The God-Awful Truth?

[Age]

I mean, I'll never "submit" to God. I'm too stubborn and pig headed.

There are moral rules. You undoubtedly already submit to them. I don't think that you go around, for example, randomly killing people.
According to Islamic doctrine, these rules are essentially built into your biological firmware. So, in some way, they are simply part of your fundamental nature.

The above is not true in accordance to the true doctrines of Islam which does not claim moral rules are inherent within humans.

So, 'the one' who does NOT practice, follow, adhere to, nor even LIKE 'a religion/theology' is 'trying to' TELL you readers, here, what IS, and what IS NOT, 'true' in regards to the CLAIMED 'true doctrines' of 'that religion/theology'.

'This one' could NOT come across as BEING MORE BLATANTLY STUPID, here, even if it was trying to be.

Here from AI which I agree:

[nb: except I don't agree with AI reference to moral rules from Hadiths, moral rules are confined within the Quran, the constitutional of Islam].

So, WHO is 'right', here?

"veritas aequitas" OR this CHOSEN 'artificially intelligent one'?

The statement you provided presents an interesting perspective on morality within Islam. Let's examine the concepts more closely to clarify their accuracy and implications.

1. Moral Rules in Islam
In Islamic doctrine, moral rules are indeed derived from foundational texts, primarily the Quran and Hadith (the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad). These texts provide guidance on various aspects of moral conduct, law, and ethics for Muslims. Here are some key points:

Divine Revelation: Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of God (Allah), revealed to Muhammad. It contains ethical directives and laws that guide personal and social conduct. The Hadith complements the Quran by providing context and examples of how these principles are enacted.
Guidance for Believers: The Quran and Hadith serve as primary sources of moral guidance. They outline behaviors that are encouraged, discouraged, and prohibited, covering a wide range of issues including honesty, charity, justice, and familial obligations.

2. Biological Firmware Perspective
The statement that moral rules are "built into your biological firmware" suggests that these moral principles are inherent to human nature. This implies a form of moral naturalism or moral innateness, which would argue that basic ethical instincts or understandings are part of human biology.

Islamic View on Fitrah: In Islamic theology, there is a concept called Fitrah, which refers to the natural disposition or innate sense of morality that every human is born with. According to many Islamic scholars, Fitrah is the inherent inclination to recognize good and evil, which aligns with the moral teachings of Islam.
Not Exclusive to Nature: However, while Fitrah suggests a pre-existing moral compass, it is essential to recognize that Islamic morality also heavily relies on divine revelation. Hence, while there might be an innate ethical sense, the specific moral rules are articulated and codified through the Quran and Hadith.

3. The Role of the Quran and God in Morality
You correctly note that the moral rules are detailed within the Quran, which Muslims believe to be safeguarded in God's possession. This highlights several important concepts:

Absolute Source of Morality: In Islam, God is considered the ultimate source of morality. The moral rules defined in the Quran are viewed as eternal truths that are not subject to change or human interpretation outside the context provided by Islamic theology.
Guidance to Remind Believers: The role of Muhammad as the final prophet is to convey these divine moral teachings, reiterating the rules within the human context. His life serves as a model of how to live according to these divine principles, making the moral rules not just abstract texts but lived experiences.

Conclusion
In summary, the assertion that there are moral rules in Islam derived from a biological firmware perspective has some merit in terms of the concept of Fitrah, but it is important to clarify that these moral principles are explicitly defined and contextualized through divine revelation in the Quran and Hadith. While there may be inherent morality recognized by humans, the specific moral directives that form the basis of Islamic ethics are firmly rooted in religious texts and the belief that God's guidance is essential for understanding right and wrong.

Thus, the statement can be seen as partially true but may benefit from further clarification regarding the relationship between innate morality (Fitrah) and divinely revealed moral law.

The supposedly overall 'moral' rules of Islam are more evil than being morally good to humanity.
For example Q5:33 permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest fasad [threat to the religion, e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoons and even disbelieving -kufr].

Islam did not condemn slavery absolutely but condoned slavery in some ways.
On the other hand, humanity on its inherent natural moral propensity had been cultivating from eons ago, a positive reducing trend of slavery culminating to the illegality of Chattel slavery in all nations without any reference to religion.

After the WWI and WWII, humanity as a whole [not driven by religion totally] strive to prevent future wars which could exterminate the human species; plus there is the natural deterrence of the concept of MAD to deter nuclear wars.
On the other hand, Islam has no provision for that but has an open option and possibility for believers to exterminate the human species with cheap and easily available WMDs.

[Age]

The supposedly overall 'moral' rules of Islam are more evil than being morally good to humanity.
For example Q5:33 permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest fasad [threat to the religion, e.g. blasphemy, drawing of cartoons and even disbelieving -kufr].

'This one', STILL, has absolutely NO idea NOR clue what the word 'kill' is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

And, while "veritas aequitas" REMAINS COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, here, then it WILL KEEP MAKING these Truly HATEFUL and STUPID REMARKS.

Islam did not condemn slavery absolutely but condoned slavery in some ways.
On the other hand, humanity on its inherent natural moral propensity had been cultivating from eons ago, a positive reducing trend of slavery culminating to the illegality of Chattel slavery in all nations without any reference to religion.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, it was so-called 'humanity', itself, that ACTUALLY ALSO CREATED, and INCREASED, 'slavery', itself.

After the WWI and WWII, humanity as a whole [not driven by religion totally] strive to prevent future wars which could exterminate the human species; plus there is the natural deterrence of the concept of MAD to deter nuclear wars.

So, it appears that you human beings, because of your SELFISH DESIRES, have chosen to prevent future wars, AFTER you CREATED HATRED and WARS, so that you WILL NOT DIE OUT.

How much MORE GREEDY can a species GET.

Oh, and let 'us' NOT FORGET that in the VERY DAY that 'this' is being written, CHILDREN, of ALL things, are BEING MURDERED and MAIMED, BECAUSE adult human beings ARE AT WAR.

So, WHEN is the ACTUAL PREVENTION OF FUTURE WARS going to BEGIN, EXACTLY?

On the other hand, Islam has no provision for that but has an open option and possibility for believers to exterminate the human species with cheap and easily available WMDs.

HOW MANY CHILDREN and ADULTS have been MURDERED in "gaza" by NON "muslims", since 10/7, and YET NOT ONE 'weapon of mass destruction' has been USED?

you adult human beings only need 'bullets' to KILL THOUSANDS, UPON THOUSANDS, UPON THOUSANDS of lives.

[Age]

Do you consider yourself to be a good person, Gary?

Not really. I don't do much of anything particularly wonderful. Mostly, I'm just dead weight. My highest achievement is taking up space and turning resources into waste products. But maybe I'm about on par with most, I don't know.

I believe most people have multi-faceted faces. You can never tell what they are going to do from one moment to the next. Half the time they are lying to you. There are many sides to the human being. Namely, the most common two, being the dark and the light, the bad and the good, and then there's all the mysteriously hidden grey areas lurking somewhere in-between those two main polarities. . Most people if they are truly open and honest with themselves have a tendency to be Bipolar.

People who are in love with someone else, can just as easily kill the one they love. It's quite scary really. You never really know who you are mixing with when it comes to being with other people.

I very much relate to that statement you made earlier; the one where you said you do not date because you would rather spare other people the agony of being with you, I really do get that. To me, it's a miracle how even two people ever manage to live in happiness and harmony together as intimate soul mates.

EVERY one is DIFFERENT. And, some are NOT like 'this' AT ALL.

How that is possible at all, is beyond my understanding. Especially since we are all, each and every one of us, a unique never to be repeated entity, living in our own private impenetrable bubble like spheres, that is unlike anyone else's private bubble.

Some are NOT controlled by emotions. Some CONTROL emotions.

[promethean75]

On the nature of emotions please see Spinoza's section in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(philosophy)

You will be quizzed tomorrow, Age.

[Belinda]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

What has your avowed lack of reverence got to do with your inability to decide for yourself ?

[Belinda]

On the nature of emotions please see Spinoza's section in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(philosophy)

You will be quizzed tomorrow, Age.

It's impressive how Spinoza's psychological themes match psychological themes and practice in 2025.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

What has your avowed lack of reverence got to do with your inability to decide for yourself ?

Can you unpack what you mean and how it relates to my comments above?

[Belinda]

Maybe there is a God. And maybe God is the God of the Bible. If so, then I'm pretty well screwed. There's just no way I'll ever be a reverent follower of God or Christ or anyone. It's just not in my capacity. I tried it and it just doesn't come naturally to me. I'm a fish out of water in this world.

What has your avowed lack of reverence got to do with your inability to decide for yourself ?

Can you unpack what you mean and how it relates to my comments above?

You can't or don't decide whether or not there is a God , so you claim. Either you are too lazy to think or you positively enjoy wobbling .

Thinkers decide on the merits of a religion (or any idea) without requiring first to harbour reverential attitude.

Your personality may be interesting but it is irrelevant when we are being objective, as is the case when we do philosophy.

You have entered useful commentary in the past, and I am mildly surprised at this latest offering from you.

[Gary Childress]

What has your avowed lack of reverence got to do with your inability to decide for yourself ?

Can you unpack what you mean and how it relates to my comments above?

You can't or don't decide whether or not there is a God , so you claim. Either you are too lazy to think or you positively enjoy wobbling .

Thinkers decide on the merits of a religion (or any idea) without requiring first to harbour reverential attitude.

Your personality may be interesting but it is irrelevant when we are being objective, as is the case when we do philosophy.

If you say so, it must be so.

[Belinda]

Can you unpack what you mean and how it relates to my comments above?

You can't or don't decide whether or not there is a God , so you claim. Either you are too lazy to think or you positively enjoy wobbling .

Thinkers decide on the merits of a religion (or any idea) without requiring first to harbour reverential attitude.

Your personality may be interesting but it is irrelevant when we are being objective, as is the case when we do philosophy.

If you say so, it must be so.

This is more of the same from you. I think that all here at the forum claim to be modern enough to be able to assert something or other without undue wet humility. If you disagree please have the backbone to say why you disagree.

[Gary Childress]

You can't or don't decide whether or not there is a God , so you claim. Either you are too lazy to think or you positively enjoy wobbling .

Thinkers decide on the merits of a religion (or any idea) without requiring first to harbour reverential attitude.

Your personality may be interesting but it is irrelevant when we are being objective, as is the case when we do philosophy.

If you say so, it must be so.

This is more of the same from you. I think that all here at the forum claim to be modern enough to be able to assert something or other without undue wet humility. If you disagree please have the backbone to say why you disagree.

Aggressiveness is not going to win any cooperation from me.

[promethean75]

Truly, madam B. I am always taken by the elegant simplicity of the Ethics' geometric form... even these many years after my university at the Hague.

Emotions as 'confused ideas'. Spinz does this thing where he becomes immovable by identifying the nature of the causes (upon his body) that compel him to states of emotional distress and discharges them of their causative powers over him. It's a stoic jedi trick... really the only possible genuine state of freewill; knowledge of the causes of one's affections suspends the force of the cause somehow for Spinz.

On the other hand, Fritz called him out and said he was a wuss sometimes and that his conatus didn't go hard af like his. Said Spinz became a typical ascetic for all the wrong reasons. Spinz was the father of the theory of the ontological ubermensch in its purest form as the great being of capacity and power. He was the one who gave N the go ahead.

[Belinda]

If you say so, it must be so.

This is more of the same from you. I think that all here at the forum claim to be modern enough to be able to assert something or other without undue wet humility. If you disagree please have the backbone to say why you disagree.

Aggressiveness is not going to win any cooperation from me.

| don't seek cooperation I seek to learn from others' arguments.

[Gary Childress]

This is more of the same from you. I think that all here at the forum claim to be modern enough to be able to assert something or other without undue wet humility. If you disagree please have the backbone to say why you disagree.

Aggressiveness is not going to win any cooperation from me.

| don't seek cooperation I seek to learn from others' arguments.

That sounds fair.

[Belinda]

Truly, madam B. I am always taken by the elegant simplicity of the Ethics' geometric form... even these many years after my university at the Hague.

Emotions as 'confused ideas'. Spinz does this thing where he becomes immovable by identifying the nature of the causes (upon his body) that compel him to states of emotional distress and discharges them of their causative powers over him. It's a stoic jedi trick... really the only possible genuine state of freewill; knowledge of the causes of one's affections suspends the force of the cause somehow for Spinz.

On the other hand, Fritz called him out and said he was a wuss sometimes and that his conatus didn't go hard af like his. Said Spinz became a typical ascetic for all the wrong reasons. Spinz was the father of the theory of the ontological ubermensch in its purest form as the great being of capacity and power. He was the one who gave N the go ahead.

The only weakness in 'Ethics' is Spinoza's unquestioning love of reason. And yet look how he had to be physically restrained by his friends when he felt sympathy for the de Witt brothers. Spinoza's trust in reason reminds me of Islam's ethic of science : scientific enquiry is justified by our legitimate need to know the mind of God. Spinoza was influenced by Maimonides and possibly also by the liberal Islamic regime in Spain.

The force of conatus (Spinoza) harks to Aristotle's idea of form and hence to Thomas Aquinas.

Don't you think Ubermensch is misunderstood by such as the Nazis who used the notion to further military superiority? Surely Ubermensch is that trait of an individual which most resembles the appropriate Aristotelian form.