| Slimebeast said:
I addressed a couple of separate things in my first post and it stuck through the whole thread of argumentation. 1. Mainly I wanted to adress that I think the thread maker's question is irrelevant, or should I say unnecessary, overrated or clichéd and something I personally am tired of. The question if a certain philosophy is more "useful" or "good" than the other is not so interesting. Because to me, that question, while there's aspects of it that are sometimes worth to discuss, is not the main thing when I try to relate to a philosophy or religion. Time and time again we hear "Christianity is destructive to mankind because of the Crusades and whatnot" while Bhuddism gets a free ride because it's more innocent. The OP clearly insinuates that it's more legitimate to hold a karmic belief than an Abrahamic belief and he is using the "usefulness" argument, which I think is flawed from the very start. So I wanted to adress that right off the bat. 2. I dismissed the karmic justice belief system in relation to Christianity in a sweeping manner. I didn't do that out of accident though and it wasn't meant as an insult. There was thought behind it. First, to simply claim that "Christianity is true" sounds on the surface just like primitive bible thumping, which I also admitted to. But that's just one side of it. That claim in its simplicity also includes theological truths.But more about that some other time. Second, to use logic and reason as an argument to dismiss Karmic justice versus Christianity. Again I did it in a sweeping manner without going into depth. It was just meant as a broad claim, the detailed arguments - the evidence for my claim - would be for a later time. You can use a sweeping argument to raise awareness and I did that. 3. Now you propose all possible deities as alternatives to Christianity. That's perfectly legitimate. I only wanted to adress Christianity versus Karmic justice though, in line with the OP. It connects to my first reaction, that the question of religion primarily hasn't so much to do with how "useful" a certain religion is, but how likely it is to be true. For a sociologist or politician it might be the other way around, but obviously for people pondering deeply on matters of faith, existence and worldview, the main question is whether something is true or not. So why do I claim it's more logical for one religion to be true than another? In this case Christianity vs Buddhism. It's a huge topic and as I said I quickly wanted to raise awareness of a principle. Sometimes religion debates are seen as faith versus science, or religion versus atheism. Yes, but it's also religion versus religion. Just like you say, out of all those gods out there, what reason do I have for choosing the Christian God? It's like I said a huge topic and needs its own thread, but I just wanted to express my opinion that Christianity is much more grounded in reality than the belief in karmic justice is (the Western interpretation of Buddism, that's what the OP laid out for us). Both beliefs (Christianity and Karmic justice) share one trait. The naive, childish hope that there exists something supernatural to counter the evil and dysharmony of our world. And I admitted to that. There's no doubt about that. But in my opinion both beliefs also differ in their likelyhood of being true. Now for an atheist that might sound like an outrageous statement since all religion is based on delusion. Well, thats his problem. Obviously one can evaluate any belief system for its probability of being true, especially if you are a "seeker". As best as we can, obviousy, because we are limited. And we do that with all theories, with all worldviews. So that claim is not outrageous in itself. I often ponder how people who are inclined to Bhuddist ideas, how they can believe in that. What evidence and factors do they invoke to get that idea? I don't know of many (that's why I also threw a question about it to ultima as a challenge). One key difference between Christianity and Bhuddism is that one has a personal almighty creator as an explanation while the other has a vague life force who brings order and balance to the world. I can't believe in a nameless lifeforce. A God is much more logical and a Christian God is even more probable to be true than the simple existense of karmic justice. |
Claims require evidence, through empiricism or rational argument.
You've made claims with absolutely no substantiation. You constantly assert things blindly with no basis other than "I believe this over this." That's great, but don't pretend it's logical unless you can demonstrate that you've utilized rationalizations to draw a conclusion.
Not to be reductive, but it seems as though you find a god more likely than a force. Feel free to expand upon that extrapolation, but again I saw no argument for why this is. You have to accept many more outlandish things for one than the other.
Both beliefs (Christianity and Karmic justice) share one trait. The naive, childish hope that there exists something supernatural to counter the evil and dysharmony of our world. And I admitted to that. There's no doubt about that.
I'm glad you can admit this, but now I am unsure what your beliefs are. If you recognize they are naive and childish, how can you possibly argue they are logical?
But in my opinion both beliefs also differ in their likelyhood of being true. Now for an atheist that might sound like an outrageous statement since all religion is based on delusion.
No, an atheist evaluates all claims separately. As opposed to what theists do - know their position is true, THEN find arguments against other ones. That being said, the likelyhood of either belief, while arguably different, is rather close to 0. Pascal's Wager dictates no one pay either claim any mind.
