Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2012, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2012 10:24 PM by enochian.)
Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
Theism and new atheism are both based on the assumption that things exist. Thus both are on the same continuum of realism.

The following is a summary of Madhyamaka (which is a system of negation):

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views:
Existence and Nonexistence.

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

Something cannot arise from itself, because that brings numerous
contradictions. For example, arising would have to be part of its intrinsic
nature, which would in turn lead to endless arisings.

Something cannot arise from other. If something could arise from other, well
then utter darkness could spring from flames. Anything could arise from anything.
Moreover if an entity in itself does not exist, an entity other than it does not exist either.

Something cannot arise from both these possibilities together, because each one
has been individually negated already.

All we are left with is illusion. Things only seem real because of imputed
identities.

It is not that we claim non-existence, we merely remove claims for
existence.

We do not put forth a philosophical position.

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

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,
nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to
level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

Reference: Center Of The Sunlit Sky by Karl Brunnholzl
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 07:17 AM
RE:
(07-12-2012 09:41 PM)enochian Wrote:  Theism and new atheism are both based on the assumption that things exist. Thus both are on the same continuum of realism.
What is it that makes you think that atheism is based on the assumption that things exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 07:45 AM
Theism and new atheism are on the sameontinuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
No, there are several atheist philosophies that are not based on existence, e.g. Skepticism.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:07 AM
RE:
(08-12-2012 07:17 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-12-2012 09:41 PM)enochian Wrote:  Theism and new atheism are both based on the assumption that things exist. Thus both are on the same continuum of realism.
What is it that makes you think that atheism is based on the assumption that things exist?
I'm going by the comments of Dawkins, Harris and the late Hitchens.

Thats why I specifically said new atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:10 AM
RE:
(08-12-2012 11:07 AM)enochian Wrote:  I'm going by the comments of Dawkins, Harris and the late Hitchens.

Thats why I specifically said new atheism.
Seems like I've missed the "new" part. My bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:14 AM
RE:
(08-12-2012 11:10 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 11:07 AM)enochian Wrote:  I'm going by the comments of Dawkins, Harris and the late Hitchens.

Thats why I specifically said new atheism.
Seems like I've missed the "new" part. My bad.
This is the new lack of belief in a god or gods. The other one where you ... wait... what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:17 AM
RE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: Theism and n
Thank you for your citation/reference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 12:32 PM
Madhyamaka
Madhyamaka. This is very interesting. It's close to the way I see nihilism but it's not close to the way they see nihilism. It's a metaphysical tightrope walk. Fascinating stuff. Thanks!

And welcome to the restaurant at the end of the interwebz, enochian! (Won't be long before I start calling you eunuchian, can't help myself, just a heads up. Big Grin )

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean there aren't people who should pray for their sorry ass to be saved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 12:47 PM
Title was too long.
My question to you: where the fuck did the illusion come from?


My second point is. The fact that a cell is made up of nonliving things can prove that nonliving things can make up living things. The cell is the smallest version of life, so it's base is nonliving. Atoms are nonliving, we are made up of nonliving particles to form living things. Abiogenesis is not hard to imagine if you keep that thought in mind.

Other molecules, through modification, can give rise to other molecules.as well.

The problem with no existence is that if life is an illusion, that illusion exists, thus the position of total no existence is moot.

Assuming that we exist is much more Ockhamian than assuming existence is a bad position and positing an illusion.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Atothetheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: