Hello, I am new to Atheist Forums and this is my first (REAL) post here. So here goes:

Your main assertion here, the attempt to discredit (or degrade) your version (conception) of “western atheism” by pointing out a similarity that is common to theists and atheists is akin to saying, “Theists and Atheists both drink water. So you’re the same as them.” FAIL. Your non-realist position is not at some philosophical advantage just because you say so (or b/c you can point to similarities). That is quite absurd. Your “you think the same” comment is extremely misleading, reductionist, and quite dishonest of you (demonstrating your willingness to misrepresent your opponent just to get a perceived “edge”). Hmmm, I wonder who that sounds like!

Now, let’s deal with some of these “non-assertions” that you’ve made.

You quote your "god" Nagarjuna who said

Quote:"If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

Yet this statement is purely arbitrary, false, and self contradictory. First, stating any ontological position whatsoever automatically puts one “at fault” (as in “wrong”?). NOPE! This is purely false and unsupported. But hey, now THERE is a POSITION! Your Buddhist god dude (whom you seem to bow down and worship) just contradicted himself by stating a position. And you buy into this guy’s ‘philosophy of negation’…why??

I assert that your position is one for cowards. “Don’t get involved and you can’t be wrong.” No, this is not negation. It is DEFEATISM.

(November 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm)alwayson Wrote: One cannot claim that anything exists, since for something to exist it would logically have to arise from a) itself b) other or c) both these possibilities together

This is a pure non-sequitur. The fact that for something to exist it must have arisen “from another” (even if true) in no way refutes the idea that things exist. We’ll get to your equivocation fallacies in a moment.
Btw, I can play your game too! Here we go:
“I negate non-existence” OWNED.
“And I claim victory!” Please…

(November 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm)alwayson Wrote: Something cannot arise from other, because then you could have a giraffe spring from a rock.

Please demonstrate how you know this. There are plenty of demonstrations of “things arising from other” which do not require such absurdities as your example (i.e. seed to apple). Have you even studied metaphysics?

(November 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm)alwayson Wrote: All we are left with is illusion. Things only seem real because of imputed identities.

Here is where your equivocations come in. Throughout your argument you use terms such as, “real”, “illusion”, “creation”, and “exist”. Yet you fail to define these terms in any coherent way (let alone at all) and you use these terms in ways that are not coherent (i.e. – “creation” symbolizes every-thing but “exist” does too, and “real” is indistinguishable from those) . Do words have meaning? If you say no, then the discussion is over. If yes, please define these terms and the fashion in which you are using them.

(November 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm)alwayson Wrote: Even from a common sense standpoint, Big Bang has previous causes, which itself has previous causes, which itself has previous causes, which has previous causes, which has previous causes, which has previous causes etc.

Absolutely false. Science does NOT say the universe had previous causes (not in any confident way). Scientists and Cosmologists, such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss, are currently investigating these possibilities (which is how science works).

I’m sorry, the ancient bronze age “nothing exists” argument is no better than the “Yahweh exists” argument. And I don’t care if you aren’t making that argument directly. Your attempt to “negate existence” or “negate existence claims” is fundamentally indistinguishable from the reverse attempt – “We negate non-existence.” Anyone can claim to negate anything (and quite dogmatically). That doesn’t prove you are correct in your negation.

So finally, conjuring up “negation of all claims” as a ‘once all’ attempt to bring yourself a “harder advantage” doesn’t bring you that advantage. It just brings you the ILLUSION of an advantage by thinking that you won because you thought you could stay out of the fight. But look! You’re in the fight – here on this forum arguing with people whose existence you claim to “negate”.

Welp, if your Buddha guru is correct then we can pretty much sum up your attempt at negation as…doing nothing.

Cheers!

(December 8, 2012 at 5:40 am)median Wrote: That is quite absurd. Your “you think the same” comment is extremely misleading, reductionist, and quite dishonest of you (demonstrating your willingness to misrepresent your opponent just to get a perceived “edge”). Hmmm, I wonder who that sounds like!

Its not misleading at all. Existence and nonexistence are the two core delusions which form the basis of every other delusion. Atheists and theists have the same core delusion.

(December 8, 2012 at 5:40 am)median Wrote: You quote your "god" Nagarjuna who said ...

Yet this statement is purely arbitrary, false, and self contradictory. First, stating any ontological position whatsoever automatically puts one “at fault” (as in “wrong”?). NOPE! This is purely false and unsupported. But hey, now THERE is a POSITION! Your Buddhist god dude (whom you seem to bow down and worship) just contradicted himself by stating a position. And you buy into this guy’s ‘philosophy of negation’…why??

You will fit right into this forum, since you make criticisms against things which noone has asserted. Nagarjuna was a monk, not a god. Secondly, he doesn't say "stating any ontological position whatsoever automatically puts one “at fault”". He says since he doesn't put forth a philosophical position, he cannot be faulted.

(December 8, 2012 at 5:40 am)median Wrote: This is a pure non-sequitur. The fact that for something to exist it must have arisen “from another” (even if true) in no way refutes the idea that things exist.

Do you even read what you write? This is contradictory. If I negate arising, I negate existence, since you admit that existence and arising are related.

(December 8, 2012 at 5:40 am)median Wrote: And I don’t care if you aren’t making that argument directly.

Atleast you are being up front about inserting words in my mouth.

(December 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm)alwayson Wrote: Its not misleading at all. Existence and nonexistence are the two core delusions which form the basis of every other delusion. Atheists and theists have the same core delusion.

If I don't exist, how am I replying to this? Do you realize you sound a little confused? /understatement

(December 8, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm)alwayson Wrote: Its not misleading at all. Existence and nonexistence are the two core delusions which form the basis of every other delusion. Atheists and theists have the same core delusion.

If I don't exist, how am I replying to this? Do you realize you sound a little confused? /understatement

You are just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which themselves are not established either.

So you're trying to convince everyone that your unconventional interpretation of reality concludes that your denial of god claims is better than everybody else's? Good luck with that.

(December 8, 2012 at 5:56 pm)alwayson Wrote: It is not that we claim non-existence, we merely remove claims for existence.

A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.

The opposite is an affirming negation such as "That mother has no son", which implies a daughter etc. etc.

I forgot to ask this, but how does the universe not exist? I'm not asking you to prove that it does not; I am asking you how this very conversation is not proof that it does exist.