I don't usually start threads, i always check google before i ask questions. But this is a tough one.

I have met many moderate theists and atheists who actually think Karma (the Buddhist kind) is real.

My question is, does anyone know how to try and explain how Karma doesn't work to people who hold these irrational thoughts. I'm not trying to ruin anyone's fun, but whenever the argument comes up, even atheists who can apply their Bullshit detector on religions, can't see the same flaws in Karma.

Usually i tell them there are no supernatural repercussions for your actions what-so-ever, and that a good example is how we all want more money, and the easiest way to get it is to be a manipulative cock. (money doesn't equal happiness, but that is besides the point...)

This always falls on def ears and i'm told "what goes around comes around" in a patronizing sense, as if i don't understand their ancient-sophisticated-spiritual-zen nonsense.

Is there anyone out there who has found a good metaphor to use or has a good method of debunking Karma in a simple and easy to understand way. While being able to convince these people to overlook their irrational view. I guess in an RD manner

I have tried telling them that the idea of Karma clashes with their own religions. Or that the only reason they believe it is because of the media hype-up of karma. But it never gets through.

Take out all of the mystical mumbo jumbo and following the principle of Karma is good humanist philosophy in my book.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Usually i tell them there are no supernatural repercussions for your actions what-so-ever, and that a good example is how we all want more money, and the easiest way to get it is to be a manipulative cock. (money doesn't equal happiness, but that is besides the point...)

Excellent example to start from. If you maximize your earnings by abusing people, people will be less reluctant to screw you over in return if the opportunity presents itself. In a way, what goes around comes around, but this is a human social interaction, not a 'divine' equilibrium at play.

The obvious one is to ask what babies have done to deserve the agonising death that some undoubtedly get. Of course it's very difficult to debunk it when they have the "next life" to consider into the equation as well.

I was under the impression that Buddhism is not a religion in the sense the Abrahamic faiths are? Why you need to see Karma as some sort of supernatural thing is beyond me, what source are you getting this from? There are a number of things to take into consideration when dealing with the idea of Karma. What qualifies as good and bad and from what perspective would be the first thing I would ask.
"I'm with Stupid" has seemingly made an assumption that pain is bad and that no pain is therefore good, also that life is in someway precious or is better than death? How these conclusions can be reached by someone who holds a belief that the universe has no intrinsic meaning is beyond me? Unless of course "I'm with stupid" is a believer in a higher power such as some sort of God. If that's the case then the assertion that life is precious or that pain is bad is more understandable......