Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Let's set aside silly superstitions like karma, shall we? The lotus evolved via natural selection from older plants with slightly different features.
Karma has nothing to do with superstitions, and the question of "from?" was more profound then natural selection can answer. Evolution does not speak to the origin of life, only how it has changed. Karma is how life come into being.
Originally posted by inimalist
one of these doesn't belong 🙂
The collective direction of cause and effect is superstition? 😕 That is like saying that gravity is superstition.
The condition of the universe at it's very beginning lead to life. In other words, the Karma of the universe lead to life. Do you have a better theory?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The collective direction of cause and effect is superstition? 😕 That is like saying that gravity is superstition.The condition of the universe at it's very beginning lead to life. In other words, the Karma of the universe lead to life. Do you have a better theory?
I doubt he wants to start accepting any random theory about the origins of life.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The collective direction of cause and effect is superstition? 😕 That is like saying that gravity is superstition.The condition of the universe at it's very beginning lead to life. In other words, the Karma of the universe lead to life. Do you have a better theory?
LOL
I honestly don't know what to say
Originally posted by inimalist
LOLI honestly don't know what to say
If we (Buddhists) ignore what science has discovered, then we fall behind just like the Christians have done. The meaning of Karma has been changed over time. I have a thread that talks about the new ideas on Karma, but when I ask people to read it, they say that doesn't help (I honestly don't know what to say about that).
Now, give me all of your money. 😉
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If we (Buddhists) ignore what science has discovered, then we fall behind just like the Christians have done. The meaning of Karma has been changed over time. I have a thread that talks about the new ideas on Karma, but when I ask people to read it, they say that doesn't help (I honestly don't know what to say about that).
So why not just be atheist or secular humanist? You make Buddhism sounds fairly irrelevant to its followers.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So why not just be atheist or secular humanist? You make Buddhism sounds fairly irrelevant to its followers.
Because being an atheist is a waist of time and energy, and last I heard Buddhists are secular humanists. Religion goes places that science cannot go. To live your life by pure science is to be empty. Humans evolved with religion for a reason. That reason is beyond science, for now.