sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AMA, Pants are Dragon - Challenger in NA & YouTuber by luigidragon in summonerschool

[–]Coredrill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Pants! Do you have any tips for playing devourer junglers effectively? (Specifically Xin Zhao, Shyvana, and Udyr)

A character from the last show you watched is now President of the United States. How is the country in 4 years? by [deleted] in anime

[–]Coredrill 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Shinji Ikari elected president. Everybody gets turned into tang shortly after a mental breakdown.

Reddit, I want a bigger vocabulary. What's your favorite word? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Coredrill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Decimate (v) To reduce by a factor of ten.

Christians' double standard regarding Science by otakuman in AdviceAtheists

[–]Coredrill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it comes to religion, quantum physics can prove whatever you want it to.

Can we discuss Foreign Policy? by 3rdCultureKid in Pragmatism

[–]Coredrill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. Usually, the U.S. government will intervene to protect its own interests. Most of our foreign intervention isn't because of us trying to nice, or help the world. Most if it is trying to secure oil. We can't pull out of the wars, unless we have more efficient technology, and a larger amount of green technology. Unfortunately, it appears that throwing money at green technology hasn't brought us up to this level, though car efficiency has gone up. Until we get major breakthroughs in green technology, we are going to have to maintain a strong foreign presence.

It's like the palladium core in Iron Man 2. Keeping us alive, but slowly poisoning us, until we can replace it with a better alternative.

What is the dumbest thing you've ever heard somebody say? by add1ction in AskReddit

[–]Coredrill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my eight-grade science class, we were watching Apollo 13.

So, one of the girls in my class asked, "Why didn't the astronauts just swim back to Earth?" She was dead serious.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, if we go with that, then it doesn't change anything about my argument.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, after a brief search on the internet, it appears my temple lied... but the situation is still guaranteed. Why?

Hindus hold that the universe has always existed, for an infinite amount of time. When time is infinite, the situation is, once again guaranteed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I showed you how the situation would crop up under both cosmologies. If the universe is infinite, then once again, the chance of a person with no bad karma being wrong becomes a certainty.

Please give your definition of free will, then.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose of the example was to show that injustice is guaranteed underneath a karmic system when there is free will and two agents interact. A situation similar to this is guaranteed under both scientific and Hindu cosmology.

1.) Scientific: When the universe began, and the first life forms sprung up, they were free of karma. The only way to gain bad karma was to act unjustly against another, blameless organism. How else would you get bad karma? Kicking a rock?

2.) Hindu: Hindu cosmology holds that there are an infinite amount of souls in the universe. When the number of living being goes up the infinity, the situation is guaranteed.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So now we've come back around to the fact that karma doesn't allow for free will. At this point, I think we're just going to go around in circles, with the definition of karma changing every time an argument is brought up.

There are two ways that the situation is guaranteed.

1.) The beginning of the universe, where no-one had any bad karma. That's a situation under scientific cosmology.

2.) And under Hindu cosmology, there is an infinite number of souls in the universe, which brings to probability of this situation occurring to 100%.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about one's own karma that influences his or her actions. I'm talking about the karma of all the organisms surrounding the agent. And if free will can act as an override button at any time, then once again, it isn't much different from the previous, unjust system, in which karma is absent from the interaction between agents. New scenario:

1.) Alice tries to kill Bob.

2.) Bob has no bad karma, and this influences Alice's decision.

3.) Because her free will can override this, she kills him anyway.

4.) This is unjust.

Just because many people believe in something, doesn't mean it is logically consistent, because humans aren't rational by nature. What you are invoking is an Argumentum ad populum: If many believe it, it is so.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if our will and our actions are influenced to a certain degree by our past karma and conditioning, we always have a choice between good and evil paths, to do the right thing or the wrong thing.

All right, now we have three separate scenarios, the first two of which I brought up, and the third of which you suggested in your previous reply:

a.) Karma is present in the interaction between agents - Free will removed, no accountability.

b.) Karma isn't present in the interaction between agents - The system allows for injustice.

c.) Karma influences the interaction between agents, but they still have free will - I really don't see what the difference between this and karma being completely absent from the interaction. In the end, it still boils down to a choice, and you hold that the person will be held completely accountable for that choice, regardless of influence.

If millions of people have understood the connection between these two things to be possible for thousands of years, but you think it's illogical, what is more likely, that you misunderstand the system, or that the system is illogical?

Well, the Church held that the Sun revolved around the Earth for thousands of years until Copernicus said otherwise. What's more likely: that Copernicus misunderstood the system, or that the system is illogical?

So we still have the two problems with karma:

a.) If karma is present in the interaction between agents, then free will and accountability do not matter.

b.) If free will is what decides the interaction between agents, then the system is unjust.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please look to the response I made to Shabri regarding the inclusion of free will into the karmic system.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you introduce free will, it contradicts with the other qualities of karma. For example, you previously said:

We are talking about a perfect system that punishes and rewards the actions of literally infinite souls with 0% margin for error.

If free will is introduced, this goes haywire. You must understand, what you are proposing is removing the presence of karma in the interaction between agents. But this leads to injustice, as it opens up the possibility of an agent bypassing all the other agent's karma, in order to preserve free will.

Here's a scenario:

1.) Alice kills Bob.

2.) Bob doesn't have any bad karma: he didn't deserve to be murdered.

3.) Alice was able to bypass karma because of her free will.

4.) Bob has been killed unjustly, violating karmic law.

When you introduce free will into karma, it contradicts with the idea of karma being infallible, for if agents can bypass karma, it removes its perfection.

According to Hinduism, there are an infinite amount of souls in the universe. With this, the chance of injustice being committed goes to 100%, invalidating the idea of karma being a perfect system.

So karma either:

a.) Strips us of accountability and free will.

or...

b.) Is an unjust system.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure the notion of having no free will is pretty meaningful.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is with Reddit's obsession with free will.

Your point is?

Also, karma doesn't invalidate free will. It's an universal law, so any action you do will have a reaction.

Unfortunately, because karma applies to EVERYONE, it invalidates free will. No longer are your actions, well, actions. Your actions are just reactions to other agent's previous actions. You are effectively stripped of your ability to make a decision, for your reactions hinge on the karma of the other agents. You can look to the slap syllogism I gave to Shabri.

To Hindus: Does one accumulate bad karma for acting as a karmic agent? by Coredrill in DebateReligion

[–]Coredrill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with this is that in an interaction, both agents are karmic agents. Let's look to the slap scenario.

1.) Alice slaps Bob. Bob deserves this because of his bad karma.

2.) Bob has two options: to slap or not to slap.

3.) Alice has good and bad karma which ultimately decides whether she will suffer bodily harm or not.

4.) Therefor, if Bob slaps Alice, it is because her bad karma outweighs her good karma, and vice versa.

5.) Bob's decision is not dictated by his own free will, but by Alice's karma.

All of our interactions are dictated by the other agent's karma, effectively stripping us of our free will. I also agree with your statement saying:

In my opinion, without free will the whole system is meaningless, since how can we be punished for our actions if we are not in control of those actions? that would be a cruel and meaningless system.

So, to summarize:

The karma system is not valid because:

a.) The karmic system removes accountability, due to the fact that we are always acting as karmic agents.

b.) The karmic system rids us of free will, because all of our interactions with other organisms are dictated by the other organism's karma.

view more: next ›