Karma

oppenheimer1

I've been wondering about this for a while and thought this would be the best place to post this. I was having a discussion with an (athiest) friend of mine about someone who has happened to run into a rough partch in his life. Previously he thought he was the envy of all of us, which he knew and liked to point out. My friend pointed out sure thats karma, or fate, which I thought odd. I didn't think an athiest could believe in "what goes around comes around" destiny or any of that, that life has no guiding forces. When I pointed this out to my friend, he didn't seem to think there was a conflict of ideas.

So is it a conflict if an athiest subscribes to believing in destiny or karma, a preordained set of circumstances for our lives?

Zillah

Technically, no, no conflict. An atheist does not believe in God. He can believe anything else he likes, be it fate, karma or the toothfairy.

That said, your friend is stupid.

I very much believe in "What goes around comes around" in a social sense. Unless you're very clever and careful, being a dick will get you in trouble eventually. No magic though, of course.

eoin5

Sounds like your friend is in for some bad karma.

Anyways theism and karma are totally different concepts. In fact quite a lot of buddhists happen to be atheists, big karma believers there.

Dave!

Your friend's belief in magic, superstition, and paranormal crap does not negate his atheism. I would hazard a guess that most atheists are skeptical about the aforementioned gibberish, but that's not the definition of 'atheist'.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

That said, your friend is stupid.

That's such an ignorant remark to make.

monkeyfudge

Húrin wrote: »

That's such an ignorant remark to make.

Nope. Believing in some sort of magical scales that doles out bad luck based on your bad deeds is pretty damn stupid.

Nevyn

Karma is not what goes around comes around, I suggest that you actually read up on the Vedic principles of Karma and Dharma so you know what you are referencing before figuring out if they are applicable to an atheist.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

That's such an ignorant remark to make.

If I said it in the middle of a social engagement it could be considered ignorant in the form it is used to mean 'rude' or 'offensive'.

In the more literal sense, no, it's not ignorant, I'm pretty well informed.

Zillah

Thaedydal wrote: »

Karma is not what goes around comes around, I suggest that you actually read up on the Vedic principles of Karma and Dharma so you know what you are referencing before figuring out if they are applicable to an atheist.

Well yes of course, yet another reason it's a stupid thing to believe.

Urizen

The person wasn't totally informed, it doesn't make them an idiot.

Thaedydal is right. Without all the information, no one can form a truly sound view.

However, claiming they know what they're talking about without actually knowing WOULD make someone an idiot. But from what I can see, it's not like they claimed their view was the be all and end all and tried to force it their friend.

Rev Hellfire

Lets face it most atheists (I know not all, but lets say the majority here) reject the idea of a god due to lack of physical evidence or need for the supernatural as an explanation for the operation of the natural world.

Its logical to continue this train of thought and exclude the possibility of other supernatural ideas such as karma, etc.

lostexpectation

its just a saying

Goduznt Xzst

Thaedydal wrote: »

Karma is not what goes around comes around

but... but, I learnt about Karma from wiki and it tells me it is. In Western usage, outside of religious connotations, it's forgivable to hold this understanding of the meaning of "Karma"

I've on occasion said "well that's Karma for you"... when I'm really talking about the causality of a persons actions that led up to the current outcome.

lostexpectation

yeah i heard about it from carson daly

Urizen

Popular opinion doesn't make it right guys.

coffee_cake

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I've been wondering about this for a while and thought this would be the best place to post this. I was having a discussion with an (athiest) friend of mine about someone who has happened to run into a rough partch in his life. Previously he thought he was the envy of all of us, which he knew and liked to point out. My friend pointed out sure thats karma, or fate, which I thought odd. I didn't think an athiest could believe in "what goes around comes around" destiny or any of that, that life has no guiding forces. When I pointed this out to my friend, he didn't seem to think there was a conflict of ideas.

So is it a conflict if an athiest subscribes to believing in destiny or karma, a preordained set of circumstances for our lives?

karma means "action". It is inextricably linked with dharma.
It does not mean destiny or fate or "this thing I thought of when I was down the pub" or whatever the bloody current fashion is.
For the love of science, if you want to yap about "what goes around comes around" then talk about THAT and stop trying to drag karma into it.

edit: ^5 thaed

pH

Urizen wrote: »

Popular opinion doesn't make it right guys.

When it comes to language, yes it does. Words derive their meaning from many of us having a shared understanding, and it pretty much *is* majority rule, if enough people use a word for a given meaning, then that word *has* that meaning, and the dictionaries follow. Personally I hate that the word 'literally' is being dragged into meaning 'figuratively' by stupid morons, but if enough of them use the word in that way, then that's what it means.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that a lot of people use the word 'karma' to mean some sort of "cosmic balancing, what goes around comes around", hence that's what the word means.

lostexpectation

i pray to murphy

togster

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Nope. Believing in some sort of magical scales that doles out bad luck based on your bad deeds is pretty damn stupid.

Then you really need to look up what karma actually means

togster

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its logical to continue this train of thought and exclude the possibility of other supernatural ideas such as karma, etc.

It's only logical if they actaully inform themselves what it means.

Rev Hellfire

togster wrote: »

It's only logical if they actaully inform themselves what it means.

You know the basic refutal here seems to be that people don't know "what it means", but then no further information is forthcoming.

Personally I'd like to hear a definition of karma which relies on naturally observable forces only.

togster

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I'd like to hear a definition of karma which relies on naturally observable forces only.

Then you won't get one, because you can't define it within those parameters only. And what do you mean by natural forces only?

Karma means different things. Basically in Buddhism it means that depending on the true intent behind the action, the result is governed. It means so much more and i am by no means an expert.

Rev Hellfire

Then you won't get one, because you can't define it within those parameters only. And what do you mean by natural forces only?

So are you saying that by its very nature it is supernatural. By natural forces I mean anything quantifiable by science.

Karma means different things. Basically in Buddhism it means that depending on the true intent behind the action, the result is governed. It means so much more and i am by no means an expert.

For example in your definition of karma from a Buddhist perspective you imply your reasons for doing something somehow alters the outcome.
If I do an experiment for example my motivation will not effect the actual outcome.

togster

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

By natural forces I mean anything quantifiable by science.

I don't know if it's quantifiable by science, how do you measure intent other than personally?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

For example in your definition of karma from a Buddhist perspective you imply your reasons for doing something somehow alters the outcome.

I am not a Buddhist!

I think what it means from a Buddhist perspective is that intention (and the assocaited positive/negative reason(s)) places seeds in the mind to be reaped now or in the future. Like a propogation of thoughts where the nature of the intent determined the thought process and ultimately the end result. This is a very simplified view imo.

Up untill last week, i thought karma to mean something very different.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If I do an experiment for example my motivation will not effect the actual outcome.

But why are you doing the experiment? To find out the result.
The intent and subsequent thinking did not effect the result of the experiment. You got a result.

However it's more about the nature of the intent and the nature of the result.

Rev Hellfire

togster wrote: »

However it's more about the nature of the intent and the nature of the result.

Maybe I'm just thick, but how does intent affect result. I mean it all sounds like some new-age wishy-washy vagueness.

It either makes a difference or it doesn't. And if it does that difference should be measurable.

togster

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

how does intent affect result.

it's the nature of the intent that affects the nature of the result.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I mean it all sounds like some new-age wishy-washy vagueness.

New-age? Are you serious?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It either makes a difference or it doesn't.

It does make a difference. I can only speak for myself.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And if it does that difference should be measurable.

If you say so. I fail to see how you can quantify intent.

Zillah

togster wrote: »

Then you really need to look up what karma actually means

This is the interpretation of karma that the individual under discussion believes in. The fact that he is mislabeling it only adds to the idiocy of his position.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Maybe I'm just thick, but how does intent affect result. I mean it all sounds like some new-age wishy-washy vagueness.

don't be silly, it's very old-age wishy-washy vagueness. That makes it all better.

It either makes a difference or it doesn't. And if it does that difference should be measurable.

the turn this conversation has taken reminds me of that american cult that released the 'documentary' 'what the bleep: down the rabbit hole'

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

Rev Hellfire

togster wrote: »

It does make a difference. I can only speak for myself.

Fair enough and I'm quite happy to accept you believe that.

We're really going around in circles, so I guess I'll bow out on this one.

togster

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

don't be silly, it's very old-age wishy-washy vagueness. That makes it all better.

Makes what better? To understand Karma you need to understand the indian philosophies behind it. Then dismiss it at will.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the turn this conversation has taken reminds me of that american cult that released the 'documentary' 'what the bleep: down the rabbit hole'

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

Has nothing to do what we are talking about.

0 for effort tbh.

Zillah

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

don't be silly, it's very old-age wishy-washy vagueness. That makes it all better.

Well not quite. One of the defining qualities of new-age wishy washy vagueness is an insistence on including poorly represented elements of old age wishy-washy vagueness. Hence why new-agers go on about non-biblical angels, retributive karma etc.