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

[alwayson]

Thats a total miquote, but anyway

One cannot claim the universe exists.

Thus one cannot claim Creation either.

See post 1

Negating claims is not the same thing as making claims.

Mea culpa, I quoted from memory. The verbatim quote is "There is no creation". For all practical purposes, that has the same meaning as "Creation does not exist", and is NOT the same as claiming "One cannot claim the universe exists".

Its obviously a follow up to the negation in post 1.

[Jackalope]

I never claimed nonexistence.

The fuck you didn't:

Not until you, or whoever is making the proposition, demonstrates that "God etc" are things that exist in the first place.

There is no Creation, and thus no Creator.

Now do you get it?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, no no, guys, you don't get it. Alwayson can't claim to exist, in this universe that no one can claim to exist, so whatever you think Alwayson may have typed you clearly can't claim that typing (or that response) exists.

[alwayson]

How many people here thinks the OP is a duplicitious Xtain trying to muddy the water?

I'll take that as another sign of victory.

[Cyberman]

No, no no, guys, you don't get it. Alwayson can't claim to exist, in this universe that no one can claim to exist, so whatever you think Alwayson may have typed you clearly can't claim that typing (or that response) exists.

Including that post 1 he seems to love so much. Division by zero.

[Angrboda]

I will not have time to catch up on this thread today.

If the Madhyamaka referenced by the thread starter is the same as the one I am thinking of, it is more than "a system of negations" and indeed forms one of the most influential schools in Buddhist philosophy, having important consequences for both Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophy and psychology in East Asia. My understanding is that much of the Madhyamaka approach was developed by the Buddhist Nagarjuna, but I don't know a lot of the specifics. (I have a partial translation of The Transmission Of The Lamp, which details the biographies of various Eastern sages in the first millenia, which I studied at length once upon a time, so Madhyamaka is somewhat familiar to me, but I haven't truly systematically studied the school or its philosophies.)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't describe any Buddhist ontology as a form of realism (particularly given their general inclusion of the doctrines of Anatta and dependent origination), but it's hardly novel for Buddhists to attempt to crassly legislate their own usage of terms in order to extricate themselves from political or philosophical difficulties (see, for example, the history of Buddhists attempting to redefine Astika and Nastika to place themselves as an orthodox Hindu tradition, in distinction to the more common view of it as Nastika, or heterodox Hinduism).

That being said, addressing the OP alone, there are multiple avenues of defense or justification for the overall notions that the poster is referencing. I personally wouldn't consider a straight up-the-middle approach based on the middle path, as this appears to be, but whatever. (And ignoring the obvious implicit cosmological and prime mover arguments, which may not necessarily be authentic to Madhyamaka thought.) There are other arguments, beyond just this one. In addition, there are both nuanced and not so nuanced approaches to the question. The OP clearly falls on the "not so nuanced" end of the spectrum. (Incidentally, it's quite plausible that Siddhartha himself fell at the other end of the spectrum, in some respects, tending to eschew pointless speculation about the metaphysical notions of the nature of reincarnation and karma.) For my part, while I greatly admire Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka philosophy, I think other approaches are far more likely to yield a satisfactory defense. Specifically, the five skhandas --> Anatta --> dependent origination --> the OP's brand of realism. The only real point of contact between the notions the OP appears to reference and that of classical western realism, is that both are monistic philosophies, postulating a universe filled with basically only one kind of "stuff." This differs radically from other religions such as Christianity, which openly seem to embrace duallism.

[alwayson]

To point out that western atheists have the same delusion as the theists.

ah... nope.... well, depends on the delusion you're meaning:
- The delusion that the Universe exists in a physical state... agreed, most people share this.... and I guess most animals on Earth.
- The delusion that the Universe had a beginning... theists tend to claim goddidit, but then fail to provide an origin for this god thing. Atheists tend to claim that the known Universe started with the BigBang... what was there before? We don't know.


And what's the difference between western atheists and other atheists?

I'm an atheist, but I'm not a realist.

[Cyberman]

That's probably the only true thing you've posted.

[Something completely different]

I'm an atheist, but I'm not a realist.

and what is a realist?????

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll take that as another sign of victory.

What won't you take as a sign of victory?