[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Simply put, the idea of karma was meant to encourage good behavior. It was also an observation that there is a cause and an effect in every action. Read his words, does he look like he supports violence?

If you get the general theme, all his teachings can fall under that theme.

And I'm not here to convince you idiots to join Buddhism. Just saying it makes much more sense than Christianity. Morally and scientifically.

So, let's get this straight. If my kids are killed in an earthquake it's not even my fault? It's because some past being of theirs did something bad by some arbitrary standard? At least in Christianity it would be my fault and there'd be some accountability like when queers cause hurricanes and taking prayer out of schools causes mass shootings. We know who is at fault for Jesus even needing to come to earth and die for our sins... Eve, and even Adam for believing her. If I sin I expect some retribution to me personally, like by one of my kids dying or something else bad happening to make me feel bad, maybe even something bad happening to me.

As you can see, it's all clear with Christianity... I mean, who is even keeping score with your silly karma system? There's not even really a god. It sounds like a bunch of unprovable lies to trick people into being afraid of dying and what's to come next in order to keep them obedient and not even aware who is pulling the strings. I bet those tricky guys in the robes get some free dinners out of it and loads of instant respect for their opinions... that's what's really going on here.

And you fell for it - a silly dot head trick!

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Hey! Dot head wannabe, explain to me what sort of things a kid could have done in his previous life to deserve being terrorised and shot in the head by a demon-possessed maniac.

Go on. Let's hear it. What sort of things, in your opinion? And what about a baby that's stillborn or dies within minutes of being born. How does it rack up any points for the next go around?

It's nonsense! Anyone can see it.

[Matthew Hopkins]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

All we need now is for a dumb Irish woman to comment.

YBIC

[Celtic Demons]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

There is an argument whether C14 (carbon 14) is an accurate test or not, carbon 14 is an isotope of C6 (carbon 6), the normal isotope for carbon. carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years meaning a single atom will last 11,460 years to decay (break down, collapse). that means if something is 10,000 y/o (still older than earth) the test is still "accurate". there are also other methods of dating like, Surface Exposure Dating, which is actually very accurate----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_dating
By the way you people are very narrow minded you should open up a bit, and that something is not very accurate doesn't mean that it is not accurate at all.

[Matthew Hopkins]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

All we need now is for a dumb Irish woman to comment.

YBIC

There is an argument whether C14 (carbon 14) is an accurate test or not, carbon 14 is an isotope of C6 (carbon 6), the normal isotope for carbon. carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years meaning a single atom will last 11,460 years to decay (break down, collapse). that means if something is 10,000 y/o (still older than earth) the test is still "accurate". there are also other methods of dating like, Surface Exposure Dating, which is actually very accurate----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_dating
By the way you people are very narrow minded you should open up a bit, and that something is not very accurate doesn't mean that it is not accurate at all.

Well, it seems that within 33 minutes, my prophecy was fulfilled.

Stop spewing your rancid trash in here, Jezebel. Your "science" is bunk. You make the distinction between "accurate" and "very accurate" in your hate-filled, Irish polemic. What is the difference between accurate and very accurate, in this context?

YBIC

[Didymus Much]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

...carbon 14 is an isotope of C6 (carbon 6), the normal isotope for carbon...

You mean carbon-12.

There are three naturally occurring isotopes, with 12C and 13C being stable, while 14C is radioactive, decaying with a half-life of about 5,730 years.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

note: the 12, 13 and 14 in the above should be superscripts, but I don't know how to do that with this forum software.

... carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years meaning a single atom will last 11,460 years to decay (break down, collapse).

No, it means that half of your original sample will decay over a period of about 5,730 years. There is no way to determine how long any individual atom will last.

... that means if something is 10,000 y/o (still older than earth) the test is still "accurate"...

But only up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years, definitely NOT useful for dating dinosaur fossils.

[Adam Fag]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Hey! Dot head wannabe, explain to me what sort of things a kid could have done in his previous life to deserve being terrorised and shot in the head by a demon-possessed maniac.

Go on. Let's hear it. What sort of things, in your opinion? And what about a baby that's stillborn or dies within minutes of being born. How does it rack up any points for the next go around?

It's nonsense! Anyone can see it.

No-one racks up points, do they? And the world goes straight down the tubes. As it has.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Bump! I see you are on the forum, Alkalai. Welcome back. Would you like to continue our discussion? I'd like to hear how you answer our questions about karma and reincarnation.

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Bump! I see you are on the forum, Alkalai. Welcome back. Would you like to continue our discussion? I'd like to hear how you answer our questions about karma and reincarnation.

Thanks. Could you repeat them so I don't have to read everything?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Thanks. Could you repeat them so I don't have to read everything?

You can read them for yourself, but:

I'd like to hear how you answer our questions about karma and reincarnation.

Basically, tell us how karma makes sense without reincarnation. You yourself said that buddha would have believed those children massacred in Connecticut had done something wrong in a past life. If those children didn't have a past life, why did they deserve to die? If they didn't deserve to die, how is karma real?

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

You can read them for yourself, but:



Basically, tell us how karma makes sense without reincarnation. You yourself said that buddha would have believed those children massacred in Connecticut had done something wrong in a past life. If those children didn't have a past life, why did they deserve to die? If they didn't deserve to die, how is karma real?

I never said they deserved to die. I think Buddha would've thought they deserved to die based only on our understanding of karma. Don't think he would've thought it based on what we know about his dislike of violence.

Don't think either of us fully understand his thoughts on karma, gonna go read up on that.

Now the reincarnation thing. I believe death is the end of the road. So this whole karma in the next life thing isn't part of my beliefs. I think karma occurs up to the point that we die with death being possibly included in the cause and effect cycle.

The children issue is different. I'm not sure yet how karma would apply to the children. I know that I don't think they deserved to get shot.

Buddha also teaches us not to believe based only on what we can observe. This applies to you people, listen to it.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

I never said they deserved to die. I think Buddha would've thought they deserved to die based only on our understanding of karma. Don't think he would've thought it based on what we know about his dislike of violence.

The children issue is different. I'm not sure yet how karma would apply to the children. I know that I don't think they deserved to get shot.

Well, you've got a problem here. The Connecticut shooting isn't an isolated incident. Things like this happen all the time. If a lot of people are suffering evil when they don't deserve it, how can karma be real?

Let me tell you why I think karma seems to be real to you sometimes. You've heard of the Golden Rule, right?

Lk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

This is a common-sense rule, and many other religions have borrowed it from Christianity. If you do good to others, generally they will be kind back to you. It seems as though you are getting what you deserve when they repay your kindness. Similarly, if you are unkind to others, they will tend to strike back at you.

Prov 30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.

This creates the illusion that bad things happen to bad people. But these are just general, common-sense rules. Virtually all religions accept these principles because they plagiarised them from Christianity. But sometimes things don't turn out as we expect.

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Most religions, except buddhism and maybe hinduism, accept this. Even a lot of atheists would accept these general common-sense rules. But these rules apply only to human interaction. What about acts of God, like natural disasters? We Christians can accept God sends disasters to punish people who deserve it. But how do you reconcile these events with karma?

People generally get what they deserve. But not always. Perhaps the reason you can't explain the deaths of those children is because karma is just an illusion. You are trying to turn something that is usually true into something that is always true (a universal truth). Don't you see you are denying reality?

Now the reincarnation thing. I believe death is the end of the road. So this whole karma in the next life thing isn't part of my beliefs. I think karma occurs up to the point that we die with death being possibly included in the cause and effect cycle.

Don't you think it's hypocritical to reject reincarnation but accept karma? If buddha's teaching is so seriously flawed that you have to reject large chunks of it, why do you accept it all? What use is it to you or anyone?

Buddha also teaches us not to believe based only on what we can observe.

Why are you so keen on science, then? You've rejected much of buddhism on the basis that it is unscientific or illogical.

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Well, you've got a problem here. The Connecticut shooting isn't an isolated incident. Things like this happen all the time. If a lot of people are suffering evil when they don't deserve it, how can karma be real?

Let me tell you why I think karma seems to be real to you sometimes. You've heard of the Golden Rule, right?

Lk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

This is a common-sense rule, and many other religions have borrowed it from Christianity. If you do good to others, generally they will be kind back to you. It seems as though you are getting what you deserve when they repay your kindness. Similarly, if you are unkind to others, they will tend to strike back at you.

Prov 30:33 Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.

This creates the illusion that bad things happen to bad people. But these are just general, common-sense rules. Virtually all religions accept these principles because they plagiarised them from Christianity. But sometimes things don't turn out as we expect.

Eccl 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Most religions, except buddhism and maybe hinduism, accept this. Even a lot of atheists would accept these general common-sense rules. But these rules apply only to human interaction. What about acts of God, like natural disasters? We Christians can accept God sends disasters to punish people who deserve it. But how do you reconcile these events with karma?

People generally get what they deserve. But not always. Perhaps the reason you can't explain the deaths of those children is because karma is just an illusion. You are trying to turn something that is usually true into something that is always true (a universal truth). Don't you see you are denying reality?



Don't you think it's hypocritical to reject reincarnation but accept karma? If buddha's teaching is so seriously flawed that you have to reject large chunks of it, why do you accept it all? What use is it to you or anyone?



Why are you so keen on science, then? You've rejected much of buddhism on the basis that it is unscientific or illogical.

Generally is pretty key. It's a possibility and its applicable usually but not always. Also, I'm floating somewhere in between Buddhism and atheism, which is why I reject parts of it. Not exactly an atheist, which is why I didn't answer atheist to your religion question.

Natural disasters can be explained logically with science much better than with religion.

The observing thing. Again, see the scientific method. They're obviously not just observing.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Generally is pretty key. It's a possibility and its applicable usually but not always. Also, I'm floating somewhere in between Buddhism and atheism, which is why I reject parts of it. Not exactly an atheist, which is why I didn't answer atheist to your religion question.

Not exactly an atheist? Do you believe in God or not?

An agnostic is someone who claims they don't know whether God (or a god) exists. If you don't know whether God exists, then you don't believe in Him. If you don't believe in God (or any god), you'd have to call yourself an atheist.

Of course, everyone knows deep down that God really exists.

[Didymus Much]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

...An agnostic is someone who claims they don't know whether God (or a god) exists...

Close, but not quite, though most people misuse the word in exactly the same way (and I don't think this is the time or place for the "do people make the language or do dictionaries" argument).

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t

It's not that that they don't know, it's that we can't know.

...Not exactly an atheist, which is why I didn't answer atheist to your religion question...

You're an atheist who either 1) still harbours doubt, 2) doesn't want to offend (yet still offends by being wishy-washy), 3) hasn't bothered thinking about it long enough to decide what you truly believe, or 4) is afraid of the term "atheist". So a weak atheist, where I'm a strong atheist.

At the same time, I'm still a bit agnostic, in that I hold that gods could exist because we cannot conclusively prove that they don't (like you cannot prove that there's not an invisible pink unicorn looking over my shoulder as I type this).

In the absence of proof, there is only belief, and due to mine, I live my life as if gods do not exist, and if you do the same, you're atheist.