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

[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...