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

[Koldo]

I'm sure you ask dream characters the same thing when dreaming

A mind exists that creates them. If the mind doesn't exist, how could they be making any statements?

 

[alwayson]

see post 2

 

[Koldo]

see post 2

Your second post contradicts your first post.
You are putting a thesis forth in your first post, while at the second post using a quote that denies you are doing it.

 

[alwayson]

Your second post contradicts your first post.
You are putting a thesis forth in your first post, while at the second post using a quote that denies you are doing it.

Research nonimplicative or nonaffirming negations

 

[Koldo]

Research nonimplicative or nonaffirming negations

How are the following sentences nonaffirming negations?

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

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You do realize thats EXACTLY what theists say when asked where their Creator came from.....

Yes I do. But then again they ask science how did the universe arise if not god. Just because they have no answer for the question they ask, does not mean the question makes sense in the first place. You see that?

Now, If someone says it just makes no sense that something comes from nothing, I shrug my shoulders. But when someone says it's 'logically impossible' I ask them to share their logic, as I have a great interest in logic, but not a great understanding of it.

I presume a logical reason is based on logic? While an intuition is based on pure subjectivity?

 

[LuisDantas]

You do realize thats EXACTLY what theists say when asked where their Creator came from.....

Putting FA's answer in other words, let me say that the "need to arise" is a trick of perception. We humans have learned and witnessed so many things arising into existence in various ways that some people fail to notice that there is no logical reason why the universe must have been created somehow.

When you stop to consider it, the belief that existence / the universe must have had a creator is in fact quite arbitrary and groundless. Saying that it is so is a statement not of fact, but rather of attachment to the idea of existence as a consequence of some cause.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Putting FA's answer in other words, let me say that the "need to arise" is a trick of perception. We humans have learned and witnessed so many things arising into existence in various ways that some people fail to notice that there is no logical reason why the universe must have been created somehow.

When you stop to consider it, the belief that existence / the universe must have had a creator is in fact quite arbitrary and groundless. Saying that it is so is a statement not of fact, but rather of attachment to the idea of existence as a consequence of some cause.

Exactly!

 

[Infinitum]

From an online dictionary:
"Realist: One who believes in seeing things the way they really are, as opposed to how they would like them to be."

Whatever religion or philosophy I could be following, I would pick realism any day.

 

[Falvlun]

Theism and Western 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.

Reference: Center Of The Sunlit Sky by Karl Brunnholzl

I have very little patience for arguments like this, to be honest.

"I know how we can make our philosophy sound deep! You know everything that exists? Let's just call it an illusion! So, like, it doesn't really exist!"

It's like swapping out the name Joe for Johann. Sounds fancy, but nothing really changed.

 

[alwayson]

From an online dictionary:
"Realist: One who believes in seeing things the way they really are, as opposed to how they would like them to be."

Whatever religion or philosophy I could be following, I would pick realism any day.

Thats not the definition of realism I am using.

 

[alwayson]

I have very little patience for arguments like this, to be honest.

"I know how we can make our philosophy sound deep! You know everything that exists? Let's just call it an illusion! So, like, it doesn't really exist!"

It's like swapping out the name Joe for Johann. Sounds fancy, but nothing really changed.

By negating your claim of existence, we negate a view that forms the basis of all sorts of delusions including a Creator.

 

[Infinitum]

Thats not the definition of realism I am using.

That might be the root of the problem. How do you define realism?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

By negating your claim of existence, we negate a view that forms the basis of all sorts of delusions including a Creator.

I don’t believe you have negated delusion. In fact they are inevitable in your system.

How do you conclude illusion? This is apriori. You have left out the possibility of delusion. I.e. there are two possibilities, that your illusion originates externally, and requires an illusionist, or your delusion originates internally, and you are the source, intentionally or psychotically, of your own delusion.

Now you require either an illusionist, or a psychiatrist.

Let's get deeper if you will allow me. If the elements of your illusion (we will presume you are sane for now) adopt your non-position, they have the same problem. So we must now argue whether we are all deluded, or if there is an illusionist. Of course all these arguments are taking place in your mind as we are only illusion/delusion. For those that take the illusionist position, we will argue for evil-god, aliens, super-psychiatrist, or the matrix.

Accept Keanu Reeves as your personal savior, or be damned to this illusion for ever! Yes, that will be my position.

Now it would seem you are either trapped in your illusion of delusion, or in your delusion of illusion. If you become aware of this you will have significant issues to deal with. While so trapped, or dealing with your possibilities, you will also have to listen to your illusion or delusion discuss ad nausea regarding the nature of their illusion/delusion, not to mention those that reject your position and continue to discuss realism, idealism and every single thing they all ready do.

It would seem your current position is thus; you accept your illusion, but refuse to question the source of illusion, while denying you yourself are that source. This is equivalent to being trapped in illusion, by delusion. The only sane option I can think of, is to question your position. If you can accept the possibility you are deluded, you must seek professional help. If you can not accept the possibility you are deluded, then you should search for the external source of your illusion.

Can you be specific as to which other sorts of delusions you believe you have eliminated?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Thats not the definition of realism I am using.

I would agree that's not a definition I would be willing to use.

For myself, instead of labeling;

Reality is what it is, independent of any mind. Reality presents itself to any mind through the senses.

As such,
Truth is Reality, (and can never be Absolutely Known.)

Belief, is the body of models accepted by the mind.

Knowledge, is the confidence one has that their models accurately reflect reality.

I know these are not philosophical definitions. I prefer to dispense with the 25 centuries of baggage associated with the terms truth, belief, and knowledge, and use the terms reality, models, and confidence. But that's just me.

 

[alwayson]

That might be the root of the problem. How do you define realism?

I'm using a Buddhist definition.

See post 1

".....are both based on the assumption that things exist. Thus both are on the same continuum of realism."

 

[Willamena]

I'm using a Buddhist definition.

See post 1

".....are both based on the assumption that things exist. Thus both are on the same continuum of realism."

That definition is inherently realist. To understand the assumption, one must understand that things exist.

 

[F0uad]

Whats the difference between Western and Eastern Atheism?

 

[alwayson]

Whats the difference between Western and Eastern Atheism?

I'm defining western atheism as all of atheism outside Madhyamaka.

 

[Falvlun]

By negating your claim of existence, we negate a view that forms the basis of all sorts of delusions including a Creator.

No, you are creating another delusion, namely, the one that I don't exist.