What Do You Need To Believe? Why?

Belief in Karma entails the acceptance of the proposition that "someone" is constantly keeping score of our behaviour and is rewarding some and not others by direct action ,depending on societal attitudes regarding good or not good. The observable results after an action are a matter of odds/coincidence ,I think. The closer a "Karmic"result is to the initial action,particularly a "good"after a good or a "bad" after a "bad",the easier it is to believe the score keeping phenomenon.
Of course ,this doesn't apply to Santa--he DOES keep score!

 

Well certainly a thought provoking thread, thanks Karen. After giving some thought I have to agree with Scratcho about karma, not based on facts but I guess based on the hope there is some kind of cosmic force that will bring to justice the the people who harm society in one way or another. Although not based in fact there does seem to be some kind of element of truth in karma just on what I have observed happening to some of the shadier types I've known in the past. However it does nothing to explain why shitty things keep happening to good people so what the hell do I know.

 

I believe in the Golden Rule because of past experiences, not because somebody told me I should believe it.

The Buddha taught that we should only believe teachings that can be confirmed by our personal observations. This protects us from false teachers.

The corner used car salesman can still kiss my ass.

Or something.

Yeah, I sure as hell don't want a lump of coal in my stocking next Christmas!

Thank you!

 

Believing and having faith are not about accepting what somebody tells you. I also think since our existence is utterly purposeless in the end purpose and faith is always subjective and when you truly believe in some purpose you found it is not fake. Perhaps this is more the case with things like order and hope. Although if I see someone getting by because they have hope in something I regard fake or wrong I can't see it as a character flaw neither.

 

When you take vain apprehension out of the picture, all exchanges of energy are equal. There is no opposing will. There is what you cultivate, what you accept and what you reject and all these willful positions are entertained by you because your mind is a kingdom you alone can rule.

As to whether there is a running score so to speak, the past as well as the future are both artifacts of present emergence.

 

Isn't the order of time the perfect example of a commonly accepted belief that benefits us all (at least most of us )?

 

Belief in this:

The Gods personal plan when decoded

Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever (Las Vegas) the car case (from 1996) is, there will the eagles (God incarnates) be gathered together.

Both Gods (a him and a her) will be here on earth in the last days, living like above average folks.

 

This illustrates exactly what I meant in my earlier post. First, surely you must agree that just because something would be nice is not a logical reason to believe that it is so. Second, you have hit the nail on the head with the last two sentences of your post. The fact that some events fall in line with a belief in Karma is much less important than the fact that some events don't. A single counter example destroys the idea of Karma, and upon realizing that such examples really do exist the logical conclusion is that Karma does not exist.

You could, of course, attempt to rescue the concept of Karma by saying either that the force which mitigates Karma is not strong enough to always punish and reward appropriately or that this force is not aware of enough of people's actions to reward and punish appropriately, but why try to revive an idea that fits so poorly with the way the world is?

Consider this following statement which at first seems to be in accord with the idea of Karma but which, upon closer inspection, is radically different: "Those who live by the sword die by the sword." This statement is very often true. Is it true because some force in the universe doles out violent death to those who themselves dole out violent death? It could be, but the much simpler explanation is that people who go around stealing and killing tend to run into other people who are thieves and killers, and are therefor simply statistically more likely to be the victim of theft or violence themselves. This simpler explanation also accounts for the cases in which people who live in shady ways do not become the victims of the shady things they themselves do, and it also accounts for the cases in which people who are honest and good do in fact become the victims of other people's shady actions.

It seems to me that good things happen to good people, bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to bad people. The only order to these happenings is that it is probably true that if you are a complete jerk and if you associate with other jerks you will probably be a victim more often than honest people who associate with honest people. If you are nice people will want to help you, if you are evil people may be willing to pass you by when you are in need if they know your reputation as an evil person. No need to invoke a magical force like Karma. Karma supposes ultimate order, whereas the state of the world seems to point to absurdity.

Also, to those discussing the Golden Rule, what does the Golden Rule have to do with belief? I don't understand how this is an example that demonstrates that belief is good.

 

karma doesn't work if you keep track of it. karma doesn't work if you logically dissect it. karma works if you know it works, but know how it works. one of the major factors of karma, from the bhagavad gita, is selfless action. if you are a good person and you get shit on, you must not think woe is me i deserve better because i am a good person. no, you absorb it as it is, shrug it off, and keep going. further, you do not expect anything in return for the good things that you do. selflessness is the name of the game with karma. personally keeping track of it negates everything. and there is no force "out there" that keeps track of it just as there's no force that keeps track of when a deuterium atom throws off an electron. the universe could care less about some petty score keeping shit. if you're honest and true, it will happen.

 

What's wrong with giving this concept a name? Some people call it Karma.

 

What is wrong with giving that concept a name like Karma is that it blurs the reality of that concept, and makes it appear magical where in fact it is isn't. Also, in my personal experience (I've had this conversation many times) that isn't what people mean when they say Karma. Perhaps the people in this thread mean something different, but the people that I've spoken to about Karma before really do postulate some magical force when they speak of Karma, and it is this idea (and only this idea) that I am rejecting.

Furthermore, my point in bringing up Karma to begin with was not to demonstrate that it does not exist, my point was only that when I speak to people about Karma and they tell me why they think it exists, that in fact the reasons that they give are very poor reasons, and that they ought not believe it in based on the reasons they give. If you have a different definition of Karma then that is fine, and if you have different arguments for its existence that is also fine.

I was merely trying to illustrate what I believed to be one of the main points behind this thread, and I thought Karma and people's arguments for it provided a good illustration. My posts have not been about Karma, but rather about how people think.

 

If that's what people mean by Karma, then Karma is just a poetic way of talking about a mundane fact.

 

Sounds more like making an educated guess .... I believe that the word "believing" is the wrong choice here.

People also cling to beliefs that can easily be disproven. And again intuition (or guessing) might not be the same as believing (as in faith). It would seem to me that you are mixing apples and pears while trying to figure out oranges.

Belief (as in religion) is never really rational or based on facts .... otherwise it wouldn't be a belief. If you had proof of god, god would be a fact not something you believe in.

People need to believe in certain things in order not to go nuts and kill themselves or others. Which, in turn, may lead them then to kill themselves or other over that same belief.

If you are looking for a rational explanation of an irrational phenomenon you are doing something wrong.

 

Well I certainly did not want to start a fuss over any ones concept or definition of karma. To me it simply means simply, what goes around comes around. I know that is not really the case and like Emanresu pointed out its more likely due to situations that people put themselves in that ultimately decides their fate. But that does not mean that I dont like to believe that something like karma, and just because I believe in it doesnt make it so. But like TheGhost said people need to generally believe in something so they dont freak out and harm themselves or others. I find the concept of karma or whatever you wish to call it alot easier to believe than regular or irregular religion. But in the end what the hell do I know, other than I have alot of work I'm supposed to be doing.:sunny:

 

One of the cool things about postmodern spirituality and philosophy is that you can study all kinds of teachings and traditions, and make use of whatever you find that seems useful to you. If you want to embrace some parts of the traditional mainstream definition of Karma while rejecting its superstitious side, who is going to stop you?

Nothing is set in stone anymore. It's all up for debate.

:rofl: You just used the word "believe" in the same way that you criticized me for! :smilielol5:

Believing is a concept that can be scaled up or down in intensity. I started with a small-scale, low-key example because it is easy to understand.

In fact, I can believe very strongly that there are three items in a drawer, and I can still be wrong if I have not counted them very recently. I've heard people have heated arguments over similarly silly things. Why be utterly dogmatic over complex issues when we are all capable of being wrong about very simple ones?

Apparently you can't process multiple paragraphs and follow a progression of thought.

Meaning what? I know what the definition of the word is.

Not a good enough reason for me to believe something. That level of pragmatism is intellectually indefensible.

Nice conversational skills, buddy. I'm sure you make a lot of new friends.

 

The sarcasm button doesn't work here very well, sorry ...

If you do have beliefs about what's in your drawer, what do you do in church?? And no, beliefs cannot be scaled up or dow. They are just that: beliefs.

Meaning exactly what? I BELIEVE I quoted and responded to all your paragraphs

Meaning exactly that. There is no rational component (or very very little) to it.

It is not supposed to be a reason for you to believe in anything. And yes, belief cannot really be discussed rationally. That's the nature of it.

Why do you seem to BELIEVE that I am aiming to make new friends by posting in your thread? If you don't like the answer to your question just say so .... otherwise you just act like a believer.

 

I need to believe that what I do and say matters to somebody, and that there is value in that reality. I guess that's the bottom line for me.

 

Just one question: why does it have to matter to somebody? Is it not enough if it matters to you?

 

Perhaps it becomes more than a believe when you know other individuals have confirmed it.

 

So that would be a very weak belief then ....