Karma

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: Descartes
I believe in the fallacious causal relationships that people derive after the effect. It's referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc; after a positive outcome people like to associate a causal relationship with something entirely nonsensical in the past, and some people choose karma. This behavior doensn't surprise me, because there are people who believe that celestial bodies influence human behavior.

I don't think it's that simple - I do agree with you to a certain degree, because I can see why people would do that.

Celestial bodies influencing behavior is not something I believe in, however.

The moon and the sun cycles have been proven to effect ppl and animals

Yep, the moon's gravitational pull can effect something a huge as the tides, it would only make sense that it would effect the water in our own bodies. Also, many people have a condition known as SAD where they get depressed in the winter from lack of sunlight.

Right, because tidal forces acting on a body as massive as the entire earth is analogous to such an infinitessimally small body as ourselves. :disgust:

And the idea of SAD derives from the synthezation of melatonin from serotonin by the light-transducing pineal gland I believe, but my point still stands.

 

[fredtam]

No. I do go out of my way to help people all the time and get nothing for it. Not complaining.

 

[Gurck]

I don't believe in it. It doesn't make logical sense.

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Isla
Like attracts like.

That's convincing.

It's simple. For the most part, you reap what you sow. Sure, there are exceptions... but in general, we get out what we put in to things.

I don't care what you call it. I'm not here to argue religion--- in that, 'karma' has no meaning to me. But the principle of 'what goes around comes around', 'you reap what you sow', and 'like attracts like' all point to the same thing.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: fredtam
No I do go out of my way to help people all the time and get nothing for it. Not complaining.

Blind altruism. I like it. It seems those concerned with the idea of karma are more likely the perpetrators of wrong. Why be concerned with any reciprocation, good or bad, if you're simply trying to do right by others?

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: Descartes
I believe in the fallacious causal relationships that people derive after the effect. It's referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc; after a positive outcome people like to associate a causal relationship with something entirely nonsensical in the past, and some people choose karma. This behavior doensn't surprise me, because there are people who believe that celestial bodies influence human behavior.

I don't think it's that simple - I do agree with you to a certain degree, because I can see why people would do that.

Celestial bodies influencing behavior is not something I believe in, however.

The moon and the sun cycles have been proven to effect ppl and animals

Yep, the moon's gravitational pull can effect something a huge as the tides, it would only make sense that it would effect the water in our own bodies. Also, many people have a condition known as SAD where they get depressed in the winter from lack of sunlight.

Right, because tidal forces acting on a body as massive as the entire earth is analogous to such an infinitessimally small body as ourselves. :disgust:

And the idea of SAD derives from the synthezation of melatonin from serotonin by the light-transducing pineal gland I believe, but my point still stands.

The earth itself must submit to the forces of gravity the same as us.

 

[xcript]

NO

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Isla

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Isla
Like attracts like.

That's convincing.

It's simple. For the most part, you reap what you sow. Sure, there are exceptions... but in general, we get out what we put in to things.

I don't care what you call it. I'm not here to argue religion--- in that, 'karma' has no meaning to me. But the principle of 'what goes around comes around', 'you reap what you sow', and 'like attracts like' all point to the same thing.

Yes, nonsense. If the reciprocatory idea of the stated aphorisms keeps you motivated, then you are certainly entitled; however, the mere statement of such an aphorism doesn't make it true.

 

[shimsham]

nope.

a series of good choices lead to good consequences.

a series of bad choices lead to bad consequences.

these choices dont require being made by you to affect you.

no mysticism there.

 

[Cerb]

Crap! I voted yes before I saw the third option!
I believe that TMNT was an aesome arcade game much more than I do that there's karma.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: Descartes
I believe in the fallacious causal relationships that people derive after the effect. It's referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc; after a positive outcome people like to associate a causal relationship with something entirely nonsensical in the past, and some people choose karma. This behavior doensn't surprise me, because there are people who believe that celestial bodies influence human behavior.

I don't think it's that simple - I do agree with you to a certain degree, because I can see why people would do that.

Celestial bodies influencing behavior is not something I believe in, however.

The moon and the sun cycles have been proven to effect ppl and animals

Yep, the moon's gravitational pull can effect something a huge as the tides, it would only make sense that it would effect the water in our own bodies. Also, many people have a condition known as SAD where they get depressed in the winter from lack of sunlight.

Right, because tidal forces acting on a body as massive as the entire earth is analogous to such an infinitessimally small body as ourselves. :disgust:

And the idea of SAD derives from the synthezation of melatonin from serotonin by the light-transducing pineal gland I believe, but my point still stands.

The earth itself must submit to the forces of gravity the same as us.

Uhh, yes, hence tidal forces. The trouble is that the affect of tidal forces on our bodies as exerted by the moon is infinitessimally small.

These arguments have been debated ad nauseum over centuries, so there's really no point in recapitulating any of these arguments. If you choose to have your head up in the clouds, and if you prefer to relegate the physical to something as romantic as celestial influence on human behavior, then you are entitled.

 

[Isla]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Isla

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Isla
Like attracts like.

That's convincing.

It's simple. For the most part, you reap what you sow. Sure, there are exceptions... but in general, we get out what we put in to things.

I don't care what you call it. I'm not here to argue religion--- in that, 'karma' has no meaning to me. But the principle of 'what goes around comes around', 'you reap what you sow', and 'like attracts like' all point to the same thing.

Yes, nonsense. If the reciprocatory idea of the stated aphorisms keeps you motivated, then you are certainly entitled; however, the mere statement of such an aphorism doesn't make it true.

I thought it had to do with eons of observation. Plant beans, get beans. People of relatively equal attractiveness/intelligence/social status hooking up. Being a good friend, having good friends. It's not mysticism, it's pragmatism to me. *shrug*

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Crap! I voted yes before I saw the third option!
I believe that TMNT was an aesome arcade game much more than I do that there's karma.

turtle power!

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: Descartes
I believe in the fallacious causal relationships that people derive after the effect. It's referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc; after a positive outcome people like to associate a causal relationship with something entirely nonsensical in the past, and some people choose karma. This behavior doensn't surprise me, because there are people who believe that celestial bodies influence human behavior.

I don't think it's that simple - I do agree with you to a certain degree, because I can see why people would do that.

Celestial bodies influencing behavior is not something I believe in, however.

The moon and the sun cycles have been proven to effect ppl and animals

Yep, the moon's gravitational pull can effect something a huge as the tides, it would only make sense that it would effect the water in our own bodies. Also, many people have a condition known as SAD where they get depressed in the winter from lack of sunlight.

Right, because tidal forces acting on a body as massive as the entire earth is analogous to such an infinitessimally small body as ourselves. :disgust:

And the idea of SAD derives from the synthezation of melatonin from serotonin by the light-transducing pineal gland I believe, but my point still stands.

The earth itself must submit to the forces of gravity the same as us.

Uhh, yes, hence tidal forces. The trouble is that the affect of tidal forces on our bodies as exerted by the moon is infinitessimally small.

These arguments have been debated ad nauseum over centuries, so there's really no point in recapitulating any of these arguments. If you choose to have your head up in the clouds, and if you prefer to relegate the physical to something as romantic as celestial influence on human behavior, then you are entitled.

Nice big words but you didnt explain why earths gravity impacts us but the moon cycles cannot. The earth's gravity causes the moon to orbit the earth but the earths gravity also causes us to stay on land and not float away even though we are infitensimally ssmaller than the moon...

the sun and moon cycles effect many species of plants, fish and land mammals they are infintesmally small too....

if animals are relatively just as small as us in comparison to oceans then why cant we be affect in a similar fashion as them?

EDIT

I'd also like to ask why is it that most holidays religous or otherwise have been centered around sun/moon cycles throughout most religions and throughout many cultures and throughout many time periods (i.e. solstice, equinox etc....) It seems that if they had no effect on ppl then there would be more arbitrary holidays....I know that doesnt prove anything in itself but I must ask why.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: Descartes
I believe in the fallacious causal relationships that people derive after the effect. It's referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc; after a positive outcome people like to associate a causal relationship with something entirely nonsensical in the past, and some people choose karma. This behavior doensn't surprise me, because there are people who believe that celestial bodies influence human behavior.

I don't think it's that simple - I do agree with you to a certain degree, because I can see why people would do that.

Celestial bodies influencing behavior is not something I believe in, however.

The moon and the sun cycles have been proven to effect ppl and animals

Yep, the moon's gravitational pull can effect something a huge as the tides, it would only make sense that it would effect the water in our own bodies. Also, many people have a condition known as SAD where they get depressed in the winter from lack of sunlight.

Right, because tidal forces acting on a body as massive as the entire earth is analogous to such an infinitessimally small body as ourselves. :disgust:

And the idea of SAD derives from the synthezation of melatonin from serotonin by the light-transducing pineal gland I believe, but my point still stands.

The earth itself must submit to the forces of gravity the same as us.

Uhh, yes, hence tidal forces. The trouble is that the affect of tidal forces on our bodies as exerted by the moon is infinitessimally small.

These arguments have been debated ad nauseum over centuries, so there's really no point in recapitulating any of these arguments. If you choose to have your head up in the clouds, and if you prefer to relegate the physical to something as romantic as celestial influence on human behavior, then you are entitled.

Nice big words but you didnt explain why earths gravity impacts us but the moon cycles cannot. The earth's gravity causes the moon to orbit the earth but the earths gravity also causes us to stay on land and not float away even though we are infitensimally ssmaller than the moon...

the sun and moon cycles effect many species of plants, fish and land mammals they are infintesmally small too....

if animals are relatively just as small as us in comparison to oceans then why cant we be affect in a similar fashion as them?

Don't confuse animals that have evolved specific percepibilities that are aberrant to our own. There are animals that have evolved sensibilities to gravity, and their behavior is thus governed by them. Our inertial sensibilities are governed by our vestibular systems, and without that system we wouldn't be employing bipedalism.

The point is not that there is a quantifiable gravitational influence, no matter how damn small; rather, the point is that we haven't any sensibilities that otherwise affect our behavior as some animals do. Our behavioral manifestations are no more affected by gravity than compression waves, but a bat's behavior most certainly is considering the latter.

If you can show me a quantifiable exertion of influence on human vestibular systems (or any system for that matter) by gravity, then I'll drop my argument. This obviously only goes for the human body under normal gravity of about 10 Newtons.

 

[Spamela]

if you mean that the good/bad you do comes back to you in your lifetime,
then mostly yes. if you mean "die & reborn as something/someone else," then no.

 

[Shawn]

not really

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: gigapet
I'd also like to ask why is it that most holidays religous or otherwise have been centered around sun/moon cycles throughout most religions and throughout many cultures and throughout many time periods (i.e. solstice, equinox etc....) It seems that if they had no effect on ppl then there would be more arbitrary holidays....I know that doesnt prove anything in itself but I must ask why.

Don't forget that the idea of a "sun cycle" (I'm not really sure what that means) was admonished by contemporaries of Galileo and before due to its being heretical. There are still some people who feel rather Aristotilean in their beliefs of geocentrism, anthropocentrism, etc.

Perhaps your question is about sidereal time? Well, it's nothing more than a system for tracking time. I still use sidereal time in astronomy, but interestingly enough the idea of celestial bodies being so consistent was antithetical to Aristotle as he believed that all matter desired to be at rest; in other words, that there had to always be a constant force to keep the bodies moving. This isn't the case, and the lack of any imbalanced forces on the rotation of earth means a sidereal day is consistent enough for tracking events of any kind. I don't think there are any worthwhile religious connotations to discuss.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: gigapet
I'd also like to ask why is it that most holidays religous or otherwise have been centered around sun/moon cycles throughout most religions and throughout many cultures and throughout many time periods (i.e. solstice, equinox etc....) It seems that if they had no effect on ppl then there would be more arbitrary holidays....I know that doesnt prove anything in itself but I must ask why.

Don't forget that the idea of a "sun cycle" (I'm not really sure what that means) was admonished by contemporaries of Galileo and before due to its being heretical. There are still some people who feel rather Aristotilean in their beliefs of geocentrism, anthropocentrism, etc.

Perhaps your question is about sidereal time? Well, it's nothing more than a system for tracking time. I still use sidereal time in astronomy, but interestingly enough the idea of celestial bodies being so consistent was antithetical to Aristotle as he believed that all matter desired to be at rest; in other words, that there had to always be a constant force to keep the bodies moving. This isn't the case, and the lack of any imbalanced forces on the rotation of earth means a sidereal day is consistent enough for tracking events of any kind. I don't think there are any worthwhile religious connotations to discuss.

Descartes, you are full of sh!t and your big words won't convince me otherwise. It has been known for a long time that the moon affects humans.

example

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: gigapet
I'd also like to ask why is it that most holidays religous or otherwise have been centered around sun/moon cycles throughout most religions and throughout many cultures and throughout many time periods (i.e. solstice, equinox etc....) It seems that if they had no effect on ppl then there would be more arbitrary holidays....I know that doesnt prove anything in itself but I must ask why.

Don't forget that the idea of a "sun cycle" (I'm not really sure what that means) was admonished by contemporaries of Galileo and before due to its being heretical. There are still some people who feel rather Aristotilean in their beliefs of geocentrism, anthropocentrism, etc.

Perhaps your question is about sidereal time? Well, it's nothing more than a system for tracking time. I still use sidereal time in astronomy, but interestingly enough the idea of celestial bodies being so consistent was antithetical to Aristotle as he believed that all matter desired to be at rest; in other words, that there had to always be a constant force to keep the bodies moving. This isn't the case, and the lack of any imbalanced forces on the rotation of earth means a sidereal day is consistent enough for tracking events of any kind. I don't think there are any worthwhile religious connotations to discuss.

Descartes, you are full of sh!t and your big words won't convince me otherwise. It has been known for a long time that the moon affects humans.

example

I stand corrected!

Seriously, why do people criticize me for "big words?" I use the same damn words that anyone would use in these discussions. I know of no other words capable of conveying what's necessary.

I shall henceforth abscond to my world that favors these ostensible esotericisms, heh.

:beer: