Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism and Karma

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 5:29:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can an atheist believe in Karma?

Karma is not a deity, but more of a cosmic justice, like a natural order of things. Or is Karma a means by which a deity passes judgment?

Please discuss.
My work here is, finally, done.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 7:24:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 5:29:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Can an atheist believe in Karma?

Karma is not a deity, but more of a cosmic justice, like a natural order of things. Or is Karma a means by which a deity passes judgment?

Please discuss.

Is Karma a god or depend on the existence of a god?
If yes, then an atheist can't believe in it. If no, then they can.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 8:48:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 8:21:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I'm not sure.

I don't mean to put you on front street, but I am curious.

Why are you not sure, the question is easy.

Do you believe in a form of karma.

Seeing as it's a yes or no question, I can only see 2 reasons you wouldn't have an answer.

1. you don't understand the definition of karma.

2. your answer most likely conflicts with your personal perspective.

Am I missing something?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:56:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Gravity is physical science.

Karma (punishing or rewarding) is based on morals and ethics which is psychological science.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:02:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:56:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Gravity is physical science.

Karma (punishing or rewarding) is based on morals and ethics which is psychological science.

Devil's Advocate: Think of it this way. When you rub your hand against an object, there is heat. The faster you rub against this object, the more heat is generated. Due to entropy, heat will dissipate into the most compatible surrounding systems (your hand, the object, and the air). The hand receives heat due its actions as does the air and object, but we would not say that the heat decided to specifically focus on your hand as opposed to air.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:04:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 5:29:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Can an atheist believe in Karma?

Karma is not a deity, but more of a cosmic justice, like a natural order of things. Or is Karma a means by which a deity passes judgment?

Please discuss.

Sure, why not? An atheist can believe in karma, souls, magic, aliens, an afterlife... anything at all except deities.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:12:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

Tell that to the majority of philosophers who are both atheists and moral realists.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:17:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only things atheists can't believe in is gods.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:22:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism,"fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort.

These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:

Past-Action Determinism: The belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results.

Theistic Determinism: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a"Supreme Being.

Indeterminism/Accidentalism: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:44:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 10:02:55 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:56:23 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Gravity is physical science.

Karma (punishing or rewarding) is based on morals and ethics which is psychological science.

Devil's Advocate: Think of it this way. When you rub your hand against an object, there is heat. The faster you rub against this object, the more heat is generated. Due to entropy, heat will dissipate into the most compatible surrounding systems (your hand, the object, and the air). The hand receives heat due its actions as does the air and object, but we would not say that the heat decided to specifically focus on your hand as opposed to air.

Unless your implying that karma is not natural reward or punishment my argument is still valid and your argument is still based on physical science and are ignoring the psychological necessity for nature to make the decision to reward or punish someones actions.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:45:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 10:12:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

Tell that to the majority of philosophers who are both atheists and moral realists.

If they either agree, or disagree, with that statement then they prove it to be correct. Even if they say it's neither right nor wrong, it's still proven correct because they are appealing to either themselves, or maybe logic, as that objective entity that decided that is not right or wrong, based on a pre-determined idea of right and wrong, correct and incorrect.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:59:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?

I'd probably use my original wording lol. Compel implies some force is acting upon and influencing the nature of the universe, as opposed to the universe's laws existing as necessary products of its nature.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 11:08:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong.

If physical laws of the Universe dont require a law maker, why do the moral laws of the Universe need a law maker?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 11:10:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 10:59:07 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?

I'd probably use my original wording lol. Compel implies some force is acting upon and influencing the nature of the universe, as opposed to the universe's laws existing as necessary products of its nature.

Using natural laws the universe decides ho is to be punished or rewarded.

Do you like that phrasing better?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 11:34:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 11:10:29 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:59:07 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?

I'd probably use my original wording lol. Compel implies some force is acting upon and influencing the nature of the universe, as opposed to the universe's laws existing as necessary products of its nature.

Using natural laws the universe decides who is to be punished or rewarded.

Do you like that phrasing better?

Well, no, because the universe doesn't decide anything lol. Oblige, compel, decide...all these terms unnecessarily anthropomorphize a force that could be a product of the nature of the universe. I feel like I'm repeating myself lol.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 2:05:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 11:34:45 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 11:10:29 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:59:07 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?

I'd probably use my original wording lol. Compel implies some force is acting upon and influencing the nature of the universe, as opposed to the universe's laws existing as necessary products of its nature.

Using natural laws the universe decides who is to be punished or rewarded.

Do you like that phrasing better?

Well, no, because the universe doesn't decide anything lol. Oblige, compel, decide...all these terms unnecessarily anthropomorphize a force that could be a product of the nature of the universe. I feel like I'm repeating myself lol.

That's because your failing to see my point. If there is an option of reward or punishment a decision has to be made. It doesn't matter how you argue against it or word it, its a fact.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 2:41:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 2:05:59 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 11:34:45 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 11:10:29 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:59:07 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?

I'd probably use my original wording lol. Compel implies some force is acting upon and influencing the nature of the universe, as opposed to the universe's laws existing as necessary products of its nature.

Using natural laws the universe decides who is to be punished or rewarded.

Do you like that phrasing better?

Well, no, because the universe doesn't decide anything lol. Oblige, compel, decide...all these terms unnecessarily anthropomorphize a force that could be a product of the nature of the universe. I feel like I'm repeating myself lol.

That's because your failing to see my point. If there is an option of reward or punishment a decision has to be made. It doesn't matter how you argue against it or word it, its a fact.

Wnope already perfectly addressed this point, so I thought you and I were just discussing terminology lol.

Someone unfamiliar with climate dynamics may well believe that the weather changing from favorable to unfavorable conditions could only be the result of a conscious decision maker beyond our understanding. The actual reason, of course, is a complex but natural one. You haven't established that behavior or morality or ethics or what have you is anything other than natural, so the possibility exists that some natural system therein exists beyond our current understanding.

Karma could also be some supernatural balance decided by unicorns. I'm not saying either of these scenarios are likely or that I believe them, just that such systems would not require a god and thus could be believed by an atheist.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 2:57:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 2:41:22 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 2:05:59 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 11:34:45 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 11:10:29 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:59:07 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:45:52 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 10:23:42 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:45:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:40:14 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:14:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:05:47 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:02:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/5/2012 7:58:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Karma may not involve a God, per se, but if you call it cosmic justice, then you imply that something exists as an objective law maker. You can't have a system of justice without some entity assigning right and wrong. If you give that power to the cosmos, aren't you for all intents and purposes, calling it a god??

I understand it less as a system of justice and more of matter of balance that springs naturally and necessarily from the nature of the universe.

Your response still infers a natural "conscious" action.

How so?

Also, for future reference, the speaker implies, the listener infers.

Ah yes sorry. Lack of sleep affects my intellect sometimes.

It seems you are suggesting the universe has an obligation to punish or reward people based on their actions.
IMO, no matter how you perceive it, you are suggesting the universe has choices. In order to make a decision amongst these choices consciousness is needed.

Devil's advocate: If Karma were simply a reactionary force, the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then although it would appropriately punish or reward (just as gravity would lead to something falling or floating) it would not need conscious thought in order to do so.

Beat me to it. Obligation is the wrong word, as it implies duty and reasoning as opposed to natural (or supernatural) laws and systems.

Which is a better word to define it then? compelled?

I'd probably use my original wording lol. Compel implies some force is acting upon and influencing the nature of the universe, as opposed to the universe's laws existing as necessary products of its nature.

Using natural laws the universe decides who is to be punished or rewarded.

Do you like that phrasing better?

Well, no, because the universe doesn't decide anything lol. Oblige, compel, decide...all these terms unnecessarily anthropomorphize a force that could be a product of the nature of the universe. I feel like I'm repeating myself lol.

That's because your failing to see my point. If there is an option of reward or punishment a decision has to be made. It doesn't matter how you argue against it or word it, its a fact.

Wnope already perfectly addressed this point, so I thought you and I were just discussing terminology lol.

Someone unfamiliar with climate dynamics may well believe that the weather changing from favorable to unfavorable conditions could only be the result of a conscious decision maker beyond our understanding. The actual reason, of course, is a complex but natural one. You haven't established that behavior or morality or ethics or what have you is anything other than natural, so the possibility exists that some natural system therein exists beyond our current understanding.

Karma could also be some supernatural balance decided by unicorns. I'm not saying either of these scenarios are likely or that I believe them, just that such systems would not require a god and thus could be believed by an atheist.

Any natural physical possibility is considered physical science.

Karma is the assumption that nature is choosing which actions are rewarded and which actions are punished.
These choices would and must come from a moral or ethical standing in order to choose reward or punishment. That is a psychological science.