And suddenly Iambiguous simply makes the factual claim that theists believe because it is comforting, period. All his ‘can’t somebody demonstrate to all rational people…’ when in fact he already presents as a fact the conclusion that he knows the reason they believe. So, not only an objective claim about all of their psychologies, but an objective claim about the possibilities for knowledge about God: iow he is making a metaphysical claim about what is possible for someone to know.
It’s good that Phyllo provokes him because when he’s cranky, he’s more honest. He knows already. He’s not open to arguments, he’s already drawn his factual conclusion. He’s not hoping against hope that some theist or Buddhist will demonstrate their beliefs should be followed by all rational people, he already knows what all rational people should believe. Note the incredulity above that anything else could possibly be the case.
His ‘inquiry’ is not an inquiry.
Now if I didn’t point the following out, he would like now respond to something like this by asking for an argument for God or Buddhism that all rational people should believe, not even noticing or caring that he has convinced himself with arguments that not all rational people are convinced by. He does not live by his own criteria.
Of he will, or would have, said ‘we’ll need a context.’ One of his main ways of dismissing things without actually responding to them.
Notice that he says, often, ‘we need…’ universalizing and objectifying his desire. It’s not ‘I want…’ it’s ‘we need.’ And he is bothered by objectivists.
The context is this discussion. The man seeking objective morals doesn’t seem to realize he is already acting in the world. And that these acts and this discussion are a context.
To put this in Buddhist terms…
To which Iamb might respond that we cannot have an empty cup, we are conditioned by dasein. Which is, in fact, more or less Buddhist doctrine. Yes, we are conditioned by dasein to have all sorts of thoughts.
Which is why Buddhism suggests meditation first, and not a little, long before ideas like enlightenment can be remotely understood as they are meant within Buddhism.
But he can’t possibly do that. So he wants experts in Buddhism to do precisely what Buddhism suggests is not only a poor process for learning - blabbing about things that cannot be understood without long training - but even one of the causes of suffering.
Please, Buddhist, go against your beliefs and help reinforce what you see as something that makes me suffer.
And please believe I am actually interested.