Christianity is a personality cult and not a religion

[accelafine]

So, you need a second doctrine to check if the first doctrine is moral. How do you check the second doctrine? So, you need a third doctrine.

You could quite possibly be the stupidest intelligent person on the forum.

We are considering the doctrine in its entirety, Islam permits killing humans and having sex with children, ergo, is immoral.

This problem is known as infinite regress.

Its got fuck all to do with infinite regress AND all to do with extremely simple logic.

Your approach does not work, just for reasons of computability already. It does not even matter what the rules R1, R2, R3, ... are. Your approach automatically fails.

U R talking irrelevant bollocks.

BTW: Consciousness is NOT computable. Ergo, conscious decisions are also non computable.

A doctrine is a set of rules as well as any derived rule that necessarily follows from it.

A moral doctrine is one that decides about the morality of behavior.

You are trying to judge the morality of such moral doctrine. According to what other moral doctrine do you want to do that?

So according to you, in your own words, your 'moral doctrine' is to rape children and murder lots of people. Got it. You are quite the charmer.

[godelian]

So according to you, in your own words, your 'moral doctrine' is to rape children and murder lots of people.

It is difficult to debate with someone like you who is clearly an idiot. You misrepresent Islamic doctrine in order to create one more imbecile strawman. If you do not like Islam, then feel free to use another moral doctrine. Who exactly is stopping you?

[accelafine]

So according to you, in your own words, your 'moral doctrine' is to rape children and murder lots of people.

It is difficult to debate with someone like you who is clearly an idiot. You misrepresent Islamic doctrine in order to create one more imbecile strawman. If you do not like Islam, then feel free to use another moral doctrine. Who exactly is stopping you?

Only repeating what you've said yourself.

[godelian]

Only repeating what you've said yourself.

You did not quote me.

[accelafine]

Only repeating what you've said yourself.

You did not quote me.

Why would I? You know what you said and you know what you believe.

[attofishpi]

Only repeating what you've said yourself.

You did not quote me.

Why would I? You know what you said and you know what you believe.

..any intelligent human that believes Islam via Muhamad was divinely inspired is a fucking idiot.

Perhaps, godelian is starting to real eyes this. <--- my son glasses (*I cry when he plays football-because he always does his best)

[godelian]

..any intelligent human that believes Islam via Muhamad was divinely inspired is a fucking idiot.

First of all, I have never claimed that any doctrine would be divinely inspired. For example, I am an avid user of Peano Arithmetic (PA). Did I ever argue that PA is divinely inspired? It may (or may not) be, but that is totally irrelevant to the argument I am making.

The question that I am interested in, is whether a doctrine is consistent and deductively-closed.

This turns out to be the same concern as the one voiced by Martin Luther during his trial in 1521.

I have never argued that Islamic doctrine would be divinely inspired, or the opposite of this.

That is way too far away from the standard notion of provability.

Therefore, I would never use that as an argument or even otherwise claim or disclaim this. Whether it is true or not, is actually not even irrelevant.

In fact, you do not respond to my reply.

You just keep coming up with unrelated issues that are simply irrelevant.

If I have never claimed that anybody was or was not divinely inspired, why do you try to retort something that I have never confirmed or denied? Seriously, what does your reply have to do with the price of eggs in China?

You keep coming up with strawmen to derail the conversation.

The relevant question is: What properties we should reasonably expect an axiomatization to have? ChatGPT has already provided a detailed response to that. It turns out to be essentially the same answer as Luther's response to the question. You cannot debunk that by coming up with some irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with the notion of provability.

[attofishpi]

* I don't give a flying fart about what you have to say about your paedophilic death cult.

So long as civilised Western society, the LEFTYs in particular that still are under the illusion that Islam is peaceful and breeds normal humans similar to Christians are made AWARE:-
-
that your ideology is DISGUSTING and that its spread across the globe should be halted at ALL costs, then I am happy

[godelian]

your ideology is DISGUSTING and that its spread across the globe should be halted at ALL costs

It is not Islam that the French and Russian revolutions insisted on eradicating. It is the eradication of Christianity that they wanted:

Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution
Policies of the revolutionary authorities

The programme of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included:

- destruction of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship
- destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
- the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being (spring 1794)
- the enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight

As I have pointed out already, I am an avid supporter of the resurrection of the 6th department of the Soviet OGPU:

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

Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov (Russian Евгений Александрович Тучков; 1892, Suzdal, Vladimir Governorate – 15 April, 1957, Moscow) was a Soviet state security officer and the head of the anti-religious department of the Soviet OGPU. During this period, Tuchkov orchestrated a campaign of persecution against the church which included the mass arrests and executions of clergy.

We need to bring back from the grave our revolutionary hero, Yevgeny Tuchkov!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Then there are no religions. Apart from those that bind followers to unnatural non-personification. Whatever that could be.