Religion, what's the point?

[Silva]

That doesn't prove any god doesn't exist. Just proves he is evil if he does.

I mean testing us to get into heaven is one thing, but testing it on innocent children is an entirely different league, and I struggle to understand any mindset that would brush over such a thing to still claim God loves us. It's ok, it's a test. That kind of thinking just doesn't sit right with me at all, how can people who claim to devote their lives to the good not only turn a blind eye to so much evil, but also when questioned and made to acknowledge it, make excuses for it.

Again, specific gods. The Abrahamic one is supposed to be all powerful, all loving and omnipresent. That god doesn't match the world we find ourselves in. A god who is either evil or indifferent to his creation matches the world much better.

The apologists defence is usually the free will argument, but no one wills cancer or parasites.

 

[McUnited]

1) We've been over this. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god. So yes, we're all born atheist. No child has ever been born believing in a god. No one has ever been a Christian without being taught about Christianity by other Christians. Same goes for other religions. Which leads nicely into point 2

2) Agreed to a point. If an atheist has children and chooses to actively 'indoctrinate' their children into atheism then it's comparable. However, if an atheist raises a child and never mentions the word atheism, but doesn't bring their child to any church/temple etc., if they just live their lives as normal, exactly as you or any other religious person does, except for the prayer and church going then there is a massive chance that child will grow up atheist. Not because the parent has raised the child to be atheist, but simply because the child has not got the chance to be indoctrinated into any religion. That is not comparable to a religious parent raising their child to be the same religion as them.

3) You've lost me a bit. But feel free to expand and I'll reply.

1) a. We'll have to disagree on the definition. I don't see how're you're differentiating between atheism and agnosticism. Your definition seems to encompass a number of positions.

b. of course no child has ever been born believing in a God. This proves nothing. No child was ever born believing the sun will rise tomorrow, or with the concept of gravity, but that doesn't mean those things aren't true.

2) I'm not sure this is true. I think someone hypothetically being raised on an island by deaf and mute carers may come to believe in a God. Though of course they wouldn't come to believe in any particular one.

3) Saying that Christian belief is passed on through indoctrination says nothing about the truth of the belief itself.

 

[McUnited]

How can you prove God doesn't exist ?

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

 

[McUnited]

It's not difficult to prove specific gods don't exist. i.e, every god who loves us goes out of the window when toddlers die of cancer, or have their eyes gnawed by a parasite.

The problem of evil is certainly troubling, but several solutions have been put forward by various philosophers. To dismiss the possibility out of hand the existence of God on the basis of the existence of evil seems a little trigger-happy.

 

[McUnited]

Again, specific gods. The Abrahamic one is supposed to be all powerful, all loving and omnipresent. That god doesn't match the world we find ourselves in. A god who is either evil or indifferent to his creation matches the world much better.

The apologists defence is usually the free will argument, but no one wills cancer or parasites.

Who is willing cancer and parasites?

 

[jackofalltrades]

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Something ? Such as what ? This thread is about religion (and God) and for the past few pages that has been the issue.

 

[Silva]

The problem of evil is certainly troubling, but several solutions have been put forward by various philosophers. To dismiss the possibility out of hand the existence of God on the basis of the existence of evil seems a little trigger-happy.

I'm dismissing your god, specifically. Not the vague idea of a creator or creators. The solutions are flat out stupid.

Who is willing cancer and parasites?

No one. That's the point. They exist, and cannot exist in a world with an all powerful, all loving omnipresent god.

 

[Redlambs]

1) a. We'll have to disagree on the definition. I don't see how're you're differentiating between atheism and agnosticism. Your definition seems to encompass a number of positions.

b. of course no child has ever been born believing in a God. This proves nothing. No child was ever born believing the sun will rise tomorrow, or with the concept of gravity, but that doesn't mean those things aren't true.

But we can prove the existence of the sun and gravity, they affect all our lives, hence why they should be taught. God is a belief, not a truth, and is it not pushing that belief on young minds? Have you ever questioned what if your religion is wrong (not specifically God doesn't exist), how it has changed the world and billions of lives over the years all for nothing?

2) I'm not sure this is true. I think someone hypothetically being raised on an island by deaf and mute carers may come to believe in a God. Though of course they wouldn't come to believe in any particular one.

I do agree with this. Though that then goes against the point of a religion. After all, if people can get into heaven just by believing in a god, what's the point in Christianity at all? Surely there's no need for people to drum a message into those who will find god on their own, and that is the point of God's test?

3) Saying that Christian belief is passed on through indoctrination says nothing about the truth of the belief itself.

But it does speak volumes about the intentions though. After all, if you indoctrinate someone based on your personal belief, can that not be seen as having an effect on free will and indeed pure faith?

 

[McUnited]

Something ? Such as what ? This thread is about religion (and God) and for the past few pages that has been the issue.

It's quite a common argument - that you can't disprove the existence of God because it's impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist. It was brought up a few times in this thread.

 

[Silva]

It's not impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Be it santa, the tooth fairy or Abrahams god. You can take the claims they make and test them on the world. Indifferent creators are what you can't disprove, because there's no phenomenological or mathematical difference between a world where they exist or don't exist. But there is a difference between our world and one where santa exists, or the tooth fairy exists, or the Abrahamic god exists.

Deism is what makes no testable claims. Theism makes hundreds of them.

 

[McUnited]

But we can prove the existence of the sun and gravity, they affect all our lives, hence why they should be taught. God is a belief, not a truth, and is it not pushing that belief on young minds? Have you ever questioned what if your religion is wrong (not specifically God doesn't exist), how it has changed the world and billions of lives over the years all for nothing?




I do agree with this. Though that then goes against the point of a religion. After all, if people can get into heaven just by believing in a god, what's the point in Christianity at all? Surely there's no need for people to drum a message into those who will find god on their own, and that is the point of God's test?




But it does speak volumes about the intentions though. After all, if you indoctrinate someone based on your personal belief, can that not be seen as having an effect on free will and indeed pure faith?

1) Does not religion affect the lives of those they touch?

2) God isn't a belief. Belief in God is a belief.

3) Some people, such as myself, 'push' this belief on their children because they've come to this belief based upon evidence and reason, even though they've been brought up in an atheistic environment. I admit some do not.

4) Yes, I may be wrong. Have you questioned what the consequences are if you're wrong?

 

[RexHamilton]

1) a. We'll have to disagree on the definition. I don't see how're you're differentiating between atheism and agnosticism. Your definition seems to encompass a number of positions.

b. of course no child has ever been born believing in a God. This proves nothing. No child was ever born believing the sun will rise tomorrow, or with the concept of gravity, but that doesn't mean those things aren't true.

2) I'm not sure this is true. I think someone hypothetically being raised on an island by deaf and mute carers may come to believe in a God. Though of course they wouldn't come to believe in any particular one.

3) Saying that Christian belief is passed on through indoctrination says nothing about the truth of the belief itself.

1) a) OK. Agree to disagree on the definition so.

B) You're right. Children learn. They naturally soak in information. So if we surround them with a certain religion from an early age telling them it is true, chances are they will believe it. If we, as parents, tell them the earth is flat, they'll believe it. If we tell them the earth is the centre of the universe, or that Santa is real, they'll believe it. But these are assertions they can research when they're old enough and see that they are not true. If we tell them that men turned water into wine and parted sees because of divine magic and miracles and that the all powerful creator is watching our every move and that we have to have faith in these things, then even though they are as ridiculous as the flat earth theory, they are harder to shake.

2) I said "there is a massive chance they will grow up atheist", not that it was impossible to become religious. History shows us that people want to believe in something. Wanting to believe in something doesn't make it true.

3) OK. Maybe you're right. But if the only way to ensure the religion survives is to indoctrinate children then it doesn't say much for the actual message. I've yet to see a religion not want to set up its own faith schools and target children. It doesn't say much for the message when you need to get members on board at their most naive and vulnerable age rather than wait for them to make up their minds as adults.

 

[McUnited]

It's not impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Be it santa, the tooth fairy or Abrahams god. You can take the claims they make and test them on the world. Indifferent creators are what you can't disprove, because there's no phenomenological or mathematical difference between a world where they exist or don't exist. But there is a difference between our world and one where santa exists, or the tooth fairy exists, or the Abrahamic god exists.

Aha. So would you say you're an atheist in the sense that you believe the proposition that there is no God? Or are you an atheist in the sense of RexHamilton, in that you lack the belief that there is a God, but don't assert that there is no God?

 

[RexHamilton]

3) Some people, such as myself, 'push' this belief on their children because they've come to this belief based upon evidence and reason, even though they've been brought up in an atheistic environment. I admit some do not.

Evidence and reason are some of atheists' favourite words. We'd be delighted for you to share this evidence.

 

[Silva]

Aha. So would you say you're an atheist in the sense that you believe the proposition that there is no God? Or are you an atheist in the sense of RexHamilton, in that you lack the belief that there is a God, but don't assert that there is no God?

In the sense that the specific proposed gods are testable and false. And nonspecific gods are identical to there not being one. I don't assert there's nothing outside time and space, but I would assert that anyone who knows what's outside the universe is probably chatting shit*.

*To various degrees of shit, at least the multiverse mathematicians have done the maths and may prove to be true.

 

[Redlambs]

1) Does not religion affect the lives of those they touch?

Religion does, but you specifically said "God". Nice try at a swerve there!

2) God isn't a belief. Belief in God is a belief.

So what is God then, a fact?

3) Some people, such as myself, 'push' this belief on their children because they've come to this belief based upon evidence and reason, even though they've been brought up in an atheistic environment. I admit some do not.

If you had evidence, the whole world would believe in God. You have faith and belief.

4) Yes, I may be wrong. Have you questioned what the consequences are if you're wrong?

Yes, I'll get into heaven either way. But I won't have been part of a mass group that has changed the planet around them all based on some man written words. It's interesting you ignore the free will part of my post btw. After all, apparantly we have it, but what you are following flies directly in the face of that does it not?

 

[jackofalltrades]

It's quite a common argument - that you can't disprove the existence of God because it's impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist. It was brought up a few times in this thread.

Are you saying that the fact that we can't disprove God's existence proves His existence ?

 

[fishfingers15]

@McUnited what is your end goal here? I'm religious and I make a conscious effort not to discuss God and religion on the Internet with a bunch of strangers. It only entrenches their position further and there is no 'winning' this debate when so much of our (a poster with religious beliefs) is dependent on conjecture, personal anecdotal experience and a spiritual calling. Is it not the point of religion to bring others to light instead of being a smart arse on the internet and to win the argument?

 

[Redlambs]

@McUnited what is your end goal here? I'm religious and I make a conscious effort not to discuss God and religion on the Internet with a bunch of strangers. It only entrenches their position further and there is no 'winning' this debate when so much of our (a poster with religious beliefs) is dependent on conjecture, personal anecdotal experience and a spiritual calling. Is it not the point of religion to bring others to light instead of being a smart arse on the internet and to win the argument?

I suppose that depends on if any of us are willing to listen to what he says and there's any chance any of us may be enlightened.

I for one am very interested in hearing what he has to say, as my questions are not based on the intent of proving him or religion wrong, as I'm pretty much agnostic, but more genuine inquires into the aspects I find most contradictory and troubling. Maybe I'll learn something that'll make me understand better.

Chiefly though, I really don't understand why I need to even believe anything the bible or any religious text says, that has and will continue to be altered by man, when I can get into heaven and meet my maker via my own means. That's the main thing that troubles me, not so much the God aspect, but the human one.


On a separate note, how is everything with you and your family?

 

[donkeyfish]

Right, but what has that got to do with proving that something doesn't exist?

Because you narrow the area of relevance with assumptions. Every theory can disprove a proposition which doesn't exist, but only within it's own boundaries. It may exist outside of it.

And there is no way, perhaps even in principle, to prove that your investigation has lead you to every possible set of boundaries.

 

[AXVnee7]

Chiefly though, I really don't understand why I need to even believe anything the bible or any religious text says, that has and will continue to be altered by man, when I can get into heaven and meet my maker via my own means. That's the main thing that troubles me, not so much the God aspect, but the human one.

Because I would argue that we don't have the means without religion, or more specifically the teachings/methods of the enlightened ones.

 

[Redlambs]

Because I would argue that we don't have the means without religion, or more specifically the teachings/methods of the enlightened ones.

But what about those not touched by religion?

 

[AXVnee7]

But what about those not touched by religion?

They can still progress to the next world, but it wouldn't be on their own merit.

 

[Redlambs]

They can still progress to the next world, but it wouldn't be on their own merit.

So, no free will then, God just picks and chooses?

 

[AXVnee7]

So, no free will then, God just picks and chooses?

Not God but Karma. But yes those who are worthy are allowed to continue

What do you mean by no free will? We all have free will and what we do governs our karma.

I'm not speaking from a Christian POV btw, should've made that clear

 

[Redlambs]

Not God but Karma. But yes those who are worthy are allowed to continue

What do you mean by no free will? We all have free will and what we do governs our karma.

I'm not speaking from a Christian POV btw, should've made that clear

That's fair enough on the pov, my line of questioning or respect for you answering won't change

But that's making no sense to me. How can a newborn baby, for example, fall into any category of getting into heaven bar God just deciding? And if it's a karma thing, why can't I just get into it by believing in a god, living a life that I freely believe is good, but rejecting man controlled religions? Or at very least, to hedge my bets apparently I can repent, so that being said, what's the point in spending my whole life following a religion when what I really should be doing is finding god in my own way and trying to get into his good graces? Ancient tribes living in jungles worshiping trees get a free pass if God decides they live a good enough life, surely I should too considering I'm exposed to much more temptations?

BTW you said it wouldn't be on their own merit, so doesn't that rule out karma AND free will? Does a newborn baby have free will to get into heaven, or as Silva said, at very least will itself to contract cancer?

 

[Redlambs]

Also, isn't the baby's death also explained away by God's plan or design anyway?

Which, of course, rules out any kind of free will.

 

[fishfingers15]

I suppose that depends on if any of us are willing to listen to what he says and there's any chance any of us may be enlightened.

I for one am very interested in hearing what he has to say, as my questions are not based on the intent of proving him or religion wrong, as I'm pretty much agnostic, but more genuine inquires into the aspects I find most contradictory and troubling. Maybe I'll learn something that'll make me understand better.

Chiefly though, I really don't understand why I need to even believe anything the bible or any religious text says, that has and will continue to be altered by man, when I can get into heaven and meet my maker via my own means. That's the main thing that troubles me, not so much the God aspect, but the human one.


On a separate note, how is everything with you and your family?

Oh, I'm moving to Chicago on Tuesday mate. Family is fine and it's time to meet @simonhch I guess.

I think people are always willing to listen and engage other posters, but convincing someone who doesn't believe in religion is extremely hard, because there's a huge gap in how a religious person thinks and how an atheist does. For instance, There are many miracles in The Bible that can't be explained by science, including Noah and the ark. A religious person will say that a miracle that defies science is proof enough that God exist and an atheist would think that the miracle in The Bible is surely a hocus pocus tale because it couldn't be explained by science. Debates are won through empirical proof and verifiable facts and religion is the very opposite of it. It's defined by faith and belief in an ideal without proof. I just don't see how anyone would be willing to change their mind based on anecdotal cases of divine intervention. Further we argue, further the disagreement becomes and it entrenches one's position further. That's my personal experience.

 

[Redlambs]

Oh, I'm moving to Chicago on Tuesday mate. Family is fine and it's time to meet @simonhch I guess.

Good stuff! One day I will visit Chicago, it's on my list of places I really want to see. I've only really been in and around Europe, I'm getting to the point where I'm itching to visit the rest of the world

I think people are always willing to listen and engage other posters, but convincing someone who doesn't believe in religion is extremely hard, because there's a huge gap in how a religious person thinks and how an atheist does. For instance, There are many miracles in The Bible that can't be explained by science, including Noah and the ark. A religious person will say that a miracle that defies science is proof enough that God exist and an atheist would think that the miracle in The Bible is surely a hocus pocus tale because it couldn't be explained by science. Debates are won through empirical proof and verifiable facts and religion is the very opposite of it. It's defined by faith and belief in an ideal without proof. I just don't see how anyone would be willing to change their mind based on anecdotal cases of divine intervention. Further we argue, further the disagreement becomes and it entrenches one's position further. That's my personal experience.

I don't know, for example I'm willing to believe in stuff like Noah's ark being a story designed to teach something rather than an actual real event. I'm quite happy to believe that may or may not be a story told by some kind of god. Besides I don't really call myself an atheist anyway, I'm more agnostic leaning.

I just don't get the contradictory stuff like my questions show. Basically I don't trust the human side, or more fully, I don't trust the human interpretation. The only thing I know for a fact is that I live as good a life as I can and I raise my children to be loving and respectful to others, if God doesn't want to know me then that makes me question it's intentions. But then I believe if there is such a thing as a god, and we do get to meet him and it's all a big test, then I've just as much chance of getting there without following a religion than if I did. I'm open to being wrong on that front though, but in that, free will surely means I have a point at least.

Anyway I know you don't really like to talk about this stuff on here, so feel free not to reply! I haven't really asked a question there anyway

 

[donkeyfish]

Oh, I'm moving to Chicago on Tuesday mate. Family is fine and it's time to meet @simonhch I guess.

I think people are always willing to listen and engage other posters, but convincing someone who doesn't believe in religion is extremely hard, because there's a huge gap in how a religious person thinks and how an atheist does. For instance, There are many miracles in The Bible that can't be explained by science, including Noah and the ark. A religious person will say that a miracle that defies science is proof enough that God exist and an atheist would think that the miracle in The Bible is surely a hocus pocus tale because it couldn't be explained by science. Debates are won through empirical proof and verifiable facts and religion is the very opposite of it. It's defined by faith and belief in an ideal without proof. I just don't see how anyone would be willing to change their mind based on anecdotal cases of divine intervention. Further we argue, further the disagreement becomes and it entrenches one's position further. That's my personal experience.

I don't think it has that much to do with winning (for me at least), rather broaden the scope of thinking. I'm not particularly religious, but find value in reading (or listening) to those that are. Although I don't expect a life-changing revelation, I may learn an argument or a perspective I hadn't heard before.

I find it easier to disband something as ridiculous or ignorant if I haven't thought much about it before, not the other way around.

It's boring to listen to people who thinks the same as me, like being told a joke I've heard a million times.

 

[AXVnee7]

That's fair enough on the pov, my line of questioning or respect for you answering won't change

But that's making no sense to me. How can a newborn baby, for example, fall into any category of getting into heaven bar God just deciding? And if it's a karma thing, why can't I just get into it by believing in a god, living a life that I freely believe is good, but rejecting man controlled religions? Or at very least, to hedge my bets apparently I can repent, so that being said, what's the point in spending my whole life following a religion when what I really should be doing is finding god in my own way and trying to get into his good graces? Ancient tribes living in jungles worshiping trees get a free pass if God decides they live a good enough life, surely I should too considering I'm exposed to much more temptations?

BTW you said it wouldn't be on their own merit, so doesn't that rule out karma AND free will? Does a newborn baby have free will to get into heaven, or as Silva said, at very least will itself to contract cancer?

I should probably make clear here that I'm talking from a Sikhism POV. So that brings re-incarnation and multiple lives into the equation.

Now if a newborn baby comes and dies, it cannot have done any sin, and instead has paid for sins in past lives by such an early death. In this case the soul would be re-incarnated into an equal lifeform, or a higher lifeform.

As for the Karma thing- Yes you can do it without religion. Religion is just a tag, and has no bearing on whether you get into "heaven" or not. However the problem is how do you know what constitutes a "good life"? You might think you're living a good life, but it can actually be a self indulgent, selfish one. The issue comes when you don't realise what you're doing is actually bad. It's like trying to self teach yourself a sport, you can get so far on your own, but someone with experience would be able to come and pick out your mistakes or bad habits, and they'd quite often be things you'd never ever have considered. So you see religion shows us the pitfalls that we fall into. It's more so that by being in a proper religion, you're more likely to live a good life, than without one.

When I meant not on their own merit, I mean those who didn't achieve enlightenment on their time here on Earth, but still break the cycle of re-incarnation are because they have been shown mercy by God. This overrides Karma, which would otherwise keep them in the cycle.

The new born baby, is that an innocent new born baby. BUT it has a multitude of lives behind it. Karma doesn't reset with each birth, it's continual.

 

[jackofalltrades]

I should probably make clear here that I'm talking from a Sikhism POV. So that brings re-incarnation and multiple lives into the equation.

Now if a newborn baby comes and dies, it cannot have done any sin, and instead has paid for sins in past lives by such an early death. In this case the soul would be re-incarnated into an equal lifeform, or a higher lifeform.

As for the Karma thing- Yes you can do it without religion. Religion is just a tag, and has no bearing on whether you get into "heaven" or not. However the problem is how do you know what constitutes a "good life"? You might think you're living a good life, but it can actually be a self indulgent, selfish one. The issue comes when you don't realise what you're doing is actually bad. It's like trying to self teach yourself a sport, you can get so far on your own, but someone with experience would be able to come and pick out your mistakes or bad habits, and they'd quite often be things you'd never ever have considered. So you see religion shows us the pitfalls that we fall into. It's more so that by being in a proper religion, you're more likely to live a good life, than without one.

When I meant not on their own merit, I mean those who didn't achieve enlightenment on their time here on Earth, but still break the cycle of re-incarnation are because they have been shown mercy by God. This overrides Karma, which would otherwise keep them in the cycle.

The new born baby, is that an innocent new born baby. BUT it has a multitude of lives behind it. Karma doesn't reset with each birth, it's continual.

Sorry, but I find that belief horrendous.

 

[AXVnee7]

Sorry, but I find that belief horrendous.

That's because your asserting that I'm saying the baby deserved it. I'm merely explaining the why. Of course as humans we are compassionate so we would feel pain, and anguish.

It's horrendous now, but you don't know what the sins committed in the past were. If you found out it was Hitler would you be so sympathetic? Many wouldn't.

 

[Redlambs]

I should probably make clear here that I'm talking from a Sikhism POV. So that brings re-incarnation and multiple lives into the equation.

Now if a newborn baby comes and dies, it cannot have done any sin, and instead has paid for sins in past lives by such an early death. In this case the soul would be re-incarnated into an equal lifeform, or a higher lifeform.

As for the Karma thing- Yes you can do it without religion. Religion is just a tag, and has no bearing on whether you get into "heaven" or not. However the problem is how do you know what constitutes a "good life"? You might think you're living a good life, but it can actually be a self indulgent, selfish one. The issue comes when you don't realise what you're doing is actually bad. It's like trying to self teach yourself a sport, you can get so far on your own, but someone with experience would be able to come and pick out your mistakes or bad habits, and they'd quite often be things you'd never ever have considered. So you see religion shows us the pitfalls that we fall into. It's more so that by being in a proper religion, you're more likely to live a good life, than without one.

When I meant not on their own merit, I mean those who didn't achieve enlightenment on their time here on Earth, but still break the cycle of re-incarnation are because they have been shown mercy by God. This overrides Karma, which would otherwise keep them in the cycle.

The new born baby, is that an innocent new born baby. BUT it has a multitude of lives behind it. Karma doesn't reset with each birth, it's continual.

That makes much more sense to your posts now

Though it does bring up, again, the point of free will. If we cannot remember our past lives, how are we to rectify our mistakes? What if I've never been exposed to Sikhism based purely on where I live and how I was raised? How am i to atone for past sins, or even know what a good life is?

I just tend to believe that if this is all a big test, which your religion among others seem to think it is, why am I not judged on my own merits regardless of how everyone else lives their lives? Sure, judge me on how I affect others, but not on how I personally choose to live.


I have a question for you regarding your understanding of reincarnation, and of course my complete lack of knowledge of it, are new lives ever formed, or are is every living thing reincarnated something that has lived before?

That's because your asserting that I'm saying the baby deserved it. I'm merely explaining the why. Of course as humans we are compassionate so we would feel pain, and anguish.

It's horrendous now, but you don't know what the sins committed in the past were. If you found out it was Hitler would you be so sympathetic? Many wouldn't.

Isn't some deity saying the baby deserved it though? If there's a chance that baby will turn out the exact opposite of hitler, why is it punished? And why is it's family punished? Why all the possible other lives affected like Doctors and nurses, good people, why do they suffer due to this baby's past life?

 

[jackofalltrades]

That's because your asserting that I'm saying the baby deserved it. I'm merely explaining the why. Of course as humans we are compassionate so we would feel pain, and anguish.

It's horrendous now, but you don't know what the sins committed in the past were. If you found out it was Hitler would you be so sympathetic? Many wouldn't.

You say it has paid for past sins - isn't that a justification for its death ? I find the whole re-incarnation thing horrendous. It merely sets in stone an established order. It used to exist, and still does in some forms of Christianity, as in the hymn All things bright and beautiful, which refers to - "the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, He made them high and lowly, He ordered their estate"

 

[AXVnee7]

That makes much more sense to your posts now

Though it does bring up, again, the point of free will. If we cannot remember our past lives, how are we to rectify our mistakes? What if I've never been exposed to Sikhism based purely on where I live and how I was raised? How am i to atone for past sins, or even know what a good life is?

I just tend to believe that if this is all a big test, which your religion among others seem to think it is, why am I not judged on my own merits regardless of how everyone else lives their lives? Sure, judge me on how I affect others, but not on how I personally choose to live.


I have a question for you regarding your understanding of reincarnation, and of course my complete lack of knowledge of it, are new lives ever formed, or are is every living thing reincarnated something that has lived before?




Isn't some deity saying the baby deserved it though? If there's a chance that baby will turn out the exact opposite of hitler, why is it punished? And why is it's family punished? Why all the possible other lives affected like Doctors and nurses, good people, why do they suffer due to this baby's past life?

Karma rectifies your mistakes for you. We tend to blame God for our misfortunes, when in reality is due to Karmic consequence. You have free will in this life now, and you had it in the last. You can choose to good, or choose to do bad. That's all free will is.

Also if you haven't been exposed to Sikhism, you still have every single chance. As mentioned before religion is just a label, and we are judged on our actions and thoughts alone. Religion (if any) is not considered. You are judged on your own merit regardless, but if you have sinned and still get through then it's not on your own merit. If you've done good then it is. So actually what you are saying should be the case, is actually the case. I'm saying that someone who is part of a religion is more likely to do good, because they have the tools and the knowledge available to them. If you're an atheist and you manage to do it with no guidance whatsoever, well then I have to say you're one heck of a person. Think of it as teaching yourself tennis with no coach whatsoever and winning Wimbledon.

What we call life is a combination of the soul + the vessel (human body). The vessel is part of the material universe so this can be created and destroyed, and we believe the body is temporary. The soul is actually an essence of God, it's not separate. It's a fraction of God. So there's actually no "us" and God. There is only God. It's our human minds that make us think otherwise (Ego). So to answer your question, no new life is created- it's already all there.


The deity isn't deciding, Karma is. God doesn't decide this person needs to punished this way. Karma just simply brings the pain one has caused back on themselves whether in one life or across multiple. It has to balance out, if you do something bad you have to receive punishment. If you do good, you have to receive reward. It's like a law. The soul has to be punished, until the debt is paid. Let's say it was Hitler, now it's horrendous to us now yes exactly. It's horrendous to the family, doctors etc. But it was not horrendous to all the lives and people affected by Hitler? That's how it balances out. Admittedly, Hitler is a pretty extreme example given most people couldn't dream of committing that much atrocity.

 

[Silva]

Karma rectifies your mistakes for you. We tend to blame God for our misfortunes, when in reality is due to Karmic consequence. You have free will in this life now, and you had it in the last. You can choose to good, or choose to do bad. That's all free will is.

Also if you haven't been exposed to Sikhism, you still have every single chance. As mentioned before religion is just a label, and we are judged on our actions and thoughts alone. Religion (if any) is not considered. You are judged on your own merit regardless, but if you have sinned and still get through then it's not on your own merit. If you've done good then it is. So actually what you are saying should be the case, is actually the case. I'm saying that someone who is part of a religion is more likely to do good, because they have the tools and the knowledge available to them. If you're an atheist and you manage to do it with no guidance whatsoever, well then I have to say you're one heck of a person. Think of it as teaching yourself tennis with no coach whatsoever and winning Wimbledon.

What we call life is a combination of the soul + the vessel (human body). The vessel is part of the material universe so this can be created and destroyed, and we believe the body is temporary. The soul is actually an essence of God, it's not separate. It's a fraction of God. So there's actually no "us" and God. There is only God. It's our human minds that make us think otherwise (Ego). So to answer your question, no new life is created- it's already all there.


The deity isn't deciding, Karma is. God doesn't decide this person needs to punished this way. Karma just simply brings the pain one has caused back on themselves whether in one life or across multiple. It has to balance out, if you do something bad you have to receive punishment. If you do good, you have to receive reward. It's like a law. The soul has to be punished, until the debt is paid. Let's say it was Hitler, now it's horrendous to us now yes exactly. It's horrendous to the family, doctors etc. But it was not horrendous to all the lives and people affected by Hitler? That's how it balances out. Admittedly, Hitler is a pretty extreme example given most people couldn't dream of committing that much atrocity.

This is an extremely oppressive thing to teach people. Don't worry about the rich screwing you over, karma will get them. Don't worry about the rich enslaving you, karma will get them. Don't worry about the government subjugating you, karma will get them. Nah man, the rich get rich, the poor get poorer and the world just keeps on spinning.

 

[AXVnee7]

This is an extremely oppressive thing to teach people. Don't worry about the rich screwing you over, karma will get them. Don't worry about the rich enslaving you, karma will get them. Don't worry about the government subjugating you, karma will get them. Nah man, the rich get rich, the poor get poorer and the world just keeps on spinning.

Oppressive? Not really. It's explaining WHY things have become the way they are. No-where did I imply we should accept it. If someone is sick and dying that doesn't mean we can't try to save them, if we are compassionate human beings we would. The point is explain why that particular person was sick and dying, when someone else might not have been.

You have a habit of taking things and running away with them to suit your own agenda. However, If you look at the history of Sikh affairs (not even the religion but history), you'll find it's built on fighting oppression and literally standing up to corrupt governments and tyrannical empires which rob the poor. Case in point - Mughals. This was the time of the living Guru as well.

 

[Silva]

Oppressive? Not really. It's explaining WHY things have become the way they are. No-where did I imply we should accept it. If someone is sick and dying that doesn't mean we can't try to save them, if we are compassionate human beings we would. The point is explain why that particular person was sick and dying, when someone else might not have been.

You have a habit of taking things and running away with them to suit your own agenda. However, If you look at the history of Sikh affairs (not even the religion but history), you'll find it's built on fighting oppression and literally standing up to corrupt governments and tyrannical empires which rob the poor. Case in point - Mughals. This was the time of the living Guru as well.

It's the promise of good karma for you, and bad karma for your oppressor that is a bad thing. Oppression is bad in itself and doesn't rely there being karma to be fought. The early history of sikhism is noble, and what it fought for was good. But it's time to shed that, and accept that you're not getting points for doing good things, and simply do them for their own sake.

 

[AXVnee7]

It's the promise of good karma for you, and bad karma for your oppressor that is a bad thing. Oppression is bad in itself and doesn't rely there being karma to be fought. The early history of sikhism is noble, and what it fought for was good. But it's time to shed that, and accept that you're not getting points for doing good things, and simply do them for their own sake.

Agreed. If you do a good action, and believe you're getting personal gain (be it Karmic, or materialistic) out of it, then that's egotistical thinking.

Also Sikhs weren't fighting for Karmic points, they were fighting for survival firstly, and then freedom against oppressing forces. That fight continues today.