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

[genkaus]

Yes you both are realist.

Don't be an idiot. They believe in things that are not real. By definition they are not realists.

[alwayson]

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.

Think about characters in a dream, and whether they exist simply because you are talking to them.

---

Yes you both are realist.

Don't be an idiot. They believe in things that are not real. By definition they are not realists.

I've already said it many times before. I'm using a Buddhist definition of realist.

[genkaus]

I've already said it many times before. I'm using a Buddhist definition of realist.

There is no real Buddhist definition of "realist". You said so yourself.

[alwayson]

I've already said it many times before. I'm using a Buddhist definition of realist.

There is no real Buddhist definition of "realist". You said so yourself.

And where was that?

[genkaus]

There is no real Buddhist definition of "realist". You said so yourself.

And where was that?

When you negated existence of reality.

[median]

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 have neither demonstrated that we have "a delusion" nor defined your terms. Thus, your mere assertion is both invalid and rejected (now there's a negation for you!). Second (and perhaps more importantly), by making such assertions as you just made above, you have included yourself in "the fight", and henceforth (with your actions) have demonstrated the opposite of your assertion.

Ever read Searle?

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.

HA! You must have reading comprehension problems. Go back and read (again) what I wrote. See those quotation marks?? There was no reference to a deity. It was a reference to your buying what this dude is selling (a joke directed toward you), but apparently you have a hard time getting those things. Hmm, maybe it's because you have "negated" yourself.

Your quotation IMPLIED (quite implicitly) that anyone who makes an ontological statement is "at fault" (of course you didn't define what this actually means). Do you deny this, or do you believe this? It seems you are trying to play both sides of the fence in order to stay "out of the fight".

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.

Do you? This is more of your fallacious equivocations. Here is your original words:

Something cannot arise from other, because then you could have a giraffe spring from a rock. Anything could arise from anything. Moreover if an entity in itself does not exist, an entity other than it does not exist either.

Once again, you have neither defined your terms (such as "arise", "other", or "exist") nor demonstrated that "something cannot arise from another." You are using terms for which you have not defined while making arbitrary assertions (or quoting them) which you haven't provided support for.

But there is even more of a comical fallacy going on with your assertions. You say:

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

"They are"? What does "they are" refer to? What does it mean? You have just contradicted yourself by attempting to negate what you CALL "personal identity" while doing so from your own self (identity). CLAIMING to negate something (whatever that means) doesn't mean you have negated it.

Please describe how you can have "analysis" without a mind (i.e. - an identity).

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

NOPE. I represented what you stated just fine. You're just in denial about it, or shall we say "negation denial".

I declare victory! Yay...

[alwayson]

HA! You must have reading comprehension problems. Go back and read (again) what I wrote. See those quotation marks?? There was no reference to a deity.

You said "god Nagarjuna".

Your quotation IMPLIED (quite implicitly) that anyone who makes an ontological statement is "at fault" (of course you didn't define what this actually means). Do you deny this, or do you believe this?

I see you are backtracking now, with the capitalizing 'IMPLIED'. And yes I already denied it and explained it. Nagarjuna 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.

NOPE. I represented what you stated just fine.

Actually you say "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. "

So you admit you are making stuff up. I never claimed nothing exists.

[Darkstar]

What are you arguing alwayson? You have stated that one cannot claim that the universe exists. Why can't one claim that? Isn't the ability to even make such a claim proof that something exists? And how can something exist if the universe itself does not?

[alwayson]

What are you arguing alwayson? You have stated that one cannot claim that the universe exists. Why can't one claim that? Isn't the ability to even make such a claim proof that something exists? And how can something exist if the universe itself does not?

Things are empty clear appearances.

Note the Dalai Lama uses the word appearances, but he means something else since he follows Tsongkhapa.

[Something completely different]

Reading through this entire "debate" gives me headache.

There recently was a political scandel here in which the defence minister was found to be a fraud, who simply copied his phd disatation for law from another disatation. And after some time a parlamentary comitee came together to question him and to decide if he could still stay in office.
Now imagine him saying in his defence:

"Oh of course it might "seeeeem" like if I was a fraud, but just take a look at if from a further intergalactic or or smaller microcosmic point of view, from which we all are nothing more than little meaningless atoms circling in a unconected void."