is karma real or what?

You don’t get favors being an asshole.

In my experience, favors are what really can bring you to success — you can only do so much yourself, and that’s okay

In that sense karma is real IMO

Hanzo_AA said:

Yes modern science is based on repetition but do you honestly feel the repetition and further lines of enquiry are a selfless search for truth? Or something that’s largely degenerated into a system that picks and chooses what to promote and bring to the forefront of publishing based on what is most profitable; can be economised best? Academia and modern science are funded by big business. Deal with it.

Edit: I tried to find an article about Dawkins that said he's basically not a scientist but a ‘religiophobic’ madman with the gift of gab who’s mission is to destroy organised religion. I couldn’t find it but here’s some more trouble he found....
criticised and condemned by scientists themselves for misrepresenting modern science and criticising religion beyond reason
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html

But according to you none of these people are real scientists then because they disagree with you and what ‘real scientists’ are right

Of any number of thinkers and you pick the most controversial, self-aggrandizing, sociopath who’s rise to fame was for relentless criticism of all things spiritual or of god, rather than any actualy constructive discovery or achievement, fo represent your point of view. It speaks for itself actually. This is starting to look more like an emotional dilemma than an intellectual debate.

Click to expand...

i dont cherry pick scientists my boy. you still seem to have a problem trying to understand what i said.
anything that you a are talking is Based on belief and not evidence.


what Richard Dawkins talks about religion is correct lol. its not based on any evidence.

i can prove physics to you with the help of experiments and repeated tests with the exact same results. can you prove karma to me with case study experiment and give 100 percent same result for everyone?

take 100 people and make everyone do bad things, and observe them over time for years. not everyone will face a bad time or get a punishment for something bad they did? . some people will have a good time and no negative consequences for their action while others might get injuries or punishments that you will immediately associate with karma. that article that you linked me about Richard Dawkins are just by Some triggered people who worries that he talks against religion

he does coz he encourages them to teach science in school rather than religion. some schools teach a lot of religion which again is based on no evidence

and the last point the modern science has evolved into a criteria which challenges anyone who makes ridiculous claims or credible claims. they just have to prove it or provide empirical evidence.



so im really sorry my friend you seem to think that cherry picking, no.
no matter what business or media you are talking about. things in science can be proved unless u r telling me about some pseudo scientists or other category of religious scientists who won't even be accepted into the actual scientific community

Hanzo_AA said:

Yes modern science is based on repetition but do you honestly feel the repetition and further lines of enquiry are a selfless search for truth? Or something that’s largely degenerated into a system that picks and chooses what to promote and bring to the forefront of publishing based on what is most profitable; can be economised best? Academia and modern science are funded by big business. Deal with it.

Edit: I tried to find an article about Dawkins that said he's basically not a scientist but a ‘religiophobic’ madman with the gift of gab who’s mission is to destroy organised religion. I couldn’t find it but here’s some more trouble he found....
criticised and condemned by scientists themselves for misrepresenting modern science and criticising religion beyond reason
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html

But according to you none of these people are real scientists then because they disagree with you and what ‘real scientists’ are right

Of any number of thinkers and you pick the most controversial, self-aggrandizing, sociopath who’s rise to fame was for relentless criticism of all things spiritual or of god, rather than any actualy constructive discovery or achievement, fo represent your point of view. It speaks for itself actually. This is starting to look more like an emotional dilemma than an intellectual debate.

Click to expand...

Heh, if you read Dawkins he mentions that the Templeton Foundation doesn't like him, and that makes sense. The TF is a lot like the Gideon's. The Gideon's are the organization that makes sure most every hotel/motel in America has a bible in a drawer next to every bed.

Real but invisible.

Hanzo_AA said:

Yes modern science is based on repetition but do you honestly feel the repetition and further lines of enquiry are a selfless search for truth? Or something that’s largely degenerated into a system that picks and chooses what to promote and bring to the forefront of publishing based on what is most profitable; can be economised best? Academia and modern science are funded by big business. Deal with it.

Edit: I tried to find an article about Dawkins that said he's basically not a scientist but a ‘religiophobic’ madman with the gift of gab who’s mission is to destroy organised religion. I couldn’t find it but here’s some more trouble he found....
criticised and condemned by scientists themselves for misrepresenting modern science and criticising religion beyond reason
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html

But according to you none of these people are real scientists then because they disagree with you and what ‘real scientists’ are right

Of any number of thinkers and you pick the most controversial, self-aggrandizing, sociopath who’s rise to fame was for relentless criticism of all things spiritual or of god, rather than any actualy constructive discovery or achievement, fo represent your point of view. It speaks for itself actually. This is starting to look more like an emotional dilemma than an intellectual debate.

Click to expand...

And that makes science invalid somehow?? Are you Implying that just because science is funded by big companies that means the conclusions scientists come up with is false??

Yangshin said:

And that makes science invalid somehow?? Are you Implying that just because science is funded by big companies that means the conclusions scientists come up with is false??

Click to expand...

sadly he does not understand that laws and facts in science can be proved.
whether it's funded huge that does not matter. proof and evidence is what matters

speedyallan77 said:

sadly he does not understand that laws and facts in science can be proved.
whether it's funded huge that does not matter. proof and evidence is what matters

Click to expand...

Yes and he also does

speedyallan77 said:

sadly he does not understand that laws and facts in science can be proved.
whether it's funded huge that does not matter. proof and evidence is what matters

Click to expand...

Yes and he also brought strawman argument by showing some scientists and religious people greatly disagree with Richard Dawkins to what you have asked to prove how your point about karma is incorrect lol

I can't prove whether karma is real or not.
I know it helps me not doing some stupid shit and treating other how I'd like to be treated.

aman khattar said:

Don't mix researches,statistics and science into all this,this is a Universe thing and it cannot be put into statistics.

Click to expand...

well said my man! especially when we are just a fraction of multi-verse

I strongly believe Karma. Every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Slightly offtopic, I love how Non sanskrit/hindi/bengali speakers use the term Karma as if it's something for deciding someone's fate.

Karma simply means "work" (including good and bad), in most of the Indian languages. So, yeah it does exist, and it is a real word.

</Offtopic>

The irony is everything you've said so far is anecdotal, not factual ie it's based on your own personal beliefs that a second hand account is credible. I believe some may even loosely class that as hearsay. See I guess you're not so difference from religious simpletons after all

That being said, I have learned two things from this garbled mess:
- If you accuse anyone of presenting strawman arguments it's the easiest way of turning attention away from your own
- all you have do to prove you're correct and intelligent enough to know what you're talking about in any discussion regarding axioms is keep using the word SCIENCE over and over again and conceitedly enough. It sounds like it must be one incredibly comfy blanket.

I wonder what's worse:
not being able to differentiate between what are facts and beliefs (because unless you're the scientist and making first hand observations any report on a matter s based on you're belief that they're accurate and honest) or not being able to see that with some strange delusional view that there's A single scientific authority that determines unanimously what is and isn't classed as science (eat your heart out adolf hitler) -newsflash - there isn't, you're every bit as bad as any religious fundamentalist without even realising it.
Calling something 'nonsense' or 'pseudo' - x,y or z without really knowing the first thing about is not being scientific. It's simply ignorance.

I don't understand that whilst a lot of people, even scientifically inclined are quite happy with the idea that comparing the spiritual with the scientific is comparing apples and oranges, there's a handful of peope that seem to pit them against each other for no apparent reason, other than some internal conflict they're too incompetent to try to resolve in any other way, than trying to drag other people and their beliefs and optimism down with them.

Hanzo_AA said:

The irony is everything you've said so far is anecdotal, not factual ie it's based on your own personal beliefs that a second hand account is credible. I believe some may even loosely class that as hearsay. See I guess you're not so difference from religious simpletons after all

That being said, I have learned two things from this garbled mess:
- If you accuse anyone of presenting strawman arguments it's the easiest way of turning attention away from your own
- all you have do to prove you're correct and intelligent enough to know what you're talking about in any discussion regarding axioms is keep using the word SCIENCE over and over again and conceitedly enough. It sounds like it must be one incredibly comfy blanket.

I wonder what's worse:
not being able to differentiate between what are facts and beliefs (because unless you're the scientist and making first hand observations any report on a matter s based on you're belief that they're accurate and honest) or not being able to see that with some strange delusional view that there's A single scientific authority that determines unanimously what is and isn't classed as science (eat your heart out adolf hitler) -newsflash - there isn't, you're every bit as bad as any religious fundamentalist without even realising it.
Calling something 'nonsense' or 'pseudo' - x,y or z without really knowing the first thing about is not being scientific. It's simply ignorance.

I don't understand that whilst a lot of people, even scientifically inclined are quite happy with the idea that comparing the spiritual with the scientific is comparing apples and oranges, there's a handful of peope that seem to pit them against each other for no apparent reason, other than some internal conflict they're too incompetent to try to resolve in any other way, than trying to drag other people and their beliefs and optimism down with them.

Click to expand...

dude i have first hand experience with science in a lab lmao.
if i meet you today. i can prove that gravity exists.
i can prove that inertia is real.
i can prove that speed = distance/ time

all these laws and facts were created using repeated observations and repeated confirmed experiments by scientists.
once something is established as law or fact it can be tested in a lab to be proved.

it's so so sad that you don't even understand what science means lol
i dont have to try and sound good in order to convince someone.

i told you once and ill tell you again lol. it's not my personal belief but inertia and gravity is a law and can be tested and proved.
try and prove me wrong.

scientific authority, will determine if something is true if someone makes claim, based on a criteria, not a belief system lmao., this criteria is a solid way to determine if something is true.

1. provide empirical evidence
2. experiment with repeatable results
3. data, to support/describe.

when i ask you to prove God or some supernatural deity is real or some spiritual energy exists, can you follow this criteria and prove it? can you lol?
can you prove that karma exists? using this criteria. you can't. if it does exist,repeated experiments with multiple people and observation of their life will give exact same results for all of them based on their actions, whether it is good or bad.
Good people get good back and bad people will face bad consequences aka punishments.
if the same result cannot be seen in every man based on what they morally did, good or bad then karma isn't real and it's nothing more than co incidence/luck


if science makes a claim and if it is a fact or a law anyone can test it to see it Is real. that's how it's done. there are no excuses.
if science cannot 100 percent confirm something but has partial evidence to support it is classified as a "theory" until it can be full proved.

fully proved stuff are facts or laws.


the funny thing is you keep repeating the word belief when i tell you time and time again that in science it is not based on a belief system or blind faith like spiritually. it's based on a criteria that can provide hard proof whether something is real or not

speedyallan77 said:

Good people get good back and bad people will face bad consequences aka punishments.
if the same result cannot be seen in every man based on what they morally did, good or bad then karma isn't real and it's nothing more than incidence/luck

Click to expand...

A full stop to the matter just like that. Amazing. If all scientists (I mean actual scientists, not people who assert their views on scientific subjects with the eloquence and reasoning of a badly spun low tier pbn page)
thought this way, scientific discoveries would get nowhere fast. Luckily you represent neither other scientists, science as any institution or of any school of thought - nothing except your own opinions.

And thank GOD for that

Hanzo_AA said:

Amazing. If all scientists (I mean actual scientists, not people who assert their views on scientific subjects with the eloquence and reasoning of a badly spun low tier pbn page)
thought this way, scientific discoveries would get nowhere fast. Luckily you represent neither other scientists, science collectively - nothing except your own opinions.

And thank GOD for that

Click to expand...

nope telling that inertia or gravity is true, is not my opinion.
it's a proven fact/law with evidence to support it.
you can test it yourself. science does not lie about it.


here's a challenge.
disprove it
or quit replying

Yes. Everything is energy

I am always trying to do some kind and small deeds to balance my karma, I haven't thought a lot of about it but to my friends, I am saying "let's gain some karma points" and when something bad happens to me (rarely) I say I have negative karma points.

speedyallan77 said:

nope telling that inertia or gravity is true, is not my opinion.
it's a proven fact/law with evidence to support it.
you can test it yourself. science does not lie about it.


here's a challenge.
disprove it
or quit replying

Click to expand...

Where did I say inertia or gravity doesn't exist? lol How does concrete evidence for the existence of one natural phenomenon either add or take away from an occurence of any other. Any lack of evidence means it's inconclusive at the best of times. In no way does it infer it doesn't exist - that's not science buddy, that's simply an opinion.

Don't worry, I am going to stop posting as you're clearly not interested in any deeper literature into the matter but seem to want someone to affirm it doesn't work or exist so you'll get away with anything weighing down your conscience. Umm yeah, you're on your own with that one.

Congratulations on being able to demonstrate the scientific prowess of a high schooler by the way.

Hanzo_AA said:

Where did I say inertia or gravity doesn't exist? lol How does concrete evidence for the existence of one natural phenomenon either add or take away from an occurence of any other. Any lack of evidence means it's inconclusive at the best of times. In no way does it infer it doesn't exist - that's not science buddy, that's simply an opinion.

Don't worry, I am going to stop posting as you're clearly not interested in any deeper literature into the matter but seem to want someone to affirm it doesn't work or exist so you'll get away with anything weighing down your conscience. Umm yeah, you're on your own with that one.

Congratulations on being able to demonstrate the scientific prowess of a high schooler by the way.

Click to expand...

that is science. because science was developed by humans and used to prove such things.

so it's not an opinion.
u are wrong again lol

Eventually we just live in a simulated world, so this might be called karma or whatever.