No God Exists: Why Should I Be Good to humans?
-
Reel,
Its amazing how people who think atheism is the answer to all the problems of the world can't see what you two have up there. What happened to us humans? Have we been always taking our decisions based on what we can see only on tv and in our present day? Have we been always this hypocrite? We think religions are violent, but never question secularism when it kills millions in fake wars. Both can coexist without killing anyone provided people stop seeing "God" in priests and politicians. As for an atheist world, I think this is its best description
14. When we come into our kingdom it will be undesirable for us that there should exist any other religion than ours of the One God with whom our destiny is bound up by our position as the Chosen People and through whom our same destiny is united with the destinies of the world. We must therefore sweep away all other forms of belief. If this gives birth to the atheists whom we see to-day, it will not, being only a transitional stage, interfere with our views, but will serve as a warning for those generations which will hearken to our preaching of the religion of Moses, that, by its stable and thoroughly elaborated system, has brought all the peoples of the world into subjection to us.
-From my very favorite The Protocols of the Elders of ZionThose atheists do not consider that the innately good projection in humans is due to their Spiritual divine self, i.e. the Spirit copy of God. Suppressing the Body and instinct (satan) leads to further goodness when the Spirit can shine right through. The error is in the perception of what is God. The sects have not really helped that perception either. The visualization "stumbling block" was mentioned in the Mosaic Decree on the second line, but the ancient sectarian clerics twisted its implication, plus the first commandment to which said to "cling unto "who are as such" (elohim) as Rabb in unity". It originally taught symbiotic union and assimilation and no separation of the god phenomenon.
What we call God in English the Semitic call Sustainer or Foundation-Giver much like a Platform. It could be explained as nature and the environment itself for it is part of the Grand Consciousness and it likewise provides. You can probably draw a parallel to that in Syriac Aramaic you say "Rabbi" about (spiritual) teacher for this person provides Knowledge being like the Rabb, i.e. Rabb + i. There are people around here who challenge the notion that Rabb would mean Sustainer but it is quite given by itself.
There has been much distortion with this Arabic language that people claim to know.
The criminal is not the religion but the Body of humans. However, religion does lead to immense delusion but that is because of the instinctive nature of humans when matched with esoteric knowledge which may be a dangerous combination. The primitive human mind cannot comprehend what is God completely and then they make God into what God is not. Particularly they believe God is some kind of Master that takes pride in boasting its superior rank much like a human animal would in the same situation and all the religious people defend God and say everyone who associate themselves with God is a heretic and blasphemes. This is because they cannot properly comprehend what is God in the first place. But people can obviously not become better than their "hardware" (Rabb) but they can assimilate themselves to such extent they are equally powerful but utilizing the full capacity of the hardware. Then they need to separate their Spirit away from that fallible Flesh to excel.
- PARABLE * PARABLE * PARABLE BELOW * (do not read literally)
And software cannot become hardware, it says itself, if we are going to speak about parables, but the software can be developed sufficiently that it maximizes its utilization of the hardware. The Rabb will scratch all poorly developed software. Some people seem to develop viruses as some kind of co-habit with their software so it hurts the user because the software also has a "neuro-uplink" with the Spirit.
Be safe
Amenuel -
When i assume there is no God, and objectively ask myself why should i be good ?! I cannot help but direct my attention towards the innate "software" we call morality. Viz. The real question, to me, is why good vs. bad? Why virtue vs. vice? Why an innate "right vs. wrong" ?! Why does everyone have it ?! .... evolution my a**.
"So one elephant having a trunk was odd;
but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot." G. K. Chesterton.Slm
-
He went to kill his son because he had birth defect? hmm
Much worse, he went to kill his son because he think his God told him so...
It doesn't change the fact that they eat the ones deemed inferior or competitor (even the sons). Animals usually have short lived empathy, but mainly for the healthy friends in their community. The animal called human is far smarter than those though. His brain can do damage to humans, animals, trees and the entire world!
It doesn't change the fact that they oppress or enslave those who are deemed as inferior or kill the competitor (even the sons or father or mother). Human usually have short lived empathy, but mainly for those who are considered as their friends in their OWN community with the same 'interest'. Once their interest become conflicting, they're in no hesitation to kill each others.
So how's that any difference with animal named Human?
Some animals are bad and some others are good.. (including human).. -
When i assume there is no God, and objectively ask myself why should i be good ?! I cannot help but direct my attention towards the innate "software" we call morality. Viz. The real question, to me, is why good vs. bad? Why virtue vs. vice? Why an innate "right vs. wrong" ?! Why does everyone have it ?! ....
"Those who are kind benefit themselves, but the cruel bring ruin on themselves."
Proverbs 1117"Whoever does righteousness - it is for his soul; and whoever does evil does so against it."
4146 -
Peace reel,
I think everyone is missing the point. CMIIW but you asked for objective scientific proof and not just subjective views or beliefs. What is the scientific proof that an "inner software or morality of right vs wrong" exists? Why can't it just be conditioning after birth by parents, peers, teachers etc. rather than a "built in software"? The proponents of service to self (materialism, selfishness, hierarchical structure of society) can easily scientifically argue that their path is superior to the path of service to others (good deeds). In the end, without an objective "scientific" proof, it is just a subjective argument.
Only once you see/experience the reality of existence yourself with your own "eyes" "scientifically", can you realize that the service to others path is superior to service to self path.
The only objective way I can suggest for you to verify this, other than death, is by learning and practicing astral projection or OOB experience. This way you can consciously experience/see while still being alive what you will experience/see after death. You will see the reality of all existence beyond this temporary illusion and only then you will realize why service to others path is superior, once you know the true nature of all existence. Why don't you try it? You have nothing to lose )
Evidence of astral projection from al-quran for the believers?
3942 Allah seizes the souls at the time of their death; and for those that have not died, during their sleep. He then keeps those that have been overtaken by death, and he sends the others back until a predetermined time. In that are signs for a people who will think.
Everyone astral projects every single night when they sleep! Anyone can also learn how to do it while fully conscious and not sleeping. This is "scientific", replicable and verifiable by anyone. So whatcha gonna do? Swallow the red pill or the blue pill? )
Peace
-
Please pardon me, truthseeker, but it is not subjective or opinionated views in my case. The Spirit has a connection to such a source that if just people would go against their instincts they would become superior. It is also empirical and you can observe it in societies that have moved away from the more primitive ways where a usually small group of people have affected the rest of the pack, mostly philosophers, prophets and such people (who reached their Spirit through contemplation). Still today people speak of "Christian values", they are there even if people only half-implement them (or worse), and the Beast in their Soul prevents them from full implementation.
We should be aware that belief in hierarchical god(s) also is an activation of the instinctive drive where humans make leaders in hierarchy always. But what if that god is a symbiotic phenomenon and you "are such as it"? God's Lore teaches that everyone should be equal even the Source itself that can easily accept to be on par with His/Her/Its Children. The hierarchical tendency is a human instinctive fallacy. This is why we worship gods, and that is why the old Ten Stumbling Blocks mentions the two first lines. 1. Be "such as is" Rabb in unity 2. Do not take any image from Heaven (fantasy) or Earth (object incl animate being) and worship it (separation/materialism/hierarchy).
Be safe
Emanuel -
Whether God exists or not, people will continue to be good and bad at the same time depending on their prevailing conditions which are dependent on the world they live in which is physical and materialistic and believe in give and take.
The study for me, what would happen if there are no women left in this world or become extinct race, that would be a some thing. I believe everything revolves around them in this world, money too, good or bad. They are the true essence of this universe in so many different relations to man.
Cheers
I would like to see a world without God. Don't be surprised. Its just a case study of whether we can control the animals we have within us without religions/deen.
Okay, for a second let's say God doesn't exist. Belief has gone down the drain and all religions are banned. There is nothing called afterlife. There is no reason to believe in anything called karma because just like God it cant be measured in some lab. We can do whatever we like as long as no law is broken! You know in that case, government can punish us. Keeping this in mind and the idea that I am an atheist (just pretending), tell me why should I be good to certain people who provide nothing useful to me?
the specif group of people not useful to me in economic sense
not my teacher or employer
don't provide me any products
can't sell my own products to them
they don't live in my countryLets start from here. Give me rational reasons and moral values for which I should be good to them. Please, do debunk anything you deem illogical here. I am trying to see if a peaceful world without belief in God is possible.
-
... and your point is ?! )
What goes around comes around...
You do good, your soul will be relatively more pure, more peaceful, more loving
How do you know your deed is good? Your soul knows it very well..You do evil, your soul will be relatively more darker, more restless, more hateful
How do you know your deed is evil? Your soul knows it very well..That's why the "Soul" is termed as God's breath (Nafs/Nefes, Metaphorically)
Whether God exists or not, people will continue to be good and bad at the same time depending on their prevailing conditions which are dependent on the world they live in which is physical and materialistic and believe in give and take.
Interesting thought..
-
What goes around comes around...
You do good, your soul will be relatively more pure, more peaceful, more loving
How do you know your deed is good? Your soul knows it very well..You do evil, your soul will be relatively more darker, more restless, more hateful
How do you know your deed is evil? Your soul knows it very well..I partly agree,
if by 'soul' you mean the 'self'.That's why the "Soul" is termed as God's breath (Nafs/Nefes, Metaphorically)
Here, i beg to disagree.
The Quran doesn't term the 'nfs' as God's "breath"!
Perhaps You're mistaking 'roh' for 'nfs' (both of which remain poorly translated, along with vb. 'nfx' &c.).Slm
-
Peace,
These who view all creation in terms of purely having a materialistic nature, binding all to physicality which causes beliefs in hierarchical powers of Gods, kings and sovereigns, those adhering to this belief system then live a hedonistic life devoid of emotional development. Such development given free reign would harmonise thought and emotion, but instead they consider consciousness to exist solely within the brain. The brain is an organ that breathes in consciousness, the soul is drawn in like breath; soul means breath; working just as the lung breathes air.
Martin Heidegger philosophised that the human entity is finite (as we are thrown into limited worlds of sense) and mortal (opening up the world of significance by anticipating its own death). Thus he argues we never know things fully and immediately but partially and discursively in terms of the meaning they have in a given situation (in the discursive horizons into which we are thrown).
Heidegger views all creation in terms of purely having a materialistic nature, a hedonistic life devoid of higher states, this being the view of the perceptual as the source of consciousness, not consciousness as the source of all perceptions. To consider consciousness existing solely within the brain as a physical reality, and not to correctly think consciousness is the reality and the brain the illusion of a conscious manifestation of thought, is a reversal of reason. Perceptually the brain is an organ that breathes in consciousness, the soul; meaning breath; is drawn in like breath; working just as the lung breathes air, the consciousness breaths the thoughts of the material shared perception, only if all souls share a single consciousness can all souls share all perceptions.
Reason alone would then understand the Earthly being is an illusion of perception, the soul is infinite consciousness, and immortal. All Earthly beings with souls are immortal, but the souls of the innately virtuous are immortal and ever metamorphosing, existing as a fractal form of a single consciousness, existing in densities of perception, and transforming from new state to new state of being in a growing fractal form, advancing from density to higher densities of perception in virtue, this is known as the state of innocence.
What then is the purpose of this shared perception within consciousness, this is the true question few ever consider?
It is to manifest a state of innocence, and even fewer grasp what that state is.
-
The Quran doesn't term the 'nfs' as God's "breath"!
Perhaps You're mistaking 'roh' for 'nfs' (both of which remain poorly translated, along with vb. 'nfx' &c.).Slm
Correct the Quran never mentiond "nfs" as God's breath..
However just because the Quran never mentioned it.. it doesn't necessarily means that it isn't true (Metaphorically) or it's definitely false.Back to the main topic..
The "Belief in a deity or God" has no correlation with "being good".
AND
The "Disbelief in any deity or God" has no correlation with "being evil".Evil correlates well with "EGO".
Where one see the "Self" as the most important priority.
It "gives birth" to pride, arrogancy, anger, hate, revenge, restlessness.When one said "My God is the only true God" he said that to satisfy his ego.
When one said "My Holy Book is the only true Holy Book" he said that to satisfy his ego.
When one said "My Religion is the only true Religion" he said that to satisfy his ego.
When one said "My Nation is the best Nation" he said that to satisfy his ego.
When one said "My Race is the chosen Race above others" he said that to satisfy his ego.
When one said "My Language is the best language, above others" he said that to satisfy his ego.
When Iblis said "I am better than him" (according to Quran) he said that to satisfy his ego.
From it, evil deed shall creeps in..
The soul is getting darker and darker..
Further away from the feeling of peace and happiness..PS Please don't do any debate whether Iblis really exist or it's merely a metaphor, because it really doesn't matter whether he truly exist or merely a metaphor.
-
Much worse, he went to kill his son because he think his God told him so...
Maybe we aren't critically looking at it? http//submission.org/Abrahim_His_Son.html
It doesn't change the fact that they oppress or enslave those who are deemed as inferior or kill the competitor (even the sons or father or mother). Human usually have short lived empathy, but mainly for those who are considered as their friends in their OWN community with the same 'interest'. Once their interest become conflicting, they're in no hesitation to kill each others.
If that's the case why are you thinking it was worse for Abraham to take his son to kill? What is that one thing that made you feel this way and why is it that at present people would rather give their all to save their ill parents or take in refugees from other countries?
That said, I would think eating is far worse than oppressing.So how's that any difference with animal named Human?
Some animals are bad and some others are good.. (including human)..The difference is that not all animals can be taught to be empathetic. Its not a big news in cat kingdom when one of them kills the other in a fight. In the human world, its usually the opposite, but for the time being. Empathy is one of the main strings that humans love pull to sway people's view and attitude. The average person working in some fast food restaurant does not become atheist because he studied evolution, but because he was shown by certain people that religions are violent and that God isn't loving. Do note that I am giving only one reason here. There can be many others.
Why can't it just be conditioning after birth by parents, peers, teachers etc. rather than a "built in software"?
Review the points made by Emanuel http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607830.msg376308#msg376308
Humans can get many things wrong, but will hold onto them if others around them are doing it. Isn?t this the reason why we Muslims here object to that whole notion of ?infallible? writers/imams?@ Abdun Nur
Sorry bro I didn't understand what you tried to say. -
I found the following translation and explanation from GA Pevez's exposition of QURAN.
- When the son grew up he was able
to render help to his father. One day the
father told him, "O my son. I saw in my
dream that I am sacrificing you. Think about
it seriously and let me know your views."
The son said to the father, "O my father.
You should carry out every directive of the
Almighty. If you think it is His command,
then go ahead and sacrifice me. You will find
me steadfast, because if Allah Almighty
commands it, there should be no hesitation."(103) (Abraham taking the dream to be
the Almighty's command, prepared to
slaughter his son.) Both the father and the
son submitted and Abraham laid his son
down, prostrate, on his temple.(104-105) We immediately removed this
thought from Abraham's mind and called
out to him, "O Abraham. You considered
your dream as Allah's command and laid
your son for the purpose of slaughtering
him! This was not Our command, but
merely a dream of yours* Therefore, We have
saved you and your son from this, We have
done so because We keep those who lead
their lives according to divine guidance safe
from such mishaps."(106) This indeed was a clear and
distinctive reward which was given to
Abraham.(107) As far as the son is concerned, We
saved him for a far greater sacrifice, (This
sacrifice refers to the fact that instead of
keeping his leadership confined to Syria, We
wanted him to become the custodian of Our
house Ka'bah, which was located in the far
off barren land of Arabia and which had to
be made the centre and gathering place of all
those the world over, who believed in the
unity of God -1437,)(10 The sacrifice which Abraham
wanted to give would have remained
confined to his son (Ishmael); but the
sacrifice for which We saved him (that is the
custodianship of the Ka'bah) would
continue for posterity (even after Ishmael),(109) In this way Abraham continued to
receive blessings and salutations ever after.(110) This is because he led his life in a
balanced and righteous manner, in
conformity with Our laws. And whoever
leads his life in this manner will get the same
results.(111) He certainly was one of Our
subjects who firmly believed in the truth of
Ourlaws.Regards
- When the son grew up he was able
-
Several points wrong with the Pervez excerpt, firstly there is no intervention in the system, otherwise the suffering and misery of the earths population would have some redress, secondly Ka'bah is not a location of any significance, these ancient religious square box relics litter the middle east, law is a constructive model and so is not islamic, the Islamic is a substantive model, to murder another soul is equal to the murder of all souls to to murder your own son because of a dream demonstrates a deep mental illness.
-
Yes I also agree on the no intervention in the system hence I mentioned it was Pervez exposition of Quran reference. I posted the translation to make a point that the Dream of Ibrahim should not be taken as command of God in order to sacrifice his son.
On the issue of murder of another soul, am still not able to understand some of the verses in Quran which provide such references. For example the case of Khidir where he killed a boy citing reason that he would have become an evil person and cause issues for his parents.Chapter 18
(74) They came out of the boat and
went on until they met a youth whom Moses's
companion slew. Moses said to him, "You
have slain an innocent grown-up lad who
was not guilty of murder. You have indeed
done an odious thing."(80-81) As to that youth, his parents
were righteous and peaceful citizens and we
had every reason to fear that he would
involve them by his open defiance (of law)
and denial of all truth. Allah might grant
them in his place (a child) better than him in
qualities and more affectionate to them.The above verses on the surface implied that the companion of Moses did kill an innocent youth with no explanation rather than knowing the Future /Ghaib and he acted on that assumption.
I do and like to believe in Quran as the unchanged, unaltered word of God and hence I like to understand the context. Of all the translations and tafseer, GA Pervez came close to sort of satisfying my doubts in logical way.
Cheers
Several points wrong with the Pervez excerpt, firstly there is no intervention in the system, otherwise the suffering and misery of the earths population would have some redress, secondly Ka'bah is not a location of any significance, these ancient religious square box relics litter the middle east, law is a constructive model and so is not islamic, the Islamic is a substantive model, to murder another soul is equal to the murder of all souls to to murder your own son because of a dream demonstrates a deep mental illness.
-
Peace Fusion,
sadly the translations of the Qur'an at present are very corrupted through hadith based interpretations and definitions of the ancient arabic texts, the Bible is a work of fiction as is the old testament, these works have been used to corrupt islam further.
if you murder and you have a soul it?s shattered in separation, because it?s as if you?d murdered all souls and stand upon their corpses in silent isolation, murder binds all souls against you; it?s as if they were the soul you murdered because it is. We are a single soul fractured into infinity, this is why it?s equal to the murder of all souls. Conversely if you save a soul from imminent death, it?s as if you?ve save all souls, because it?s infinitely greater than to have merely saved your own life.?
-
Yes I also agree on the no intervention in the system hence I mentioned it was Pervez exposition of Quran reference. I posted the translation to make a point that the Dream of Ibrahim should not be taken as command of God in order to sacrifice his son.
sadly the translations of the Qur'an at present are very corrupted through hadith based interpretations and definitions of the ancient arabic texts, the Bible is a work of fiction as is the old testament, these works have been used to corrupt islam further.
I agree with both of you. If something looks fishy question it. I used to believe in that traditional translation of khidr killing the child. But after getting a bit of knowledge about what God is through Quran I started questioning that story. It certainly is translation gone wild! But I haven't looked into it deeply just yet.
Back to main topic of this thread, I am still looking for ways an atheist world can extract/maintain morals.
-
Well it certainly isn't through religion Reel, religions are morally corrupt, they strip away the perception of personal responsibility, and fill the mind with fantasy and form a delusional mask upon the nature of the self.
The none religious fare far better in moral conduct.
The religious claim a theology of morality, but instead of axioms they create dogma, instead of equitable conduct they create granted rights and privilege, dependent on their imagined divine grant, they go from the inherent based in reason, to the authored based in constructs of authority, then once they have the power upon the minds of the defenceless, the extremes of immorality are indulged, the powerful are held above account and inequity is firmly established.
Morals are an expression of your disposition through your manners of conduct, therefore a soul must always aim above morality; to be dispassionately moral is self-deception, simply a moral theorist; be virtuous for something, as morals are transitory; they only exist in expression.
-
Well it certainly isn't through religion Reel, religions are morally corrupt, they strip away the perception of personal responsibility, and fill the mind with fantasy and form a delusional mask upon the nature of the self.
Unfortunately, sacred books help the admins understand and apply ethics in laws. I am in PUAD. Philosophers will of course try to hide it by saying we gain morals from culture. But that thing is heavily dependent on collective thoughts.
The none religious fare far better in moral conduct.
They aren't atheist though. It would also be wrong to think that all atheists of today are immoral.
The religious claim a theology of morality, but instead of axioms they create dogma, instead of equitable conduct they create granted rights and privilege, dependent on their imagined divine grant, they go from the inherent based in reason, to the authored based in constructs of authority, then once they have the power upon the minds of the defenceless, the extremes of immorality are indulged, the powerful are held above account and inequity is firmly established.
The problem with the leaders of religions is that they are uneducated. Governing is not a piece of cake nope In secular society, they can be kept in check. But I believe same should be done with secular leaders because they are the ones running the country/state. Humans, majority of the time, lead the life of a sheeple. They are lazy. They want to be fed all the information. They hate to think. They will parrot what they hear from some celebrity intellectual without doing fact checking, but have big ego. This is an inherent problem in both atheists and religious people. lol, Yet I do feel that it would be much easier to control people in atheist world. Rationality is the key to creating morals. Trust is something that will suffer greatly. Currently, it looks like even atheists don't trust each other.
http//www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/04/16/new-study-shows-that-even-atheists-think-atheists-are-immoral/
That can be a great excuse to have them chipped, searched,controlled and killed. -\Verses from atheist Prophet Dawkins
http//ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/77077000/png/_77077073_capture2.pngReferring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters ?pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.?
He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded ?I don?t think he did any of us lasting harm.?
?I am very conscious that you can?t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don?t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can?t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,? he said.
He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called ?just mild touching up
http//www.thewire.com/global/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/69269/
