No God Exists: Why Should I Be Good to humans?
-
Very good and accurate description of the humanoid creature. Indeed, without the Ruuh/Spirit, this creature/bashar walking on two legs is no different than an instinct driven beast. It is the God given sense of morality that makes this creature/Bashar, into "The human being" - Al Insaan.
But to address the topic, alright, you'll find that the number of people driven by instinct (this can be good or bad) will increase, but more of the "bad" type. This is because now even for those who would have otherwise been God conscious, would suddenly find themselves indulging in highly selfish behavior, many of which can often be destructive in the long run.
To others why should you give charity to an unknown person? Why should you care to give if someone's dying from thirst on the street and you have a full bottle of water for example? No reason, you're not getting anything in return for helping X, Y, Z.
Being useful or useless are highly relative terms.
To a national army, you and the majority of people are useless, and therefore should be annihilated because we're not helping the army in anyway (unless you join it in some way) and are a burden, for example, - that is rational. Would you now happily accept being eliminated in the name of rationality? This is actually going on in the grand scheme of things the world over, even if it's not bluntly obvious, if you want to see. And it is being done by those uh, "intelligent and rational" people.
A relative dying from cancer in 5 years, is useless to the society because he/she is not going to be productive. What about his/her family? To them those 5 years of company and moments are worth it - making this time "useful".
A no God scenario creates a materialistic, selfish world. Even those athiests you cite who are supposedly being very "moral", are driven by selfishness (i.e. they have instincts that fall into actions/behavior we understand as "good", they derive pleasure from helping people, giving their love and care to people and/or animals and in return they enjoy all these chemical reactions that makes them feel good, like a drug).
There is a universe of difference between morality, enjoyment, struggle, pain for God, and the same things driven by selfish instinct. In the former, you will also find doing things that are against your instinct, but may classify as "good". And you will also find yourself avoiding some things that otherwise resonate with your instincts, even though they may classify as "bad".
With the latter, you only follow your instincts, and the instinct is only focussed on the self with no regards for anything else.
I'm sorry, but that description of human nature is not accurate and really outdated.
Biology, not God (or God has through biology), has given us the ability to be moral and sympathetic and altruistic.The idea that humans only act good because of fear of hell or for the reward of heaven is completely wrong. Normally our actions are not based on such a rational decision.
And the idea that there is some sort of spirit in us urging us to do good is also not founded in fact. There is no evidence of any kind of soul/ruuh/spirit inside us.The fact is, even without god, there are many incentives, rational and instinctive, for us to be good. And for the most part people are good.
-
There is a Spirit inside of us, our higher state of consciousness is that, but being good is a personal choice. There are other reasons than God and fear of Hell that causes people to be benevolent and one is obviously the fulfillment of the ego for the approval of being goodly from your surroundings. The same is true for being evil as you can gain approval for this and thus continue it. It is very primitive psychology.
People have the ability to think and such as anger and wrath has negative influence on a person. It generally causes them to be more of an animal.
Apart from God and Hell or Heaven, a person might also draw the conclusion that goodness brings consolation to the person. But in the end we can speak of doing what is commendable and is it commendable to be an animal?
The human Body evidently gains pleasure in violence, the media portrays violence in motion pictures, and cartoons for children are violent, just think of Tom & Jerry. We like to play games where we kill others. We may compete in sports where we beat someone else up. Many watch such matches. It is obviously in the instinct.
Care for our own is in the instinct but as soon as our empathy goes away we no longer care. We have problems to care for troublemakers.
Being good is usually constructive for the community while being evil generally only "benefits" the person doing it and maybe his closest kin. Being evil often causes discord and it will cause you to gain enemies as you wrong people being evil. Is that the life people like? Most people probably choose to be good because it will cause a lot of trouble not being so.
In Arabic evil uses the same word as darkness metaphorically and everything that brings darkness upon oneself is evil. When you are in darkness you cannot see. An evil person is shaded by that beast of theirs with its instinct and wanders in darkness and they cannot think straight. Any ignorant thought is darkness. Any thought of hatred is darkness. One is blinded consequently.
When you lose control and do something this is darkness even if innocently.
Be safe
Amenuel -
I'm sorry, but that description of human nature is not accurate and really outdated.
Biology, not God (or God has through biology), has given us the ability to be moral and sympathetic and altruistic.The idea that humans only act good because of fear of hell or for the reward of heaven is completely wrong. Normally our actions are not based on such a rational decision.
And the idea that there is some sort of spirit in us urging us to do good is also not founded in fact. There is no evidence of any kind of soul/ruuh/spirit inside us.The fact is, even without god, there are many incentives, rational and instinctive, for us to be good. And for the most part people are good.
I truly agree with you...God created morality, reasoning and knowledge for us to dwell the earth and, and we don't need any scripture to know that there is a god.
-
Anyway, back to the exercise. Humans are groupthinkers, first and foremost and they always need someone to tell them what to do. Let's look at the world. The populace follow their leaders (their Gods as it were) because most people are incapable of thinking on their own. The leaders use religion as a tool to fulfill their agenda, because that's what the people follow. There will always be a "God". There will always be war, violence, chaos. If God didn't exist, does it stop? No; man is a beast and obsessed with ego and conquering 'my land is better than your land', 'I need better weapons than your weapons'. If you eliminate religion or God, I don't think you stop this mentality from happening. Atheists feel oppressed and attack the religionists. Religionists feel attacked and attack atheists. How does believing in a God or no-God stop blood from being shed? Ego conquers all.
I see that you have the same opinion that Emanuel and I have. I am scared of the consequences. It is unrealistic to think that once religions are banned there will be no more wars. That ego mixed with greed is the biggest problem we have in the world. But of course, not every country may get affected by it. They may still go downhill because of one group trying to have power over another.
Would people stop building bombs and fighting even if there was no God? hardly and that's rather naive to think so. The controllers, forces of nature (or angels if you prefer) prophecize this nature of man before man is even created (230).
Hmm and there will never be even end of suicide bombers. As we know, Kamikaze pilots didn't crash their planes into American ships because of Buddhism, but for the love of Japanese emperor.
I personally wish religions and dogmas didn't exist either, but the nature of man can't be helped. I think Atheism itself is a religion. It is not 'rational' to say that everything came from nothing.
Dogmas won't go anywhere....I understood it once I saw a thread where the member was trying to establish "a religious" one for this forum. And when it comes to atheism, the only thing that comes to my mind is sunnism. The people of the two groups share uncanny similarities.
Science is not about conclusions. There are no 'answers' in science. That's dogma. Saying God doesn't exist definitely is illogical and unscientific, not to mention arrogant.
It is not permissible to question science. Just "believe" http//www.mazeguy.net/bigsmilies/hypnotized.gif
In response to Reel. Few know what law is, and I fear even fewer grasp hierarchy, hence the delusion people need a leader, when in reality people need community which is denied through hierarchy.
You are talking about social construction. My entire master?s program has been all about it. Feel free to check out New Public Service Serving, Not Steering and an Invitation to Social Construction. The idea is very noble and according my preachers, I mean professors, its our job to demolish bureaucracy to make people come together to take all governmental decisions. I am supposed to work as a facilitator and not as public servant. I took it all in until two problems began challenging my view and I even wrote about this in one of my papers. Got a good grade, but no comment/ criticism from the professor. Now the two problems 1. Uninformed sheeples (the majority) 2. Elite consisting of corporations and defense
Social construction is not completely impossible. You can apply it in small communities, but in an entire country, it is not easy because of problem number 2.
That said, I have finally started telling myself the truth that there will never be equality among humans. Its just their fault. They search for leaders instead of doing things on their own. They only read what they want to hear.If a being is not empathic they are psychopathic, so yes not all beings are empathic, but that is to say not all beings have a soul, and on that is a profound truth, the war is between the empathic and the psychopathic, sadly the empathic are oblivious to that reality, so are easy prey. The hierarchical "world" is the manifestation of this war, the psychopathic rule the empathic with cold hatred and contempt, and the empathic for the most part worship what they fear, and fear is the basis of the psychopathic model, the fiction of God or any Deity is constructed to control the empathic and distract them from any truth, as knowledge will set you free, the chains of ignorance must be re-forged and well oiled to prevent such an enlightenment. So the fiction is used to prevent investigation of the truth, so they use the logical fallacy of a God or no creator as a limited choice fallacy to hide the nature of the Creator.
As I keep saying all the time, anything can be used to control humans and this includes atheism.
Law is constructive, always, and sharia is substantive , always, of course you must know what the two forms are, if you do not then you do not understand the subject
Constructive verse substantive -- http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/264/317/
Nice way you explained it. I am not a supporter of sharia laws. They are just one step closer to hell.
Look at what religion teaches - blind faith, conformity, fear of hell, etc. Those are things that can be great motivators for people to commit violence.
It seems we can say the same about government.
Blind faith= Government
Conformity= bureaucracy, rules and regulations some which are extremely painful
Fear of hell= Fear of jail when law is broken.
People also commit violence in the name of democracy.I do think a world without religion would be more peaceful. And maybe it's not a coincidence that we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and it is also a time when belief in God and religion are at an all time low.
And religion will continue to lose followers and science replaces it in all aspects of life. And I think humans will continue to become more and more peaceful overall.
Yeah, it would be great because then we will be able to save our natural resources through assisted suicide. Apparently, science is all about logic. Why allow retired old people to eat up the resources of healthy young workforce?
Biology, not God (or God has through biology), has given us the ability to be moral and sympathetic and altruistic.
Link to research study?
And the idea that there is some sort of spirit in us urging us to do good is also not founded in fact. There is no evidence of any kind of soul/ruuh/spirit inside us.
But you just claimed I say that because our natural tendency is to be good to others. We're designed to show empathy, to self-sacrifice.
The fact is, even without god, there are many incentives, rational and instinctive, for us to be good. And for the most part people are good.
Like the government, the boss at work, the teacher in school, the cop on the road, marshal law, no privacy?.its so much fun to not have any say and be slave to humans.
-
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.
Are you saying that all athiests have no morality? A lot of the morality we follow is not just religious, its cultural as well. Cultural and societal pressures play a big part in what we do and what we avoid in life.
-
?Oh we would have god or gods all right! whoever needs a god willget it, even if it is not called a godbut something else, may be dad, may be a Censor,may be a Presidente may be an Idea who rules or imposes criteria through its propounders or interreters. Ideas are not God, but they do have a potential for getting illegitimate power using them.
Finally God, gods mostly are ideas.
Also, power and thirst for power exist independently of gods or no gods or God or no God, and whoever thirsts for power will use everythign to get it. That is, will do the same power seeker sdo now but will use a different vocabulary.
Salaam
-
Are you saying that all athiests have no morality? A lot of the morality we follow is not just religious, its cultural as well. Cultural and societal pressures play a big part in what we do and what we avoid in life.
Read the past posts and see what is going on.
-
What makes us truly sophisticated is our share of Rabb in ourselves. One cannot say God does not exists but the answer is that God is a pantheistic phenomenon. The more developed a soul the greater their influence in the Grand Consciousness they are, but obviously the total Rabb is always greater in encompassing measure.
We are also not as independent as we may think due to above argument, but our aim is to become as independent as we can and a considerable part of Rabb. If a powerful soul has prophesied in the past we are victim to the prophecy if we are destined to fulfill it. We create the future in symbiosis together, affecting depending on our generation of independence. This collective makes Rabb. That way Rabb is always greater than an individual soul, but we are not separate from Rabb even if we are to be considered lifeless (in soul mental level).
Lifelessness is being a lack of conscious awareness and particularly those who are slaves to the Bodies, often called "The Flesh" (the Bodily = al-jinn). These people do not really exist even if they may be deluded enough to believe so in their own little sphere. These people are victims and the culprit is their own Bodies which were designed to deceive and corrupt. A grand majority of people in the World are "automated" beings very predictable and lost. It is hard to exit the delusion. The only way is to take steps to get out of its pattern, and the most crucial is to take control and cut off from its instinctive drive.
Living oblivious of who you are is vanity. One should reflect every time they do things in life of why they do it. "Why do I like to do this?". "Am I not a slave by this arousal and release of dopamine?"
I am sure a great amount of people would realize how vain lives they actually live doing meaningless things. What do they satisfy, a lowly primate or a powerful Spirit?
The only meaningful purpose is to nurture spirituality and make sure offspring get the equal level of nurture and to learn that Satan (the instinct) is the most important problem in their lives. The life does not have to be become unexciting but can be fairly exciting actually. You feel you grow in control of everything. Learn what comes from your Body and what comes from Spirit - make a separation. That Holy Spirit is very superior and powerful and is inherent in every conscious being but many do not let it grow within in them, or rather it is imperceptible to them.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Why would you want to see it?
lol, no, I just wanted to know how it would go. A claim circulating online is that the world will be peaceful without God/religions. But umm, all of us are pretty educated about what happens when men are given the right to decide what is moral.
I have been still doing research on morals in the atheist world theme. Unfortunately, what I find equals to what wahhabis and other sectarian scholars say to keep Muslims under control and without rights. That's scary. These days, even the atheist scholars have started looking like clerics to me. If today things look like this then imagine how the real atheist world will look like. Here comes the renowned Sheikh Richard Dawkins
https//lh3.googleusercontent.com/-TkR5_czUar8/VpLXDnC20QI/AAAAAAAAAHE/fUNA5GtrWWM/s600-Ic42/d.pngThen salafi atheists (his fans) give him support
https//lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aE0l9Iirh14/VpNTLA4-ezI/AAAAAAAAAHo/0_t7qy7GCoo/s512-Ic42/salafiatheists.pngApparently, another atheist sheikh named Harris believes our decisions are not guided by free will. He also believes in violence and profiling of infidels called Muslims.
-
Religions being the culprit of everything is such a commonplace... As if religions were something outside human beings, some sort of etereal existence that fromthe nothingness manages to make men do that they the etereal thing named religion decides, because religions are also beings though etereal capable to decide and to decide instead of people.
Also ideas are not responsible for anything at all, but persons who old them or who hate them or who given them cult are the ones who are bad or good. As long as there is people there will be bad and good, because it is them who get the ideas and use them for this or that.
Salaam
-
It is the level of empathy that matters. Sympathy or not is one thing, but one needs empathy.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Religions being the culprit of everything is such a commonplace... As if religions were something outside human beings, some sort of etereal existence that fromthe nothingness manages to make men do that they the etereal thing named religion decides, because religions are also beings though etereal capable to decide and to decide instead of people.
Atheism is pretty much a religion.
God is like the cushion for the survival of the humans.
Take him out of the picture and you will find dominating humans taking over your mind and body. There will be no way to argue about why certain innocent person does not deserve to die.
It is the level of empathy that matters. Sympathy or not is one thing, but one needs empathy.
Not possible for certain groups
Group 1 Those who can't think independently and decide. Must stick to what the society says.
Group 2 Those who believe everything shown on tv is correct.
Group 3 Those who believe we know everything.
Group 4 Those who think rationality is the key to all the possibilities.Do you mean we are all atheists, or simply God does not exist?
No mention of God anymore. No one is allowed to practice his religion.
-
No mention of God anymore. No one is allowed to practice his religion.
Salaam,
Ok
God is just a weird excuse to do bad things.
The wicked will always find justifications for their doings.
People kill in name of freedom, democracy, love, etc etc etc
So I think it would not change anything, only a shift in motivation.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
Ok
God is just a weird excuse to do bad things.
The wicked will always find justifications for their doings.
People kill in name of freedom, democracy, love, etc etc etc
So I think it would not change anything, only a shift in motivation.Salaam,
BenderI thank God that you understand it. That's what I have been saying all those years on this forum. People will kill in the name of whatever their ideology is. But you have to see who instigates people to do bad things in the name of God. If they are like this now just think about what would happen if God is banned from this world.
-
Ah, found a great journal article at emerald. It is similar to what MOF said here when we first started discussing the topic. But I'll still paste the most important parts of the article to show how it is true in the real world.
Evil is not a word used frequently among accounting academics. As with most social scientists, we shy away from such metaphysical and emotionally charged terminology. The rules of the game are rational discourse, reasoned exploration, and instrumentally legitimized actions. These rules aim to divorce sentiment and emotion from intellect and to substitute impartial evidence for nuanced moral codes and spiritual values. However, if we conceive of evil as that which deprives innocent people of their humanity and if we believe such behavior to be inherent in the human condition, then evil constitutes an elemental force of social systems (Hilberg, 1980; Katz, 1993; Adams and Balfour, 1998; Billstein et al., 2000) that can be ignored only at our peril. Yet, it is the instrumentally rational and legitimized roles and behaviors shrouded in hierarchical structures, technology, and expertise that enable us to distance ourselves from our emotions and mask the presence and potential of evil.
The ?rational? practices of modernity predominately follow the logic of instrumental rationality (e.g. Weber, 1958, 1979; Habermas, 1984, 1987) as conventionally conceptualized. Instrumental rationality refers to the legitimization of action by appealing to the efficacy of the means employed in achieving the specified end without the need to appraise the legitimacy of the end (Jary and Jary, 1991). The conventional interpretation of rationality implies a neutral orientation possessing both constructive and destructive potential. The realization of this potential depends on parameters (i.e. individual morality or ideological zeal) distinct from, and independent of, the application of rational processes. Further, the realization of this potential cannot be separated from the social roles and institutional structures roles and structures constituted, and legitimated, by the logic of modernity. These institutional roles and structures obviate individual responsibility (Kelman and Hamilton, 1989), and equate the efficient achievement of organizationally specified goals with the public interest (Bauman, 1989).
Machines, professionals, and administrative hierarchies represent the physical, intellectual, and organizational manifestations of instrumental rationality. These manifestations define and construct the organizational context and over time overwhelm individual morality
One is rarely confronted with a clear, ?up or down? decision on an ethical issue; rather a series of small, usually ambiguous choices are made, and the weight of commitment and of habit drives out morality. The skids are further greased if the situation is defined or presented as technical, or calling for expert judgment, or is legitimized by organizational authority. It becomes an even easier choice if the immoral choice has itself been redefined, through a moral inversion, as the ?good? or ?right? thing to do (Adams and Balfour, 1998, p. 25).Organizational violence refers to physical or emotional harm done to individuals as a result of actions carried out on behalf of the organization and is the expression of administrative evil. We argue that the large scale forms of organizational violence ? such as the ?normalization? of nuclear war through budgetary practices or the facilitation of the Holocaust through the use of ?counting machines? ? differ only in magnitude from the daily acts of organizational violence, legitimized by rational economic analysis.
Modernity has deified instrumental rationality as an enabling logic. The application of this logic narrows the conception of ethics, professionalism, and politics and is operationalized through machines, experts/professionals, and administrative hierarchies Machines are the physical manifestations; professions are the intellectual manifestations; and administrative hierarchies are the organizational manifestations. ?When linked to bureaucracy and organization, the result is an unintentional tendency toward dehumanization and the elevation of technical progress and processes over human values and dignity? (Adams and Balfour, 1998, p. xxv).
Title "The rules are no game", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Source
http//dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513570510620475