Printable View
Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?
So what you're basically saying is 'screw those starving children in Africa, they were a******s in their former lives and they deserve suffering?'Quote:
Originally Posted by sh_einstein
That's outrageous. I know you don't mean it that way, but you can't have it both ways.
Some people are going to suffer, others get lucky. That's just what you'd expect if there is no magic, kind-hearted and powerful being that takes care of it. All we can do is be thankful that we're alive, right now, in priviledged circumstances, and then use this feeling of thankfulness to make something with our live and do good, to ease the suffering of those who were born in unfortunate circumstances.
This is a real big subject, but I believe you are correct in considering reincarnation. Its the only thing that makes sense to me too.
In fact there are several reasons why this might occur but since we on earth know nothing about what happens to us after death, reincarnation makes the most sense. Reincarnation explains that we choose the life we are born into beforehand and we grow from the experience, as do others in compassion and empathy when dealing with the needy. Over and above that, people come back to face good and bad Karma so this makes it all the more important to leave this life with a clean slate, if not... its payback time next time round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I would be interested to know what other peoples views are regarding condition as quoted by Dodo. Please dont bother with "its just coincidence" you were born in the North Pole and me in Africa, I'm wont buy that.
So two posters suggest that reincarnation is the only explanation that 'makes sense', despite
a) a complete lack of evidence for it and
b) the availability of a much more likely explanation - to wit, that people tend to get born where their mothers happen to be at the time.
I'm prepared to bet* that when asked what evidence there is for reincarnation, someone cites an old book which says that reincarnation is the only explanation that makes sense. But that just pushes the question back a few hundred years.
So, to answer the original query - no, I don't. There's absolutely nothing in the world to suggest that reincarnation happens, and there's not a single apparent purpose for such a system, outside of "Well, it'd be neat because it'd make the world sort of fair."
*I'll bet my next life. And the one after that. Come on - you gotta like those odds.
And really, dogmatically insisting on the premise 'the universe must be fair' is not a way that produces any objective or useful results. Neither in science nor in philosophy.
So bring feasible explanations as to why some are born to extreme poverty and suffer and others not? Dont just come with what you dispute, give me a reason for this occurrence? I am waiting....
Same reason some seeds fall into moist productive soil and and some fall onto the rocks; same reason some antelopes get eaten by lions and some don't; same reason some planets have atmospheres that support life and some are dead rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Dumb luck, and the fact that the Earth doesn't give a damn about anything crawling on it.
Your explanation sounds too much like coincidence for me, you had better come up with something better than that... nothing is a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
A coincidence is the significant proximity in time or place of two or more events with no apparent shared cause. So where's the coincidence? What's coinciding?Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Given that we have evidence for the kind of 'coincidence' to which Mark refers, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence of reincarnation?Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
So why are some people born in poverty and suffering and others not? Your previous comment was all about dumb luck, it also smacks of coincidence, there is no such thing in either case.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Give me scientific proof that coincidences occur. Nothing is a coincidence in life, your parents were supposed to be yours, and mine mine etc,Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Hang on. That's not proof of reincarnation existing. That's an effect reincarnation has if it exists. In order to say reincarnation is working , we need preceding evidence of it. An assumption that it's working is not that.
What you seem to mean is that nothing is random. In which case, you need to demonstrate that. If you think that nothing is just random, just dumb luck, perhaps you could present a hypothesis of how things would be different if things were random. So - that seems the next step in the debating process.
How would the world work observably differently if everything were random?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
For the sake of the argument, I'll grant you that 'coincidence' here means 'dumb luck'. I wasn't aware of the technical definition MB presented either.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Now why isn't it, even in principle, possible that some things have no higher reason than that they just happen, as a product of mindless physical forces acting on mindless matter?
It all comes down to the 'why' game:
Child: "Why is the sky blue?"
Parent: "Because it reflects light in a specific way that our brains interpret as 'blue'"
Child: "Why do our brains do that?"
Parent: "Presumably because it is the most efficient kind of software to navigate in the real world that could evolve. Blue is contrast to the green vegetation and the brown soil. Contrast is important for vision."
Child: "Why did this 'software' evolve?"
Parent: "Because individuals who happen to be born with genes that wire the brain closest to it have advantages in surviving."
Child: "Why do they have advantages in surviving?"
Parent: "I told you already, you're being circular. They have better contrast, hence they are quicker at identifying food or predators, which makes them, on average, live longer."
Child: "Okay but Why are there even predators, or food?"
Parent: "Because once upon a time, actually around 3.5 billion years ago, molecules self-assembled themselves to form a self-replicating macromolecule, a replicator. So this thing made copies of itself, and due to some slight mechanical errors ('mutations'), some copies were slightly better (or worse) at replicating. The ones better automatically became dominant, and the ones unsuited to their environment died out. This process produced all the life there is on earth."
Child: "Why did the molecules self-assemble themselves in such a specific way?"
Parent: "I assume just 'dumb luck'. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. Many stars have planets, so there is plenty of room for combinatorial experiments. The forces of physics shuffled them, like marbles in a box, and even though the outcome was in this particular instance we're talking about 'improbable', it almost had to happen somewhere, given that there are so many molecules on so many planets."
Child: "Why do the laws of physics permit this to happen?"
Parent: "Here I'm entering dangerous territory not yet fully understood by science. But I, and many astrophysicists, assume that there are billions of universes as well. In some of them, the laws just happen to be a certain way, and obviously, in ours they were optimal for life, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it (but similar creatures might be in another universe)."
Child: "Why might there be so many universes?"
Parent: "Because a 'vacuum' isn't completely empty. The concept of 'nothing' is a human construct. There are always tiniest particles popping in and out of existance, matter and anti-matter, normally it annihilates itself if the two appear together. Statistically, this happens every time with almost no exceptions. Big bangs, that create universes, are the exceptions, where matter, for some reason, comes to dominate anti-matter and for some reason starts to expand."
Child: "For some reason? What kind of explanation is that? WHY does it do this?"
Parent: "Stop asking me these questions, some things just happen the way they happen!"
Of course, that was a pretty smart child, luckily enough for most parents, a normal child would give up somewhere along the way because it doesn't understand the answers good enough to know what to ask for next.
Anyway, in the end, you always come down to things that 'just are'. Even the ones who believe in God assume that he 'just is'. The difference between a theistic world view and an atheistic one is just that the atheist is able to explain a lot more things before hiding behind the 'it just is', while the theist postulates the most improbable, complex, intelligent, and even caring and prayer answering being.
I hope I haven't gotten too off topic here. My main point is that even karma, reincarnation or 'god' requires 'dumb luck', and a huge amount more of it than the alternative of an indifferent cosmos.
Dizzy,
A coincidence is a concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection. I don't think this is what Mark is referring to. My parents were not supposed to be anything. Certain events transpired: I'm a product of those events. Similarly, the child born into poverty dies because he or she doesn't have enough clean drinking water. Cause and effect.
Now we are getting somewhere, why is there a cause and effect? These two terms are most definitely related to Reincarnation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
Dodo, forget the stories my mate. Answer the question I posed, give me scientific proof for your reasoning as to why one child is born in poverty while another isnt.
I used to think that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle proved this. However, recently someone pointed out to me that it might not, for spacetime exists independently of any particular point in it, and hence independently of any quantum outcome. How then can events be 'truly random', if the factory of space time exists in a certain way anways? My knowledge of physics ends here, can anyone jump in?Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Either way, it's not really relevant for this discussion because dizzydoll, the burden of proof clearly rests on you because you're claiming that things exist for there is no evidence (souls, reincarnation). Even if determinism is true, it would still be the default assumption that there is no design or purpose in it, and anyone who thinks differently is asked to provide evidence.
Books cannot teach us the answer to this question I am afraid. Your DNA comes from your parents and my DNA comes as a result of mine, why were your parents not mine and my parents not yours? There should be a simple explanation for this dont you think?
Besides I dont need to give you proof for my beliefs, you came into this thread disputing so you should give proof why you did so, otherwise why bother reading mine or another persons beliefs.
Well, when a mommy loves a daddy... Cause and effect is the [W]hy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Blah, blah... none of you have the answer. Maybe someone else can provide the proof I require because, as I said on my previous post, you are on this thread disputing our beliefs. Provide proof or leave our beliefs be.
I think we are disputing your beliefs because you have no proof to support them. So, enlighten us.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
So you require proof to disprove something not based on proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
I am comfortable with my understanding of the lessons my soul needs to learn in this life to progress to the next, thats all that counts in my life. At least reincarnation answers this question for me [regarding poverty and suffering] and leads me to live a better life as a result of the laws of cause and effect. It also doesnt leave me with such a lack of understand that Mark has chosen:
I will say it again:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I dont need to give you proof for my beliefs, you came into this thread disputing my views of the reasons for pain and suffering so you should give reasons for this occurrence, otherwise why bother reading mine or another persons beliefs.
Sounds great. Thing is, we live on Earth, not in this thread. On Earth, we have no evidence for the kind of afterlife that you propose exists. You are unwilling to furnish us with such evidence. Instead, you simply assert that you have the correct 'answer'. I can do the same: there is no such thing as reincarnation.
The focus for proof thus far is scientifically based, and as such there is no proof.
From the Buddhist perspective, the mind is a seperate componant to the brain which is merely the vehicle. It's prescence can't be detected without the medium of the brain, and so logically - from a scientific perspective, there can't be an existing mind without the brain. This is disputed by meditators who have developed meditation techniques to investigate the mind.
The quest for scientific proof has been pursued by researchers such as Professor Stevenson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
but I know that scientists may not regard his"evidence" as valid. I'm not disputing that. I don't think it matters.
I do know some Buddhist monks/ nuns who do not believe in reincarnation precisely because they have had no personal proof that it exists. In fact I don't see that there can be external proof, just someone willing to accept the possibility and perhaps attempt to find out.
There is a meditation technique which purports to train the meditator to track back over their life and beyond. It does take a long time, apparently, and would only then provide subjective proof.
The reason I believe in reincarnation? It's meaningless to anyone else, so there's no point in sharing.
One other reason for believing in reincarnation for Buddhists is the veracity of the teachings. If, as a practitioner of Buddhism, you find that the teachings are valid, then this may point to the truth of the other teachings of the Buddha. It's not proof, but a kind of faith which rests on personal findings. It is not blind faith.
I suppose similar reasons could be voiced by Hindu practitioners, though I would not presume to speak for them.
No, I didn't. I answered the question the original poster asked. And when I got into a conversation with you, I didn't say you were wrong. I simply asked for objective evidence that you are right. That's how debate works. You have a proposition - that reincarantion exists - and I take the contrary view, and we attempt to progress the argument through the application of objective reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
"I am comfortable with my understanding" is not the application of objective reason - it's a declaration that you don't wish to discuss it further. Which is fine. It's not obligatory to talk about it.
True, but if we allow 'evidence' too, then there should at least be evidence. The difference is that proof is absolute, and therefore only applies to logic and mathematics. In every other science, what counts is evidence. But that's not restricted to science alone. Why can we convict murderers in trial? Not because of mathematical proof, but because of convincing evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
And this is a scientific claim. You, or Buddhists, are arguing dualism. There have been convincing papers and books against this position, for it faces lots of internal inconsistencies. It's a scientific claim that requires evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
[...]
Believe in something precisely because they have no proof? That makes no sense to me. Since human imagination is the thing that comes up with such concepts, it is of course possible to think of something that 'can't be proven'. If I wanted to believe in something without evidence, I would obviously choose something that is hard or impossible to prove. For example, I wouldn't pick homeopathy, because in double blind studies, one can easily conclude whether homeopathy does equal or better (or worse?) than a normal placebo. Hence no positive evidence automatically serves as negative evidence. It is no accident that religious memes have properties that make them 'avoid detection'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
[...]
I disagree. I'm curious as to why people believe things. And even if personal experience can't count as objective evidence, there is at least something that needs to be explained. For instance, if Buddhist meditation indeed produces some feeling of trance, which may even have a limited beneficial effect on stress level, blood pressure or other things, then there is an interesting neurological aspect behind it which is worth being investigated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
This actually makes some sense. It would be evidence, albeit weak evidence. You'd have to be sure though that the premises aren't flawed to begin with. And also, you can't jump from 'good ethics' to 'true metaphyiscs'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Indeed, or practioners of Scientology or even Pastafarianism. The problem with claims that are unsupported by evidence is that you have absolutely no objective reason to favor one over the other. All kinds of religions have believers that claim to have had experiences that proved the veracity of their religion to them. They can't all be right, can they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
This is the problem with evidence. That's why I questioned the value of trying to present subjective evidence especially to one with a sceptical scientific perspective. It is a valuable perspective, as is the scientific view - otherwise we'd still be in the agricultural age, but it is not necesarily a useful tool when dealing with reincarnation.
There's another thread which talks of is it ok to follow an untrue belief? Well a Buddhist would say yes from the perspective that they think theirs is the most valid religion - but hopefully in a humble way, otherwise they would become a member of another religion. But HH The Dalai Lama said that one should stick with the religion one was brought up with unless one has a very strong attachement to Buddhism. The point of this is that he sees value in the ethical conduct of other religions.
Sorry - I've made a mess of the multi-quote thing. :biggrin5:
I agree wholehearted Paul. :biggrin5:
Haha now whose fault do you think that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Anyway, I do see your point, especially about the ethical systems and 'tricks' of Buddhism. I wouldn't have a problem with religion as ethical system, what bothers me is that it is often accompagnied by a huge amount of irrational side effects (indoctrinating children, fighting valid science, terrorism, 'pro-life' fundamentalism, 'thinking Africans deserve their misery' etc etc).
For the reasons you stated, I do respect beliefs that are based on personal evidence. I can't challenge them for I have not experienced what these people claim. In the same way, and as you have stated, they can argue their beliefs to others, for their evidence is personal.
ofcourse I don't mean it that way, what kind of a person do you think I am? I just think that it's kind of unfair to them.There has to be an explanation for this, maybe something that has'nt been proved YET I just can't accept the Idea of all this being a coincidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
what do you mean, I don't get the relavance between Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and reincarnation, could you pls explain more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
dizzydolll asked for a 'proof of coincidences'. By coincidences, I think she meant randomness. Now you should get the link. But as I said, someone pointed out to me that it must not be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by sh_einstein
I believe in reincarnation. While I'm not afraid of dying or death, I'm trying to live as long as possible because I do not want to do puberty again anytime soon.
I also believe in other planes--which may inspire the belief of heaven and hell. I don't believe they are permenant, though.
I believe there are a lot of options for a soul. You don't have to reincarnate right away--you can travel to different planes. You can even be a ghost. I believe, though, that personal growth is always the purpose of souls--and whatever they do, they choose to go where they will learn whatever they need to learn next.
I also believe that souls break apart and reform--so it really is possible that three people could have been Cleopatra.
I, however, was never anyone famous.
Do I have proof that it exists? Nope. I believe in it because I like to believe in it. It helps me get through life. In the end, I think that is the primary function of religion. If people find strength in scientific beliefs--I'm very happy for them. As long as your beliefs don't cause harm to anyone else, more power to you. I have no problem believing in science and the paranormal simultaneously. One gives me facts, the others give me meaning.
Well said Silent Mute, and like you I believe some souls remain earth bound until they are willing to cross over completely. Perhaps they do this because their partner is having difficulty accepting their death but there could be a host of other reasons too.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentMute
I believe as we grow we move up to new planes of spiritual growth. So too I believe some souls will delay their progress to their next level if their partner/soul mate has not advanced, via necessary experience, to join them on a higher plane. Only a selfless soul would consider delaying their spiritual progress.
The main feature of buddhism is that it is very rational within the worldview it has. It doesn't challenge scientific views in favour of religious ones, and in fact was talking about moments of time - 66 moments in a finger snap - and minute particles before physics was invented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
As for the tricks of Buddhism - i'm not sure what you mean. if you are referring to the acompanying list then:
fighting valid science - I've addressed
terrorism - I'm not aware that there are any Buddhist terrorists, in fact HH The Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize for the peaceful conduct of his oppostiton to Chinese rule, and has led by example in this
Pro-life fundamentalism is not a Buddhist concept. In this case Buddhism says that all life - especially human life is precious. But when it was realised in Thailand that abortions would be sought whatever the rules laid down, it was considered that it would be better to save the Mother by providing abortions rather than lose the Mother in ubnhygenic backstreet abortions. It does have a realistic approach to practical problems.
As for the karma view of starving people - this is fundamentally wrong. The fact that we are born on earth means we are subject to the suffering inherent in humans -war, famine, earthquake, floods, etc etc. it is just the fact of being human. It is the same with regard to disbled people etc - it is not the view of Buddhists that they desrve their fate due to their bad karma. It is more that they are born into a fragile human body which is susceptible to illness, damage, external influences like smoking etc. Karma is not deterministic in this sense. The most virtuous person can die in an accident. It is more a state of being human, rather than the karma of the individual.
I've left the indoctrination of children to last, as there was a tradition of sending children to monasteries. Certainly there has been a historical change, and this was a cultural phenomenon, perhaps concerned with economics, as it was in Western Europe. It does still go on, but this again may be linked to economics as they provide schools.
From your list I presume that you are lumping certain religions together. I didn't find that particularly useful in a thread on reincarnation.
How did you develop your ideas Silent?Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentMute
Since no one really knows anything about this subject, I'll just say this: reincarnation would be friggin' cool if it were true. That would be WAY better than the christian "heaven" idea, much less boring. I hope I come back as a sea anemone.
Indeed I lumped all religions together. I did that on purpose, because the issue I was addressing had not much to do with reincarnation, I was talking about religion in general, more specificially, whether it would be a good thing to base one's ethics in religious concepts. After looking at my post again, I admit that it was unclearly phrased on my part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
And by 'Buddhist tricks' I meant things like meditation, or in certain forms of Buddhism, martial arts. That too was terribly phrased, I apologize.
Anyway, here's one more (for once well-phrased) thing to think about. If I believed in karma, I would go seek investors with cash and try to convince them of the following idea: Set up a large-scale study that compares things like 'amount of money donated to charity, percentually to income of course' to 'odds of getting cancer', 'odds of unnatural death (like car crash)', 'odds of winning the lottery' etc. Many variables on both sides. Of course, the technicalities would be difficult, there would have to be some math and statistics, and the study would cost money and time.
However, if you do accomplish the goal, and karma actually exists, then the benefit would most likely be the following:
1) A Physics Nobel Prize for discovering a new kind of 'force'
2) A Nobel Peace Prize for making the world a better place by motivating people to do good.
Of course the whole idea is ridiculous, for one reason because 'souls' or karma don't have any selective advantages in biological evolution. I was just making the point that you can demonstrate effects scientifically, even if the phenomen itself may not be open to scientific investigation. And again, lack of evidence in these cases serves as negative evidence.
No worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
It's an interesting idea. I've often thought that if insurance or loans companies get onto reincarnation then you could have cross incarnation policies.
From the Buddhist perspective, Karma is not a simple cause and effect force. It propels the being into a particular life, but it is said that actions done in a particular life won't ripen until later, unless it is a very negative or very positive action - like murder or saving someones life. This means that a being wont necessarily see the results of their actions for a long time. So the experiment would serve to disproove karma, when in fact it can't be proven this way.
The other thing is that there is no idea of a soul. This is a common assumption. Instead the teachings say that it is the energy from one life which causes the next - the classical example is of one candle lighting a second, and then the first being blown out. The second candle is not the first, but it is linked by the energy created.
Another thing is that creating good Karma depends upon the motivation of the giver. A giver to charity won't accrue much credit if their motivation is self aggrandizement. Motivation, as we can observe from our politicians, is difficult to discern, and requires the ability to know others minds, which few people have apparently.
(Unless everyone else knows this and they're not telling me!)
Why a sea anenome?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Studies on giving to charity have actually shown that the poorer someone is the more likely they are to give a greater percentage of their income. Turns out happy, content people tend to think less about the well being of others. The caveat to this is the outrageously rich, like Bill Gates, who sometimes give something like 10% of their income to charity a year.
I personally don't believe in reincarnation, or anything supernatural really. Although, I've visited the Vietnamese Pagoda here in Montreal, and the monks were quite nice.
My beliefs came about from what I've read, my own experiences, my interpretations, and my dreams. I never offer any of it as proof to those that demand it--because if you are determined to find a flaw, you will probably find it. There could be another explanation certainly.
I believe in the soul--and my belief in it actually comes from an interpretation of an Einstein theory. Einstein said that energy isn't created or destroyed, it merely changes from one form to another. The difference between a corpse and a living person is energy. So if energy isn't created or destroyed and merely changes form--I think that is a good scientific argument for the afterlife and for the soul.
The belief in other planes--that comes mainly from my reading. There were some people's accounts that I did believe, and so I included it into my belief system. I don't want to believe in permenant damnation, since I am all too aware of my own flaws. I want redemption to always be possible for everyone--even the worst of humanity. I believe I have seen ghosts--though they aren't nearly as interesting as they are in movies. That is actually why I believe they are real. If my mind made it up--with my imagination--the experience would be more interesting. Bumping into a ghost is like bumping into someone at the grocery store. And they aren't sad souls usually--I don't think they are stuck here. They have a life--they go about their business. They aren't even that particularly interested in the living.
Other things can split--cells and such--so I don't think it is unreasonable to think a soul can't. I believe some time ago there were some Buddhists monks searching for the reincarnation of one of their elders. They decided that three children all had different parts of this person's soul.
I also believe too that souls don't travel chronologically. You can be in the year 3010, and then jump back to 1895. I'm even beginning to believe you can relive other lives--I constantly have feelings of deja-vu these days. The time jumping is because I've had vivid, detailed dreams about being someone else in a different time--but some of the times clash. I believe these dreams are past life memories because they often have details that I'm not aware of knowing--I wouldn't want to be these people. I dreamed about being a Vietnam soldier--I know nobody who was in the war, and I have always avoided the topic. The reliving lives--these days I often feel like I've had conversations with people before, but I haven't. I really do feel like I'm reliving my life these days.
Of course, I have no proof--and I'm sure my arguments can be torn to pieces.
As far as I know, scientists have not been able to prove definitely that ghosts, God, etc., don't exist. I personally think that considering how wonderfully complex life is, how it is interwoven--I just can't believe all of this came about by chance. I do believe there has to be an intelligence behind it--though it may not be what we think it is.
People act like that religion is responsible for all the world's ills. While it can be, it is because it is abused by people with bad mindsets. I was sexually abused by a preacher--and my grandparents let it happen because they thought I was being blessed by God's son--which he claimed to be. Nobody knows more than I do how religion can be abused. For a long time, I hated religion. I've worked through that. Science can be abused as well. People can look at a culture's gene pool and say they are inferior, and that can lead to genocide. There used to be a respected science where they measured people's skulls, and certain measurements claimed a person was more prone to criminal activity. Some of the greatest minds were responsible for developing the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
I like to believe that souls are learning lessons--and that is why there is suffering. That is why someone is starving in Ethiopia, and I have plenty of food. It does not mean that I shouldn't try to make the world a better place. However, why I like my beliefs is that it gives meaning and hope. The person in Ethiopia is starving now, but in face of eternity--what is the suffering of one life (if the soul exists and is immortal)? Even the worst fate that can happen, in face of eternity, would be even less annoying than a mosquito bite.
I doubt, though, my beliefs are right. I don't think humanity is capable of truly understanding life and everything it encompasses. I am certain that in the end, science and religion are equally ignorant.
Thanks Silent - that was interesting.
How much do you think the average person gives?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip