No heaven or hell------

[VitalOne]

Good Point! Christians and other Religions never kill people!

If a Christian or someone of another religion kills someone they do it because they want to, opposing the religion, does Jesus say to kill others? No, he doesn't, rather he teaches the opposite...

Cause & Effect has nothing to do with God.
Consequences of action has nothing to do with God.
Karma has nothing at all to do with God.

Ok....but the majority of all atheists in general do not believe in any type of afterlife, or karma (the result of good and bad deeds), etc....

Karma, as in the result of good and bad deeds is a lot more than cause and effect and consequences of actions....atheists in general believe that after death there is just non-existence....so no matter how good or how bad a person was it just doesn't matter...after death consciousness ends...the brain activity is gone...

Maybe the complete misunderstanding of that very simple fact of nature and interaction by Theists is what has led to the fact that there have been (and continues to be) more murders in "the name of God" than any other cause.

Hahaha, this is funny to read....there haven't been more murders in "the name of God" than any other cause....thats just hilarious...where did you get that fact? From your thick atheistic skull? Or maybe Richard Dawkins said it? Or maybe it just "sounds right"?

Lets look at the top 10 wars by death toll:
1. 60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)
2. 40,000,000 - Three Kingdoms War of China (184–280)
3. 36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 756–763)
4. 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century)
5. 25,000,000 - Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616–1644)
6. 20,000,000–50,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864)
7. 20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1931–1945)
8. 15,000,000–66,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties) note that the larger number includes Spanish flu deaths
9. 10,000,000 - Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
10. 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War (1917–1921)

Woah...would you look at that, absolutely none of them have anything to do with religion at all....rather it has more to do with the greed for power, land, resources, etc....the samethings religion teaches man shouldn't have (greed)...how ironic...

 

[one_raven]

Ok....but the majority of all atheists in general do not believe in any type of afterlife, or karma (the result of good and bad deeds), etc....

Karma, as in the result of good and bad deeds is a lot more than cause and effect and consequences of actions

Wrong.
Your conception of Karma is incorrect.
Karma (or Kamma) is best translated as simply "action and consequence".
Karma does not require rebirth, afterlife, God or any other mystical notion.

where did you get that fact? From your thick atheistic skull?

I'm not an atheist, jackass.
You should watch your assumptions.

 

[one_raven]

absolutely none of them have anything to do with religion at all

Obvioulsy you know nothing about history, so I won't bother with this part of the discussion.
I'll just leave you with this quote to consider.

"I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon You." - Genghis Khan

 

[VitalOne]

Wrong.
Your conception of Karma is incorrect.
Karma (or Kamma) is best translated as simply "action and consequence".
Karma does not require rebirth, afterlife, God or any other mystical notion.

Karma is entirely dependant on rebirth, and an afterlife....although it is action and consequence and it literally means "action" it has a much more deeper meaning

Take for instance what Gautama Buddha says here, in the sutta (sutra) about kamma (karma in pali):
"Now, Ananda, when a monk or brahman says thus: 'It seems that there are evil kammas, there is the result of misconduct,' I concede that to him.

"When he says thus: 'For I have seen that some person killed living beings... had wrong view. I saw that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he had reappeared in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell,' I concede that to him." (Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta, 11)

Go read it yourself http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

The whole theory of karma is based upon rebirth, the way you exist right now is because of your past karma, all things happen through karma, atheists may believe in something like cause and effect, that actions have consequences, but this alone is completely different from the theory of karma. Karma teaches that deeds are the cause, the reason for your appearance, your birth, all the events you experience, etc...are because of karma...

People like you and others watch TV and hear things in the media, follow the hippie movement, and think they know all about karma....

I'm not an atheist, jackass.
You should watch your assumptions.

Woah that was a great mistake...I should be more careful with my assumptions seriously....hahaha

 

[VitalOne]

Obvioulsy you know nothing about history, so I won't bother with this part of the discussion.
I'll just leave you with this quote to consider.

"I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon You." - Genghis Khan

When did Genghis Khan say this? Genghis Khan was not at all religious, not even to the slightest degree, he was suspected to follow Shamanism, common to Mongolian tribes...and religion certainly wasn't the cause of all of his wars.....this is obvious to any fool.....

 

[one_raven]

People like you and others watch TV and hear things in the media, follow the hippie movement, and think they know all about karma....

Again.
Incorrect assumptions.
That's twice.
I'd appreciate a bit more respect and simple common courtesy.
I have read that sutta (several different translations of it, in fact)
I don't even watch TV, and I have been studying the Pali Canon for years.
I have spent countless hours reading translations from that very site.
I've met and had discussions with Thanissaro Bhikku, one of the main contributors to that site, an abbot of a Buddhist monastery who was ordained in 1976 and, in my opinion, is one of the world's formost translators of the Pali Canon.

The whole theory of karma is based upon rebirth, the way you exist right now is because of your past karma, all things happen through karma, atheists may believe in something like cause and effect, that actions have consequences, but this alone is completely different from the theory of karma. Karma teaches that deeds are the cause, the reason for your appearance, your birth, all the events you experience, etc...are because of karma...

Wrong again.
Carrying Karma through samsara into a next life is only one aspect of certain traditions of some of the many interpretations of Karma.
The main driving force, the main point and purpose - is simple consequence of action and the interconnectedness of lives.
One could very well believe that there is only one life, and still believe whole-heartedly in the concept and truth of Karma.
I also know quite a few atheists who believe in reincarnation, by the way.

 

[VitalOne]

Again.
Incorrect assumptions.
That's twice.
I'd appreciate a bit more respect and simple common courtesy.
I have read that sutta (several different translations of it, in fact)
I don't even watch TV, and I have been studying the Pali Canon for years.
I have spent countless hours reading translations from that very site.
I've met and had discussions with Thanissaro Bhikku, one of the main contributors to that site, an abbot of a Buddhist monastery who was ordained in 1976 and, in my opinion, is one of the world's formost translators of the Pali Canon.

So then how did you miss the Maha-kammavibhanga Sutta in the pali canons? The sutta (sutra) entirely devoted to karma?

I don't care who you've met or what you've done, your information about karma is flawed based upon Buddhist scriptures (I won't even get started with Hinduism), making it even more sad that you'd rather believe your perverted intentionally non-superatural, non-mystical version of karma over what the scripture says....thats what modern day hippie Buddhism is about, lets de-mystify everything because we know more than Gautama Buddha and others....

Wrong again.
Carrying Karma through samsara into a next life is only one aspect of certain traditions of some of the many interpretations of Karma.
The main driving force, the main point and purpose - is simple consequence of action and the interconnectedness of lives.
One could very well believe that there is only one life, and still believe whole-heartedly in the concept and truth of Karma.
I also know quite a few atheists who believe in reincarnation, by the way.

Its not an "interpretation", its precisely what Gautama Buddha says...you can go ahead and follow this whole Buddhist hippie movement where you de-mystify Buddhism and pretend like the Buddha only says things that aren't supernatural or you can stop lying to yourself and read the actual scriptures....

Your information on karma is typical of these groups that enjoy perverting Gautama Buddha's true teachings because they think they know what is true and what is not, so even if Gautama Buddha says something supernatural, lets just pretend like he never said it, and ignore it...

I suppose it is possible to interpret karma in your overly perverted way, where its significance is simply a consquence of action....

 

[one_raven]

You have a flawed understanding of Karma.
You are compiling it with everything else as in integral, inseperable part, but it is not.

Karma exists independently from reincarnation.
It affects us all day, every day, constantly as simple consequences of the actions of ourselves and others.
After your body dies, the consequences of your actions are still influencing the world, just as ripples in a pond still influence each other after the rock has sunk, therefore if you are reborn you are still affected by the consequences of the actions in your past life.

It really is as simple as that.
You can believe in Karma without believing in samsara (as most atheists do, once they understand what it truly is, and they get past the implied mysticism).
Also, as I said, you can believe in samsara without believing in God(s).

 

[Carcano]

People like you and others watch TV and hear things in the media, follow the hippie movement, and think they know all about karma...

VO has got hippies on the brain.

He is right here though about karma being dependant on rebirth, because if there is no continuity there can be no absolute functioning of cause and effect relative to any individual's experience.

 

[VitalOne]

You have a flawed understanding of Karma.
You are compiling it with everything else as in integral, inseperable part, but it is not.

Karma exists independently from reincarnation.
It affects us all day, every day, constantly as simple consequences of the actions of ourselves and others.
After your body dies, the consequences of your actions are still influencing the world, just as ripples in a pond still influence each other after the rock has sunk, therefore if you are reborn you are still affected by the consequences of the actions in your past life.

It really is as simple as that.
You can believe in Karma without believing in samsara (as most atheists do, once they understand what it truly is, and they get past the implied mysticism).
Also, as I said, you can believe in samsara without believing in God(s).

Well you're right, karma and reincarnation are two distinct things but they are intimately connected and tied to each other (obviously). Usually whenever Buddha discusses karma, rebirth is also discussed....

Also, most of what you are saying is just pervisions and YOUR own personal interpretations, not what Gautama Buddha says...

 

[one_raven]

Well you're right, karma and reincarnation are two distinct things

Exactly.

but they are intimately connected and tied to each other (obviously).

Yes, IF you believe in the actuality of samsara, then most certainly they are absolutely inextricably intertwined.
There is no way to avoid or realistically argue that - which is why I am not trying to.

If you do not believe in the actuality of samsara, however, you can most certainly still believe in karma.

In fact, I don't even see karma as a "belief" I see it as a fact of nature.
It is simply the law of cause and effect viewed from an interpersonal perspective.
Samsara, on the other hand, IS a belief and requires faith from all those who have not expereinced it first hand through meditation (and some would even argue that faith would required still).

Usually whenever Buddha discusses karma, rebirth is also discussed....

Which is why you could build an argument that you can not be a Buddhist if you do not believe in reincarnation - but not that you can not believe in larma if you do not believe in reincarnation.
You still may have a hard time with that, however, with some (but this is not the time or place for that particular discussion).

Also, most of what you are saying is just pervisions and YOUR own personal interpretations, not what Gautama Buddha says...

Isn't that what Siddhartha wanted?
To accept what is reasonable and discard what is not reasonable to us?
Kill your parents. Kill your God. Kill your teacher.
He wanted to help guide people to truth, not have blind followers ask him what truth is.

He is right here though about karma being dependant on rebirth, because if there is no continuity there can be no absolute functioning of cause and effect relative to any individual's experience.

I'm not followiing your train of thought.
Please elaborate and clarify.

 

[Carcano]

I'm not following your train of thought.

Perhaps because you dont believe in the eternal continuity of an individual's experience...which is what traditional Indian ideas of karma are based on.

 

[one_raven]

Perhaps because you dont believe in the eternal continuity of an individual's experience...which is what traditional Indian ideas of karma are based on.

No.
I think it's your wording.
I have the capacity to grasp and understand things I do not necessarily believe in, and I have a pretty decent grasp of Vedic beliefs (though, admittedly, not nearly as well as I'd like to yet).
Please try and reword your explanation as to why karma can not exist without reincarnation (keeping my other posts in mind, of course).

 

[Carcano]

Please try and reword your explanation as to why karma can not exist without reincarnation (keeping my other posts in mind, of course).

You have a different definition of karma than the one emphasised in Buddhist thought.

Your meaning addresses the cause and effect of external circumstances in the same way that a physicist might analyze the motion of billiard balls or celestial bodies.

Its perfectly valid of course, but isnt relevant to the Buddhist notion...explained in great detail with Buddha's Doctrine of Dependant Origination.

 

[one_raven]

Your meaning addresses the cause and effect of external circumstances in the same way that a physicist might analyze the motion of billiard balls or celestial bodies.

You are mistaken about what I mean by karma.
It is most certainly not restricted to external forces.

 

[VitalOne]

Exactly.
Yes, IF you believe in the actuality of samsara, then most certainly they are absolutely inextricably intertwined.
There is no way to avoid or realistically argue that - which is why I am not trying to.

If you do not believe in the actuality of samsara, however, you can most certainly still believe in karma.

In fact, I don't even see karma as a "belief" I see it as a fact of nature.
It is simply the law of cause and effect viewed from an interpersonal perspective.

Another perversion (when will these hippies stop it), karma is a belief, and if you believe in it is a fact of nature. I believe in karma, and karma, rebirth, etc..are with or without evidence or belief IMHO......

How can you believe in karma and not samsara? Its like someone believing in angels but not God...sure its possible....

Samsara, on the other hand, IS a belief and requires faith from all those who have not expereinced it first hand through meditation (and some would even argue that faith would required still).

Which is why you could build an argument that you can not be a Buddhist if you do not believe in reincarnation - but not that you can not believe in larma if you do not believe in reincarnation.

Samsara doesn't require any faith at all. Anyone who has seen the truth can tell you that its true, and its the truth with or without faith, with or without belief. Otherwise, everything requires faith......

Well you're right, you can choose to believe only in karma and not rebirth, its possible....

Isn't that what Siddhartha wanted?
To accept what is reasonable and discard what is not reasonable to us?
Kill your parents. Kill your God. Kill your teacher.
He wanted to help guide people to truth, not have blind followers ask him what truth is.

No, its not what Siddartha wanted....when Siddartha told people not to believe things just because he said so, he said it because he didn't want blind followers, not so people can foolishly pervert his teachings because they think they know more than him....at the same time Gautama Buddha also said that he was the knower of the truth, having full of true knowledge, etc...and that someone with faith in him was a true seeker....

 

[SetiAlpha6]

does Jesus say to kill others? No, he doesn't, rather he teaches the opposite...

Well? Yes He actually does say to kill others! He upholds and declares as good the very Law which demands the death of anyone who fails to keep it. He even seems to regard it as wrong to not kill them. Just like His "Father" did before Him.

So to follow Jesus is to be forced to kill another person if they break the Law, or sin!

Of course, I strongly disagree with Him on this.

 

[one_raven]

Well? Yes He actually does say to kill others! He upholds and declares as good the very Law which demands the death of anyone who fails to keep it. He even seems to regard it as wrong to not kill them. Just like His "Father" did before Him.

So to follow Jesus is to be forced to kill another person if they break the Law, or sin!

Of course, I strongly disagree with Him on this.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[VitalOne]

Well? Yes He actually does say to kill others! He upholds and declares as good the very Law which demands the death of anyone who fails to keep it. He even seems to regard it as wrong to not kill them. Just like His "Father" did before Him.

So to follow Jesus is to be forced to kill another person if they break the Law, or sin!

Of course, I strongly disagree with Him on this.

No he doesn't....stop lying to yourself....

“Put your sword back in its place… for all who take the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:52-53)

 

[Enterprise-D]

Vitee

Other than the fact you're wrong about religions' lack of involvement in the list of wars, that list proves absolutely nothing of religions' innocence:
- There are many other wars that religion was a key factor in. These are explored in other threads, search it.
- You don't know if the leaders of the wars you listed had religious motivations at heart. Maybe they heard their god's blessing in their heads? You don't know. Maybe if they were logical people, unencumbered by the notion of fighting an ultimate evil, they'd realise negotiation is a lesser waste of resources for a mutually beneficial result.
- There are no such things as wars in the name of athiesm (yet). Communism, territorial struggles, money are not attributes of athiesm as much as you'd like to have people believe that as much as you do.

A lack of religion; lack of fear of a god; lack of fear of eternal combustion, does not mean that morals do not exist in athiests/agnostics. (To illustrate) developmentally speaking it is obvious to a logical thinking person that team effort for example is more advantageous than solitary effort. Therefore it will not be beneficial to say kill your colleagues. Criminal behaviour has other ramifications outside of being burned eternally (and by the by, being burned eternally would be ruled by our own legal system as "cruel and unusual punishment" just as an FYI).

I actually think that athiests as a group possess by far a greater moral matrix than theists as a group.