Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because cause and effect is only one event. Karma is the relationship between each cause and effect. In other words, if cause and effect is a state, then Karma is the state of states.
in otherwords a redundant addition to the equation, or a tautology defined something like "it exists in all things"
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that is the reason I ask which god. Atheists say all gods. I am not making up my definision. If atheist do not believe in any god, then they would also not berlieve in my god. Do you see why atheism is a waist of time?
That's ridiculous logic.
I take it you don't believe in dragons? Well I define dragons as being what most people would call mice. Suddenly you believe in dragons. In fact I can prove that you believe anything through this method.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that is the reason I ask which god. Atheists say all gods. I am not making up my definision. If atheist do not believe in any god, then they would also not berlieve in my god. Do you see why atheism is a waist of time?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's ridiculous logic.I take it you don't believe in dragons? Well I define dragons as being what most people would call mice. Suddenly you believe in dragons. In fact I can prove that you believe anything through this method.
Of course I believe in Dragons.
Spock, sometimes logic is not the best approach
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, you use a term for "God" so redundant, broad, and meaningless that atheists wouldn't even consider it in the ballpark for consideration. If God is everything, why not just say everything? Why use a word that is [B]guaranteed to cause great confusion in a discussion? [/B]
In works beautifully against Christians. However, I always wonder why it gets atheist all in a hissy fit.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In works beautifully against Christians. However, I always wonder why it gets atheist all in a hissy fit.
If "God" is everything, then "God" with that definition is an unneeded word in this debate.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what you are talking about. 🤪
calling anything "the relationship between cause and effect" is a semantic abstraction. Cause and Effect aren't things that can have something which relates them. Cause and Effect are thus only connected by the fact that there is something to cause an effect which is itself an effect of another cause.
Because of this, karma is either everything or nothing, neither situation makes it helpful in describing anything. See, I just made up the word Flauzenflat. Now, Flauzenflat is the strange force that binds energy and matter together. Remember that.
Originally posted by inimalist
calling anything "the relationship between cause and effect" is a semantic abstraction. Cause and Effect aren't things that can have something which relates them. Cause and Effect are thus only connected by the fact that there is something to cause an effect which is itself an effect of another cause.Because of this, karma is either everything or nothing, neither situation makes it helpful in describing anything. See, I just made up the word Flauzenflat. Now, Flauzenflat is the strange force that binds energy and matter together. Remember that.
You are speaking from pure ignorance. I am giving you the actual definition of Karma.
"Potentials in the inner, uncon-scious realm of life created through one's actions in the past or present that manifest themselves as various results in the present or future."
Originally posted by King Kandy
It doesn't "work beautifully" against anyone. Using nonstandard definitions to try and say someone's belief is flawed is a strange and pathetic tactic...If "God" is everything, then "God" with that definition is an unneeded word in this debate.
You are just offended by it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Replace it with unicorns then or Zeus or blue eared caterpillar. As I said, using your reasoning I can prove that you believe in anything.
But I'm not an atheist with a non-belief that is not a belief, or not a positive belief. Not to say that there is a negative belief, but that atheist is an absents of belief, I think.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Its like telling a vegetarian he eats meat everyday, and then when he questions say "Oh, by meat I actually meant vegetables. See how useless vegetarianism is?"
That is exactly how I feel when an atheist tries to tell me that his/her belief in a absents of belief. It is just like telling a vegetarian that vegetables are meat. Thank you!
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is exactly how I feel when an atheist tries to tell me that his/her belief in a absents of belief. It is just like telling a vegetarian that vegetables are meat. Thank you!
even though you, admittedly, use different definitions of the relevant terms from those used by most of society.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that is the reason I ask which god. Atheists say all gods. I am not making up my definision. If atheist do not believe in any god, then they would also not berlieve in my god. Do you see why atheism is a waist of time?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bullshit! Now you are letting the Christians have control of the conversation. I go a long way out of my way to explain what I mean my God. If someone asks me to clarify, then I do so. But I am not going to restrict myself to the Christian way of thinking about God.
all i asked was to clarify