I don't get Buddhism

I think that you misunderstand what he is doing.

He is not waiting for an answer. He knows that there is no answer.

The fish try to convince him by they can’t because he controls whether he is convinced or not. He holds all the cards. Therefore, he is always going to win.

Getting the fish to jump around is part of the entertainment. :animals-fishblue: :animals-fishgreen:

Sure, I’ve said similar things. Sometimes take it at face value. Sometimes not. Nothing’s gonna shift this.

The only model of religion that seems to interest iambiguous is the objective one that he once held with an imaginable omni-god and a literal heaven and hell. That’s the religion which seems to fuel his obsessive, perseverative ambivalence. The only version of Buddhism he is willing to engage on amounts to the same thing. His preoccupation seems to hold him in a perpetual recapitulation of the crisis of his loss of faith and the resulting overwhelming terror of oblivion. Perhaps his mindset can be best understood in the context of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

ya’ll niggas is gettin played by biggs. this dude ain’t scared of oblivion or fractured or any of that shit he pretends to be. that’s part of his game, man. it’s all tongue-in-cheek. what he’s doin is subliminally suggesting that all ya’ll are scared and fractured and shit, or else you wouldn’t be hanging on so dearly to the crap you want to believe/hope is true. the irony is, he’s saying that what ya’ll niggas is doing is terror management theory because you ain’t got the cajones to be nihilists.

when will the day come when philosophy is no longer terror management theory?

you folks need to face your mortality squarely and find your inner tyler durdens.

If so, he’s lying because he has described how fear of oblivion for himself and people he cares about is chewing him up.

no he’s bullshitting again. he won’t admit it publicly, but he’s starting with the affirmation of man, and he works his way backwards using cyyn-nicism. the time monitor. the space maasurer.

Are you like 12? niggas?

Well, duh, of course he’s been saying that. You haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about when you talk about what we know, or believe, for that matter. You’re just skimming in and defending him without much info. He’s has said what you are saying he is really, underneath doing. He has said that people are afraid of his ideas. Not much of a game if he comes out and says it, it’s just a straight accusation.

I mean, did you miss existentialism, nihilism, or what about all the physicalists - and they are all over philosophy forums. They have no beliefs different from nihilists as far as ontology. And yet they do not share his pathological repetition.

yo

If you weren’t on his team he’d call you one of the youngsters for this infantile post. If only he could admit to having an innner Tyler Durdan. And it’s not facing your own mortality being jealous of people who don’t wallow in shit they are at least as aware of as he is and his passive aggressive approach.

But your pom poms and cheer are noted as always.

Yo, chill, dog. He be messing wit our minds, feel me? Prometheus, he like Flava Fav to Iamb’s Chuck D, Tony Yayo to 50 cent. He just splainin’ Iambs banging shit, like, transcends our craniums. Lying? nah, it be freedom, word, yo.

We got’s to suss Iamb’s fly posts full time, bro, or we be just dissing his bluh.

Iambiguous, man, he’s, like, the shit. We been bumrushing a Boddhisatva. His posts be pointing at the moon, not describing it.

Gots to grow up, you and me.

Well, I see nothing has changed around here: 30 pages of the same group of guys perpetually peddling perceptions like some sort of philosopher purgatory :smiley:

I must say that it is good to see everyone is still around.

“Are you like 12?”

vocaroo.com/5hER1seEX2M

On the contrary, I am always looking for an argument able to be demonstrated that morality on this side of the grave relating to any particular behaviors revolving around conflicting goods of note is objective; and that death is not falling over into the abyss that is oblivion. The obliteration of “I” on the sojourn back to star stuff.

Here the arguments of Buddhists.

And, given what is at stake here, including moral obligations here and now, immortality, salvation, reincarnation, Nirvana etc., there and then, how on earth is it inappropriate to ask for a demonstration.

You have made arguments in favor of objective morality, and you seem to have something in the way of a belief in God that may or may not include an afterlife. But: I still have no clear sense of how you connect the dots here in the course of living your life from day to day. Not even “in your head”.

And, please, why in the world would I not want to be persuaded that the objective moral views I once embodied as a Christian and the objective political values I once embodied as a Marxist – views and values that gave me considerable comfort and consolation – may well still be within my reach.

So, go ahead, name a moral conflagration we are all likely to be familiar with here, cite an argument that expresses your views embodied in objective morality, note the behaviors this view propels you to choose here and now, and, given your own religious values, attempt to encompass what you imagine sustaining these behaviors all the way to the grave will result in on the other side.

Or, sure, skip that part altogether [again] and make it all about me.

Over and over again, I note the staggering gap between what any of us think the answer is and all that we simply do not know about the nature of existence itself. Thus [given that] the distinction I make revolves around another gap: the one between what we believe is true and what we able to demonstrate is true in regard to our value judgments on this side of the grave and what our fate is to be on the other side.

As [on this thread] that revolves around our thoughts and feelings about Buddhism.

Instead, over and again from folks like Phyllo and Karpel Tunnel, we get truly pathetic psycho-babble crap like this:

You decide how seriously to take him.

“Model” of religion? Back in the day when I was truly a devout Christian, the thing I remember most revolved around the Ten Commandments and Heaven. There was a way to know how to live. Righteously. And, if you behaved in sync with the will of God, you would be judged worthy of immortality and salvation. That was above all else what Reverend Deerdorf always focused in on. And that has stuck with me to this day. Call it a manifestation of dasein.

After all, what could possibly be more important in regard to one’s belief in God? Or, here, on the enlightened path to Nirvana.

Again, as though a psychologism of this sort can’t be thought up to encompass any number of additional “types” of God/No God folks.

Yes, I am no longer able to think myself into believing there are inherently good and bad behaviors. I am no longer able to believe that all of the things I love in life won’t be swallowed up in the obliteration of “I” for all of eternity.

Like it is strange that thinking this way might be disturbing.

But what of your own religious beliefs? What “type” are you? Are you still able to think yourself into believing there is an objective right and an objective wrong way to live? Are you still able to believe that death is merely a passage to bigger and better things?

If so, then what do you really know about my “type”?

Of course, we may never know the extent to which his own point is tongue-in-cheek.

On the other hand, there is no fucking way in hell in which exploring these relationships here is just a game to me. Unless that’s what some call “waiting for godot”.

:-k [-o< :-k

:-k

Why on earth would I talk about myself here? Why would I talk about my behaviors?

What would be the point?

Above all else, it is that I am able to reduce otherwise intelligent and articulate posters like KT down to truly hapless attempts like this at being “clever”!

That still boggles my mind. Though, admittedly, less and less.

Huh?

No, seriously: HUH?!

As a mere mortal, you interact with others who may well come into conflict with you over value judgments. For many, these conflicts go beyond the existential and encompass one or another equivalent of Heaven and Hell.

For me that revolves around moral nihilism here and now, oblivion there and then.

What about you? In a philosophy forum, you have no earthly reasons to discuss how these relationships impact on your day to day existence?

If not, we are put together differently.

If I go to a history forum, then I talk about history.

If I go to a science forum, then I talk about science.

I don’t talk about myself.

If I go to a religion forum, I want to discuss the relationship between the behaviors that religionists choose here and now as this is related to what they anticipate will result from this there and then on the other side.

And, in that regard, as someone not able to believe in God or Enlightenment, I am not able to not think as a moral nihilist who is just around the corner from oblivion.

Not to talk about how these relationships are crucial to an understanding of the life I live is [to me] ridiculous.

If, on the other hand, thinking like I do seems ridiculous to you, then steer clear of me on threads such as this. Just accept that we think about these things differently.

That’s very general.

What on earth does it mean?

We need a context. For example:

A Christian volunteers at a soup kitchen every year at Thanksgiving. He is inspired by what Jesus said about helping the poor.(Cite NT passages if necessary.) He “earns points” towards entering heaven.

I suppose that another Christian may be inspired to volunteer as well, when he reads the story.

What does an atheist get out of the Christian’s story? He might, or might not, volunteer at a soup kitchen but for reasons other than Jesus and heaven.

Where is the philosophy?

What am I missing?