What prove do you have that it doesn't exist? Since in your own words your a man of reason you need to have some strong solid proof to undermime your statements.
You know what, I don't believe in Karma, but you seriously need to get off your high horse, and stop dismissing and ridiculing people's opinions everytime you post. I know that you're not even aware of you behavior, but take a minute and think about it, because you do dismiss anything and everything that does not fit your perception, most of the times you do so by using by hiding behind science and 'rationality'. And no opinions are not irrational because they're based on belief instead of science or because they differ from yours. I don't know if Karma and rebirth exist or not, but there is a possibility that it does, same way as there is a possibility that there is a God. I do not go all over town (or post all over the board) forcing my opinion/belief as the sole right one. You need to learn how to back up your own views and opinions by using 'facts', 'proof', and 'science' without completely downplaying others. Let a small door open for other opinions and beliefs than your own.
Amen, they tried in vain.
What proof do I have it doesn't exist? The injustice of the world, lol, that's what. To quote this exact thread:
Tom Sneddon's Pension said:
1. Tom Sneddon, $224,672.64
Does that look like karmic justice to you? I don't think so. There are thousands of other examples, both among the rich and famous and among non-celebrities like ourselves. Is this thread not present to express our outrage at this most unreasonable and utterly unfair fact? How could a man who spent so much time and energy trying to take an innocent like Michael down be prospering like this, when honest and hard-working people all over the world are on the verge of economic ruin and working their asses off to simply make the most basic ends meet. How is that karmic justice in any sense of the concept? The simple unfairness of the world, which has spanned since its very beginning, absolutely counters any notion of justice, karmic or otherwise. There is a very true saying which we would be well-advised to live by, as it is one of the few which proves itself true time and time again: "life isn't fair...get over it." Harsh words, but the truth often is harsher and less pleasant than a fanciful and comforting lie.
For those who are so sure that "karma" will get him (all I said is that it seems really quite unlikely--they're the ones who are stating it as though it were sure fact), how do you intend to gauge that? Suppose we take karmic justice along with something like reincarnation and the old bugger keels over and dies tomorrow. According to some beliefs, he'd be destined to utter ruin the next time over, but how do we
know this to be true? The answer is, we don't, and we never will--the same as all other beliefs, which exist despite their logical fallacies. The fact that we'll never know for sure, instead of providing the doubt which should dispel them, actually serves as fuel for the believers to hold on to that hope a little longer.
To think I'm looking down from a "high horse" for pointing out the unlikelihood of these beliefs holding any truth, as you claim, is absolutely erroneous. Belief is a basic human defence mechanism against the uncertainties, unknowns and injustices of the world, all things which inspire fear in change-resistant humans (all of us). Thus, we seek something "eternally unchanging" through belief, something to hope for--I'm not even talking exclusively about religious or spiritual beliefs, but the entire enchilada altogether. Even something like believing you will make it through a situation, say, a terrible illness--you have no proof whatsoever that you will make it, but you keep telling yourself it is so to keep yourself going. You appeal to your emotions and hope for survival, shunning whatever logic out of your system which would tell you things in a more objective fashion, to tell yourself the subjective tale of your survival. So, the same happens with all other beliefs--they are built to guard against a changing world, and are a natural part of human psychology. However, as it has often been found, a dream, even the most pleasant and wonderful of them, is at the very end a dream. In regards to spiritual concepts, they are basically humanity's way of making order (i.e. things like karma, where the good are rewarded and the bad suffer) out of disorder (the world is not a moral place and obviously does not function under these human-invented principles). I only intend to guard against the (most probably--happy?) inevitable disappointment, but I am well aware people will do as they will in the end, as they always do--and how can I "look down" at them when I know their belief is a defence against an unpleasant truth, and when so many of us do the same? It is entirely human to believe despite all evidence to the contrary--it is survival, and I can't look down on that. I only implore for an appeal to reason, too.
In this case, I've chosen to speak out against this concept only because it inspires non-action. If "karma" will get him, then we don't have to even move a finger--only sit and wait until it does (if ever--and judging by the way things are going at present, it's not likely to happen). We have a duty to Michael to tell the world about this horrible monster's actions (and I'm not talking about what he did to Michael in general, but what he did [or rather, failed to do] to others as well). The world needs to know what a biased, unpleasant, and pathetic creature he truly is, and it would be of interest to point out that, despite the piss poor job he's done as DA, he's at the top of this pension list. Letting a spiritual concept get him, in the words of some here, is equivalent to letting him get away with all the crimes he has committed. Although Elusive Moonwalker is right in saying that Sneddon failed in his main endeavour, I would like to remind everyone that he ultimately won. Look who is and who isn't with us, and then tell me there are such things as your karma. If he were struggling to feed himself a morsel of bread, I'd be inclined to give you all some credit--however, the cockroach is at present a fat and, in all objective regards, a prospering one.
Additionally, all opinions are irrational because they are subjective, mine among them (say, opinions regarding musical taste). Your statement about opinions somehow being rational is a complete fallacy simply because of the definition of the concept of human opinion. Opinion needs not appeal to reason. If I say I prefer vanilla as opposed to chocolate ice cream, that would be a personal opinion (vanilla is better than chocolate), however, the reasons behind it would be only personally applicable to me with no objective/hard evidence that vanilla is better than chocolate, and therefore, my opinion (as ALL opinions, as you can see from the example, MINE among them) would not be based on logic/reason, thus, it would be irrational.
However, objective and observable evidence is not a matter of opinion, as it is universally observable. Finally, by your logic, things like unicorns could exist. No one has any definitive proof they don't, do they? However, probability points towards (very) highly unlikely, and the same goes with all the other concepts and things you've named. If the fact that observable evidence is not in favour of things of that sort offends you, I don't know what to say, because that is 1)most certainly not my opinion, and 2)most certainly not under my control. It is the way the world is.
Moreover, on the other threads,
I wasn't the one who was pushing things on others--if anything, it was the other way around. People called me all sorts of names for not adhering to their view of things. It works both ways, darling. You hide behind calling others closed-minded, when you are all the same way. Otherwise, the others would have let my comment on love go, without pushing their beliefs on me, nay? Finally, I don't force anything on anyone--the very nature of a forum implies debate, and that is exactly what I am doing. I'm not saying I'm most definitely right--however, judging by the evidence for/against things, I'm most likely closer to the truth than someone whose beliefs hold no weight in the eyes of the world, to put it simply. Believers are the ones who talk about their beliefs as though they're certainty (in this thread alone: "karma WILL get him", not could/should/may, but WILL (definitive, forceful language--in the other threads, people claimed to "know" things).