As for passages in the Pali Canon, well, it's huge, and quite contradictory. I couldn't make any sweeping generalization about it.
Characterizing the Pāli canon as "quite contradictory" is itself a sweeping generalization, and I'd suggest it's an inaccurate one. The Pāli Nikāyas display a remarkably high degree of internal consistency.
Are these two questions of importance at all in your position? For some schools they would be irrelevant, because the only evidence possible is scriptural authority--the word of Buddha--because we are not enlightened and cannot approach truth on our own, and because human suffering now is irrelevant since our suffering leads to permanent bliss in the afterlife.
I took a quick look around the Speculative Non-Buddhism site the other day and I noticed that you and some of your comrades have a bit of a penchant for drawing rather ridiculous caricatures of other Buddhist traditions. All this does is set up straw man arguments. I suspect that you can probably do better than that, given that this forum is frequented by a very diverse group of Buddhist practitioners and such caricatures can be seen as attempted insults.
Jnana is characteristically spot on.
I like the ethos and political trajectory of Speculative Non-Buddhism - but due diligence with respect to basic Buddhist philosophy (and indeed, sociology and anthropology) is never sufficient. Too many loose and unjustified claims are made - not only in relation to Buddhist thought, but also to Buddhist practice (in the west, and in other places).
That just weakens the whole project and approach.
If the Pali canon or Nagarjuna was read as closely and carefully as Althusser, very fruitful things could emerge.
But if the former are read through the interpretative lens of the latter, they become reduced to mere ideological tools for theoretical point scoring. Maybe that's the point?
I actually think there is potentially more at stake - but this requires a little more scholarly effort.