decisions and actions into those that are {Good} proper, or right, and those that are improper, or wrong. {evil}[1]
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that is understood to be universal.[2]
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness", "appropriateness" or "rightness". -WIKI

From anthropology [as far back as we can evidently understand humans] humans has been inventing moral codes in promoting what is 'good' and and avoiding what is 'evil'.

1. How Humans Became Moral Beings?

First of all, there could be little doubt that humans had a conscience 45,000 years ago, which is the conservative date that all archaeologists agree on for our having become culturally modern. Having a conscience and morality go with being culturally modern.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -80976434/

2. Then idea of God and God's Moral Law

The Mesha Stele bears the earliest known reference (840 BCE) to the Israelite God Yahweh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

3. It is Impossible for God to be Real: God is illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40229

4. From the above rational approach, all moral codes up to the present are man-made. We just cannot remove the common 'human' factor from moral codes, i.e.
human(all moral codes in practice).

So, to all people who are reasonably rational overall, all moral codes are man-made.

Unfortunately for humanity, the overall supposedly "moral codes" of the religion of peace which is man-made are effectively evil-laden with the potential to wipe off the human species in the future.

[godelian]

Can you demonstrate or give a clue as to how moral codes are not man-made, i.e. can we just pick moral codes from the thin air?

I have already explained in a previous comment that the question of philosophical realism versus anti-realism is fundamentally undecidable. This is a fundamental debate in many fields. Is the field being discovered or invented?

In a previous comment, I gave the example of mathematics where the question of realism (such as Platonism) and anti-realism (such as formalism) is also fundamentally undecidable. Are numbers man-made or discovered? That is ultimately the same question.

The solution is therefore not to choose between realism and anti-realism. The solution is to use either when it suits the situation. That is why good mathematicians routinely switch on the fly between Platonism and formalism.

You won't convince anybody who is rational and who understands the problem to choose between realism or anti-realism.

Your views are too simplistic as well as uneducated on the matter, since you are clearly unaware of the wider debate which has been going on for millennia. You overestimate your own ability to decide an undecidable problem. According to Dunning-Kruger, intelligence is all about understanding your own limitations. You clearly do not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you demonstrate or give a clue as to how moral codes are not man-made, i.e. can we just pick moral codes from the thin air?

I have already explained in a previous comment that the question of philosophical realism versus anti-realism is fundamentally undecidable. This is a fundamental debate in many fields. Is the field being discovered or invented?

In a previous comment, I gave the example of mathematics where the question of realism (such as Platonism) and anti-realism (such as formalism) is also fundamentally undecidable. Are numbers man-made or discovered? That is ultimately the same question.

The solution is therefore not to choose between realism and anti-realism. The solution is to use either when it suits the situation. That is why good mathematicians routinely switch on the fly between Platonism and formalism.

You won't convince anybody who is rational and who understands the problem to choose between realism or anti-realism.

Your views are too simplistic as well as uneducated on the matter, since you are clearly unaware of the wider debate which has been going on for millennia. You overestimate your own ability to decide an undecidable problem. According to Dunning-Kruger, intelligence is all about understanding your own limitations. You clearly do not.

I have raised >300 threads dealing with philosophical-realism vs philosophical-antirealism [in various forms especially morality] in this forum and note the following;

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [antirealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

You are likely to be ignorant [lack reasoning capacity] that a realist can be an antirealist or vice-versa depending on the context.

The solution to the above dilemma generated by reason [crude and primitive level] is Kant's meta-critical-philosophy of applying rationality and critical thinking plus wisdom.

ChatGpt [wR] Wrote
The seeming circularity of reason reasoning its limits is not a defect but an insight into the nature of human cognition. Kant’s critical philosophy addresses this by exposing the structure and boundaries of reason, providing a framework for evolving degrees of rationality. It allows reason to exploit its full potential while avoiding the pitfalls of dogmatism and skepticism.

If not Kant, alternatives like pragmatism or systems theory may also address these issues, but Kant’s synthesis of epistemology and ethics remains a foundational and influential approach.

Based on Kant's Copernican Revolution, ultimately it is:
"human(all moral codes adopted and practiced)" as bracketed.

So, to all people who are reasonably rational overall, all moral codes are man-made.

Unfortunately for humanity, the overall supposedly "moral codes" of the religion of peace which is man-made are effectively evil-laden with the potential to wipe off the human species in the future.

[godelian]

I have raised >300 threads dealing with philosophical-realism vs philosophical-antirealism [in various forms especially morality] in this forum

You did not add anything new to a discussion that has been going on for millennia already.

So, to all people who are reasonably rational overall, all moral codes are man-made.

You do not get to define who is rational and who is not, especially not when you are yourself clearly lacking in rationality.

Unfortunately for humanity, the overall supposedly "moral codes" of the religion of peace which is man-made are effectively evil-laden with the potential to wipe off the human species in the future.

Nobody cares about what you personally think about the "moral codes" of any religion. Since you are not member of the religion, your criticism is not even deemed constructive. You must be either very naive or possess really low intellectual abilities to believe that the follower of any particular religion is even remotely interested in what you believe about his religion.

I am not a Hindu. Imagine that I went around criticizing Hinduism to people who happen to be Hindu. Expecting any reaction that is different from them telling me to fuck off, would be naive, unrealistic, and in fact, outright stupid. Therefore, I keep asking you the same question, over and over again: Are you truly an idiot or do you just pretend to be one?