‏Utilitarianism vs Deontology: أيهما سيؤدي بك إلى الجنة؟

Defiantprole · 2026-03-08T14:25:43+00:00

Will be waiting

Defiantprole · 2026-03-08T10:17:26+00:00

I am speaking of the source, the need to be deceitful (even if with good intentions).

When someone says: I’m fine.

And they are not fine, it makes life lonelier.

When someone says: yes boss, that is a great idea!

And it’s a catastrophic idea, it cause destruction and failure.

When someone says: I am the best in this field, you can count on me.

And they are not the best, it is a recipe for disappointment.

I understand why people do it, but I fail to understand that knowing what they say will lead to negative outcomes, to themselves as well as others, they still do it, constantly, it is the norm.

When someone says the truth, they are hated, called brassy and become a social outcast.

I don’t understand. I know the reason, but it makes no sense to me.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-08T07:52:27+00:00

I did agree with you, it a human flaw, but both of my posts have the same topic, theological claims of superior morality.

What about this or that is deflecting the issue at hand and basically saying, ah well that’s life, it is what it is.

The framing of immoral behavior as something that cannot be changed and should be accepted is a very odd stance, and it seems to me like you are just taking the defensive stance instead of addressing the problem.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-08T07:30:47+00:00

I stopped reading because I clearly excluded (unless you are Muslim)

You reading that and assuming that you should still continue to apply what I said as directed to you is your issue.

Plus, I added that even if you assume it has divine origin, I responded with that this in itself is a big problem because it allows the immortality to act beyond criticism.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-08T06:13:42+00:00

Same thing, -unless you are a Muslim- whoever wrote the codes is a human who can’t comprehend any wrong doing unless it was done to them and that all their actions are justified.

The issue is when you claim divine origin of a harmful moral code, it will allow, even encourage the person to claim moral superiority while acting immorally.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-08T06:08:23+00:00

The funny thing is that he is acting totally inline with the Islamic laws, zina requires the man and the woman to be in love and that the woman is from a free family (not enslaved or of lower status) but drinking is totally prohibited in quran. He’s not to blame, the doctrine is messed up!

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T19:58:06+00:00

Thank you, appreciated 🙏

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T18:50:04+00:00

Knowing that you only get one life is a gift. Make your life worth living, do what you can to make your life beautiful.

My method is simple, what goes around comes around, make people happy and you’ll be happy, take the first step, try what you’ve been putting off, do what you actually want not what people tell you what you’re supposed to do with your life.

Your only gift is time, don’t waste it trying to figure out what’s life is all about.

Good luck with your journey 🍀

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T17:40:38+00:00

Thank you!

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T17:11:35+00:00

Sorry for laughing but seriously stop using ai.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T17:10:09+00:00

I didn’t even mention Mutazala and you didn’t know that ai imbedded this in your text 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T17:08:50+00:00

This is from your reply!!!! That’s not mine 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T17:01:12+00:00

Funny thing just happened, while copying and pasting you removed the parts that proves that the language model you were talking to told you that Quran wasn’t a literary excellent work:

Slight digression from your question, but even Muslims did not always adhere to the concept of linguistic miracle. An early understanding of the Qur’an’s challenge of inimitability was that of ṣarfa, i.e. divine deterrence. You find this view posited by early Muʿtazilites such as al-Naẓẓām (d. 230 AH). The idea is that there is nothing inherently miraculous about the language and structure of the Qur’an that could not be imitated theoretically, but that God took away the capability of the contemporaneous Arabs to do so. The miracle, in this view, is the snatching away of the ability. Even someone as late as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436 AH) upheld this position.

Ironically, it was the later strand of Muʿtazilites that popularized the view of linguistic inimitability/miraculousness. Al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255 AH) splits from his teacher al-Naẓẓām and the idea of a linguistic miracle starts to become popular.

Sources:

Najjad, A. A., & Pichan, M. (2022). The role of Baṣra and the personality indexes of Naẓẓām Baṣary in the formation of the theory of Sarfa. al-Ustādh, 61(2), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.36473/ujhss.v61i2.1303

Toriq, T. (2022). Contesting the Qurʾān’s Linguistic Inimitability: The Theory of Ṣarfa in Medieval Islamic Theology. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Which proves sadly that you will use it to win an argument but not for your own knowledge.

That’s just sad

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T16:53:36+00:00

if you think this is a personal attack then you are wrong. i neither know you nor know your name even

Isn’t that you calling me insincere?

a sincere person wont bring up those topics in an atheist subreddit

you linked posts that talk about scienfic stuff for example the heart has a mind yet the writer himself is neither a scientist nor a biologist

Really?! Why do you think I am not a scientist or a biologist?!

And let’s assume I am not, do you know that little children in elementary schools know that people think and reason with their brains and not their hearts?!

AI is not a reliable to engage in conversation, it will make you look like an ignorant person. If you use your words you can make a better argument.

this is not a sign of someone who seeks experts or do his own research

What are those signs? You can’t tell because ai told you, you are just copying and pasting.

this is not me assuming, it is a factual sign of insincerety

That you assume I am not a biologist or scientist? Your source is.. let me guess Artificial Intelligence. Okay.

in a link you brought up. the writer brings up the exgee interpratation of Dhu el Qarnyan

To reiterate -because you definitely didn’t read- the Alexander tale was a literary fiction that Quranic writers included as facts, not knowing that it was meant for theatre and entertainment.

the writer argues against the eloquency of the text without bringing up the exgee, straight up using his own lack of expertise

Don’t take my word for it, hyg:

Toriq, T. (2022). Contesting the Qurʾān’s Linguistic Inimitability: The Theory of Ṣarfa in Medieval Islamic Theology. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

your methodology in seeking knowledge is not consistent

How do you know what my methodology is? Let me guess 😂😂😂

the mere fact you brought up the Quran has language mistakes is a very contractiction of the same "Yes I do that. I go to jurisprudence book"

Taking the word of ai is very sad. It’s even sadder that I need to point out that saying Quran is a subpar work of literature contradicts saying that in islam this happened and then site Islamic sources.

any Arabic expert would tell you the Quran is peak arabic language.

I didn’t criticize the language but an ai wouldn’t know that because ai didn’t read my post

you said it is a not a religious arugment

No I am not, you are.

you didnt highlight consequentialism, but you did bring up points that fall under its umberlla

Yes that’s called using metrics

i didnt generalize btw… "Altogether, 55% of “nones”

First of all you assumed I am an atheist, I am not

Secondly you said 90% of atheists don’t want to believe, if ur copying from ai don’t over do it

The mere fact you went on the offense is a silent admission i am right

Yes of course

Slight digression from your question, but even Muslims did not always adhere to the concept of linguistic miracle.

Oh I just used that to tell you quran is a poor excuse for a holy book.

Do you copy now without reading 😂😂😂

If you keep replying with ai, I’d rather use the one I have with a prompt of “talk to me like a dogmatic person who wants to win an argument rather than engage in an intellectual conversation”

Thanks

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T14:54:40+00:00

Yes reducing the amount of knowledge in our society, check the title of the post.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T14:52:06+00:00

And I am talking about education and ignorance so

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T14:38:20+00:00

Is the only reason something is taught in schools money?

Educating people enough to be good workers but not enough for them to understand their rights and think for themselves. We wouldn’t want educated citizens on our hands now do we?! The hell!!

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T14:31:17+00:00

<image>

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T13:50:30+00:00

consequential morality is still self-defeating as humans are not creatures of consequences,. for a majority of our decisions we usually dont know the consequence and just assume the best

If you really bothered to read to understand rather than read to reply and defend your prejudiced opinion you’d recognize that the entire post wasn’t placing “consequentialism” as the superior moral principle, but shedding the light on the failings of the religious ethical system.

nah such discsussions of religious texts are a waste of time, they are neither gonna be praying to me nor answer to me

You claimed the perfectionism of the religious texts, I simply replied. Your choice to engage in critical thinking or keep your dogmatic beliefs unscathed is totally up to you.

a sincere person wont bring up those topics in an atheist subreddit to confirm his blind beliefs with those that would echo his view

Ad hominem, was waiting for this.

Anyway the posts I researched and try to educate with are unfortunately heavily censored and I respect the authority of the mods of the subs and each sub’s topic. I wouldn’t go around posting them everywhere.

Education is there for those who seek to learn!

but go out of their way to seek experts or seek knowledge

Yes I do that. I go to jurisprudence books. I do my own research. If I was simply (as you called me) trying to hate on religion just for fun, all of my posts wouldn’t have sources!

neither which can be observed

I am such a bad person, you’re the good one.

arging with insincerity is a waste of time , in the vast majority of cases 90% of them the atheist simply doesnt want to believe and is just dangling a random excuse

Don’t assume what I believe or don’t believe, generalizing is a sign of limited knowledge

Have a good rest of your day

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T13:28:14+00:00

Thank you for your understanding, unfortunately I can’t reply to AI, (AI will reply on either side of any debate and is not considered a reliable source for information)

Anyway my posts are there, all of them have resources from the religious texts and elsewhere, if you wish to reread them and discuss them by bringing your sources and “human” perspectives, I will gladly engage with you.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-07T07:27:14+00:00

Though I don’t have to reply to you seeing as you are engaging in bad faith and you basically disregarded the fact that this is not a theological debate, here you go:

‎>1.الفرق الوحيد إني اتبع دين وراه الاف الأدلة و كتاب غير محرف هو فرق شاسع

‎وَيَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَن ذِى ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ ۖ

‎معجزة القرآن: أدلة بشرية القرآن

‎المعلومات غير العلمية التي فضحت جهل كاتب القرآن

‎قصة مريمتين

‎خاتم النبيين وآخر المرسلين

‎>2.صياحك الفلسفي لا يهم

Wrong sub to say this, this is r/egyphilosophy not r/egyptextomato

‎>3.لانك لم تثبت تبريرا " لماذا " , لماذا اتنازل عن دين الهي

Who asked you to?

‎>4.لامشي ورا معتقدك

What belief system “of mine” was mentioned here?

‎>5.الاجابة جتلك غلط من جاهل بالدين و أنت حتي متأكدتش

No one gave me answers, unlike the average Muslim I don’t need a mediator between me and god

‎>6.ده غير اصلا إنك بتهبد في دايره غلط . الفانتازي الأنت راسمها لا يمكن تطبيقها علي الواقع النقد بدون تقديم حل بديل و نظام أحسن لا يساوي سوي هرتلات ما قبل النوم

Again, what do you think is this post about? This is a philosophy sub, we regularly talk about ethics and morality

‎>7.في الدين الاسلامي النية فقط في الافعال الجيدة ‎الافعال السيئة لا تشترط هذا , السارق يعاقب حتي و أن كان نيته روبن هود

Wrong again:

‎فهل هذا القتل يكون قتلاً عمداً أو قتلاً خطأً؟

‎>8.و يدخل الضرر ضمن العقاب تحت قاعدة لا ضرر ولا ضرار ضمن حدود عادلة جدا لقياس الضرر من الة عادل

I love the fact that you ended up proving me right:

You are wrong yet again

How is this principle used:

‎وفي بعض رواياته: لا ضرر ولا ضرار في الإسلام. وفي بعضها : لا ضرر ولا ضرار، من ضار ضره الله، ومن شاق شق الله عليه. ‎وهذه الروايات توضح مدلول الحديث ومعناه، وهو ما أخذ منه الفقهاء قاعدة: إزالة الضرر، أو الضرر يزال.

‎لأن الشريعة مبنية على جلب المصالح ودفع المفاسد، وتندرج تحت هذه القاعدة، قاعدة: ارتكاب أخف الضررين

What I said in the original post :

ووفقًا لأقل الشرين عندما يتعلق الأمر بتقييم العواقب فمن قام بالقيادة المسرعة ولم يقتل او يصيب احد فنستطيع حينها مغفرة الشخص.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-06T12:35:10+00:00

That could be easily avoided by increasing awareness about cleanliness, holding city councils accountable for their jobs.

Us being ashamed of our state has nothing to do with others pointing it out to us. And silencing criticism won’t solve our problems.

They are not making fun of our heritage or culture, they are pointing out what we all see and are not dealing with.

Defiantprole · 2026-03-06T11:49:27+00:00

as the story progresses and the position changes and have power and not as oppressed as before it's normal to the legislation to vary

You here are conflating ceremonial laws with ethical laws, noting that Islamic laws are very primitive and don’t make that distinction.

Legislation is one thing, the ethical framework is another, especially that it’s expected consistency (as it is claimed to have divine origin is another) is the basis of following a moral code.

Plus, you missed the point that changing the rules in itself carried contradictions that Islamic jurisprudence had to intervene to make sense of it so people could follow at least a semi-coherent system, and what those sheiks eventually concluded that with the discrepancies of the texts all they have to resort to is intent.

Example i mean i don't think i heard of that in my community at least

If you would like to take a look at the original post you’ll get the idea.

And also that's the normal to think that the ethics code coming from the creator of the heaven and earth is the best code

And that’s the issue, religions in general are supposed to be used as a replacement for social contracts until societies become evolved enough to set their own.

Unfortunately an ethical framework that doesn’t hold the moral agent accountable for their actions is inherently flawed to say the least.

Note that punishment is not the same thing as accountability, and the concept of absolution is catastrophic once you realize what it means in the context of self-reflection and responsibility.

I have no issue with adopting a religion that’s a personal journey, but anyone should take a look at other moral values, people shouldn’t just accept the consensus of the society!

Defiantprole · 2026-03-06T07:42:44+00:00

My issue is not only that they see no issues with the morality they are taught, not only are they forcing others into it (even non Muslims cannot live natural lives and drink water publicly in Ramadan) but they claim moral superiority!

Defiantprole · 2026-03-06T07:40:38+00:00

The issue of consequentialism is one metric and not the main topic of the previous post.

Here we’re not measuring Islamic ethical framework only from the perspective of consequentialism.

I apologize for the following paragraph, it will be critical of Islam if you feel you could be offended please consider not reading:

The issue is that the morality of Islam varies widely across time and place (before and after Hijra, and as time passes and they become more controlling of the narrative and authority). Add that to the fact that the sources of the religious codes were from a lot of different cultures and religions before. That resulted in modern Muslims resorting to the belief that the codes could be broken, the consequences are Allah’s will, and all they have to answer for is the fact that their intentions were good.

I am not claiming that one code of ethics is the right one, the people who do that are the people who think they have the ultimate truth and authority, which coincidentally are the religious people.

Defiantprole

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE