Therenis NO God

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
posted by Fear:

"You probably haven't read any of his big "what I believe" discertations that he posts every once in a while. He believes that all living beings are sparks from an impersonal godhead, and that we reincarnate over an over until we gain spiritual enlightenment an become reunited with the godhead.

Also, the system of 'karma' that Buddhists subscribe to is a belief, as unproven and 'out there' as anything in the Bible, - you wont find it in any science books. Andy cannot claim superiority here.

You will find the law of cause and effect referred to in science books-for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.Karma is simply the law of cause and effect.In any case Buddha did not elaborate greatly on the metaphysical aspects of his system of philosophy and instead placed greater emphasis on the importance of overcoming suffering in this life by adhering to the moral precepts which he laid out.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
BatEl - Andy J is trying to 'look down' on Fear's beliefs from the standpoint of an objective rationalist, free from the taint of faith and superstition himself. Hence the 'superiority'. However as we can see, Buddhism is hardly the purely rational, belief free standpoint that he would have us think.

Buddha taught his followers to believe nothing which does not conform to logic and common sense.He even told them to disbelieve the words of the most enlightened teachers if they found them to be illogical.It is fundamental to Buddhism that the onus is solely on the individual to seek their own inner peace and spiritual truth rather than blindly follow the teachings of a saviour or a holy book.

[-Sigurd-]

You will find the law of cause and effect referred to in science books-for every action there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.Karma is simply the law of cause and effect.

Andy J - I don't recall seeing the law of cause and effect described as synonymous with the law of Karma in any science books. The law of cause and effect is a general physical principle...we know it is valid from making careful observations of nature. The law of Karma moves this idea from the physical sphere to the moral...a metaphysical leap not justified by any observations whatsoever. It is just a speculation about how the world might be organised at a moral level...it is in no way to be confused with the physical principle of cause and effect. One does not justify the other.

Now you may argue that it is not an illogical belief to hold, but it is certainly a belief. This puts you in exactly the same place as Fear - a person who holds beliefs that he is arguing are not illogical and do not contradict known facts, in spite of the lack of positive evidence for them.

[ANDY-J2]

Sigurd,
Those who lack a thorough understanding of Karma often like to dismiss it as a superstition however no true Buddhist will believe in anything which is not based on certain universally accepted criteria of knowledge i.e.personal experience,reason and testimony or tradition.In my personal experience people tend to reap the consequences of their actions-those who cause suffering to others will invariably themselves endure suffering as a result of their actions.A belief in Karma is sound and logical given that science tells us that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction-and in fact in eastern philosophy karma and cause and effect are synonymous.Finally there is testimony from spiritual teachers (Yogis) who claim to have a recollection of their former incarnations and therefore have some insight into the workings of Karmic law.Of course it is a matter of personal choice how much credence one attaches to the testimony of an eastern mystic but given that they eschew all material possesions and live an ascetic lifestyle they have no reason to lie-they cannot profit materially from giving a false testimony.Now given those facts I would suggest that there is a world of difference between holding a belief in Karma and holding the beliefs of an orthodox christian.Orthodox christians believe in demons and miracles in spite of the fact that these phenomena do not conform to the natural laws which science tells us govern our universe-does karma contradict any scientific law?No,in fact modern science has supported many Buddhist teachings such as karma as well as those teachings referring to the relationship between matter and energy.Christians base their beliefs solely on the third of the above mentioned criteria-testimony and that is the testimony contained in a holy scripture which was written over two thousand years ago and is largely of uncertain authorship.There really can be no comparison.From a logical viewpoint a belief in Karma is perfectly sound-the same definitely cannot be said about the beliefs which many orthodox christians hold.Substitutionary atonemnent and material rewards in an illusory afterlife are mere deluded fantasies-there is no logical reason to believe that they have any validity.There are no deluded fantasies in Buddhism,only coherent and logical beliefs which are perfectly in harmony with the findings of modern science.

[-Sigurd-]

A belief in Karma is sound and logical given that science tells us that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction-and in fact in eastern philosophy karma and cause and effect are synonymous

This is very much like reading one of Fears replies. The difference is that Fear is aware of his role as a religious apologist, whereas you are not. Belief in Karma -cause and effect at the level of human morality and experience, somehow hard wired into the fabric of the physical universe, is as I said, a metaphysical leap, especially when combined as it usually is with the idea of reincarnation, because while we can observe, measure and predict cause and effect relationships at the physical level, we simply can't do this at the level of human morality and experience.

Anecdotes are not evidence - you would have to be blind not to see all the gross injustices ...all the cases where the law of karma seems to have been grossly violated.

If we balance these cases with further conjectures (evil acts committed in past lives in reincarnation scenarios, etc) then we can 'explain' that, but this takes us even further away from an outlook based on observable facts. As I said, you can still claim that you ideas are not illogical, but you cant claim that nature provides any evidence of it. And again, this puts you in a similar position to Fear, arguing for the feasibility of your spiritual beliefs.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
There are religions based on practice and those which are based on belief.Buddhism is one of the latter while Christianity is one of the former.

I would argue the opposite, as Buddhism is based on the philosophical precepts of the religion's founder, Siddhartha Guatama, whereas Christianity is, or at least claims to be, based on actual historical events (Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection). That's why you see Luke detailing his method of historical inquiry to Theophilus at the beginning of his Gospel. That's why John pounds it into your head that he is testifying to real things that he himself saw. That's why Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1:16-18)

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
The foundation of Buddhism is that right practice and right thinking can lead one to a state of enlightened consciousness where one can escape the suffering which is an inherent part of human existence.

Then you attain "Nirvana," which differs from the Christian Heaven only in that it is the absense of desire, as opposed to the perfection of desire, and that you become unified with an impersonal god, as opposed to a personal one. I find it philosophically inferior.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
If I my belief system is a religion then it is a religion without a personal God,without any superstition and without any complex theology or illusory rewards or punishments in a make believe afterlife.

Why is Nirvana any less illusiory than Heaven? If you were arguing for the superiority of Buddhist eschatology over Muslim eschatology, I would be sympathetic, as the Muslim heaven glorifies sensual indulgence. However, the Christian Heaven is just about as austere as Nirvana. All you get to do is praise God and pray for the Church militant and the Church suffering (Protestants will object to that second part).

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Buddha taught his followers to believe nothing which does not conform to logic and common sense.

Likewise did Jesus add the mind to the list of organs with which we must love God. Christians aren't supposed to believe anything irrational either.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
It is fundamental to Buddhism that the onus is solely on the individual to seek their own inner peace and spiritual truth rather than blindly follow the teachings of a saviour or a holy book.

Likewise is it fundamental to Arminian Christianity (all denominations except Calvinist ones) that the onus is on the individual to accept God's grace with the full consent of his will, to continually repent of his sins, and to "work out [his] salvation with fear and trembling." And in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the onus is on the individual to persevere in works of charity until the moment of death.