As I watched the ex-president of American Atheist, Ed.D.

Edd
As I watched the ex-president of American Atheist, Ed.D. Edd
Buckner debate against public speaker and intellectual activist,
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis I realised the differences and common
grounds they differ upon and share. Like many good debates1,
structured upon a real concern to convince and share, this one
excelled in this particular way that enthused me. I would also
like to express my appreciation to those many people who
presented me with the opportunity to listen and observe their
good debates; those who helped me with my compilations and
framework. And aforemost, I thank and praise my good God,
the Lord of the worlds.

Please take a minute to gauge:

Is this done with science?

Pass!on?
1 https://youtu.be/YI9owlpOQl0

Is it balanced?
Or is it both?!!!

An Introduction:
As I was watching this debate something struck me as odd; is
this debate from a pure philosophical predilection or is it a
scientific inquisition? Stuck in an either-or whirlpool, since theists
are usually more to the philosophical side, and Atheist refute
theology with a philosophical-scientific approach, I believe we all
end up having a philosophical doctrine with corresponding faithful
correlations. As many theories, including Darwins theories, reach a
point when you cant prove them more, thence deeming them as
plausible or sceptically trivialising their evolution or impact; likewise,
is done to religious doctrines. At a point you would have to believe
on or rebuff, choosing your own diet and filling your own plate with
the colors and nutritional values you deem as worthwhile. However,
after listening to many debates relating to similar arguments, I
realized the reason why they teach scientific thinking before
philosophical thinking: tapping into the memories of how I reverted
to Islam, I remembered how relieved I was to hear that from chaos
comes order, yet still equally satisfied later by becoming certain of
the existence of one creator. I believe that was not possible except
through the scientific tunnel vision and its thinking tools; for me it
was my astronomy class, which I proclaimed as Monotheism101.
Later, I realized that this was the perspective the divine verbatim
miraculous Islamic scriptural evidence offers to many of those who
are researching to find genuine signs that correlate to proof the
existence of a divine being, hence divine guidance2. Upon reaching
evidence of monotheism, I started correlating philosophical
arguments of theology and balanced morality; usually labelled as
2 I will show them my signs in the heavens and the earth tell
they apprehend that it is the truth; is not enough testimony
that your lord is a witness over everything: Verily they are wary
from them meeting their Lord; verily he is inclusive to all.
(Meanings from the Quran: 41:53-54)

objective morality, and how its respective nature defines the

problem and the solution. As I sought morals, so as to lift my morale
and my need for self-fulfilment, I pondered upon the medleys and
how can we objectively fulfil to reach a balance with the presence
and criterion of the better good and the worse evil!? Is religion the
better good or the worse evil? Yet still change and acceding to the
unknown was wilfully outside the scope of my futurist dreams of
enlightenment. I realized, after having something solid to build on,
that philosophy can be defined to vary according to ones belief,
augmenting with its philosophers!!
Practical Philosophy is the use of philosophy and philosophical
techniques in everyday life. This can take a number of forms
including reflective practice, personal philosophical thinking and
philosophical counselling.3
Demeaning philosophy would only mean to strip science of the
common-sense it provides us with. Never the less, flawed
philosophy can stray to strange realms of gobbledygook or mumbojumbo.
Analogous to the importance of philosophical incorporation in
our lives, is our discovery to new words to augment our speech with
the experimental and figurative trappings they provide us with;
further realizing those words in empiricism allows us to correlate
actual meanings to them. As I watched the debaters speak their
mind and technique, not only was I introduced to how theist or
Atheist build upon scientific thinking, but furthered, I was presented
by an amazing sound configuration, that can be jargoned by many:
epistemically epistemic!! As it was recanted and re-chanted again
and again, I was only lured to further research it:
Episteme stems from the roots of epi over or near, and stem or
stet is to stand, it is basically the scientific (as opposed to
philosophical) study of the roots and paths4.
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_philosophy
4 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?
term=epistemology&allowed_in_frame=0

Belief must be based on theology, the logic or doctrine of a

deity (a theo). Yet how to reach the belief in a doctrine that claims
a must accede with belief hash tag, and still be rational; is what
epistemically dispirits Atheists. Epistemically we can hypothesize,
experiment, infer and conclude, working up the ladder to reach
facts; however, theology infers to most Atheist the exact opposite,
which to them doesnt provide the stability and the soundness of a
legible argument.
With all the scientific breakthroughs in collecting and analysing
knowledge we have come to believe in the power of science in
invention and explanation. Still science has failed and disappointed
us so many times, we still trust science, for future horizons. The
practical knowledge we gained from plotting scientific knowledge is
awe-inspiring in its dimension and potential; the models are
hypothetical in many cases, yet amazingly virtual and experimental!
The probability by which we can further develop our rational thought
and deductive analysis tools, has opened and closed realms of
envisioning horizons; for our knowledge of infinity is infinitival to
acquire. Basing our understanding or mathematical correlations to
build dimensions and models has sometimes reverted us from
seeing the amazing depths, wonders and worlds coexisting around
us; delving into a more abstract realm, we are always reminded
back to reality with subtle encounters or a blast on, or quite near,
the head!

As we seek bliss on this earth, we sulk upon Cest la vie,

and scowl upon our many shortcomings and imperfections; some
blame God, and some dont believe in him, yet some manage to
blissfully meditate upon a Good God. I believe, as I am sure you
do, that negative feelings can detour, so can denial whether its with
a blissful accent or not. In my essay, inspired by Ed.D. Buckners5
concerned approach to Muslims and his structured debate, I would
like to present the reader with my answers to his main propositions.
O! People we have created you from a male and a female, and we
have made populaces and tribes so that you would familiarise;
verily the most profuse of you according to Gods appraisal are the
most deferential; surely God is the Most Comprehending Proficient.
6

5 https://youtu.be/YI9owlpOQl0
6 Meanings from the verbatim words of God: The Holy Quran:
The 49th Chapter correlated upon the parable of the prophetic
private quarters: 13.

Once Upon a Debate:

Give me a miracleand I will tell you the rest!
My first Quandary:
When irrational is rational: A perspective on the beginnings.
Case discussion:
Atheistic claims of incoherency and lack of objectivity in the Islamic notion of
the various names of Allaah? (...or is it aptness?)
Further Arguments:
@ Or is it aptness?
@ Or is it ego?

My Second Quandary:
The importance of practical philosophy in counselling science and
scientists; a step further to the theological ultimatum.
My Third Quandary:
The scientific model we live in: Does our innate demo-graphy
always disagree with our communal sense via our common
sense?!!!
i.
ii.

Different fosterages and consequence observations: the nurturing effect it

has on free will.
The holistic approach: how we handle and untangle the mysteries of the
complex and dimensional models we live in, and model itself.
Case study:
@ The demographical-theological tendency and Islam.

The Fourth Quandary

Rational thinking, Morality and Willpower: Are they faces of the same,
me, myself and I, or do they contra-dictate?
The meaning of objective morality, between philosophy and practical philosophy.
Case discussion:
War and suffering: between philosophical Islamic practices and
interpretations, unto realizing objective balance.
Case study
@ Losing objectivity: An analysis of the chronological parable the Saturday
consorts scribed in the Quranic scripture.
@ Ouff!: An expression of intolerance mentioned in the Quran, reverberated upon
traditional sympathies, and the consequential practices and empathies it
establishes.

When irrational is rational:

A perspective on the beginnings.
Delving into the first quandary:

Infinity has always existed in words like forever, yet it is very

uncommon to understand it from a before-ever perspective! It has
existed in the mathematical realm as a finite number accompanied by an
infinite reference/symbol. More than the rational could count or perceive
is considered as infinity; so if we perceive a physical end to the universe,
it is finite comprehensively if not mathematically. Further, if we perceive a
chronological beginning or end, it is finite from a different perspective.
Nonetheless if we dont, we say that we perceive it as infinite, yet we
perceive it as a finite integer with an infinity symbol beside it! This is recreationally fair, since our brains are very finite; even when we can tap
into computer memory and a universally finite to the power of resources. As
we are still trying to reach into our dimensional models and perceptions it
is considered very rational to perceive more than we can count, it is
considered rational to believe in laws we cannot see; thats if we can see
their consequences. We never consider these laws as supernatural, if
we can count or explain them; however, in ignorance, to the contrary of
science, superstition has developed many explanations of these laws;
touching wood to stop an electric strike of envy, does seem to make
sense in a superstitious way, yet experience has proved otherwise!

To remove ignorance without partialities or biases, science inquires

and analyses, cures, invents and probes supernatural events as much
as possible, by observation if not by theory. Rationally this universe and
this spec we call home, earth, are part of an amazing system that gains
and loses momentum in a very organized anatomic and organic way. Not
a junkyard, and earth certainly not a group of systematic computerized
elements recycling and creating a balance from no balance; for no
probability, mathematic or scientific theory could come near to
epistemically proving that the world we live in could exist by chance. In
addition, embracing the concept of
give me a miracle and Ill prove the rest
to prove that the Big-Bang existed eternally or was created
from nothing; then going on to equally justifying ones scientific fallacy by
disparaging those who consider the miracle to be a divine being, is an
obvious philosophical fallacy. Differentiating between the creation, which
has to be created, and the creator, who is the provider of material and
the essence of life is a more notably credible argument, even if we just
evaluate it from the philosophical level, not to mention the perspective of
human sciences and scientific core foundationalism. Evolution should
have always existed according to patterns of basic substantive elements
and laws that are scientifically predictable and plotted, believing that this
was created by chance would be even more farfetched and irrational
than believing in a miracle Creator creating this.
And it is he who created you metamorphically: Didnt you see that I have
created seven skies of enveloping layers: Besides I composed the moon
in them as a light beam, and the sun as a torch beam. 7
According to scientific empiricism and statistics, no such system could
ever come to exist from chance, free radical elements or ungoverned
wastelands. Upon facing such a gridlock, an Atheist anarchist
assumption would seem for a blink of an eye- as unscientific, compared
to a theist who proclaims the existence of the Creator. Upon that an
Atheist could try to prove every observable thing epistemically, however
this stem has a basic missing proof validation. Not to mention the many
theist epistemic fallacies, not necessarily lost in the same a-mazed
blink but in the process of proving and proofing other evidence.
7 The Quran: The 71st chapter correlated upon the parable of
Noah: trail of the signs from15-17.

A blink essentially is an intrinsic intelligent response to a sudden

intrusion, or a prejudiced gullible-reaction to something we do not want
to believe, in a-mazement!!! Essentially metaphored by Malcolm
Gladwell in his book Blink: a book about how we think without
thinking, about choices that seem to be made in an instant-in the blink of
an eye-that actually arent as simple as they seem. 8
Epistemically upon such a premises, a one creator would send one
preserved true religion in essence and scripture for an informationally
and transversally connected era or region. However, the evolutionary
development of nurturing scriptures that have accredited one another
has strong grounds of common sense and historical evidence.
Metaphored as a well-designed building, prophet after prophet make its
tablets.
Whether one decides to act upon his blink or overlook it to the
declaration of a reasonless existence or an infinity upon chaos, none can
claim his inference as entirely factual. As we surpass the miracle of
existence, we can go on after this blink of inner sense into proofing
atheism, giving into the abduction, or otherwise furthering on it whilst
suggestively inferring to an infinite creator of a finite universe, both
seeking hypothetical proneness. Sceptically a believer would come to
acknowledge a boundary were the irrational-miracle is the only rational
explanation: since anything created must have a beginning,
epistemically we must be facing a creator with no beginning and a universal creating potential, or loop out of the loop into another one.
Ultimately, I believe that this is the step, and fork in the road, that
epistemically and analytically differentiates between an Atheist and theist
practical philosophy.
While theist argue on the philosophical level to prove theology,
believing is acceding after a journey of inquisition. A believer would have
to see enough epistemic evidence to support a theology as true, then
they would have to believe on according to what they consider plausible;
they dont necessarily have an explanation for everything! No created
being can encompass all revelation sources or observation empirically
and objectively. Yet upon reaching a confident level enough to
acknowledge their belief, a legitimate believer would deem they have
enough evidence to support the theory or the unseen theology they
8 http://gladwell.com/blink/

have cross-examined. Believing and faith has an element of scientific

imagination or inference, not necessarily solely factual; if it was allperceived then it wouldnt be a big deal to further your investigation on
your proved- enough theory or fact! As proofing a miracle is not
possible, as it shares an element with proving what existed before the
big-bang; philosophically it is rational to establish that encompassing a
vision of a creator of this uni-versal master-piece -and its ongoing
evolutionary and devolutionary trends- would be impossible without
revelation. It is irrational to prove the identity or the essence of a divine
miracle or being, except through revelation that comes from the miracle
before the big-bang! Deferring the further discussion of the definition of
the miracle, I encourage myself and the reader to accumulate a
consistent perspective, then try to assess it upon the ratio and realm of
the hereafter, then further our etchings to try to conceive a realm of a
before-after; awed even if one has to do it through symbolism. As I
watched this video explaining the size of this universe, I blinked,
overwhelmed and wishing it was not true:
https://youtu.be/AC7yFDb1zOA!
And the seven heavens are to the governance cathedra but a ring in a
vast desert; thus is the appraisal ratio when comparing the divine throne
to this cathedra.
Evidently, this spec of time and place we are living through and in, does
overwhelm us, yet the uni-verse of diversity adds the common sensed
symbol of to our perspective.
Religion is a focal factor in your psychological & mental,
hence physiological being. To develop a religion or world
view, a counting system where some logic is assigned
conforming to the reality of the cosmos & our role in it, as
best as we can know that reality Map making on a socio,
psycho unto a cosmic level to reach some kind of direction,
even if the direction is what some define as complete no
direction or chaos9

9 M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled: World Views and

Religion.

All in all, I will end my quandary quoting more from the best-selling
book The Road Less Travelled, hoping we both not lose our civil
accommodations to human-developed dogmas or blame:
Anyone who knows a died-in-the-wool Atheist will know that
such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as a
believer can be about belief; and as accusing as a believer
can be cruel.10

10 M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled: The Baby and the
Bath Water.

Case discussion:
Muslims have an incoherent objective concept of Allaah due to the
many attributes and names they exalt Allaah with?
Invoking upon Allaahs divinity in Islam is the collective respective
use of divine attributes and names as to correlate meaningful facets of
the same being that are particular to a situation, objectively bonding the
worshipper, tendering and directing him in this certain situation! That is
also manifested in the Muslims belief and perspective in the purposeful
creation of the dimensional model we live in: in other words, when one
recalls a situation for an objective reason he would look upon it
differently than someone who recalls for a recreational reason. Our
perspective of life differs with our reasoning to our existence, those who
believe in an afterlife will consequently appraise life and choices
differently. As with morals, the use of divine names and the reasoning we
give to fate, defines and correlates our perception of utility and our
perspective of praiseworthy. As a believer enciphers life as salvational,
such different adjectives connect to him in a corresponding nature; our
perception can change the world around us, moreover they deeply affect
us as individuals. As we choose which name or facet to invoke upon,
thus we believe we are affecting, thence we are effected; this defines our
priorities, course of action and our belief. As an Atheist basically
perceives life as evolutionary chaotic, a mundane survival jungle, where
luck is the utmost controller with a spoonful of synergetic evolutionary
wisdom. Building upon what is socially determined by the herd or
through trial and error; a believer believes that ultimately there is and will
be a divine perfect gnostic.

If I believe a God exist, I will then consider if I want to worship him!

@ ...Or is it aptness?
Whilst being a very epistemic answer with respect to some
peoples perception; I argue its epistemic morality and rationality.
So you would believe in the existence of a creator that created the
heavens and the earth, and that provides us with material, a chance and
a will to choose, then you would choose to ignore this all?!! Is it the lack
of skill and attributes in the scientific model around you? Would you
rather revert to re-creation? But where? And how? Can we create
another reality? Another earth? Different logic? A different scientific
balance?
Or is it the lack of gratefulness?
Or is it how you would like to invest upon the choice and chance
you were given?
Do you think it was unfair to introduce you to an existence
then make you suffer the consequence of nurture and evolution in
order to reach this kind of preliminary epistemic understanding
and correlation of consequence? Is there another way to
understand consequence rather than empiricism, do you prefer a
cyborg existence? Do you question that drive that pushes you to
learn, evolve and become the fittest, or would you rather we were
all be bionic replicas of the fittest? Or are you privileged and
wondering about the under privileged, but arent you fitted for a
more active role to service them with support?
Life may seem very confusing, but when fractioned over infinity in
a mathematical way it can either mean fie, or ir-ratio-nal! Getting Real
about symbols, fie does mean something, but something beyond
ratio and perspective!!! Losing infinity for a fleeting creation is a
decision worth pondering upon; to us we are considering something like
here and after, whilst acknowledging before and ever-after!
I didn't understand this idea of a God who says, 'You have to
acknowledge me. You have to say that I'm the best, and then I'll give you
eternal happiness. If you won't, then you don't get it!' It seemed to be
about ego. I can't see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to
me.

@ Or is it ego?
God from their perspective, always has an ego problem, but they
don't!?
Sometimes what really doesnt make sense to us is what we dont
want to understand or comprehend. So epistemically this argument built
on a presumed premise that one believes that somebody created
everything, and because he has an ego problem when he tells us to
worship him, he must not be a real God?!!
God must be all-forgiving, and never fair; he must provide us with
perfect answers and life, but never choice, guidance and care.
. It even rhymes, shall I start my new bible??
But then no one should ask us to acknowledge his personal platform and
importance in our life, and his academic achievements and personal
accomplishments; hence we can assign and adopt whatever
substantiation we want Only, but thats not rational, even though the
ego concept is apparent! Acknowledging people respectively is good
kind of ego! Ego, when it is based on real self-worth is so handy, it
teaches us to respect those who should be respected: when it is more...
when it is less... it is a mess...! Anarchisting to bogus perspectives!
Ego-Worthy is a good quality, it does not mean vain, and keeps
distance from meek; it presents people in their respective and useful
titles, especially in the presence of the not so proper. This is a facet
including one of the names of God, which is the Haughty. Imagine if
every time -keeping in mind that he is the Almighty Creator- God hears
this person utter words of ignorance or insolence in describing him, or do
something really immoral: isnt it a blessing to that person that God is so
Haughty and does not lash back instantaneously at everyone who
transgresses? Isnt it a name one can correlate to mercy, thats if it is
Ego-worthy balancing with other attributes? If he was not so great and
haughty, he couldnt be so merciful and forgiving. Yet also, isnt it a
name one can correlate to capability? As to justly and skilfully deal
with those who have passed their limit, with wisdom, and without
fast overruling and pathetic anger!

The importance of practical

philosophy
in counselling science and scientists:
A step further to the theological ultimatum.
Resolving to my second quandary:

Science, not new to human perception, yet recently coined

to definition as the systemic knowledge of the natural and
physical world through observation and experimentation. The
scientific process, regardless of its scientist, is a self-amending

and accumulating, objective, coherent and communicated

process to amount facts and information for further inquiry and
usage. The ongoing elements of such an endeavour must
include inquiry, pursuit of inquiry in possible ways,
systematically analysing and deducing information to correlate
findings, then furthering this all through refining and retesting,
communicating and inventing. This all should objectively be
based upon rationally encompassing perceptions to project and
go hand in hand with conscientious critical thinking to an
advanced perception. While science could seem according to
many people as a raw set of facts and empirical cold values,
science is the verbalising and utilization of the laws that
govern the world we live in. Whilst we are still maturing upon
an aging earth, it can get tricky; yet critical thinking could allow
us a more comprehensive approach to science. As we seek to
solve problems of reality using language, symbols and thinking
techniques, the empirical nature of observable science can
sometime disintegrate from its reality. This analogy has
empowered scientist to the realm of probability and theory, lest
philosophy. For example, as Darwin theories were reviewed
and propagated in awry, the philosophy behind atheism evolved
partially, in the past century. Theory is the English symbolic
vocalisation of the notion defining a system of perspectives
intended to explain something. Whilst a scientific one
is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and
confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not
all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories should be inductive
in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability. 11

So intrinsically, as we amass so many theories, some

factual in their validating muster and some less, we further on
with our critical eye in making more sense of a bigger theory or
analogy, beyond specific observations and empirical values. A
11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

long introduction made short due to the many scientists we

credit or did not mention their names in scientific reports, only
to reach enough evidence for a step-up from the-o-ry to
philosophy, lest the-o-logy; from know-hows to the
philosophical reasoning, science and critical thinking imposes
upon us. Pointing us to a basic classification, while
epistemically rooting our connotations and working-out to
vocalizations and meaningful ultimatums: the affix in the word
the-o-ry rooting us to Theo - from the Greek word meaning
God- or Thea- from the Greek word meaning a viewpoint or
theatre- creating two sub-divisional philosophical paths, one
strenuous in its requirement of belief in a Theo and his universal order, and the other recreational for observational and
educational reasons of our fleeting entity. Is everything referring
to this uni-versal phenomenon of scientific foundationalism
leading us to a belief in a common foundational unified verse
signage exalting one creator, or leading us to see and observe
a theatre of events that randomly align themselves through
evolution? At a point it might have been enough to be
subjective; our attachment and adoration of mother-nature is
like breastfeeding a new-born. Whilst not a cow, mothers milk
and scent is singled-out with new-born senses; then upon
developing senses and perspectives, and accumulating them
respective to our growth, we -as adults- seek objectiveness.
when we have come to science from a culture and home in which the
belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and
hypocrisy. Then we have emotional, as well as intellectual motives to
smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientist,
however, is their awareness that science maybe subject to dogmatism
as any other religion The water with its growing baby meddling or
bathing to reach purification; leaving its impurities to effect the liquid
properties of water. Throw the water and the baby, if you see the water
overwhelming everyone... All of this, with one small problem; did the

scientific tunnel vision chop off the baby and our need for bathing,
leaving us just with the overwhelming bathing water and its impurities!

12

What is the philosophy behind the scientific knowledge we

have acquired and its common core indications? Can it be
analogous to Religion any religion? Religion, defined in
universities as theology, has also been present before we can
remember; thus leading us to deduce a revelational or a natural
tendency amongst homo-sapiens to explain a higher reason
or reality. Superstitious in many of its evolutionary trends and
innovations, theology is yet still supernatural in its Big-bang
presence before thorough scientific inquisition!!! How did
prehistoric homo-sapiens resonance this level of philosophical
logic?!? Still all pointing back to inferring upon evolution and the
paradox of the egg or the chicken?! As we trace back
religion, we realise through looking upon the not so primeval
ones, that religions usually start with one denomination and
then diverse to many interpretations and inclinations. As we
celebrate the new egg, we could be celebrating some new
genera. As we age with our senses and observations, cognition
impels upon us to choose critically, whilst understanding
consequence and opportunity costs of this choice: are we
advancing upon our knowledge objectively?

12 M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled: The Baby and The
Bath Water.

The Scientific Model We Live in:

Does our innate demo-graphy always conflict our
communal sense via our common sense?
Upon My Third Quandary

As the 7ft model sways on the cat walk modelling the

latest fashion trends and defining beauty, many of us wonderon affected positively or negatively with this beauty;
paradoxically this could carry a common element with how a
scientist feels after experiencing his latest dimensional
modelling of a scientific outlook, whether featuring an angle, in
or beyond the biosphere!? Modelling, and observational
science, has a scientific and artistically creative factor and
perspective, this explains and directs many of our
understandings but it will still be up to us to correlate and apply
them to our real life. How we envision reality affects our
theories, observations and conclusions. Leonardo da Vinci,
painting upon enlightened observation, models how science
once was
Leonardo was, and is, renowned primarily as a painter() Leonardo is
revered for his technological ingenuity. He conceptualised flying
machines, a type of armoured fighting vehicle, concentrated solar power,

an adding machine, and the double hull, also outlining a rudimentary

theory of plate tectonics. Relatively few of his designs were constructed,
or were even feasible, during his lifetime () He has been variously
called the father of palaeontology, ichnology, and architecture, and is
widely considered one of the greatest painters of all time. Sometimes
credited with the inventions of the parachute, helicopter and tank, his
genius epitomized the Renaissance humanist ideal. 13

The biosphere, observed from outer space, could seem

like an amazing model of a blissful paradise. Yet after being
effected with tsunamis and human pollution, it could seem to
portray randomness or even a scientific error in its objective
intelligence?!! Yet, not hearing bats, we might be impressed
upon hearing them! Still dis-covering we are impressed more,
yet in the interim of sightseeing we are awe-inspired. Diverted
from pollution and demographic common sights, we discover
through travelling as we sightsee and associate meanings to
the word beyond, and we learn amazement. Wanting to leave
amazement to meanings where the maze leads to something,
we correlate to expand our growing minds. As scientific Atheists
exhibit their a-theistically a-mazing working-outs, I epistemically
question their scientific foundationalism and core perceptions?
Is it a lame over-reaction to peoples communal ignorance like
Einstein likes to put it?
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

14

Or is it our inconsistencies in understandings and our evolving

common-sense, which is stopping us from epistemically
rooting this diverse model and biosphere to the uni-versal
foundational creative phenomena? Is it the plainness of the
model, or the lack of uni-versal signage? Is it the communal
sense of the Good God, or is it our common sense
13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
14 Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
Symposium", 1941.

subconscious knowledge of the amount of lies, cheaters and

subjective worshippers, that is blocking our theological theory
from being inferred upon properly and dis-allowing it
experimental access to grow into a philosophical doctorate? Do
we have an innate demographical inclination like we have a
communal one? Or have become scientifically abstract
awaiting to reach ripeness? As we grow, do we get to choose
between our communal sense or our innate plains? Or is it
common sense that scores? Or is not-so-common sense that
overrules? Is it like what some of us would like to tell us that we
are born with a critical-rational Atheist-sense, but we then
forsake it to theology? Or is it that our belief in God is an
emotional innate vulnerability?
A purposeless design modelling theatre, created for
prodigal, evolutionary-overruling reasons; making no commonsense possible when looking at all the data and dreading/loving
a tsunamis sudden transfigurement of a curve we had once
plotted. As we assumingly vacate nature, we extend a blind eye
to the resonance of the many things that helped shape and
evolve our common sense. Maybe everything is just
nihilistically winding up to anarchism or none-sense?! Are we
understanding the data through variables and rational
consequential inquiries? Or are we just pinning it on a
dimension, whilst not seeing the other variables effecting our
investigation?
Communal and common sense closely intertwine to shape our
new innate demo-graphy, picking up on the influencing factors,
whether with a proportional or inversely proportional correlation.
Yet the resultant force tends to fork into a yes or no channel! As
we introspect a spectrum of infinite fractional subtleties, relating
or misaligning from or with our innate, communal and common
sense amalgamations of aural interactions; what do we define
as intrinsically developed and what do we consider aurally

developed? On which of them, do we choose to further our

evolutionary development?
As I mentioned before in my second quandary, and would like
to emphasize again:
Religion Superstitious in many of its evolutionary trends, theology is
yet still revelational in its Big-bang presence before scientific
inquisition. Still all back to the paradox of the egg or the chicken?

Most common-sense evolutionary scientist, once utter-sense

evolutionist define the chicken as a source, and the egg as
the evolutionary specie. Whether all eggs came from one cell,
or from a specie is not the argument here, but rather the
miracle presence of a source is the premises of this
argument. As small as a one cell or as staged as a specie,
how did religion inductively develop in homo-sapiens to
conclude monotheism prehistorically? While Muslims do not
hide their belief that monotheism was the first religion of Adam:
how would Atheism explain the presence of monotheism prehistorically? I guess it is always a common premise, whether
Atheist or theist, to start from: Give me a miracle, and I will
explain the rest!.
"I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered
the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven
ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to
regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the
five grains and flax and silk that so the people could use and enjoy them.
Heaven established the hills and rivers, ravines and valleys, and
arranged many things to minister to man's good or bring him evil. He
appointed the dukes and lords to reward the virtuous and punish the
wicked, and to gather metal and wood, birds and beasts, and to engage
in cultivating the five grains and flax and silk to provide for the people's
food and clothing. This has been so from antiquity to the present."
Will of Heaven, Chapter 27, Paragraph 6, ca. 5th Century BCE

I guess, the prehistoric presence of monotheism is another real

big-bang in the philosophical evolutionary trend of human

development! Very similar to Mohamed informing us about the

embryonic stages 1400 years ago. Then furthering on his wikileak by distinguishing the difference between our first genetic
main predisposition that cannot be altered by co-occurring
evolution, epigenetics or genetic engineering, and those
genetic features that are subject to epigenetics and concurrent
evolution (see the Quran: (3:6) and (23: 12-17)?
I have created man from a genus from earth. Then I made him a
secreted globule reposing in a cosseted domain; thus I created the
globule a gelled latch; thus I created the latch 15 a bite-size of flesh; thus I
created from this morsel of flesh bones; thus I dressed the bones with
flesh; then I created it another creation: so magnified is his ability to
bless, the best Creator.
Meanings from the the correlated chapter upon the parable of believers:
The Quran: 23:12-14.

That kind of Big Bang indication must be correlated

epistemically, or randomized to a Phi of empirical infinity
quackery!!!?
As the history of religion develops, we realize this big
bang miracle of religion and many evolutionary trends that
disperse consecutively; this Mohamed did not deny, further he
prophesized the basic structures of innovative religious
interpretations, the confusion, and the dismemberments that
will follow. Very much like what happen to Gospel and Torah
disciples; the history of the sects and the different fosterings
that followed their shaping and reshaping. Yet still, from
amongst truth and lies, our innate demography and our
common sense pleads not guilty; we are called upon through
our conscientiousness to reconsider many evidences that our
15 The latch is a vague translation upon a term coined to
denote the clinging attribute of the golobule due to the need for
provision.

community presents to us, questing a more a lucid holistic

approach to life. Through fosterings and consequence
evaluations we monitor many patterns of human choice, lately
including Atheism. Some go on to archetypically hypothesize
the probability of the god of cingulate-mental-superiority and
critical-thinking proclaiming eternal heavens to the Atheist who
managed to rebut all evidence due to epistemic flaws.
Paradoxically creeding on a random model of chaotic life
choices, and potentially promising a theological development
of a haven to the exceptionally smart; is a theological
evolutionary promising trend amongst Atheists.
Correlation is a natural step-up in science, based on an
innate, common and communal sense. Yet without the signage
and accumulation of the passed-down knowledge of founding
scientist and their observations throughout history, we could
have never reached nor accumulated upon to this exceedingly
dimensional level of scientific envisioning. Complexity is the
step-up in modelling and correlation, whilst science pleads
foundationalism, theology pleads 'hol-i-sm', phonetically
connoting to whole or hole, and is coined to meaning core
correlations that are supported by innate tendencies, common
sense and rationality. Yet still, a rationality that should be at
least conceding or acceding, whilst appreciatively seeking
guidance in holy authentic scriptures informing us about our
good Creator!
As we ponder upon our choices we realize the need for a
leap of faith; that which only a scientist would fully
comprehend (and correlate to) as he blinks to envision his
hypothesis for further analysis. If belief was factual, then how is
life defined in revelations as a trial? I repeat my question again:
If belief was based on factual evidence and its compelling nature, then
why is life synonymous in revelations to a trial? In other words, would
you rather be compelled to faith? If not, would you bear the
consequence?

#Why is God doing a good job in making himself invisible!!

All scientists know that enough evidence is the premises for

further development. Why does the elements of heaven and
hell appear in many spiritual contexts? Just reprimanding for
moral standards?! Or is it just an eternal promised
consequence?! Is it the penal system that reinforces our spirit
to extend conscientiously to the realm of sincerity, supporting
our mundane life personal growth and communal interactions?!
Or are we just being milked for a better performance!!!?

Case study:

The demographical-theological tendency and Islam.

The evolving of Atheism became an obvious tsunami to
the demographic-theological tendencies most people evolve
into; instead of innovating upon communal trends, Atheist
abolished all kinds of theology imposed upon them by the
demographical realms they could commute to. Most people
tend to carry a disintegrated form of their parents religion, yet
still evolving! While the Quranic scriptures recognizes the de-

evolutionary demographic totalitarian and sectarian trends in

many of its verses with amazing observational connotations
(e.g. Then they, on their vestige, are hustled16). However,
Islam proved through its historical practices in the prophetic era
-not recent transfigurations- that its theology is Ademographic.
As an example of great connotations: the Kaba17 is the most
sacred pinned location in Muslim creed, yet Islam had
preached that Muslims pray to Jerusalem before redirecting to
the Kaba. Whilst in the first fostering stage of the Islamic
religion, and so close demographically and pin-pointed with
Islamic regard, appraised as Abrahams landmark and
sanctified with communal reverence: the Kaba, was eulogized
seemingly as the perfect choice. Yet Islamic advice preached
otherwise, whilst acknowledging how hard it was upon Muslims
16 The Holy Quran: 37:69-74.
17 Kaba: literally the founded cube-oid: based on Islamic
scripture, is the first house of worship; it had a symbolic
meaning and a sacred status in Abrahamic religions and Islam.
As a figurative connotation it represents a common heart and
direction of spiritualism; which differs from the evolutionary
English-Hebrew word Kabbalah, meaning the direction
bestowed upon the esoteric few, the inner circles, as a source
of guidance. Muslims demographically pin point and paramount
all three houses of worship in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem,
however they ultimately reverted to the Kaba due to their
belief, not their demographic alignment; further, they did not
sanctify the Mosque in Medina for pilgrimage! The immigration
trip from Mecca, is also figurative to a Muslims true disposition
to the Islamic notion of civility: the Arabic meaning of the word
Ma-dee-nah. Leaving home and communal predisposition, to
position oneself to ones belief, only fully practiced in an Islamic
civil society, is the holistic approach Islam fostered in those first
Muslims. Those Muslims represented the fostering of the real
Islam, unlike many of the demographic, philosophical or
totalitarian sects present today.

to abandon their esteemed Kabbalah18 of Spiritualism to face

Jerusalem. Jerusalem, connoted in their intellect to the
Kabbalah esteemed by the Jews, who sometimes ridiculed and
belittled their ex-pagan practices. Yet still, Jerusalem19 20was
considered in Islamic creed as second best then; however disaligning oneself from pagan practices, in Islam, is more
esteemed than any material, demographic or communal factor,
even if it is apparently better. Later they were preached to leave
their lands due to civil-intolerances and excessive practices,
unto reaching the Madinah21 of Islam: they had left their
18 Differentiating between the Kabbalah as a mystical source
based on paganist rituals that were developed upon Abrahams
legacy, and the Kaba of Abrahams worship, a focal point for
spiritual monotheistic worship.
19 Jerusalem in Arabic and Islamic scripture is Al-Kud-ss
which denotes sanctifying oneself to the ones Lord to reach
sainthood. It involves the faithful striving to acquire pureness of
heart by struggling to establish a holistic environment and
cause. Known as the land of martyrs: however, Jerusalem has
come to connote, for many of us, sacrilegious war and injustice.
20 Jerusalem: http://www.abarimpublications.com/Meaning/Jerusalem.html#.VmVVJjahc2w
carved from the verb ( yara' II) is a Aramaic-style by-form of
the verb ( yara), and has the same meaning: to shoot (1
Samuel 11:24, 2 Chronicles 26:15) or to water (Proverbs 11:25).
And root-verb ( shalem) is that of wholeness, completeness or
"unbrokenness" The usage of this shalemize form in
Scriptures is quite revealing. Wholeness is achieved or restored
most often by some kind of restitutory payment or covenant:
God pays a man according to his work (Job 34:11), but the
wicked borrows and does not pay back (Psalm 37:21).
21 Madinah: in Arabic, means city or urban area. Currently it
is a city in modern Saudi Arabia, a city who Muslims had once
immigrated to, in order to establish their first Islamic
governance. Once called Thebes, immigration to it is also

communities and communal predisposition to friendlier

environments, with a common communal sense whilst
neighbouring some Jewish tribes who paradoxically choose to
settle in Madinah whilst paramounting Jerusalem! Those who
became Muslim reveal why. Revelation-directed, Islam
connected unto the Torah and Jews with a common Kabbalah.
Imminently it preached a modification, eventually ordering its
disciples to direct their prayers paramounting the Kaba as the
sacred direction, yet still proclaim Madinah as their new home!
This being part of a holistic workout to de-install, then re-install
the Muslims communal compass.

Objective morality is not just a philosophical notion;

it is objective when it builds a workout that would
actually fulfil its standards!
Whilst common sense may seem to differ upon such a
practice in its pre-mature disposition, it realizes its objectivity
upon maturation; they had cleanse-dieted from a lot of
stereotypical predispositions and realigned their inner
compasses. Moreover, what seems as a 'leap of faith', and it
was, effectuated by installing true priorities as its apparatus, not
demographic sympathies; a divine compass, a gift to true
believers. A leap of faith and the belief in the miracle based on
foundational core evidence, saved and matured their way. May
we be granted from such intelligent abundance in our fostering,
through enlightenment.

figurative to a Muslims true disposition to the Islamic notion of

Islamic civility and rights constitution, the Arabic meaning of
the word Ma-dee-nah. It is also called Al-Madinah Al-Muna-warah; the enlightened city by the immigration of the prophet
Mohamed.

Rational thinking, Morality & Willpower:

are they faces of the same, me, myself and I,
or do they contra-dictate?
-The meaning of objective morality,
between philosophy and practical philosophy. Advancing to my fourth, and last quandary:

I believe this line of argument to be the practical common

grounds in which society realms, the balance between religious
moral structures and the evolutionary social notions an Atheist
proclaims, is what I explore in this theorem. While it seems like
the practical proofing of the efficacy of the religion one would
choose to abide to, I believe it is not; I believe it to be debating
how people should civilly abide, whether they associate their
morality to Atheistic or theistic methodology. Since there is no
compulsion in religion, why we are moral is a matter of choice
and debate, how we are moral affects us all.
As I try to represent a long introduction made short due to
the many scientists we credit or did not mention their names in
scientific reports, only to reach enough evidence for a step-up
from the-o-ry to philosophy, lest the-o-logy; from know-hows
to the philosophical reasoning, science and critical thinking
imposes upon us.

The affix in the word the-o-ry rooting us to Theo - from the Greek
word meaning God- or Thea- from the Greek word meaning a
viewpoint or theatre-. This creates two sub-divisional philosophical
paths: one strenuous in its requirement of the belief in a Theo and his
uni-versal order, and the other evolutionary for observational and
educational reasons of our fleeting existence and recreational reality.

Upon this premise we all morally seek to improve, or make

peace with our morale by claiming objective morality.
However, is objectivity in happiness and a sense of wellbeing,
or is doing the right thing even if it does not make us very
happy in the present juncture whilst delaying gratification: does
it have to be an either-or balance between the two ultimatums?
Or is it carting, or extirpating, the worst evil to reach the best
possible good? Is objectivity just based on fairness and
morality, or is it evolutionary with respect to the situation?
Whilst a morale-moral correlation is an Atheist assumption to
prove the lack of objectivity in religious morality; they feel
better when they are godly, not necessarily good. That
correlation grounds not on objectivity and rationality but rather
through ecstatic presumptions and subjective sub-sequencing,
yet still Atheist claim they would reach from nihilism a perfect
rational evolutionary consensus! As Atheist claim a secular
spectrum between a perfect rational convention to a society
convening on herd morality, moving from chaos to order then to
chaos again through periods of global moral-warmings;
religion claims the same spectrum depending on rational of the
religious. However, it claims ground for a different kind of
objectivity, not just in its collective social impact and aid
structures, but in the moral and morale structure it provides
through conviction to aid and empower the rationally-deficient
classes in society. I am not talking hear about salvation through
believing, I am talking about the effect of genuine belief in
ushering us to become better. Further, not everyone can
rationalize to reach objective morality, so does one have to
believe in an idol to better envision ones way?! We can never

rid of poverty and deficiency, whether its rational, moral or

materially under-privileged. However, it the structure and order
we support and empower that determines our future
prospective. Not holy through refuting twisted religious
guardianship, does seem very tempting and also truthdedicated; yet the guardianship of communal rationality seems
to confine us all to its respective holiness, at least from a
legislative point of view.
But it is not holy it is objective!!!

terminology is one of the mud-slides of critical-thinking and

logical-proofing. Objective by democracy means if society
does not support objective moralities, everyone must slide with
the new moralities! For example, capitalism is restructuring to
support fair trade and enforce funded health care, so what
structures fund morality? Do we need a morality supervisor?
Will it be like the monetary boards controlling the worlds
banking industry and central banks? Or will it be like popes and
religious preachers? Or will it address our spectrum of
understandings and priorities with a convincing argument that
we all credit, or at least all of us can convene upon?!
Allowing evolution, or devolution, to recreate a new reality and
balance is amazing in its practicality, yet still when built on
animalism can produce very irrational outcomes: for the
balance between red and blue is purple, yet between grey and
black is a darker shade of grey. As we seek a wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspects of morality that is
acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested
and confirmed through observation and experimentation; we
must regard religious theology, at least seriously! Together with
some human sciences, religion provide us with premises for
scientific evaluation. As there are no moral theories except in
abstract science or philosophy; only through the study of
theology and human sciences do we have a scientific

observational viewpoint and an empirical analysis of morality

and its consequences. For example, socially determining the
importance of self-expression rights: we realize the
complexities after contemplating upon implemented abstract
notions. Yet we do this today faced with a different reality; as
we face consequential complications of what we though once
as balanced and objective!
As science zooms in and out of the universe realizing
details and balance we couldve never even imagined, we
believe we owe it to the scientific method and its scientist to
believe beyond our observational realms and trust their
conclusions. This kind of scientific belief especially when
endorsed with positive scepticism, is an essential characteristic
of a civilized-balanced 21st century beings, even if it goes
beyond personal observations. To the religious, religious
scriptures, moral choices and consequences are one of most
apparent chronologies, lest philosophies, revealed by the
Creator of the worlds. Yet what parts of the theological
structures should we use as a criterion in a certain situation?!
Are they absolute, regardless of our situation today, with no
regard to social determinism, or are they completely flexible? Is
it always the standard situation and the typical answer? or is
always synergy, delving for a more evolutional radical energy
mine? As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge,
scientific theories should be inductive in nature and aim for
predictive power and explanatory capability. Critical thinking
should be applied in theology to deduce truth, remove cobwebs
and establish moral ontological classifications, distinguishing
epistemically justified methods from subjectivity or opinionated
short-comings. Then it should provide us all with an innovative
workout to reach objectively the predicted new scenario of
morality. Nihilistically to chaos, or centralizing authority to
ordinance; is an either-or structure which religion presumably
supports, since chaos is a lack of structure and support! Not all

Atheists have to deconstruct all to reconstruct, yet the religious

believe in an ultimate inspiring scripture which they interpret
differently!! Is this contra-dictating? Or do we have a lot of
common grounds? The meme gene presents itself whether we
consider this spectrum of readings the premise of social
determinism or religious fatwas.
On these paradoxical premises we could argue on forever,
yet the practical implementations will vary with little differences
in practice; both the religious and the Atheist can present us
with amazing interpretations, just as much as fundamental
dogmatism. A purely philosophical precursor, especially in
western secular civilizations; whether the espirit de corp is
endorsed with moral conscious or conscientious development.
This is analogous to the common argument upon dealing with
human sciences recognized by any conscientious human
scientist whilst reflecting upon the significance of evidence, as
one seeks objectivity. Was Hitler the most criminal warlord of all
times, or was it World War Two that had the biggest toll? If it
was World War Two, then I guess Hitler would be off the
hook??! Not either-or, seeking a more respective differentiation:
Was Hitler less guilty because there was no UN in his time??!
Or was it the bad, bad Jews that deserved to be burnt, or exiled
to concentration camps? Then comparing that on real grounds:
are the Zionist lucky that the UN condemns some of their
transgressions, or was it just Hitler who needed UN
regulations?! Does the UN provide everyone with more
structure for morality or not? Or is it herd morality?
Objectively we point out details and critically, yet our
answer is always based on personal opinions, seeking
perfection?! Whilst we do not all seek to repent from the
original sin, re-correcting ones path is a must in any
evolutionary notion, even the most primitive of religions
acknowledge that kind of evolution. Yet still, while this notion is
a subjectively convened upon premises, it is believed to be civil

when this notion is enforced by a civil code and penal system.

Call it salvation or re-correcting/ revising for future
amendments, here we are just using different terminology to
seek a premise. In a spectrum that hues with utilizing morale as
a ratio to morality (a Kuwaiti would literally ask: whats your
color? instead of how are you?); many make this
acknowledgment while underscoring for an opportunity to
pamper or leverage ones morale assets, not assessing ones
equation chief substitutions! Some people are just moral to go
to paradise, adjoining or piously leaving others who seek
morality to live fuller or better lives, reaching unto, last but not
least, many who consider moral a synonym to morale,
rationalising morals just to live easier and happier lives. Many
notions like unconditional love, altruism and philanthropy have
become wide spread throughout communal networks, others
like PG and bigotry have come to define civility!! Even though
easier, has proved to not always be the happiest choice, and
usually a form of devolution; yet easier, to many of us, is an
important adverb of better!!! Better, is not a verb, but upon
reaching better we live easier lives, even if its due to our
robustness not our little effort or well-off circumstances. How
can morality reach this balance of objectively within a society;
religion and tradition can sometimes be the enemy, but inner
wisdom and spiritual enlightenment epistemically is a
necessity.
As we determine our moral terminology to deep or deeper
roots we engrave our conviction; the deeper the stronger, the
better the more rational and prudence it will provide us with.
As Aristotle explains Virtue has to do with the proper function (ergon) of
a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the
proper function of an eye is sight. 22

22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Thus he related the perfect nature to induce the perfect

judgement. Whether Aristotles perfection or Platos ideal city
is the philosophical ideology or terminology we use, it is always
more rational to imagine a perfect creator to worship than a
perfect outgrowth. Our perfect eyes perfectly observe nature
to deduce and induce, then it is our brain that overrules with a
verdict of a perfect origin or a not-so-perfect chaos, or just
roams antagonistically over a need for further research. As
prudence cautions us through the fog, temperance allows us
less friction, yet it also temperance that give the others more
space. As people utilize more of this space, one would fear that
temperance would change to repressed energy as it is
exploited for the favor of the not so proper, amounting to a
holy crusade of exploding anger at the anchor of a subjective
society which legislates according to an Atheist predisposition
or theist momentum, we seek a balance further aligning
prudence and temperance! Hypothetical or theological, all
garbing credibility through objectivity, whereas morality rations
to direct and motivate willpower. Ultimately true, or grounding
on truth, is one equation not two; if this equation sides are not
consistent balancing to a perfect equation, then they are either
both wrong or at least one side needs further working out. With
prudence and sincerity versus the in-credibility of personal
opinion and imposters of sainthood, society should seek to
reach an end to the war, lining up with enough of what we
sanctify whether we credit it to holy or rational. But the
question remains when is enough, enough?
With a purposeful objective mission statement Mohamed
proclaimed: I was sent to perfect morality23, later to explain
23 Authenticated by many sources see:
http://www.dorar.net/hadith/index?skeys=
%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%85+
%D9%85%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%85+
%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AE

that paradise is attained through moral unrighteousness or

pious prudence. Morality dictating upon character, or pietys
pruning to prudence, is a road motivated by genuineness,
however sincerity must go hand in hand with rational research.
While so many subjective interpretations have claimed this
objectivity; between bravery and brashness, self-respect and
modesty, bashful and blushful, then trying to apply our balances
in respective situations flexibly is not easy and requires a lot of
wisdom, self-control and practice. A conviction and dedication,
a workout to reach this inner progress is what religion claims to
the sincere and diligent; the viable heart moreover the sound
mind. Through awareness and education, whether personal or
on communal levels to beyond the preaching mode, religion
goes on to legislate for morality day-to-day unto reaching
common communal grounds. Whilst allowing profanity could be
argued as a civil right just as much as enforcing priesthood
amongst the public; such objectivity claims will be to personal
perspective or a herd morality. However, are the religious today
prompting their society to enforce their full doctrines? Moreover,
is it the fog that ushers us to more prudence, or is it spiritual
meditation that makes us serene?!!
Furthering this all upon the coordinate of those who claim no
moral obligations or accountability, we find ourselves in a very
tight spot. Reverting to societys own balance is prematurely
appraised as the best rational down-to-earth solution, yet
perplexity apparently increases with an example of an aging
population; do I endorse marriage and child bearing, or just go
on allowing more lack of restrictions? The workout of some of
those data curves are clear predictive indicators sometimes, yet
other curves are not as easily plotted even with a mentor of the
hypothetical influence of an authority of perfect rational beings.
If there is a chance that anyone reaches perfection, it is the
%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82&st=a&xclude=&page=2

creator, it is the miracle; yet why is he letting all of this happen

to us?! Is it the balance between free will and consequence that
is bothering us?! Or is it our evolutionary adaptation to trials
and hurly-burlies, and the trends we are evolving into that is
worrying us? So the question keeps on pinging us: do we need
religious milestones for morality and legislation? Or will we
choose otherwise?
Philosophising this argument is very trendy since
secularity is legislating, but are we precursoring with or against
religious freedom?! Do Atheist believe in attainable religious
freedom? Simply: are the religious free to be religious to the
extent of holy-warin the rest of us?!! Then what will happen to
Atheist and the other religions?! Stuck within an interim of
moral degeneration, rational evolution and religious
temptations, Atheist are claiming grounds to subjective
freedom, while morality is prompting us all in red undertones
and PG freedom'. Being fair is an important morality, it is based
on many other moralities that entwine to make us fair: so how
can we be fair if we lose these base moralities when judging
upon a situation in the subjectivity of our coordinates,
perspectives and experiences!!?
As I was researching the word god, I noticed that English
speaking communities -like Arabic speaking communitiesassociate it -at least phonetically- to the word good; when
Arabs see something beautiful or exceptionally good they say
"al-lah", meaning this is amazingly good (notice I didn't
capitalize "al-lah" in this context). If you read about the origin
root of the word "god", you would find that most researcher will
refute the common root meaning that god was derived from
good, but rather good emerged latter to God.
Popular etymology has long derived God from good; but a comparison of
the forms ... shows this to be an error. Moreover, the notion of goodness

is not conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, and in good itself

the ethical sense is comparatively late. [Century Dictionary, 1902] 24

They would argue that the word god outposts from " a root
(verb) *geuu - "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotr ), or from
a root (verb) *gauu - (*geuu h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit
hta)"25. This is much resonated when researching the Arabic
word and comparing it upon the anthropological usage of the
word. This pouring of feelings, overwhelming to the point of
invoking "sweetness" or "goodness", is the meaning of the
Arabic verb "Laha" which can be also considered as highly
onomatopoeic in the pouring and questing music it evokes, like
that upon seeing something morally or physically beautiful. With
the "Al" for exclusiveness, the proper noun "Al-lah" assembles:
the deservingly invoked through overwhelming (pouring) need
and our acknowledgment of goodness and beauty. The
overwhelming pouring of our inner beings is also observed in
the common usage meaning of the Arabic word "allah", not
capitalized, but still meaning amazingly good; it has been
observed that innately (if untampered) we as individuals
have a pouring inclination to the good, the beautiful, the
moral and the belief in God.
For Aristotle, therefore, epistemology is based on the study of particular
phenomena and rises to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato,
epistemology begins with knowledge of universal forms (or ideas) and
descends to knowledge of particular imitations of these. 26

Going from religion to ground rationally, or from

rational to prove the true religion of the human essence is
how close Aristotle is to Plato! Human will-power, has been
24 http://etymonline.com/index.php?
allowed_in_frame=0&search=God
25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#cite_ref-18.
26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

preached by Islam as a status and gift to mankind, and also a

duty and obligation. As belief is not necessarily all-factual but it
remains evidentially compelling in its nature, religion is
supposed to have preached reasoning, choice and
consequence; ultimating on the trial nature of this secular life
unto an eternal reward or penalty, all of which provides the
religious with a lot of motivation. With an obligation towards the
creator and upon the first sin man trialled by his will-power, for
his own accumulative proof drills and mind-body resultant
workout; his choices build his temporal world and mundane
civility. Yet more importantly his choices build his conscientious;
who he is today, and what he will deserve through to eternity.
Philosophical, yet from where I see it, is only fair rational
balance that induces, and can be induced, by moral judgement
from mundane observations; further the only one we can
meditate upon to reach inner peace, if not better communal
circumferences.
What is penalized or reprimanded by concurrent
legislation will always be in the eye of the beholder, especially
in secular structures, whether as individuals or communities!
With legislative structures and more order, some people benefit
becoming better and having more structure, some people
screw their lives and choose a different definition of freedom;
anti-secular, anti-demographic or cratic kind of freedom! We
all know that not everyone behind bars is bad, but we hope that
most of them are; for this defines who our society is. Moreover,
some hope those who hurt our communal maxims are behind
bars, even though we know it might be subjective, or even not
fair at all!!! At this conscientious level some Atheist rest by
giving the other the benefit of social pressure; yet not always
the case, some Atheists oblige themselves to moral obligations!
Whilst still some, many forms of religiosity are fine with this
form of cruel autocracy! However how would you define
instances when our conscious prays on our innate knowledge

that we know better; morality seeks a root through the

subconscious or is it vice-versa?!
As part of long narration asking Mohamed for samples from past
scriptures; he was asked about Abrahams testament. He replied: It was
all parables like: O! Vain trialed despotical king, I have not sent you so
that you amass the world, portions upon portions. But I assigned you
that you represent me in remedying the oppressed; for verily I respond to
their invocation, even if it is from a disparager 27

Blaming a not so great god does not reflect but our choice
and how we choose to exercise our willpower. Willpower that
should be used to build and help ourselves and others. Do we
believe our collective willpower presents us with a very far from
perfect reality? Or is it our lame aspirations that requires a
bliss on earth, with no trials or consequence? Whether
maturing in or out of belief, an immature understandings of the
essence of difficulties in this life is a neurosis, in which
avoidance becomes a substitute to legitimate suffering.
Rational problems of delusions not all stem from mental
deficiencies, but eminently from neurosis.
Speaking of the oppressive forces that thwart our freedom can enable
us to victimize ourselves more to them, giving away part of our freedom.
The freedom to choose between two evils, to explore the issue more
fully, resenting life simply because some of its choices are painful
The more clearly we see the realities in the world, the more equipped we
are to deal with them. And the less we see, the more befuddled by
falsehood, misperceptions and illusions! 28

27 http://www.dorar.net/hadith?skeys=
%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83+
%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7+
%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AA
%D9%84%D9%89+&st=a&xclude=
28 excerpts from the bestseller: The Road Less Travelled, by M.
Scott Peck (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck )

Case discussion
War and suffering: between philosophical Islamic practices and
interpretations, unto realizing objective balance.

Theatrically trying to direct our cultural storm of evolution,

theist and Atheist both claim objectivity. Although a theist can
seem to blissfully interpret and correlate the world around him
to a perfect creator whilst believing he is the perfect offspring or

the most cross cleansed; an Atheist seems like a desperate

perfectionist who wants to make this world as subjectively
'blissful' as possible, yet he pleads impossible. As fanatic
extremism can wage 'holy' wars relative to one's moralities;
compulsion is not just not possible in belief and faith, it is also
the announced spirit of the developed world. Leaving it to
devolve into chaos or standing ones ground for morality, life will
always have its trials whether we choose to adapt positively or
negatively; and still the sacred nature of civil rights and freedom
of expression can be reverberated as the holy war waged for
the right to libel and be profane!!! Everything is easily said,
once the balance is premised on subjective criteria and
overlooks the bigger picture! Obviously not devouring, as civil
rights were not intentionally developed to support profanity,
immorality or extremism, but ultimately freedom. However, as
the surgeon operates he learns and heals to reach
wholesomely or holistically to a healthy level. As the
religion of science evolves within an environment of many
theistic religions, observations about religion became subjective
to what is observed from these religions rather than
foundationally evolutionary and objective. Our views of how
religion is practiced defines theology, yet theology is on a
philosophical level!! Religious doctrines should be based on a
lot of scientific thinking and research that would enable us to
reach its true essence, meanings and correlations,
nevertheless theology would have a human science structure
rather than a physical science one. As one studies the
paleoecology of religious history, fossils should be remodelled
to perspective. Instead of reflecting on why the shortcomings
and double-standards develop, many of us blame religion. We
consider religion as the cause of holy wars and irrational
predispositions, but we do not find nor deem passion as the
fuel for 'love and what it hates'. As we passionately judge a
man by his religious title or classification, we do not judge him

by his good or evil disposition in interpreting religion, nor do we

progressively examine the psychological elements that
surround his belief; some dropping it to atheism, which too
reads, sometimes even more subjectively. Is it the good and
evil in us that reads, or is a problem in the scripture of some
religions; is our morality the founding element in the
development of our dogmas and convictions? And is the
strength of our passion what shapes our objectivity, drive and
momentum? Or is it just the dictation of a theology or the lack
of it?! What dictated people like Stalin, and worldwide wars like
world war I and II?
As Benjamin Franklin said: Those things that hurt instruct. It is for this
reason that wise people learn not to dread but actually welcome
problems, and to actually welcome the pain of problems. With a notion It
is never too hard, problems become part of lifes positive challenges. 29

This is the essence of the theory of evolution; the

adaption that people make to lifes challenges is how they
survive. This part of evolution is very compatible with the
essential element in religion that claims that life is a trial of selffulfilment and salvation; a trip through which everyone of us
seeks the betterment of his self and those whom he is
responsible for and can help. Hence suffering should not be
viewed negatively but rather as an evolutionary chance for a
better life and a better self. As religion blissfully preaches us
that this our personal salvational path to reach our better
selves; evolution happens for real and good reasons to those
who persevere.
Nonetheless, people ironically ask: then why should
animals suffer, if they are not promised paradise?? Life on
earth is not completely blissful, it is evolutionary with obvious
trials and fulfilment, wisely enabled to support the development
of better species. As animals live fleeting lives, should they be
29 M. Scott Peck, in The Road Less Travelled.

grateful for this chance to live? Do Atheist feel grateful, even

with all the loose ends, and meaningless context? In the animal
kingdom, evolution and adaption are efficiently modelled
sometimes reaching the extent of endangering species; overhunting, food chain unbalances, or even climate change
reasons have direct observable effects on the animals life and
choices. While human adaptation is very different, and almost
impossible to observe contemporaneously, we normally do not
hunt each other, but create tools to allow us to live better lives.
Moreover, we role model for the psychological evolution of the next
generation!!

Domesticating animals and changing landscape, human

beings are the hunters and the creators of the tools of the
future. Moreover, as most animal perceptions are suitable for
their jungle- like environment, some are domesticated evolving
to need and support humans. Further if those domesticated
animals were sent to the wild they can cause severe disruption
and unbalance. Imagine cows never slaughtered to reach and
die of old age, or worse, set free in the woods to change the
ecosystems balance. As domesticated cows become part of
the human world, is it not humane to treat them well and
slaughter them with the least painful procedure budgeting a
cycle for their better lives and death to serve a purpose that will
help other beings? Isnt domestication evolutionary? Or should
we devolve out of it? And how? As Islamic theology
emphasizes on thanksgiving, and how to be grateful in heart
and deed, it goes on to inform us that we will be questioned on
how we treated and used such blessings. Then it furthers our
sense of equity and justice by explaining through the example
of a horned animal who uses its horns to bully others, that he
will be subjugated after being resurrected while the other
hornless animal will retaliate justly, hence both becoming
eternal dust after consummation. For unlike humans who
suffer and hurt in more correlated dimensional way and are

expected to be responsible both spiritually and physically, still

animals learn and evolve through suffering keeping an amazing
bio-globular balance that homo-sapiens, paradoxically, do not
always objectively maintain. Yet still given a higher status and
responsibilities, homo-sapiens are theologically (and
observationally) stewards of the earth, they are responsible to
maintain a more civil balance, that requires more structure,
integrity and morality.
According to Islamic scripture: And the sky he regally spread and the
balance he demonstratively grounded: For I warn you against
exacerbating in the balance: And establish the balance with objective
fairness and do not fumble the balance. 30

All of this theologically grounding upon the philosophical

nature of the purpose of life on earth, which Islamic theology
deems as a test of willpower, accumulated knowledge and
morality in our different subjective circumstances: what will the
responsible do with their fortune and responsibility? And the
epitome the more fortunate, the higher up in the hierarchy, the
more their responsibility? Will they instate what is good and fair,
or will they follow their blind/ part blind passions and
prejudices? Will they be grateful and aspire for long term
gratifications, or will they submit to their current desires and
biased dogmas? Building upon a conviction, moral values and
a rational interpretation of the scriptures know-hows, salvation
is aspired through building a balanced better life on earth.
Obviously very overwhelmed by bad practices, religion seems
to be gibberish, short-coming Gabriels divine revelation to the
Lords prophets.
As passion selectively, and seductively, can guides us to
a spectrum of interpretations of morality; it may do this slowly
seducing us to a path claiming morality to that which once was
deemed very immoral. One could argue that this is easier to
30 Meanings from The Quran: 55: 7-9.

happen to people without revelation or doctrine, but in reality

passion and subjectivity can do a lot of reshaping. While the
rational plays an important role in interpretation, the
unavailability of correlated data and resources can do the
same. Whilst Atheist claim appalling correlations in scriptures,
religion can claim lame empirical rationalism in Atheists; as
Einstein likes to put it
Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.

As Atheist talk about the many logical progressions that

"faith" causes and delivers with disgust, they never correlate
this to the logical regression they must make to become
Atheist. With a notion that propagates "seeing is believing"
hence they must see God to believe in him; they omit
observations of greatness and unparalleled precision in
creation to the lack of substantiated evidence, not to mention
the subjective nature of morality that they seek through
objectivity. Interpretations have over shadowed almost all
religious scriptures; it is up to the religious to earnestly seek
objectivity through sincerity, research and prayer.
It has been related in the Muslims verbatim words of the Lord that:
Indeed I have sent my messengers with clear signs: further I have sent
down with them the scripture and the (weighing) balance so that people
would uphold objective fairness; likewise, I have sent down iron having
an overpowering property and many utilities for people: so that Allaah
would affirm his observations of those who faithfully induce, choosing to
strive for upholding his cause and messengers; indeed he is strong and
almighty. 31

This metaphor reflecting on iron and correlating it to

establishing, enforcing and protecting credence, has been
correlated in a very inclusive perspective. As iron was not
formed in our earth but rather it has descended through cometlike incidences32! Metaphorically mentioned and correlated to
upholding Allaah's cause and justice, like enforcing law and
31 Meanings from the Quran relating (57:25).

order in cities; this must be maintained primarily by what is sent

down to us through revelation and good preaching; when
people uphold a good balance amongst them they live the
benefits of such an established balance. However coerced law
establishment and penal systems also serve to establish some
form of a strong-held balance, yet not as benevolent as
communal enforcement. Nevertheless, as both are equally
important, both could also be causes of war and strife.
Establishing relative peace and justice could be demanding to
the extent of waging war to establish thereupon objective
justice; for as iron can be a source of overpowerment,
dictatorship, war and friction, it can also establish stability and
structure when utilized and esteemed justly. Religion, objective
morality and civil balance have been established for peaceful
justice, yet no one can argue the importance of force to
reinforce these standards. However, since force cannot be left
to individual subjectivity and passion, it should be monopolized
and governed in a just and monitored way. Anyone trying to
preserve civility must do that, yet it is how one does that that
defines how good, balanced and objective one is. Upon
realizing objectivity, one would realize both the meanings and
the means to deliver.
32 http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_30.html: Not
only the iron on earth, but also the iron in the entire Solar
System, comes from outer space, since the temperature in the
Sun is inadequate for the formation of iron. The sun has a
surface temperature of 6,000 degrees Celsius, and a core
temperature of approximately 20 million degrees. Iron can only
be produced in much larger stars than the Sun, where the
temperature reaches a few hundred million degrees. When the
amount of iron exceeds a certain level in a star, the star can no
longer accommodate it, and it eventually explodes in what is
called a "nova" or a "supernova." These explosions make it
possible for iron to be given off into space.

Case study: An analysis of the chronological parable the Saturday

consorts scribed in the Quranic scripture.
@ Losing objectivity:
And ask them to conduce upon the village that based its civilization on
its seaside demographic presence, as they evade in holy-days
(Sabbath); for their fish comes to them when they revere on their holiday,
ushered, and when they do not rest it does not come to them; thus did I
trial them for they had progressively flouted.33

Upon reading this description for the first time, one would think
that the inhabitants of this village were rewarded for revering on
their holidays with the remunerative provision of more fish;
however, they were not, rather they were tempted by the
phenomenal behavior of fish, to break their reverence!
33 Meanings from the scripture of the Quran: (7:163).

According to interpretations, the religious inhabitants living in

this village had an economy based on fishing; as the fish
became scarce, they started coming back only on Saturdays.
One could argue adaptation reasons to overfishing, yet the
scripture is revealed to explain to us the trial that befell on this
village which later shaped their evolution; a fork in the road of
objective morality. Faced with this dilemma, the villagers subchose three courses of action: the first, decided to go around
the sanctuary nature of the Sabbath, putting their fish nets on
Fridays and collecting them on Sundays. While the second,
argued and advised against these acts, then separated
themselves from those who practiced such crooked behavior.
The third party, did not join the first nor the second even though
they believed the first to be sinful, they also believed that the
second group were not objective in their attitude, wasting their
time in advising the lost. We all have heard about the scientific
interpretations surrounding the remains of australopithecine
human body fossils, and how some seem disfigured; many
have attributed such disfigurements to evolution, but according
to scripture the disfigurements could have been due to a
special kind of devolution; that had changed the behavior of the
first party to that that resembled monkeys. While an evolutionist
could argue otherwise, claiming that human behavior evolve
only for genetic and ailing reasons, not epigenetic
progressive/regressive morality!! The phenomenal
classifications of psychopaths is also evolving, not necessary
religious people, but considered in many cases very immoral
and neurally disfigured. Was it total disfigurement, to extent that
the appearance genes would be affected to a different on/off
disposition? Or was it just a behavioral-neural disfigurement? In
all cases the Quranic scripture explains with respect to the
Jewish privileged descent some claim that most scientist are
Atheist, but genetically I would claim that most of them are of
Jewish descent- and the Quran does acknowledge that.

However, mundane privileges were usually given on trial basis;

if they did well they excelled and became more distinguished, if
not they were damned respectively, not always to same
decadence. Hypothetically, the people who were ordered to
revere on Saturdays, had been ordered to do that to tame their
material attachment and their love for labor and personal
interest by revering in disengagement, obediently. However,
they knowingly convinced themselves to such a crooked
workout, claiming objectivity and economic reform; still revering
on Saturdays and also fishing all the Saturday fish!!! These
signs are amongst many other signs relating crooked religious
behavior usually damned but not always to absolute
decadence; some lost in a maze-like nomadic expedition in
Sinai, and other morally cursed by consecutive degenerative
trends (all are versed in the correlated chapter relating upon the
metaphor of the knowledge moguls, after referring to the
Saturday consorts).
All in all, objective morality is not just about an end result,
it very much includes the workout, that in religiosity basically
involves sincerity and piety. It is further extended by
understanding the know-hows of the workout and the muscle
one is exercising.

Case study: An expression of intolerance mentioned in the Quran,

reverberated upon traditional sympathies, and the consequential
practices and empathies it establishes.
@ Ouff! !!! !!! !!!

Amazingly, whilst surfing the web for ideas, researching,

and taking a break, as I was writing this paper about objective
morality comparing Atheist arguments with Islamic, I accidently
bumped into a YouTube clip about Ouff!! An expression of
intolerance and lack of patience, usually towards the pathetic or
the unreasonable!!! Delving the essence of both objectivity and
morality, I have tried to hear this argument about objective
morality from other perspectives, not just the Atheist and the
Islamic. When I say this, I really mean it; as much as I think
atheism can be some form of denial resolution or even teenage
rebellion about the feedback we are getting due to the turbulent
meteorological conditions and interconnected age we live in,
especially dued to us by those who present us with their
stereotypical 'rationales' and hypocritical 'saints'. Never the

less, as rebellious one can get with atheism, I believe that

observed religious practices have many inconsistences and
misinterpretations, rebelling with a different ethnicity. I believe
that the issue of morality is not just subject to our
understanding and communal influences; I believe we find
evidence to justify our many deranged positions and
dispositions we have as individuals whether theist or Atheist.
While an Atheist can choose his quotes, a theist can quote his
scripture in the context he wants; correlated contexts whether
through empirical values or mismatched proofs have lead many
people to believe nihilistically that "phi" really exists, as a
"possibility" not as the nil of impossibility or chaos! Phi is
rational as it involves a ratio of something we cannot imagine or
calculate! I believe only those who follow through the details
with prudence and unbiased predisposition -whether it is blindly
following a dogma or blindfolded by hating it- could reach what
the prophet -apbuh- meant by perfected morality. For example,
when we are talking about our relationship with our parents,
grown-ups usually tend to lose their balance to the side of the
parent, unlike what is exhibited in the famous incident narrated
about how Omar-the second Caliph- once explained that in
certain circumstances a parent could immolate the child before
the child immolated him impressing upon him a crisis
coordinate before he reacts upon them, impressing ingratitude
or renunciation. This true meaning accepted and advised by
scholars and recounted to Omar, who is proclaimed by the
prophet -apbuh- as a balanced judge upon his appointment as
a caregiver. Aided by insight, he did not just look at what the
produce was doing but he realized the situation from an
epistemic analysis of different perspectives delving to
objectivity. He realized that relationships are built on mutual ties
that create a balance respectively, ultimately resolving to reach
objectivity. Sampling upon the word "Ouff!", a gesture of
intolerance that is usually quoted by many Muslim theists out of

context, you can watch a sample of this kind of compliant

preaching on this youtube clip:
https://youtu.be/xJ4mC7SX92M?
list=PL0l3xlkh7UnvGvIEdpDgu9KcIEasBkx-9. However, the
Qur'an only mentions Ouff!! sensibly in the situation were
parents have reached old age and are under one's care, hence
reminding the caregiver of the days which they tolerated their
immature childhood:
' It is decreed by thy Lord that thou not worship but him, in addition be
consciously grateful to thy parents: implicating by the exemplar, if they
reach old age at your ward-ship, one of them or both, so do not say to
them a gesture of intolerance, Ouff!!, and do not try to bulwark them,
but say to them gracious words. And ease their stay by humbling
yourself out of mercy, whilst (repeatedly) saying: Lord forgive them as
they had disciplined me when I was young. Your Lord Knows what is
inside you; if you are decent, then verily he is to those who redress
forgiving. '34

Meanings recited amongst many other signs in the heart

of that chapter, ushering us to balanced morality. An exemplar
upon complexities, yet clearly the same grace would not be
required in a less undefiled situation; questions arise like, what
if the prodigy had not reached this maturity and wardship, who
is required to exhibit more grace and mercy? Children being in
a subjugated position, parents could screw the lives of their
children; although now in the developed world there is children
rights, yet once it was based primarily on communal
determinism. As one reads those signs it would seem to the
credulously herded that children should be exceptionally
revering to their parents; however, the advice given in this
stance is to adult offspring caregiving their parents, not the
opposite!! As they do so they must always remind themselves
34 Meanings from the correlated chapter upon the metaphor of
the incidence and ability to journey in the stillness of the night:
(The Quran: 17:23-25)

envisioning their parents caretaking by repeating saying: Lord

forgive them as they had disciplined me when I was young.
Nevertheless, they are caretaking them to expiry, so they
mustnt dwell over their upbringing as parent instructs their
children!! A strange balance that strikes utility and morality with
hands-on genuine wisdom. The advice seemingly for all
offspring, yet prompting to the parents through recounting their
old age scenario, and then striking this amazing balance by
enticing adult caregiving.
Only those who work in counselling know the truth
inspired in these signs, for in this implication although only
exemplary in old age, the Qur'an exemplifies and
acknowledges the communal distinguished status of the
parents, with a theme inspiring a conscientious attitude that is
usually appended upon the reverence of a worshipper,
aggrandizing their roles to an extent that requires having the
highest moral conscious when treating them, yet doing this
whilst worshipping the only the Lord. The Qur'an doesn't
declare them as holy or sacred, however individuals who
usually deserve exceptional status as gracious caregivers,
however not expected to be perfect nor holy, as one would
expect the Creator. This balance of morality allows us not to
lose our critical faculties, yet still abide morally in the strictest
and most grateful manner clinging unto sincere piety. Upon
seeing many parents, especially in morally degenerated
societies, one would understand the importance of this balance,
the respective treatment and appropriateness it preaches; upon
reaching such a mature level of capability, more is expected,
and graciousness from such mature individuals should be
developed and demanded. On the other hand, it is also very
deluding to see the unbalanced misinterpretations in traditional
societies, were parents are direct reason for impairing their
offspring choices and growth through preaching parent
dictatorship, perfection or holiness. Upon asking and believing

in such superiority a parent deludes not only himself, whilst

evoking a negative or impairing reaction from his prodigy,
moreover overwriting his credit balance. Objective morality is
not a limited notion; upholding grounding but not base. I believe
objectivity should prove itself in both its perception of the
importance and existence of an inner creed supporting morality
and mission; doing this whilst foundationally contemplating the
Creator and observing to reach a philosophical understanding
of his objective design and definition of his creations utilities.
Just as I believe that religiosity should provide us with
exceptional insight in contemplating and adjoining perspectives
rationally, aiming upon grounding and balancing to objective
morality and how to deal respectively with everyday issues.

As I windup seeking objectivity @Ouff!; I ask us all who

is ouffing!! who? Are we ouffing!! our mother earth? Or are
we trying to care-take it to expiry? Are we ouffing!! our God for

not providing us with more freedom, choice and blissful bounty?

Or are we Ouffing each other for our conduct and practices?
Ouff!!
can be Einstein putting his tongue out, and can be another scientist
overruling logic to his perception and passions comfort zone!