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
10-12-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: TLDR title
(10-12-2012 08:45 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:43 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  OK.....and this helps us how?
It helps defeat various extinct religious systems of ancient India.
Hmmm, I phrased my previous question poorly. I should have asked "How does this help me?"

So, was I just too uneducated to understand that this was the original point of your post?

I hope you won't feel disappointed in me if I tell you I'm not likely to put this information to much use in my life.

But, I do appreciate it. The arguments alone have been rather enlightening.

I am satisfied. Carry on.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
10-12-2012, 09:37 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
(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.

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, 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.

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
This has got to be one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard. Allow me a moment to unpack all the silliness, if I can even manage to address such a sheer large number of logical errors.

Let's start with that eye-catching title: theism and atheism are not the same thing -- they're opposites, by definition. Simply because they have something in common (such as the idea that they are philosophies about existence or non-existence) does not make them "the same". Black and White are both colors, but that doesn't make them "the same"; they're opposites. I think this is obvious to everyone, even you.

You made an assertion that existence is impossible because it would have to "arise" somehow, but you didn't explain why. Is this from inductive reasoning, in which everything we've seen has been observed to exist? Since you claim this is impossible, no matter what our position is on this you clearly didn't use such reasoning. Is it from deductive reasoning? I can think of several possible premises that could be drawn here, and not one of them can you prove (such as "everything that exists requires a beginning") because again you have to believe something is true about existence or non-existence, both of which you claim are impossible.

I'm not going to argue that something cannot "arise from itself"... I can't think of anything that does, so I'll grant you that it might be true. Your defense that something cannot "arise from other" is poor. Your assertion, that "anything could arise from anything" has no logical basis. I can claim that milk comes from cows, but making such an assertion doesn't lead one to conclude that giraffes come from rocks. Cow milk is, again proven by definition, a product of cows. There is nothing either observed or true by definition to lead one to think that giraffes are a product of rocks.

So obviously I don't agree that everything is an illusion, but even to make that assertion you have to believe that illusions "arise from something", even if it's from language (when we speak of illusions) or our imagination (when we project illusions).

Furthermore, your claim that you "don't claim non-existence, [but] merely remove claims for existence" doesn't make sense. You just claimed that everything is an illusion, and illusions either exist (as I just explained in the last paragraph) or they don't exist -- existence is a binary position, and the only way you can claim that there's a third option is through denial, which seems to be your tactic. But what you're selling -- as I observe throughout the comments -- hasn't been bought. You can fool yourself (through denial) but you haven't fooled us.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
10-12-2012, 10:34 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2012 10:57 PM by enochian.)
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
I never said atheism and theism are the same thing. Reread.

"Other" means no causal relationship whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 02:17 AM
Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
(10-12-2012 10:34 PM)enochian Wrote:  I never said atheism and theism are the same thing. Reread.

"Other" means no causal relationship whatsoever.

Even from your OP the purpose of this statement remains unclear to me. Something cannot arise from other....ergo....?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 04:33 AM
Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
Enochian, I think it would be useful for us to understand your position if you give us what the definitions of existence and non existence the [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Madhyamaka uses.[/font]

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 09:33 AM
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
(10-12-2012 10:34 PM)enochian Wrote:  I never said atheism and theism are the same thing. Reread.

"Other" means no causal relationship whatsoever.
Please tell me what thing has absolutely no connection with another thing? Rocks and giraffes are both made from atoms, that's a connection, atoms give rise to many DIFFERENT objects.

[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
11-12-2012, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2012 11:31 AM by enochian.)
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
(11-12-2012 09:33 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Please tell me what thing has absolutely no connection with another thing?
There isn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
(11-12-2012 11:26 AM)enochian Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:33 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Please tell me what thing has absolutely no connection with another thing?
There isn't.
Then why bother making an argument saying that those things can't make other things when they aren't connected.

That's like arguing that a unicorns coat color is pink. It's essentially pointless.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
11-12-2012, 08:29 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
(10-12-2012 10:34 PM)enochian Wrote:  I never said atheism and theism are the same thing. Reread.

"Other" means no causal relationship whatsoever.
I put a lot of thought and effort into my argument, and you made a minimal effort. You addressed so little.

I know the title specifically says they are both "on the same continuum", so in the spirit of what "continuum" means, along with the fact that you didn't discuss how atheism and theism differ, I think I addressed your meaning. While you'd like to see Buddhism as being something entirely different from both, you either believe in a supernatural being (a god) or you don't. Many of our fellow atheists have made the point that Buddhists as atheists, despite being a religion.

It's clear what you meant by "other". Cows "cause" cow milk to be produced. What did you think I meant by "other"?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 10:04 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2012 10:33 PM by enochian.)
RE: Theism and new atheism etc.
I revised post 1 with the original Madhyamaka analogy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: