Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You are merely blabbering with ignorance.
Compare merely on a few statements from you on the subject [which is nothing] to the >300 threads I have raised [at least something reasonable].
Your views on realism vs antirealism is so kindergartenish.
Show me with references that you have any valid counter to the points I have raised.
Are you aware Kant [which I had adopted] had reconciled realism with antirealism with his critical philosophy.

ChatGpt Wrote:
Conclusion
Kant’s philosophy does reconcile realism and anti-realism by combining their strengths into a critical framework. His empirical realism ensures that we can engage with the world meaningfully and objectively, while transcendental idealism reminds us of the limits of our cognitive reach. This synthesis is central to the enduring relevance of Kant’s philosophy and its capacity to navigate tensions between competing metaphysical perspectives.

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.

My views are based on what is conformed what is rationality as accepted generally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
"Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason."
And I have provided sufficient reason based on Kantian critical philosophy to support my views.

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?

Criticisms of religions and theisms by the nons has been going on for eons.
Note the deceptive criticisms by your God and its believers on other religions as filthy.

I have provided supported evidences e.g. Q5:33 within the covenant of believers with God.
The Criticalness of the Covenant in Islam
viewforum.php?f=11
What counters do you have on the above claim.

Whatever you want to condemn, what counts are valid arguments, so far you have not provided any.

[godelian]

Compare merely on a few statements from you on the subject [which is nothing] to the >300 threads I have raised [at least something reasonable].

I don't feel compelled to repeat the entire literature on the matter. There are enough sources on the internet that do that already. It's incredible that you really believe that you have added anything significant or of value to an age-old discussion. Who even cares about the number of word salads that you have concocted?

Criticisms of religions and theisms by the nons has been going on for eons.

Criticism by unbelievers has always been utterly irrelevant to the believers. Seriously, why would anybody care about what you think about someone else's religion? Why don't you constructively discuss your own religion, if you have one?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Compare merely on a few statements from you on the subject [which is nothing] to the >300 threads I have raised [at least something reasonable].

I don't feel compelled to repeat the entire literature on the matter. There are enough sources on the internet that do that already. It's incredible that you really believe that you have added anything significant or of value to an age-old discussion. Who even cares about the number of word salads that you have concocted?

I did not claim I have added something significant or new to the realism vs antirealism debate.
I was merely standing on the shoulders of giants, i.e. Kant, paraphrasing and re-presenting what was already done >250 years ago.

You are ignorant that when dealing with realism i.e. philosophical realism and theism you are adopting it as a fundamentalistic dogmatic ideology chasing an illusion, i.e. an illusory God falsely [hypostatically claimed to be very real.

Criticisms of religions and theisms by the nons has been going on for eons.

Criticism by unbelievers has always been utterly irrelevant to the believers. Seriously, why would anybody care about what you think about someone else's religion? Why don't you constructively discuss your own religion, if you have one?

You are so ignorant. What world are you living in?
Don't you realize criticisms and condemnations by believers of another beliefs throughout history has led so many to convert to the other-religion or out of religion.
Rational criticisms by unbelievers has contributed to the increasing trend of non-theism since the 1500s.

Any religion that hinder the progress of humanity or is a threat to humanity, i.e. that has the potential to exterminate the human species in the future with cheap WMDs must be criticized.

Note the indication and potential of evil here;
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
"Islamists has carried out 46,509 incidents [all with fatalities] since 911 in the name of the religion."

[Belinda]

Compare merely on a few statements from you on the subject [which is nothing] to the >300 threads I have raised [at least something reasonable].

I don't feel compelled to repeat the entire literature on the matter. There are enough sources on the internet that do that already. It's incredible that you really believe that you have added anything significant or of value to an age-old discussion. Who even cares about the number of word salads that you have concocted?

Criticisms of religions and theisms by the nons has been going on for eons.

Criticism by unbelievers has always been utterly irrelevant to the believers. Seriously, why would anybody care about what you think about someone else's religion? Why don't you constructively discuss your own religion, if you have one?

Veritas A's spirituality, if not religion ,is to argue that Islam is evil. We need to be aware there are powerful interests using media such as chat forums to rationalise the genocide of neighbouring Islamic peoples, by Israel.

[promethean75]

If VA wishes to go ahead with the genocide of the islamic people, he will need to present a plan of operation and an FSK to the administration before he is given the green light.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Compare merely on a few statements from you on the subject [which is nothing] to the >300 threads I have raised [at least something reasonable].

I don't feel compelled to repeat the entire literature on the matter. There are enough sources on the internet that do that already. It's incredible that you really believe that you have added anything significant or of value to an age-old discussion. Who even cares about the number of word salads that you have concocted?

Criticisms of religions and theisms by the nons has been going on for eons.

Criticism by unbelievers has always been utterly irrelevant to the believers. Seriously, why would anybody care about what you think about someone else's religion? Why don't you constructively discuss your own religion, if you have one?

Veritas A's spirituality, if not religion ,is to argue that Islam is evil. We need to be aware there are powerful interests using media such as chat forums to rationalise the genocide of neighbouring Islamic peoples, by Israel.

You got it wrong and that is a lie. You really stretch it which merely poison and blacken your intellectual integrity.
If Israel is into genocide, it could easily have done it and wipe out every person from GAZA.
I am not claiming Israel is an 'angel'; it has its negativity, but genocide per-se is not one of them.

What Israel is doing is not to Islamic people or Muslims but rather going to war their political enemies, i.e. HAMAS who had attacked Israel by 'raining' tens of thousands of missiles onto Israel culminating in the Oct 7 genocide.

Just imagine if Israel did not then and does not at present have its Iron Dome, it would literally be a genocide because HAMAS did not aim at specific targets but merely 'rained' missiles into Israel.
In this case, it is only natural that a country in such a threatened situation want to get rid of the threat.

Since 2001, Palestinian militants have launched tens of thousands[1][2][3][4] of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip as part of the continuing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The attacks, widely condemned for targeting civilians, have been described as terrorism by the United Nations, the European Union, and Israeli officials, and are defined as war crimes by human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestini ... _on_Israel

[Veritas Aequitas]

If VA wishes to go ahead with the genocide of the islamic people, he will need to present a plan of operation and an FSK to the administration before he is given the green light.

You are so stupid in even proposing the idea.
Humanity had gotten rid of the ideology of Nazism without a genocide on the German people.

[godelian]

I did not claim I have added something significant or new to the realism vs antirealism debate.

Exactly.

You are ignorant that when dealing with realism i.e. philosophical realism and theism you are adopting it as a fundamentalistic dogmatic ideology chasing an illusion, i.e. an illusory God falsely [hypostatically claimed to be very real.

You keep choosing side for anti-realism in an undecidable debate, while you are not adding anything new to the debate. We know the arguments for realism. We know the arguments for anti-realism. Your personal take on the matter is redundant and insignificant.

Rational criticisms by unbelievers has contributed to the increasing trend of non-theism since the 1500s.

Atheist criticism has only worked in Christianity. No other religion produces atheists in large numbers. In another thread, I have pointed out that the Christian magisterium is not compatible with tools such as ChatGPT. Christian theology is not closed under logical consequence. Therefore, widespread atheism is exclusively a Christian phenomenon.

[promethean75]

"You are so stupid in even proposing the idea.
Humanity had gotten rid of the ideology of Nazism without a genocide on the German people."

It doesn't matter. Kill zem all. Zee true German people died with mein fuhrer, anyway, and zose zat remain are but a pale reflection of zat Bismarkean spirit zat once defined zee people of zee fazzaland.

Now that Europe has become a post-modern cosmopolitan zoo, what can be left of any German nobility if it is not only a gruesome and pitiful caricature?

[Impenitent]

Bizmarkean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aofoBrFNdg

-Imp

[attofishpi]

THE easiest way to unify the spiritual world, is to get rid of Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYi_sXOYbw

[Age]

THE easiest way to unify the spiritual world, is to get rid of Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYi_sXOYbw

LOL This one actually believes that to 'unify' is to 'separate' some, and get rid of them, completely.

Which makes one wonder if this one actually knows what the word 'unifying' actually means.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are ignorant that when dealing with realism i.e. philosophical realism and theism you are adopting it as a fundamentalistic dogmatic ideology chasing an illusion, i.e. an illusory God falsely [hypostatically claimed to be very real.

You keep choosing side for anti-realism in an undecidable debate, while you are not adding anything new to the debate. We know the arguments for realism. We know the arguments for anti-realism. Your personal take on the matter is redundant and insignificant.

You are merely blabbering and ignorant of the whole perspective of the realism versus antirealism with its deep nuances.

I am not adding anything new [since Kant reconciled the wide chasm] but I am enlightening on the nuances involved, i.e.
1. All philosophical issues are reducible to the realism versus antirealism.
All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [antirealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

2. An realist can be an antirealist and vice-versa dependent on the perspective and context; but ultimately is grounded to either philosophical realism [absolute] or its ANTI.
Therefore when you condemn 'antirealism' without context, you could be kicking your own ass as a antirealist in a certain context.

3.. There are various classes of realism
Classes of Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42601

4. Kant had reconciled the realism versus antirealism dischotomy.
Kant Reconciled Realism and AntiRealism
viewtopic.php?t=43305

It is undeniable I have brought forth a wide spectrum of the nuances within the realism versus antirealism which you and others are ignorant of.

Do you have any counter to the above?

Rational criticisms by unbelievers has contributed to the increasing trend of non-theism since the 1500s.

Atheist criticism has only worked in Christianity. No other religion produces atheists in large numbers. In another thread, I have pointed out that the Christian magisterium is not compatible with tools such as ChatGPT. Christian theology is not closed under logical consequence. Therefore, widespread atheism is exclusively a Christian phenomenon.

You are living in a tall dark silo of ignorance.
In the last 30 years, the internet had been bursting with increasing ex-Muslims as atheist, e.g.

In 1995

Why I Am Not a Muslim, a book written by Ibn Warraq, is a critique of Islam and the Qur'an. It was first published by Prometheus Books in the United States in 1995. The title of the book is a homage to Bertrand Russell's essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, in which Russell criticizes the religion in which he was raised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Muslim

On Being a ‘Muslim’ Atheist
To disbelieve in the existence of God in the Arab world is no easy thing. Yet more and more of us are coming out of the closet
https://newlinesmag.com/first-person/on ... m-atheist/

In contrast to Christians leaving Christianity, those Muslims who left Islam do so with condemnations and critique of the terrible evils from the ideology Islam [not Muslims]. This is evident with the testimonies of ex-Muslims all over the internet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

2x

[Veritas Aequitas]

THE easiest way to unify the spiritual world, is to get rid of Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYi_sXOYbw

This is a good one that exemplify the stupidity of the ideology; humanity would be better off if and when the ideology is weaned-off in the future.