Good without God

Armanaziz

The law of Kharma contains the principle of "'reciprocity".
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself because one shall receive the consequences of their own action.

Siddharta doesn't even mention any conception of deity / god.
Yet he didn't reject it either.. he's focusing on deed which he deemed as the most important.

The 'eastern traditions' are often labeled as "Dharmic religion" which means "Deed religion". (Dharma = Deed/Action in Sanskrit). That's why it's uncommon to find Buddhist or Taoist wage war / invasion for the sake of a deity.

Salamun Alaikum.

Thanks for the clarification. I would take the principle of "'reciprocity" as a purely secular cooncept if it were limited to the life of the world - but as the Buddhist ideology suggest this reciprocity extends beyond one's life - and thus it indicates a spriritual world beyond the materialistic physical world we observe - that is already implying the "spirit of the universe" as a super authority.

OK, putting the Dharmic religions aside - do you have a definition of "Good deed" from a purely materialistic atheist point of view?

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

This idea begs to me the question what of those who neither believe firmly nor disbelieve ardently in the existence of the Almighty? Allah says in the Qur'an that the only matter unforgivable is the association of partners with Him, if I am not mistaken. Does this mean agnostics can potentially be forgiven? An individual who neither believes nor disbelieves does not associate partners with the Almighty, and he may not deny His existence.

I understand Allah speaks of doubters in negative tones throughout the Qur'an. In light of the verse about shirkh being the only unforgivable matter, is it plausible that agnostics can be forgiven based on their works in this life?

unknownuser

Salamun Alaikum.

Before we ponder what will happen to "Good without God" people... may I humbly ask to discuss what this "Good without God" concept really is? I mean what is the basis or reason for believing good or bad even exist if we think the entire universe including us - is a massive coincidence without any purpose or reason what so ever. Is it "bad" if a falling stones hits another stone and breaks it? Then why should it be bad for one person to kill another? Why not - "Eat, drink and be merry - forget about good or bad, for who cares!" Without any God - shouldn't the sole purpose of life be "maximize your sensual pleasures during your lifetime however you can"? I mean - seriously - can someone explain this "Good without God" proposition to me?

I know that Buddhists have a framework - good karma, bad karma - but the moment you believe in karma - it means the universe has some sort of spirit beyond its physical existence that records the karma and ensures that a balance is maintained. I would say this is a form of believe in an "Impersonal God" rather than no God at all.

I have actually surveyed some of the writings by people from atheist school of thought - but couldn't find any satisfactory answer. If someone has figured this out please enlighten me - I am deeply curious about this.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

There are extensive studies on the evolution of morality. Humans are not the only species to exhibit altruistic behavior, for example. Setting God completely aside, there are significant beneficial effects for acting with moral standards for the survival of the individual. Acting in ways beneficial to society stimulates order and peace which, in turn, increases survivability.

Armanaziz

There are extensive studies on the evolution of morality. Humans are not the only species to exhibit altruistic behavior, for example. Setting God completely aside, there are significant beneficial effects for acting with moral standards for the survival of the individual. Acting in ways beneficial to society stimulates order and peace which, in turn, increases survivability.

So per this concept of morality - our morality is a social obligation - live and let live? There is nothing inherently good or bad - it is all what society dictates? What if someone has lost faith on society - he no longer trusts or wishes for increased survivability - does it morally justify for him to take a gun and kill a few men for fun - before he commits suicide? Or - does it justify that he could torture an animal to death - when no body else is watching? When a society sanctions grossly wrong practices (e.g. burning of widows with the dead body of husband - practiced in part of Ancient India; or slavery; or child marriage) - what is the moral justification to challenge the society, especially when such a challenge reduces the chances of survival of the individual? Where is the moral justification for Copernicas or Socrates to sacrifice their lives for upholding the "truth"?

Best Regards,
Arman

Jafar

Thanks for the clarification. I would take the principle of "'reciprocity" as a purely secular cooncept if it were limited to the life of the world - but as the Buddhist ideology suggest this reciprocity extends beyond one's life - and thus it indicates a spriritual world beyond the materialistic physical world we observe - that is already implying the "spirit of the universe" as a super authority.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not..
Yet what matters the most is the deeds..

OK, putting the Dharmic religions aside - do you have a definition of "Good deed" from a purely materialistic atheist point of view?

Certainly you need to ask those who claimed that they are "Materialistic Atheist" for that.

Yet it's interesting to hear out on what a "self-proclaimed-Atheist" said regarding "Good Deed".

Quotation A
"The behavior which we call morally good, selfless good deeds, has been wired into our brains by evolution. That is, people who were generous and kind to others may have survived and those who were selfish fell to the ravages of time."
-- R. Dawkins

Quotation B
?Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.?
-- R. Dawkins

Dawkins has a valid point on quotation A due to

Human and some other big Primates (Bonobo, Orangutan) are among the few species on earth who has proven to possess the capability of empathy not only towards their own species yet extended to other species as well.
This hormone governs such attitude.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
The "Canaanites scriptures" also support his hypothesis,
The most direct statement are
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (Matt 55)
"He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people" (Q 939)
"He can remove you and bring (in your place) a new creation! And for Allah that is not hard or difficult" (Q 1419)
"among you there are some who hoard. And as for him who hoardeth, he hoardeth only from his soul. And Allah is the Rich, and ye are the poor. And if ye turn away He will exchange you for some other folk, and they will not be the likes of you."
(Q 473

Those who are kind shall survive, those who are not shall become extinct..
The survival of the nicest.
The evidence can be seen from past history as well..
Dawkin is correct on this matter.

On Quotation B..
He is again correct, if one does a good deed merely to 'gain some reward', that's not 'morality', it's not 'sincere' it's basically 'sucking up to the big boss'.

And again Bonobo and Orangutan is capable of doing 'good deeds' not only to their own species but to other species as well.

An Orangutan saving baby chick from drowning
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTUIfHyHQRs

What's the religion of Orangutan?
Is Orangutan an infidel? or a believer?
The question shall baffled any priest..

It's very much possible, that they are standing next inline to 'evolve further' and receiving the future mandate for "guardians of the earth", replacing their 'extinct gone evil cousin' namely human, as previously warned in the scriptures.

Salam / Peace

unknownuser

So per this concept of morality - our morality is a social obligation - live and let live? There is nothing inherently good or bad - it is all what society dictates? What if someone has lost faith on society - he no longer trusts or wishes for increased survivability - does it morally justify for him to take a gun and kill a few men for fun - before he commits suicide? Or - does it justify that he could torture an animal to death - when no body else is watching? When a society sanctions grossly wrong practices (e.g. burning of widows with the dead body of husband - practiced in part of Ancient India; or slavery; or child marriage) - what is the moral justification to challenge the society, especially when such a challenge reduces the chances of survival of the individual? Where is the moral justification for Copernicas or Socrates to sacrifice their lives for upholding the "truth"?

Best Regards,
Arman

Morality is not so black and white as "live and let live." There is live, and give. Furthermore, it is not all of what society dictates, as there are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident. It is universally seen as wrong to kill another person unjustly, as an example.

I am not speaking about society's definition of morality, as society can become very sick. I am speaking in the reverse direction the individual's responsibility to the society itself how to benefit society? That goes beyond good intentions, but into rationality and knowledge.

The examples you mention regard survivability on a micro scale, but there is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species. There is an important distinction between "survival" and "survivability."

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you brother for exploring this concept with me - I have also gone through all these in my mind - and believe it is quite fundamental that we investigate these concepts.

I'd like to draw attention to 2 comments from your earlier post

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

There is a inherent assumption behind the above statement that the cause of survival (or well-being) of many - is superior (or better) than the cause of survival (well-being) of one. This is a moral evaluation between two choices. But doesn't this assumption already requires a concept of "moral evaluation" independent of the question of survivality? From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself? Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you brother for exploring this concept with me - I have also gone through all these in my mind - and believe it is quite fundamental that we investigate these concepts.

I'd like to draw attention to 2 comments from your earlier post

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

There is a inherent assumption behind the above statement that the cause of survival (or well-being) of many - is superior (or better) than the cause of survival (well-being) of one. This is a moral evaluation between two choices. But doesn't this assumption already requires a concept of "moral evaluation" independent of the question of survivality? From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself? Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

Regards,
Arman

Walaykum assalam, dear brother.

I am very interested in this and would love to learn more, and I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives. In the specific case of social injustice where one vows to sacrifice himself/herself for the betterment of society, we can still see the behavior as motivated by the individual. There are, among our species, individuals who do gain pleasure from helping others, despite it seeming outwardly as sacrifice. In terms of our relationship with others, we can think that experiencing pleasure selfishly may seem the most rational. However, this method can backfire, because we have the age-old concept of consequences. In fact there is interesting literature on "consequentialism" branch of secular morality studies which you might find interesting. The key is that we find the individual who can experience the most pleasure is the individual who is living in harmony with his/her neighbors. How much pleasure can one feel and for how long if he/she is apathetic towards those around him/her? What goes around comes around.
That's the beauty, my brother. Evolution. Natural selection has allowed these qualities to flourish as they have proven to be highly beneficial to the survival of the species. We are creatures of biology, and our instincts are more or less the same as other species survive and reproduce.

Salaam,
Bilal

Jafar

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

Human (and also some other species) has shown an in-built capabilities / tendencies for such act.

Yet, only within human we can also sees how such capabilities are being twisted.
Through the rituals of human sacrifice to the gods.
The 'victim' or 'the sacrifice' is considered as a 'hero' by their society, because their death shall please the gods.

Religion can really turn good people into evil..

From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself?

There are religions who do not explains thus seems to have no concerns regarding 'the existence after death'.
Judaism is among them, there are no clear description in the Tanakh on 'existence after death'.
Is Judaism a 'purely materialistic point of view'??

Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

Those who do are categorized as 'psychopath'.
And psychopath has been found lacking of Oxytocin.
They're now injecting Oxytocin as a 'treatment' for psychopath.

Why Some People Are Evil?
http//www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201109/why-some-people-are-evil

And feel to take this self-test to see how 'psycho' are you..
http//personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php

Albeit the small percentage of their presence in today's human population (~ 1%) once they took power they can influence other human to become as psychotic as they are.

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

And across species as well.. Bonobo, Orangutan, Dog, Dolphin has been witnessed of capable doing "selfless act for the benefits / welfare of other species". Biologically wise the Oxytocine hormone exists on all mammals..

Thus as Dawkin said it's "hardwired" on SOME of us.
Psycopath is an exception..

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

You may extend your research to seek out what "EVIL" really means, and why human turned EVIL.

Mr. Zimbardo is among the many researcher on that topic.
Philip Zimbardo The psychology of evil
https//www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

Walaykum assalam, dear brother.

I am very interested in this and would love to learn more, and I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives. In the specific case of social injustice where one vows to sacrifice himself/herself for the betterment of society, we can still see the behavior as motivated by the individual. There are, among our species, individuals who do gain pleasure from helping others, despite it seeming outwardly as sacrifice. In terms of our relationship with others, we can think that experiencing pleasure selfishly may seem the most rational. However, this method can backfire, because we have the age-old concept of consequences. In fact there is interesting literature on "consequentialism" branch of secular morality studies which you might find interesting. The key is that we find the individual who can experience the most pleasure is the individual who is living in harmony with his/her neighbors. How much pleasure can one feel and for how long if he/she is apathetic towards those around him/her? What goes around comes around.
That's the beauty, my brother. Evolution. Natural selection has allowed these qualities to flourish as they have proven to be highly beneficial to the survival of the species. We are creatures of biology, and our instincts are more or less the same as other species survive and reproduce.

Salaam,
Bilal

Salam brother Bilal.

You are saying, some people find it more "enjoyable" to sacrifice their own life for the sake of others. Agreed - but a vast majority of us are not that motivated - but we still find these people "good" ... so irrespective of whether we ourselves find the selfless sacrifice enjoyable or not - we consider selfless sacrifice for certain causes as good. And when we are forced to make a poor moral choice - we recognize that we are accepting the bad - because our commitment for doing good is not strong enough to sacrifice material well-being after a certain point. This shows that what one considers enjoyable does not "define" what is good. So, I reject the notion that human morality is a subset of our survival instinct / basic biological instincts - rather it must be a totally different instinct which often functions in opposite direction to our survival instinct. When we see a group of muggers mugging a helpless passer-by, our survival instinct tell us to run and flee ? but our moral instinct tell us to engage and fight back.
So you mean - human evolution process has allowed these qualities to flourish? What brother Jafar added after you also indicates that ?morality? is built into human design. Yes, this is more acceptable and per my understanding the only possible explanation. Morality is not something we learn after our birth ? it is something we carry inside us from the time of our birth. We acquired the sense of morality as a unique "instinct" as a part of our evolution / creation - perhaps as part of our genetic makeup. Good and Bad cannot be mere illusions created by society, nor a mere extension of our survival instinct - we humans have an inherent basic sense of good and bad (unique to our species) built into ourselves. As an analogy, trees don?t have vision ? but creatures which possess the ability to move usually have a sense of vision which complements their movement ability. Ones which move in the dark has the sense of night vision - ones which move under water can sense under water. Just like our vision and hearing - human morality is a sense that we inherently poses to guide us in using the extremely powerful tool/ability we have - our intelligence.

This invariably leads me to the conclusion that whatever ?forces of nature? has created or evolved us ? the humans - must have had the ability to ascertain or define moral choices and building them into us. Recognition of this fact already puts ?the forces of nature? above blind mechanical processes ? this automatically implies a "judgemental aspect" - an intelligence behind the make-up of a human being - beyond and above anything we can define using our materialistic perspective - physics, chemistry and biology.

A human being - who submits himself to this sense of morality - i.e. has decided to uphold moral choices above any other biological instinct - is the one who has submitted to - the "greater designer" who created him/her - instead of his own physical instincts. It does not matter whether he calls this "greater designer" GOD or Allah or Brahman or forces of nature or Universal spirit or does not call by any name at all. In other words it is well possible to submit to the senses of good and bad ?God? created in us ? without actually believing or acknowledging ?God?. And that?s how believing (iman) gets distinct from being submissive (islam).

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

P.S. Due to personal reasons I will take a longish break from this forum. For those of you who celebrate Eid... wish you a happy Eid.

muslims

Will they be saved?

They will be saved as the companions of the right. . .
They have the "end product", and even without the manual (Quran)

unknownuser

Salam brother Bilal.

You are saying, some people find it more "enjoyable" to sacrifice their own life for the sake of others. Agreed - but a vast majority of us are not that motivated - but we still find these people "good" ... so irrespective of whether we ourselves find the selfless sacrifice enjoyable or not - we consider selfless sacrifice for certain causes as good. And when we are forced to make a poor moral choice - we recognize that we are accepting the bad - because our commitment for doing good is not strong enough to sacrifice material well-being after a certain point. This shows that what one considers enjoyable does not "define" what is good. So, I reject the notion that human morality is a subset of our survival instinct / basic biological instincts - rather it must be a totally different instinct which often functions in opposite direction to our survival instinct. When we see a group of muggers mugging a helpless passer-by, our survival instinct tell us to run and flee ? but our moral instinct tell us to engage and fight back.

P.S. Due to personal reasons I will take a longish break from this forum. For those of you who celebrate Eid... wish you a happy Eid.

Not particularly more "enjoyable," but there is a stance of behavioral reinforcement to act in such a way. I completely agree that these people are few in number. As per human morality being a subset of survival instinct, we have to assess morality as a spectrum. I think the distinction between survival and survivability sheds some light into the excellent cases you pointed out. Lawrence Kohlberg devised a six-stage development schema of morality based off the famous developmental psychologist Piaget, and in the sixth stage, moral reasoning is contingent upon abstract reasoning. This type of moral reasoning requires the individual to engage in cognition to understand what to do in a given situation.

Your example of the helpless passer-by is a very good one, and it is referred to as the bystander effect. Interestingly, the probability of helping someone in need is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders present the more people there are watching, the less likely the individual is to offer the helping hand. The reasons for this are several; one which stands out to me most is diffusion of responsibility. Others involve ambiguity and cohesiveness (there are good Wikipedia articles for this).

The six stages of moral development are extremely fascinating and worth reading. It's been quite some time since I studied them; this is a good opportunity for me to go back and do so.

Also, don't forget that altruism is found in many non-human primates. A quick skimming through the Wikipedia article titled "Altruism in animals" shows that altruism is also found in some other mammals, birds, and invertebrates. There is even evidence to suggest altruism exists in some protists!

Have an excellent Eid insha'Allah, Allah bless you always.

Salaam,
Bilal

bookish

They will be saved as the companions of the right. . .
They have the "end product", and even without the manual (Quran)

Can you share some verses that say so? I don't think the Koran explicitly mentions this....

Mazhar

A question just occurred to me The Koran does not mention anything about people who do good deeds, but have no faith. What about people who've never read the Koran but have done good all their life? What about people who don't really have any religion but keep doing good for humanity? Will they be saved?

Yes there is a verse which says that the deeds of people without faith will be cancelled, but we're not explicitly told that all their good deeds, say saving people's lives etc. would be useless? Shouldn't all good people be saved? I come across so many people from other faiths who are so good and simple and honest. They never harmed anyone in their lives.

What will happen to them?

It's quite clear that we don't need faith to be good people. I wish the Koran said something about it....

Quote from muslims on July 25, 2014, 013828 AM
They will be saved as the companions of the right. . .
They have the "end product", and even without the manual (Quran)

Can you share some verses that say so? I don't think the Koran explicitly mentions this....

Are they awaiting to believe and/or act on Qur'aan that the Angles might come to them;

Or are they awaiting that your Sustainer Lord might come to them;

Or are they awaiting that some of unprecedented existentials of your Sustainer Lord might come to them?

The fact is that the day some unprecedented existentials of your Sustainer Lord reaches them

The believing of a person will not yield benefit him who had not believed in timeline prior to it.
Or that apparently believing person will not yield benefit on that day who earned nothing good in his belief.

You pronounce "You people wait for it; we are certainly expecting the Day."

Grammatical parsing of sentences 6158

Know about those people who publicly contradicted Aa'ya'at Verbal passages of the Book of Our Majesty, and negated encountering the Life and accountability of the Hereafter their acts have become voided, weightless froth, destructive.
Confirm, whether they are being recompensed but the natural effect of what they kept doing?"

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/Interrogative%20partiles/04.%20Hall/1.gif It is an interrogative particle which seeks affirmation only , i.e. it seeks only to affirm that attribution in the expression is true or not. The appropriate reply is either yes or no, meaning affirmation or denial of the attribution.

The declarative sentence highlighting information of crucial import has a tag question. Interrogative sentence motivates the reader to actively process the information and confirm or contradict the statement. This will help him become mindful and take lesson from this declaration.

Grammatical parsing of sentences 7147

BobaFett

Right or wrong is subjective...
That's why the guidance is related to 'reciprocity'..
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

So if someone wants to be killed it is ok for them to kill? Substitute the word kill with rape, hurt, rob, enslave.

Is there a subjective point of view where taking an innocent life or molesting a child can be considered right? I think at best it can be a necessary evil.

seekingtruth1111

4514Say to those who believed to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of God. He will recompense a people for whatever they have earned.
4515Whoever works good does so for himself, and whoever works evil will suffer it. Then to your Lord you will be returned.

Man_of_Faith

Very interesting indeed, seeking.

Thanks for pointing out that passage. I will take a look upon the Arabic text myself to see if that is really true. In that case I may have missed something that can add an important point in my view of the faith of God. In that case the intention may be to be whole towards God and not an anamoly rather than a matter of disbelief or belief.

Peace

JavaLatte

4514Say to those who believed to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of God. He will recompense a people for whatever they have earned.
4515Whoever works good does so for himself, and whoever works evil will suffer it. Then to your Lord you will be returned.

And there are other verses, such as

1115
Whoever desires the life of the world and its adornments, We will repay in full to them (for) their deeds therein and they in it will not be lessened.

2200
. . . . From among the people is he who says "Our Lord, give us from this world!", but in the Hereafter he has no part.

274-5
As for those who do not believe in the Hereafter, We have made their work appear pleasing to them, so they walk around blind. They will have the worst retribution, and in the Hereafter they are the biggest losers.

Salm.

Man_of_Faith

Peace JavaLatte,

You ought to pay attention to the fact that believe/iman may not reflect the traditional understanding.

We have made their work appear pleasing to them

This is about doing wrong. They were not seeing anything as wrong, because they were not whole and enticed by Satan into their deeds. It is easy unless you become more aware and work towards "belief" to do sins out of ignorance. You are just not mindful that you do bad things. It can be being unkind, selfish or unfair. Many times we do things when we are not symbiotic with God that we are perhaps not aware of because it is a "normalized" condition in society which is the illusion and wish of Satan for it to be like that.

2200 When you have completed your rites, then remember God as you remember your fathers or even greater. From among the people is he who says ?Our Lord, give us from this world!? But in the Hereafter he has no part.
2201 And some of them say ?Our Lord, give us good in this world, and good in the Hereafter, and spare us from the retribution of the Fire.?

He may pray for good sustenance and get it for this life, but his deeds are not very sincere and he has nothing reserved for himself when the promised day comes. There are many people that are hypocrites that appear to be good servants to God on the outside, but the inside is a mess. And many people think that God is most pleased when you strictly adhere to the illusive rituals and prohibitions, but God is in fact most pleased when you actually practice the commandments from a good perspective, i.e. be good, be kind, be fair, be charitable in money and deeds, sound judgment, work against oppression, forgive instead of judge by the right to judge and punish that you have by God's law, enlighten about God, be more appreciative rather than just avoid jealousy, etc. The practice of the commandments is not only to avoid doing the sins of the commandments from God but also being proactive in them.

1115 Whoever wants the worldly life and its adornments, then We will grant them their works in it, and they will not be short changed in it.
1116 These will have nothing but fire in the Hereafter, and what they have done will be in vain, and evil is what they have worked.

It is normally talking about doing wrong in this life. And I think the worst scenario is to live like a flock of sheep in this life, i.e. live it in the way media presents life and Hollywood movies etc, just enjoying it without any kind of realization of anything deeper in meaning. These people also tend to live unhappily with a lot of separation and much animosity in their lives. But living the life oblivious of any kind of purpose is a comfort to some people or rather not comfort but is just no responsibility because what kind of responsibility is there for them when there exists no god to them and they only live this life and say "We only live once, so let us not waste it" or "life is too short to waste it" (I have heard those statements in real life).

It mostly falls down on our practices in life. This belief vs. disbelief phenomenon is just a way towards injustice and treating people separately. Obviously if you deny God and then show through deeds that you truly do not care about anything then you are an anomaly and impurity, but we ought not to be too confident on the scenario with when someone is acting according to the decree and commandments of God but is an atheist in terms of traditional regard. Many love "Christian values", for example, but tend to not associate themselves with the world religions or the god that is induced by their imagination. There are many people who believe that the world is not just coincidentally in existence, but they do not believe in the concept of god like the sectarian people do. And they are right! God is everything and nothing at the same time, depending on how you see it, i.e. I mean that we are not God, but we are still part of God as part of a mass contained within a kind of Singularity/sphere. This is why God is in control of every atom and is omni-present because what we see is the "platform of God" and we live in a system and a temporary illusion that was only produced exactly like this for this test. Animals and plants (and down to cell level) live according to an innate instruction whereas we have an opportunity to take a stance even if we too have the animals' instincts in us although the spirit in our soul make us somehow able to be rational and more sophisticated, and that spirit grows when approaching God and the pursuit in become whole and one with the Singularity we live in rather than just being an anomaly and impurity and serve no purpose of this world at all.

Be whole

357

As-salam alaykum.

769
We only feed you for the sake of God; we do not desire from you any reward or thanks.

Doing good for the love of humanity is one think, and doing good for the sake of God is indeed another.

Regards.

God - Love

769
We only feed you for the sake of LOVE ; we do not desire from you any reward or thanks.

Doing good for the love of humanity is for the sake of God!!!!

hmm