Therenis NO God

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
As I have stated previously I have the highest regard for Christ's moral teachings however surely from an intellectual viewpoint certain orthodox christian doctrines must be regarded as dubious.I have never witnessed a man turning water into wine or healing a blind man and I don't know anyone who has and to me therefore it does not seem rational to believe that Jesus actually performed such miracles.

However, after a small amount of investigation you can read of tumors vanishing and ear bones reconstructing themselves.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
So why then do christians habitually use such phrases as Christ will wash away our sins-surely this is what many christians literally believe?Buddhism rejects all such notions and teaches that salvation can only be attained through accepting responsibility for one's own sinfulness.

It is an article of faith that Christ atoned for our sins through His death and resurrection. The Bible is clear on this point. That's where we get such phrases as "His blood washes away our sins," "He gave His life as a ransom for many" and "by death He conquered death." However, what the Bible does not say is exactly how He accomplished this atonement. Theologians are free to postulate on this point.

Substitutionary atonement is the most common paradigm among Protestant theologians. They believe that it is possible for God to legally transfer the guilt of sin from one person to another. So, when Jesus was on the cross, God legally imputed the guilt of sin of all the predestined elect onto Him, then poured out His wrath on Him until it was satisfied. This doctrine boils down to vicarious punishment, that is, that God punished Christ instead of us. I reject this view.

Christus Victor is basically the idea that Jesus willingly allowed Satan to take Him into his prison so He could knock it down from the inside. This is my favorite theory of the atonement, though it certainly does not contain the full truth.

St. Anslem's Satisfaction Theory is that sin puts us in debt to God, and that it always requires some payment for redemption. However, nothing humans could offer to God, whether good works or obedience to the law, was enough to fully redeem us of our sinful natures. So, God payed Himself with Himself i.e Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. This view is certainly in line with all the Old Testament types and predictions of Christ's atonement, most notably Isaiah 53, and also in line with Jesus' own description of Himself as the "lamb of God." However, the fact that Jesus atoned for our sins does not eliminate personal responsibility, as the onus is on the individual to accept Christ as his eternal sacrifice and eternal priest in heaven, to repent of his own sins, and to not repeat them.

But out of all the ways God could have atonened for our sins and redeemed us, why did He pick this one? That's where theologians glean a few gems from the Moral Influence Theory. God chose this method so that, by living and teaching among us, as one of us, He could best communicate His moral laws, and He could give us a living example of how He wanted us to live. Now all Christians are to strive to imitate Christ to the best of their abilities, even to the point of death.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
In fact given that the world we inhabit tends to be characterised by wastage and brutality on an enormous scale surely it is more plausible to believe that there is in fact no God or if there is one must question his moral goodness.

As for wastage: our God is not an efficient God but a superabundant God.

As for brutality: you should read a book on theodicy, such as The Problem of Pain or When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

[-Sigurd-]

The trouble with relying on subjective accounts as 'evidence' is that the same arguments can be used to promote belief in just about anything, if we accept what some plausible seeming person says:

I believe in Karma primarily because there are enlightened spiritual teachers living today who claim to have a recollection of their previous incarnations-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people?I find the idea of reincarnation plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of reincarnation,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.

How about this:

'I believe in alien abduction primarily because there are reliable, upstanding members of the community with no history of mental instability of dishonesty living today who claim to have a recollection of their abductions-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people? I find the idea of alien abduction plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of the phenomenon,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.'

Another variation -

'I believe in miracles primarily because there are'....you get the idea.

In short, you believe in karma and reincarnation primarily because of the personal testimony of certain charismatic and revered individuals...this is a form of 'revelation' that is common in religion and absent in science.

Buddhism is not science or pure philosophy; the scientific world at large is in no doubt that Karma is a spiritual belief as much as belief in miracles. Not only that - but these beliefs are based in - essentially - the same kind of revelation based epistemology as Fears Christian beliefs.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
The trouble with relying on subjective accounts as 'evidence' is that the same arguments can be used to promote belief in just about anything, if we accept what some plausible seeming person says:

I believe in Karma primarily because there are enlightened spiritual teachers living today who claim to have a recollection of their previous incarnations-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people?I find the idea of reincarnation plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of reincarnation,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.

How about this:

'I believe in alien abduction primarily because there are reliable, upstanding members of the community with no history of mental instability of dishonesty living today who claim to have a recollection of their abductions-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people? I find the idea of alien abduction plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of the phenomenon,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.'

Another variation -

'I believe in miracles primarily because there are'....you get the idea.

In short, you believe in karma and reincarnation primarily because of the personal testimony of certain charismatic and revered individuals...this is a form of 'revelation' that is common in religion and absent in science.

Buddhism is not science or pure philosophy; the scientific world at large is in no doubt that Karma is a spiritual belief as much as belief in miracles. Not only that - but these beliefs are based in - essentially - the same kind of revelation based epistemology as Fears Christian beliefs.

Sigurd,
If there were scientific research which provided solid evidence to support alien abductions then it would be wrong of me to dismiss such allegations as the ramblings of mere lunatics.However as there has been scientific research into the possibility of reincarnation which has provided compelling evidence if not absolute proof that it actually occurs it gives support to the testimony of those eastern mystics who claim to have lived in previous incarnations.Given that I accept the integrity of such people I would tend to believe that their testimony is truthful however that in itself would be insufficient to make me accept without reservation that reincarnation and karma were real phenomena,which is where I differ fundamentally from orthodox christians-testimony by itself is not enough.However when that testimony is given credence by the research of independent scientists who have no connection with Buddhism or any interest in eastern philosophy then that is sufficient for me to hold a belief in karma and reincarnation.Show me any independent scientific support for miracles and I might accept that you have a valid argument.Buddhist philosophy encourages adherents to subject their beliefs to the same rigorous scrutiny that scientists employ and to reject anything which does not conform to logic and basic common sense and it therefore differs fundamentally from other systems of belief which actively encourage adherents to accept testimony merely on faith.

[-Sigurd-]

Sigurd,
If there were scientific research which provided solid evidence to support alien abductions then it would be wrong of me to dismiss such allegations as the ramblings of mere lunatics.

There is no solid or compelling evidence of reincarnation resulting from scientific research, any more than there is solid evidence of miracles or alien abductions. In each of these cases nothing has been found that does not have a far more convincing alternative explanation. Also, belief in reincarnation implies belief in a non physical soul, capable of inhabiting different bodies - a concept that is not compatible with the picture of the world given to us by science. But perfectly at home in the religious sphere.

However when that testimony is given credence by the research of independent scientists who have no connection with Buddhism or any interest in eastern philosophy then that is sufficient for me to hold a belief in karma and reincarnation.

And what scientific books shall we read to learn about these new laws of karma and reincarnation? This is where we have to make a distinction between what is scientific consensus, and what are the opinions of a few scientists on the fringes holding unorthodox opinions. And before you reply that the greatest geniuses often seem out of step with 'consensus' - sure that is true but by far the greatest majority of 'unorthodox scientists' are basically flakes.

There may be some scientists who are impressed by 'evidence' of reincarnation - but remember there are some western scientists who apparently believe in miracles of the Koran, not to mention the Bible. The victorian spiritualism movement would have been nothing without those gullible scientists who were impressed by evidence supporting the beliefs of that group - helping to make them seem more plausible to the general public than they really were.

The bottom line here is that if there was real scientific evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion Andy. It seems that your 'compelling evidence' is only compelling to the Buddhist community - not the scientific community generally.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

I think the evidence he's talking about is people who describe past lives while under hypnotic regression. Sometimes the descriptions correspond to real people who died before they were born, but it could just be coincidence.

I find the evidence for miraculous cures such as those at Lourdes far more compelling.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
Sigurd,
If there were scientific research which provided solid evidence to support alien abductions then it would be wrong of me to dismiss such allegations as the ramblings of mere lunatics.

There is no solid or compelling evidence of reincarnation resulting from scientific research, any more than there is solid evidence of miracles or alien abductions. In each of these cases nothing has been found that does not have a far more convincing alternative explanation. Also, belief in reincarnation implies belief in a non physical soul, capable of inhabiting different bodies - a concept that is not compatible with the picture of the world given to us by science. But perfectly at home in the religious sphere.

Sigurd,
The above clearly indicates how ill informed you are about this question because in fact there is a wealth of evidence for reincarnation which has been gleaned from various sources but in particular the case studies of those who claim to have a recollection of previous lives.These case studies have been carried out using rigorous scientific techniques and the evidence which they have provided to support the case for reincarnation is compelling and while your personal opinion is that all of these investigations are flawed-everyone involved is either lying or deluded (which in my book makes you every bit as misguided as the most orthodox christian)- it is the opinion of countless well educated psychologists,academics and scientists who are not in the habit of accepting such things on a whim,that there is a valid argument for rebirth.Rebirth is in fact what Buddhists believe in,not reincarnation,but you are unaware of this fact and you are also unaware that there is no such thing in Buddhist philosophy as a "non physical soul"-maybe you should do your homework on Buddhist practice and belief before you so glibly dismiss it.Listed below are two works which provide support for reincarnation.I have however also read various works which provide arguments against reincarnation however I am satisfied that there is indeed a solid case to support the idea that we live more than once.






However when that testimony is given credence by the research of independent scientists who have no connection with Buddhism or any interest in eastern philosophy then that is sufficient for me to hold a belief in karma and reincarnation.

And what scientific books shall we read to learn about these new laws of karma and reincarnation? This is where we have to make a distinction between what is scientific consensus, and what are the opinions of a few scientists on the fringes holding unorthodox opinions. And before you reply that the greatest geniuses often seem out of step with 'consensus' - sure that is true but by far the greatest majority of 'unorthodox scientists' are basically flakes.

There may be some scientists who are impressed by 'evidence' of reincarnation - but remember there are some western scientists who apparently believe in miracles of the Koran, not to mention the Bible. The victorian spiritualism movement would have been nothing without those gullible scientists who were impressed by evidence supporting the beliefs of that group - helping to make them seem more plausible to the general public than they really were.

The bottom line here is that if there was real scientific evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion Andy. It seems that your 'compelling evidence' is only compelling to the Buddhist community - not the scientific community generally.

Well you haven't provided one shred of textual evidence to support your argument that scientific consensus is opposed to the idea of reincarnation-that isn't what you know to be true,that is what you would like to think were true.In fact there are as many scientists who accept the evidence for reincarnation as there are who oppose it and given that the works of researchers such as Dr.Ian Stevenson are worldwide best sellers it is clearly not only the Buddhist community who are impressed by such studies.A recent survey of American christians indicated that increasing numbers are coming to believe in reincarnation and that in a country where religious orthodoxy is the dominant system of belief.In fact the bottom line is that a belief in reincarnation and it's related doctrine of karma is becoming increasingly widespread throughout western society,or is that something else which you are going to dismiss out of hand?It is becoming more popular precisely because there is an ever increasing amount of solid evidence which supports it.What you have tried to do throughout this thread is compare chalk and cheese.You have tried to make a comparison between orthodox christianity which is based on the doctrine of justification by faith alone with Buddhist philosophy which requires it's adherents to believe nothing which does not conform to logic and reason.You have argued that scientific consensus is opposed to the idea of reincarnation,but have provided no evidence to support this.The two systems of belief differ fundamentally and there is no paradox with me holding a belief in the validity of certain precepts of Buddhist philosophy which,as I have shown are supported both by personal testimony and the findings of numerous scientists (not just flakes,although I have read a few who fall into that category),and criticising certain christian doctrines as being illogical and superstitious.I wonder how many academics you can find who support the idea of original sin or vicarious atonement for example?A whole lot less than support the idea of karma and reincarnation that's for sure.



Schroder,Tom(1999). Old souls-the scientific evidence for past lives. (ISBN 0-684-85192-X).Provides some compelling evidence because Schroder was a sceptical journalist who therefore provides an objective and unbiased account of various case studies however he subsequently became convinced of the reality of reincarnation.

Stevenson,Ian(1997).Where reincarnation and biology intersect.(ISBN 0-275-95189-8).
Stevenson is the most prolific writer on reincarnation and he applies rigorous scientific techniques to his study.Stevenson has investigated thousands of cases throughout the world and his findings are not dismissed by the scientific community and certainly no one dismisses him as a "flake".The following website outlines some of his work and examines the evidence for reincarnation and has numerous links to other sources dealing with the issue.

http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm
I suggest you browse through it and then decide if you still believe that the evidence for rebirth is non-existent.