Fun fact: the more you read Buddhist trash, the more you are going to be convinced that it is your personal choice, but in reality, it is just your brain degenerating and beginning to see sense in vague ramblings. In reality, 'edgy teens' are by and large the most rational, most sober and incisive group of people.
>>26305672 I don't read Buddhist books that often, I just like this pepe. Also your pseudo-psychology is dumb. >'edgy teens' are by and large the most rational, most sober and incisive group of people. sounds like a serious case of arrested development you got there
>its common to give up the drug high for the religious high I didn't do drugs, and also was religious before being a fedorable atheist >learn to embrace the suck that's kind of the idea, I'm seeking to understand the suck. To say the suck is all there is is to accept defeat.
Not really, just untainted brains. Teens have partly formed their intellects, and they haven't yet been poisoned with societal convictions and cliches such as 'you need to try to understand', 'there is value in letting go', 'I understood that everyone's point of view is equally valid', 'not everything has to be proven', 'don't get too lost in words', and other anti-intellectual tardation. Still naive, they're least likely to terminate discussion with those.
>>26305782 Being expert in a very specialised field of science doesn't lend one credence to be an authority on religious or philosophical views. In fact, their views on these subjects are entirely irrelevant.
I trust either to formulate things pertaining to their individual fields of knowledge, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.
Even fundamentally atheism always springs from philosophical grounds, not scientific ones. Earliest atheists had their views due to philosophical considerations, not those that stem from watching a YouTube video of some guy with scientific education dismissing creationism defended by some Christian Bible literalism, for example.
>>26305831 >societal convictions and cliches >and other anti-intellectual tardation you're projecting like an autistic madman, I haven't said any of these things.
It's the nature of teenagers to question authority and cliches, but it doesn't mean they're intelligent for doing so, especially since they usually can't provide solid warrants for their beliefs, it's usually just to be contrarian. Contrarianism after all is often misconstrued by the immature as intellect, it's why teens think they're smarter than everyone and talk back to teachers and parents.
>>26305897 >Being expert in a very specialised field of science doesn't lend one credence to be an authority on religious or philosophical views. In fact, their views on these subjects are entirely irrelevant.
Holy shit did you get that ass-backwards.
Only scientific views are relevant. 'Religion' and 'philosophy' are the cesspool collecting all the intellectual dregs that fail the falsifiability, relevance, application/utility, and other criteria of science. Philosophy is the catch-all, the wildcard, the asylum for all half-arsed notions everyone and their grandma's had.
I used to be such an edgelord when I was a teenager. Looking back on it, I'm disgusted. Browsed /b/ constantly, loved socially-acceptable punk music (Green Day), had a faux hawk and wore black clothes. I once came into school wearing a black Nike shirt and a red the because I thought it looked "cool". God I must have looked so retarded.
For some reason I've become the polar opposite of the person I was eight years ago. Now I'm conservative, I'm generally restrained when it comes to acting out, I dress like a regular person, I focus on school, I read books, and I've even been thinking about returning to my Christian heritage and going to church again because it might be nice to put some faith into a higher power.
>>26305782 I don't think I'd trust a particle physicist to make me creme brulee if they haven't any experience in cooking.
One of the many dysfunctions in modern society is raising people like scientists to God-status, where their opinions on anything are seemingly automatically valid regardless if it's outside their discipline or they even have any experience with it.
Science is the new faith and the scientists and science speakers the new priestly caste. Just refer to the "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" facebook page to see what I'm talking about.
>>26305950 Science is literally an extension of philosophy. If you think that philosophy is overly sentimental musings made by people who had too much time on their hands, you are not particularly literate in the field of philosophy.
The nature of verifiability itself is very much unverifiable.
>>26306042 >Buddhism always getting a free pass. it's because it's mostly secular but still provides a religious practice. Ritual and whatnot provide stability and structure to ones life, religion is just one way of providing this. But I'd argue the western interpretation is pretty warped, most people view it as a philosophy which supports all of their hippy new age bullshit.
Tip: 'we're rational!' doesn't make a faith rational. Buddhism has never grown out of shit like I gave in >>26305831 at best (and schizophrenic rants about the nature of duality at worst) and never will.
I analyzed 4chan's (and CloudFlare's) HTTP cookies with respect to their domains and age with respect to possibility of poster tracking by Hiro a couple of days ago (and did it all by myself over the course of an hour or so because no other poster gave a fuck), but I know that's not what you meant.
>>26306157 So you dismissed a whole field without actually studying it first hand. That's like dismissing mathematics entirely because glancing over overly difficult mathematics didn't make any sense at first sight. >>26306198 Analytic school of philosophy. Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein etc.
Former a mathematician of sorts at least, latter an engineer I recall? Yes, that's promising.
Mathematics is symbolic, which is my rule of thumb whether something is worth reading. If a 'philosophical' piece uses no symbolic notation -- Greek letters, parentheses, fucking arrows -- into the trash because it's probably religious.
>>26305950 Some philosophers' work seems obvious to you only because it's become so integrated in our society that you know it without even reading it. We've let it shape our entire modern worldview. And that just goes to show you the importance of philosophy, it changes our whole outlook on the question of what humanity is here to do. A question which shapes our entire existence.
>>26306399 >how can you notate problems pertaining to aesthetics and ethics?
What kind of question this even is?
Aesthetics and desires is just the simplest f(x) determining my steps in terms of non-existence of free will, in terms of how much I want to see/to do something. My own desires are particular to myself and to my exact situation, but essentially, human morality is not unlike physical forces. At any time, gravity is exerted upon every single physical body -- and similarly, desires/morality (desirability of a future choice) are exerted upon every single mind. Physics is notatable, and so is behaviour.
>>26306488 (Well, aesthetics and morality crosses the subject of evolution, but evolution, whether of living organisms or of ideas such as designs of objects, also easily notatable: a population A, a set of gene/meme carriers B, a set of evolutionary selectors C, or whatever.)
Science with a proper analytical/experimental philosophy at the frontier is all you really need.
There are no boundaries(we are one with the universe) this is a factual statement buddhist happen to believe. No free will, no conciousness really that is not just the result of factors and interactions mostly beyond our awareness.
To live well you need to practice ego destruction not because its religious but because it is useful and happens to be true. I find it easier to believe things that are backed by science than otherwise.
>>26306702 >you've never actually studied it have you?
Shut up, useful idiot.
Buddhism is a Rorschach test (nearly literally, knowing Buddhist 'teachers'' inclination for flashy gestural metaphors such as emptying cups of tea onto the floor). It's being kept intentionally vague so that leaders of the individual cults can point to an ambiguous piece of shitty scripture so to claim whatever would present them in the light needed at the moment (to a student caught in the cult: 'think less, be less critical, it's all about not thinking'; to an external scrutinizer: 'think more, Buddhism is all about thinking rationally, Buddhism embraces critical thought').
>>26306140 Same man. I wouldn't say I believe in the afterlife, and I wouldn't even call myself spiritual. But I definitely think there's more to the world than the particles we're made of and the physical laws that govern their motion.
>>26306889 >If you have a specific issue within the religion you want to talk about I could elaborate it for you.
Some time that I saw this one.
You can't discuss with a religion. You can just contrast it with meaningful discussion, e.g. mathematical/logical/empirical/evolutionary/..., and trust that intelligent people will see the difference. Just like there is no way to convince a person out of a belief that there's a causation behind a correlation, there is no way to keep a brain from seeing relevance of claims that 'the ego doesn't exist' as if 'ego' were a meaningful term in the first place.
>>26306823 Pro-til: no sonny. True is not what you can empirically feel. True is an approximation of the the real model of nature. Truth is anchored by theory, experiment, explanatory power and predictivity. Thats it.
The most predictive, experimentslly proven and explanatory model we have is the standard model of particle physics and it absolutely obliterates any notion of fundamental boundaries between the self and the universe or any macro lever structure for that matter.
Ego destruction is the practice that is now not only useful as it were in the past but intellectually comfortable. Because it is not contradictory to science but merely our own perception of what is true
>>26307009 Religious and unaware of it. How I wish that were new to me.
Tip in return, retard: your religiosity is the fact that you spend your time talking about unattainability of truth and not about empirical findings. (Of course, as I said numerous times, I am a religious person myself.)
Also seeing correspondence between physics and Buddhist rants about nonexistence of the self is schizophrenic, superfluous apophenia. All that particle physics says anything about is particles. Not the mind. Not the self. Not reality. Particles. End of fucking stury.
>>26307117 True, but consequences of a belief have no bearing on its accuracy. Even if, like the misconception has it, rejection of free will for instance made people depressed (which it doesn't), it would still be the accurate and moral acknowledgement.
As I explained many times, the way to spot a newfag (or rather, a rare oldfag) is that the newfag thinks that it matters to correctly attribute/distribute claims made in a thread to particular people behind the Anonymous. In reality, in mature discussion this matters fuck all. We're all free to paraphrase the shit out of each other and address those paraphrases, and only new idiots complain 'what, no, I didn't say that, what I said is...' as if their identities mattered, and as if everybody didn't have every moot-given right to construct a 'strawman' out of each other's post and attack it. We can do this. We should do this. We should build 'strawmen' (a Buddhist's favourite insult BTW) as soon as they offer an opportunity to develop a meaningful digression.
>>26307088 empiricism is an outdated term and its just what philosophy teens grab on when they think they know anything about it. There is no correspondence between buddhism and physics just coincidence. Buddhism is just curiously correct about certain things while christianity is just wrong about most things. Any religion is equally false in the sense that all religions are failed systems for truth-findind.
Particle physics is not just about particles... Thats like saying that the science behind a combustion engine is about combustion engins alone as if they had no implication to what a car is.
I predict you are 16 years old and poorly read. Pro-pro-tip be more humble if you want to learn more
>>26307251 I need cash at the moment, so, sure, deal.
Let me get a temporary trip as I set up the Bitcoin wallet.
In lieu of objective identity verification, let me say that I am being referred to as 'the Anti-Buddha' here on /r9k/ and I boast a minor command of English which has more than once provoked a comment, which I try in this sentence to, overstated, recreate -- hopefully commonly recognizably.
Fucking computer died on me two times as I was writing this post.
>>26305621 I'm gonna post my story here >used to be atheist/agnostic all of my life >not one of those preachy atheist, but still atheist >used to mock (never to their face) my cousin's family >when they were little their mother converted to some weird form of christianity (I don't know the actual name) >they stopped coming and playing on the weekends because they had to go do church activities >they hated it at first but little by little they converted >I always thought they were miserable >fast forward >I'm currently a wizard, no friends, no job, nothing going on >cousins got qt 10/10 gfs (not even kidding they're smoking hot, fuck, I get angry every time I think about them), almost certainly virgin since that's what they believe in >both are happily married with one kid each >good job, lots of church friends >I'm a lump of shit >I wish my mom had converted instead of my aunt
I know deep in my heart I can't believe in those things, but sometimes I wish I had been indoctrinated or brainwashed, I really do.
>>26307929 >I know deep in my heart I can't believe in those things This is essentially where I am, I appreciate the ritual and allegory of religion, but I can't believe that Jesus literally died and rose again then ascended into heaven. I can't go to church because of this, just knowing I'm surrounded by literalists and being preached to by a literalist, it just feels like I don't fit in.
>>26307990 There are many other religions, you don't have to believe in Jesus (he is such a comfy concept though). With me, I think I can't believe in god for the same reason I don't want to try drugs. They're something that makes you loose control, and I don't want that. I want to cling to something, even when that something is actually nothing and has led me to nothing.
>>26305621 I wish I could get spiritual again but after going full edgelord it's a bit hard to go back. I mean, the more you learn about science and the universe the less it seems to need a god or gods to create or run it.
>>26308476 I recognize there's other religions, but I almost feel this odd sense of duty to the church, just because it represents MY culture and MY people. I'll feel like a poseur adopting the religious traditions of another people, although I've contemplated it.
>>26309323 >I mean, the more you learn about science and the universe the less it seems to need a god or gods to create or run it. understandable, which is why my idea of God changed from this personal, metaphysical sky man to a more abstract creative force that gives existence to the universe.
>>26309391 Yes I'm white, the church represents my culture because Christianity as I used to practice it (Roman Catholicism) is profoundly unique to the European peoples and is largely impacted by European cultural and ideological elements. I think what was preached by Jesus of Nazareth is more or less lost or deep, deep underground, practiced within the mysteries.
>>26309323 >I wish I could get spiritual again but after going full edgelord it's a bit hard to go back. I mean, the more you learn about science and the universe the less it seems to need a god or gods to create or run it.
But it isn't that, since there are lots of religious, scientific people. It's something else. I disagree however with
>the less it seems to need a god or gods to create or run it.
The more I've learned, the more... fucking crazy everything seems, it's almost a sane notion to believe that there is some invisible hand or plan behind it all.
>all these anions doing these mental gymnastics just to convince themselves that agnosticism isn't the correct answer We're like specs in the cosmos, there's no way we can really know what's really out there so who gives a shit? Find your own meaning in life instead of latching onto dogma for it.
If you define a "hallucination" as an experience that nobody else has, wouldn't that also apply to your entire life?
Nobody who has ever lived has had the "life experience" you have. Your brain is a locked box.
Yet I bet you still trust your senses, you still trust your perceptions, you still trust your memories, you still trust your experiences, you still view your experiences as having some kind of value. You trust that you have not been deceived throughout sober waking reality.
Sure, someone could say "every drug only leads to hallucinations." But then how would you explain two different people, taking the same drug, and having a similar experience, or shared experience?
But even a hallucination, even that kind of experience, is still an experience, it's something people can experience, the experience was real. I mean, some of the thoughts someone has during the experience may not hold up later on, but still, in that moment, it's "as if", the experience is true.
And the question is, can someone ever have a "false" experience? Nobody else might agree with whatever narrative the person gives, but that's just a story after the fact. Stories can be false. Experiences are lived.
In a Godless universe, why should experiences even happen? The universe could have stayed dead for 13 billion years. Rocks smashing into each other. There's no reason for anything to make sense. Why should questions emerge from a dead universe?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.