Theism and Western atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist.

[median]

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

"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.

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…

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?

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.

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!

[alwayson]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Darkstar]

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

[Angrboda]

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

"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.

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…

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?

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.

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!

---

Welcome, newcomer. If you stick around, I think I'm going to end up liking you a lot.


For what it's worth, if I'm not misjudging things, in talking about "things arising" being proof of this that or the other thing, he is implicitly referencing the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination, and the bare assertion is actually simply the tip of a much larger body of thought. (I would personally argue that the doctrine of dependent origination seems to arise out of other necessities in other Buddhist doctrine, most notably that of Anatta, or no self. I'm going a bit beyond my knowledge in the area, but my impression is that there is not simply one doctrine of dependent origination, but one doctrine with different meanings and interpretations; in particular, from what I understand, Nagarjuna's specific understanding of it was unorthodox for the time, and is part of what led to the arising of the Madhyamaka school as a major Buddhist school.)


Not that much of that applies, as this fellow here appears to have superficial understanding of both others and his own cherished doctrines. Like the Hare Krishna who was recently here, he seems more poseur than anything else.


As I said recently on another forum, the more I learn of Buddhists and Buddhism, the more I find to hate. It leaves me considering becoming a point man for criticism of Buddhism and Buddhists, as I seem uniquely well suited to the task. Although I'd much rather confine myself to my studies of brain science and epistemology, perhaps I should consider it.

Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied.

One of my favorite concepts regarding dependent origination is that of 'Shì shì wú ài', which I suppose I love primarily because I'm a Sinophile and love the Chinese language, but it is useful in and of itself, too. I would translate the concept of shì shì wú ài as saying that "between each thing/event and every other thing/event, there is no-thing; 'being' is seemless from end to end; there are no gaps". A metaphor I've recently read which conveys the notion, similar to the reeds above, is that of two ships, anchored at harbor. The ships themselves, their reflections in the water, the image of their reflections in the water co-occurring with the image of the ships themselves, all these things interpenetrate each other simultaneously. [we'll ignore the speed of light for the moment] This is one way of understanding shì shì wú ài.

[alwayson]

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.

[Darkstar]

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.

I repeat:

Do you realize you sound a little confused? /understatement

(I don't suppose you plan on explaining what these "aggregates" are, or providing any evidence that they actually exist...or don't, since you seem to think nothing does.
Exist:

---

---

[alwayson]

since you seem to think nothing does.

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 don't suppose you plan on explaining what these "aggregates" are, or providing any evidence that they actually exist...or don't, since you seem to think nothing does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

Ultimately, they are just a method of analysis in Madhyamaka to negate personal identity.

In the Buddhism I follow, we don't even subscribe to skandha from the get go.

[Darkstar]

Ultimately, they are just a method of analysis in Madhyamaka to negate personal identity.

I think one of us has misunderstood the other (or both). If you have been arguing that we cannot isolate a part of ourselves that can be distinctly referred to as "me", then that is not the impression you gave.

One cannot claim the universe exists.

On what grounds does the (alleged) differentiation of the personality negate the existence of the universe?
Note: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exist?s=t

ex·ist

verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

2. to have life or animation; live.

3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.

4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.

5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

[Voltron]

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.

[Darkstar]

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.