No God Exists: Why Should I Be Good to humans?

[Fusion]

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.

[Abdun Nur]

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.?

[reel]

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.

[Abdun Nur]

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.

[reel]

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  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

Referring 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/

[Abdun Nur]

Law is not Islamic, law is constructive.

Hierarchy in all forms is against Islam, hierarchy is the tree of death, so no goverment, State, corporation, trust or any other fiction of hierarchy is valid.

Richard dawkins is a psychopath at best, clearly he's an idiot due to his constant use of logical fallacies. Morals are innate in empathic beings, immorality is learned, it is the reverse of what is commonly claimed.

The innate morals are known as virtues, each loving soul is created with these virtues, which forms innocence, but chooses to reject or suppress their true nature as they grow older for whatever reason.
What are the innate virtues?

Virtues are easy to recognise they are external expressions of an internal reality.

'Integrity? is being true to one?s self, and is the basis of all innate virtue, meaning you must be honest in all your dealings always striving for equity, as it is reciprocal, if a reasoning soul would find it innately distressing then it?s by virtue a wrongful act. When integrity is central, you fear nothing, since you have nothing to hide. When integrity is dominant you act impartially, candidly and scrupulously in all things, so you will have no guilt. When fear and guilt do not exist within your decisions you are free to act in excellence. This creates authenticity, which secures acting autonomously as the architect of your own actions.

?Discipline? is an innate virtue, meaning you must learn devotion and steadfastness in your development of skills and knowledge, in the improvement of the self always beneficially towards the evolving of a higher state of thought, in the creation of beauty, in the dedication to an objective, or the edification of other souls.

?Hospitality? is an innate virtue, all souls are connected, the most enduring aspect of this common unity is interaction between souls, expressed through kindness, generosity, openness towards other souls, treating other souls as you yourself would wish to be treated, articulated through polite reciprocation.

?Self-reliance? is an innate virtue, meaning a soul is a non-conformist, independent in thought and deed, generating autonomy of the self, which is integral to free will, and self-reliance is the expression of free will.

?Industriousness? is an innate virtue, time is precious, do not sell your moments for the economics of a slave, never sacrifice your energies in idol folly, instead invest them in your passions, in your great loves, in those thoughts that drive the soul to excel and build landscapes and truths of undreamt of imagination.


?Perseverance? is an innate virtue, because difficult and challenging things take a long time, and defeat is always eager to be accepted; impossible things are accomplished through persistence in a course of action, a purpose, in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement.

?Respect? is innate by virtue of reciprocation, so to act cruelly, thoughtlessly, hatefully, are wrongful act, and to act courteously, and with concern is a reciprocal obligation.

?Courage? is innate, you were not created to hide and cower, life is risky, but fear destroys evolution and manifests stagnation, courage flows from truth, which is fearless, and from love, which has no souled resistor.

?Honour? is innate; it is the virtue of constructive self-judgement as a method of self-betterment; honour then is the perception others determine from such actions.

?Compassion? is innate, compassion is not found in dispassionate inaction, it must be actively sort, a soul must actively seek out acts of compassion, this is an expression of the unity of consciousness; all souls are connected. Compassion encompasses many elements, forgiveness, empathy, generosity, sympathy, kindness, consideration, and love; through the expression of these innate emotions the connection of unity is conveyed as a manifestation of compassion.

?Sincere honesty? is innate, the brutal honesty of a child, when you say you will do a thing you must fulfil your self-imposed obligation as a virtue of reciprocation, as a promise must be kept.

?Loyalty and accountability? are innate, a soul is always fully responsible for what they do, and must provide relief for all the adverse consequences their intentional acts create. Souls are communal and the bonds of friendship must be tied with fierce loyalty.

No one abandons virtues all at once, conversely evil does not arise all at once; these things develop through small increases. To again master virtues it would be a gradual resolve.

If a soul masters all the innate virtues, if they speak boldly and with understanding in reasoned discourse. If they never quiet their voice for someone's comfort. If they always speak their mind, even when that make others uncomfortable. Making the majority consider them antisocial, even belligerent, considered a very disagreeableness soul indeed, they would be truly honest to a point it would be considered a fault by the deceitful, ironically that is because a soul living so virtuously is expressing common unity, as 'pro-social' behaviour. There is an Arabic term ?Ummah? which means common unity of birth, each soul is united at birth with all souls, the division comes later, and I see no common unity on the Earth at present, as taught from the unity of any child.

It is the uncompromising willingness to sacrifice one's popularity to act in a moral and just way toward other souls, animals or the environment at large; that makes a soul virtuous.

For this reason a very popular, friend to all, reveals a social narcissist, one who derives gratification from the approval of those around them through their own desire for perceived status, this cultivates immoral actions and environments, and is a trait of the soulless.

The soulless work to remove the innate virtues of souls, they strip away hope from the heart, dreams from the mind, and instil fear in place of love.

You may argue these virtues are learned not innate.

A soul is created perfect in virtue, with moral integrity, but that inherent nature is easily corrupted, a small child in their own way is truthful, loyal, compassionate, honourable, fearless, respectful, determined, diligent, autonomous, hospitable, and systematic by their nature, that blank canvas of virtue is open and unprotected, every abuse, every instilled confusion, every hate, every lie, every superstition painted upon that canvas conceals the inherent and develops the fabricated.

Is innate the same as instinct?

The innate exists in you from birth, originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience, while instinct is a natural intuitive power. Both are possessed; instinct is a base state, so creates a compulsion toward certain behaviour like fight or flight, satisfying hunger, lust, thirst; etcetera. While the innate is a higher state, which creates an inclination towards certain higher behaviours, such as virtues or being moral. So all instinct is innate but not all that is innate is instinct.

[Invalid777]

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?

39:42 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

I can astral project without any problems. I first discovered this as a child(between 10 and 13) but it wasn't the usual astral projection like when lying down on your back, sleeping and imagining a rope and then pulling yourself up. It happened while sitting on a sofa. I looked around and saw myself inside myself(the physical me). This sounds weird and difficult to explain. It's a bit similar to astral projection but is very different. How different? I have no words to explain it. It was as if I had another pair of eyes I was using to look through my physical eyes. This did not happen once but several times.I can do this by command at any time, even while walking. At the time I had no idea what it was.

I Googled it but only found astral projection. So I went ahead and tried that and it worked on the first attempt. This is the closest example I could find to what I experience. Between the age of 14 and 19, that feeling went away but recently came when I became a Quran only monotheist. The feeling also goes away at moments when I become attached to material objects, worldly things, use profanity or treat people bad.

Just wondering if anyone has this sort of experience(I call it experience because I don't know what to call it).

[reel]

Law is not Islamic, law is constructive.

Law depends upon rationality, but must take ethics into account to make sure ?not many? are hurt. Sorry I said that hurt word. Truth is that law sometimes creates winners and losers. Hence, focus on ethics is important.

Hierarchy in all forms is against Islam, hierarchy is the tree of death, so no goverment, State, corporation, trust or any other fiction of hierarchy is valid.

Sure we have no caste system, but I don?t exactly think Islam objects to hierarchy. But again, it is a natural process. We don?t have control over it. We are told to not abuse the hierarchy. Quran has plenty of verses about it.

Richard dawkins is a psychopath at best, clearly he's an idiot due to his constant use of logical fallacies.

I truly enjoyed the logical fallacies, lies about Deists, fill in the blanks concepts about Einstein and much more found in his Best Seller God delusion. A company can actually run a marketing research using the reviews of his book on Amazon to learn how many delusion infused people will buy their future snake oil. Hint: Those who gave 5 to 3 stars.

Morals are innate in empathic beings, immorality is learned, it is the reverse of what is commonly claimed.

But one has to explain what is moral. Not every being is empathetic.

The innate morals are known as virtues, each loving soul is created with these virtues, which forms innocence, but chooses to reject or suppress their true nature as they grow older for whatever reason.
What are the innate virtues?

Virtues are easy to recognise they are external expressions of an internal reality.

It is pretty much caught by studies that we are born with belief in God. Probably, that explains the early innocence? Atheism is based on subsequent reasoning done within the mind. We are not naturally wired to atheism. But when it comes to moral studies, will adults take the young people seriously? The problem is in adulthood which kind of tell us that we are in a rat race.

'Integrity? is being true to one?s self, and is the basis of all innate virtue, meaning you must be honest in all your dealings always striving for equity, as it is reciprocal, if a reasoning soul would find it innately distressing then it?s by virtue a wrongful act. When integrity is central, you fear nothing, since you have nothing to hide. When integrity is dominant you act impartially, candidly and scrupulously in all things, so you will have no guilt. When fear and guilt do not exist within your decisions you are free to act in excellence. This creates authenticity, which secures acting autonomously as the architect of your own actions.

?Discipline? is an innate virtue, meaning you must learn devotion and steadfastness in your development of skills and knowledge, in the improvement of the self always beneficially towards the evolving of a higher state of thought, in the creation of beauty, in the dedication to an objective, or the edification of other souls.

?Hospitality? is an innate virtue, all souls are connected, the most enduring aspect of this common unity is interaction between souls, expressed through kindness, generosity, openness towards other souls, treating other souls as you yourself would wish to be treated, articulated through polite reciprocation.

?Self-reliance? is an innate virtue, meaning a soul is a non-conformist, independent in thought and deed, generating autonomy of the self, which is integral to free will, and self-reliance is the expression of free will.

?Industriousness? is an innate virtue, time is precious, do not sell your moments for the economics of a slave, never sacrifice your energies in idol folly, instead invest them in your passions, in your great loves, in those thoughts that drive the soul to excel and build landscapes and truths of undreamt of imagination.


?Perseverance? is an innate virtue, because difficult and challenging things take a long time, and defeat is always eager to be accepted; impossible things are accomplished through persistence in a course of action, a purpose, in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement.

?Respect? is innate by virtue of reciprocation, so to act cruelly, thoughtlessly, hatefully, are wrongful act, and to act courteously, and with concern is a reciprocal obligation.

?Courage? is innate, you were not created to hide and cower, life is risky, but fear destroys evolution and manifests stagnation, courage flows from truth, which is fearless, and from love, which has no souled resistor.

?Honour? is innate; it is the virtue of constructive self-judgement as a method of self-betterment; honour then is the perception others determine from such actions.

?Compassion? is innate, compassion is not found in dispassionate inaction, it must be actively sort, a soul must actively seek out acts of compassion, this is an expression of the unity of consciousness; all souls are connected. Compassion encompasses many elements, forgiveness, empathy, generosity, sympathy, kindness, consideration, and love; through the expression of these innate emotions the connection of unity is conveyed as a manifestation of compassion.

?Sincere honesty? is innate, the brutal honesty of a child, when you say you will do a thing you must fulfil your self-imposed obligation as a virtue of reciprocation, as a promise must be kept.

?Loyalty and accountability? are innate, a soul is always fully responsible for what they do, and must provide relief for all the adverse consequences their intentional acts create. Souls are communal and the bonds of friendship must be tied with fierce loyalty.

No one abandons virtues all at once, conversely evil does not arise all at once; these things develop through small increases. To again master virtues it would be a gradual resolve.

If a soul masters all the innate virtues, if they speak boldly and with understanding in reasoned discourse. If they never quiet their voice for someone's comfort. If they always speak their mind, even when that make others uncomfortable. Making the majority consider them antisocial, even belligerent, considered a very disagreeableness soul indeed, they would be truly honest to a point it would be considered a fault by the deceitful, ironically that is because a soul living so virtuously is expressing common unity, as 'pro-social' behaviour. There is an Arabic term ?Ummah? which means common unity of birth, each soul is united at birth with all souls, the division comes later, and I see no common unity on the Earth at present, as taught from the unity of any child.

It is the uncompromising willingness to sacrifice one's popularity to act in a moral and just way toward other souls, animals or the environment at large; that makes a soul virtuous.

For this reason a very popular, friend to all, reveals a social narcissist, one who derives gratification from the approval of those around them through their own desire for perceived status, this cultivates immoral actions and environments, and is a trait of the soulless.

The soulless work to remove the innate virtues of souls, they strip away hope from the heart, dreams from the mind, and instil fear in place of love.

You may argue these virtues are learned not innate.

A soul is created perfect in virtue, with moral integrity, but that inherent nature is easily corrupted, a small child in their own way is truthful, loyal, compassionate, honourable, fearless, respectful, determined, diligent, autonomous, hospitable, and systematic by their nature, that blank canvas of virtue is open and unprotected, every abuse, every instilled confusion, every hate, every lie, every superstition painted upon that canvas conceals the inherent and develops the fabricated.

Is innate the same as instinct?

The innate exists in you from birth, originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience, while instinct is a natural intuitive power. Both are possessed; instinct is a base state, so creates a compulsion toward certain behaviour like fight or flight, satisfying hunger, lust, thirst; etcetera. While the innate is a higher state, which creates an inclination towards certain higher behaviours, such as virtues or being moral. So all instinct is innate but not all that is innate is instinct. .

At the end, the opinions of the majority win no matter how wrong they are. That?s the sad truth about the world. Worse is the fact that people ignore the destruction caused by the big fish. They continue to support the unethical behavior. Just think how that would look in atheist world. Currently what we know:
Two bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world forgave us because we rebuilt Japan. But the victims and their kids still today suffer from the effects of those two bombs.
We did war in Iraq "mistakenly". The world forgave us because we helped them rebuild by making our own bank accounts empty. Yes, when Iraq was enjoying the finest economy Americans were getting laid off and some even had to sell whatever they had in the house for food. But now even Americans forgave that.
Drones are killing innocent people in Pakistan and couple of days ago, one doctors without border hospital was bombed in Afghanistan. Israel asked for 50 percent increase in aid money for their defense. 

Even though the world hasn't killed God things are this bad.

[Man of Faith]

I think people should not involve God and put blame on God for the idiocy in the World. It is a test and obviously those who do not wake up get to live in a World without God in their delusion. God steps forward when you manage to "separate the Spirit from the Flesh" as was stated once by one wise man and God is "who is like Him", and the Persians say Khoda (self is) about God for a reason just as Arabs say "who is like Him" without even knowing what it is they pronounce by the word allah. By the way, many Persians do not know that Khoda in the word refers to Khod which means self (you say khodam if you speak about yourself).

Be safe
Amenuel

[Jack]

Interesting topic. I've been thinking about this kind of thing for a while. Might be all over the place so bear with me.

Let's forget 'God' for a moment. I think it's a name (common or proper) that has been put a lot of value on and has been put a lot of connotation to. So many attribute so much to God and yet the quran repeats 'are you saying about God what you do not know?'. It is obviously something we cannot know. Moses couldn't 'face' God (7:143). It would be arrogant to think that any of us could. What he or she or it 'is' is something we cannot know and honestly it's irrelevant. Might be there is no 'entity' called God. Might be there is an energy (that thing inside of us that instructs us to make the right choice). When I do good I believe in God, it doesn't matter what I profess to say. Anyone can say they believe x,y,z.

Let's say that God doesn't exist and not in the way we perceive. Because I personally don't believe in an involving God that instructs men to act a certain way. I don't believe in a God that sits at a computer and event x or y happens. I don't think God has anything to do with the affairs of the world. God is a guide, the beacon of light, an energy we can all tap into. The initial source of all energy.

Whilst morality is subjective, yes. But I think most of us know that murder is wrong, lying and cheating is wrong and so on. You could say morality is taught perhaps, but empathy is ingrained in most of us. Of course, the self, selfishness, the ego gets in the way of it.

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. 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 (2:30).

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. 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.