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
08-12-2012, 01:06 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2012 11:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
(07-12-2012 09:41 PM)enochian Wrote:  for something to exist it would
logically have to arise from a) itself b) other or c) both these possibilities
together

That which appears to the human brain as logical has been proven to be unreliable, (Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein). Therefore the the assumption underlying your assertions is unsound.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 01:31 PM
RE: Madhyamaka
(08-12-2012 12:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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 )
I wouldn't rely on that Wikipedia page for Madhyamaka info. Its barebones really.

And Madhyamaka is definitely not nihilism.

Things may seem to arise as existents, remain for a time and then subsequently perish. In actuality, dependently originated phenomena do not arise as existents in the first place. So no nihilism here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 01:34 PM
RE: Title was too long.
(08-12-2012 12:47 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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.
There are Two Truths in Madhyamaka. Ultimate and relative.

We don't deny evolution, science etc.

In fact science fits in perfectly with dependent origination. Evolution is what you would expect from dependent origination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: Title was too long.
(08-12-2012 01:34 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 12:47 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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.
There are Two Truths in Madhyamaka. Ultimate and relative.

We don't deny evolution, science etc.

In fact science fits in perfectly with dependent origination. Evolution is what you would expect from dependent origination.
I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking about Abiogenesis.

[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
08-12-2012, 02:00 PM
RE: Madhyamaka
(08-12-2012 01:31 PM)enochian Wrote:  And Madhyamaka is definitely not nihilism.

"According to Madhyamaka all phenomena are empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) because they are dependently co-arisen. Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own."

"Madhyamaka discerns two levels of truth, absolute and relative, to make clear that it does make sense to speak of existence. Absolutely seen, there are no "things". Relatively seen, there do exist concrete objects which we are aware of."

Reads a lot like my interpretation of nihilism, but meh ... whatever. Drinking Beverage

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2012 02:50 PM by enochian.)
RE: Madhyamaka
(08-12-2012 02:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 01:31 PM)enochian Wrote:  And Madhyamaka is definitely not nihilism.

"According to Madhyamaka all phenomena are empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) because they are dependently co-arisen. Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own."

"Madhyamaka discerns two levels of truth, absolute and relative, to make clear that it does make sense to speak of existence. Absolutely seen, there are no "things". Relatively seen, there do exist concrete objects which we are aware of."

Reads a lot like my interpretation of nihilism, but meh ... whatever. Drinking Beverage
I'll be honest. The Buddhist pages on Wikipedia are written by idiots. Take a look at the banner at the top of this page.

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

If you want a decent outline of Madhyamaka, see post 1.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 02:49 PM
RE: Title was too long.
(08-12-2012 01:43 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 01:34 PM)enochian Wrote:  There are Two Truths in Madhyamaka. Ultimate and relative.

We don't deny evolution, science etc.

In fact science fits in perfectly with dependent origination. Evolution is what you would expect from dependent origination.
I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking about Abiogenesis.
There is nothing in Madhyamaka that would attack science of any kind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 10:25 PM
mofo long-assed title bullshit...
Buddhism is for puppies that need the Tao explained to 'em. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
08-12-2012, 11:27 PM
RE: Title was too long.
(08-12-2012 02:49 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 01:43 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking about Abiogenesis.
There is nothing in Madhyamaka that would attack science of any kind.
I was rebuttaling your OP. it said clearly that something can not arise from an other. Which is clearly NOT THE CASE. Molecules can form OTHER MOLECULES.

[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
08-12-2012, 11:34 PM
Theism bla bla bla
The OP is also refuted by the fact that matter arises from energy, and energy from matter all the time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: