The Instigator
Dwint
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Buddhism is better than Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,730 times Debate No: 49964
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (5)

 

Dwint

Pro

I will argue that Mahayana Buddhism is better than Christianity.
By better, I mean:
- is more reasonable
- has higher moral standards
- gives life more meaning
- doesn't discriminate
- doesn't try to convince people to join it

I made this debate impossible to accept. If you would like to debate this, leave a comment with your opinion.

Structure:

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments(no rebuttals)
Round 3: rebuttals(no arguments)
Round 4: additional arguments/ rebuttals and conclusion
donald.keller

Con

My opponent may put forth his first contention.
Debate Round No. 1
Dwint

Pro

1) Buddhism is more reasonable than Christianity

First of all, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, so it doesn't claim there is a god, it doesn't claim god created the world and it doesn't claim human were created by a god. Therefore, Buddhism agrees with The Big Bang Theory as well as evolution[1]
Christianity in based on ancient texts that contradict those theories and they can't accept them, even if they are more reasonable than their answers. Buddhism is opened to change and compatible with science[2] Buddhism doesn't give unreasonable explications and doesn't contradict reasonable, science, so it's therefore a more reasonable religion.

2) Buddhism has higher moral standards
History aside, Buddhism preaches higher moral standards, while Christianity's moral standards are over 2000 years old. The Bible, the true word of God teaches very old moral standards, where it's moral to own slaves, kill children and women for no actual reason and so on. (2 Kings 2:23-25 , Leviticus 25:44-46 , Exodus 12:12)[3,4,5]
In modern times, priests preach about acceptance, love etc, but most Christians still live with outdated moral standards. Love and acceptance doesn't mean hating homosexuals, condemning abortion or imposing your religion on others. These are all immoral actions that are written in the Bible and haven't changed in over 2000 years.
Buddhism doesn't say anything about hating others or killing homosexuals with rocks, and there are no groups that are discriminated or hated. Buddhism is not about trying to chance others, it's about helping them. A Bodhisattva is an enlightenment being that, instead of achieving Nirvana, chose to help other achieve enlightenment.
Also, Buddhism is based on the eightfold path, that is clearly superior to the Christian 10 Commandments [9] because it covers a lot more moral concepts.

3) Buddhism gives life more meaning than Christianity
meaning - the end, purpose, or significance of something[6]

Life is infinitely less significant in Christianity, because it's nothing more than a small portion of your eternal existence. You live for under 100 years, then spend eternity in heaven or hell. Life for a Christian is as significant as a nanosecond for us.
In Buddhism, life is an eternal cycle. Very few can achieve Nirvana and stop the life cycle, so for most beings life itself is eternal, giving it infinitely more meaning.
Talking about the purpose of life, Christianity give us a single purpose: to please God; The purpose of life is limited by the Bible and it's ultimately respecting God's will. Buddhism is about awakening, perceiving the world in a different way. The ultimate purpose if to reach Nirvana, but in order to do that you become enlightened and become a different person.

4)Buddhism doesn't discriminate

Again, unlike Christianity, Buddhism doesn't discriminate certain groups of people. Also, men and women have equal rights when it comes to clergy[7], while in Christianity only males can be part of it.[8][12]
Christians discriminate against homosexuals, atheists and women, because it's part of their doctrine.[14] Buddhism doesn't have these doctrines, so they don't discriminate against any group of people[13]

5)Buddhism doesn't try to convince people to join it
The Buddha teaches that you should know about other religions and chose one. Buddhism tolerates all religions and encourages its followers to try other religions too. As a Buddhist, you don't have to convert people, but you can help them achieve enlightenment IF they want to.[10, 11]
Christianity, on the other hand teaches every non-Christians is a sinner and it's the duty of Christians to convert people to their religion:
Matthew 28:19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
and many more[15]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]https://www.bible.com...
[4]https://www.bible.com...
[5]https://www.bible.com...
[6]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]http://christianityinview.com...
[9]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10]http://www.buddhanet.net...
[11]
[12]http://buddhism.about.com...
[13]http://buddhism.about.com...
[14]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[15]http://www.openbible.info...
donald.keller

Con

Argument I: Defining Reasonable.

What is reasonable and what isn't reasonable is, at times, objective, but also at times very relative. Such a case happens with Evolution. Many people believe it's reasonable for Evolution to create complex life, while others (like me) feel it's unreasonable considering the complexity of life.

In this case, what is defined as reasonable depends on one's observation. A likely approach one would take with this topic is to look at God, much like Pro did. Pro, however, isn't looking at the God factor right because he is wrong. Buddhism is full of many Gods and Goddesses. There is not estimate, as the number was so high -- including Gods for nearly every aspect of life -- that it's nearly impossible to count the number of current or past deities. There are also many demons and holy entities. The misconception that Buddhism has no Gods comes from Buddha's teaching that there is no Creator. More studies show us that he claimed a creator God was a rumor made by (ironic for Pro's case) Brahma, one of their three biggest gods (1).

Considering this from a God perspective, Christianity's single God looks much more reasonable, but that's still relative. Another thing Buddhists believe in is Rebirth, similar to Reincarnation, but not quite the same. This concept is laughable to most scientists, and many other's.

The third thing Buddhism believes in that most people would consider laughably unreasonable is Dragons (2). While an awesome concept, as something you are legitimately trying to believe in, Dragons are far from reasonable to most.

1] http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com...
2] http://buddhism.about.com...
]

Argument II: Morality.

Morality is arguably the most relative concept in the world. What one defines has Moral is different from each person to the next. Claiming something to be more Moral is like claiming Monster is better than Amp, it's a matter of taste. A Muslim believes Islam is more moral, a Christian believes Christianity is more moral, a Socialist believes having a lot of money is immoral, and a capitalist believes Socialism is immoral.

It's important to understand that Buddhism, and it's morals, are 2,000 years old as well (3) so that point is mute. Pro's case is argumentum ad novitatem, the fallacy of assuming that because it is newer (which it isn't), it is correct or more moral.

Pro brings up cases in the bible that he believes to be immoral. His examples includes hatting gays, which is literally the most incorrect assumption of Christianity ever. The Bible preaches against being gay, not against gay people, and Paul condemned the hating and killing of gay people. Pro's other examples are being against Abortion and imposing religion on others. Many non-Christians are pro-life, and hundreds of millions of people are Pro-Life, much like myself. I am greatly convinced that abortion is murder, so from my perspective, being pro-life is moral. This is, again, relative morality. More than ironically, however, is that most Buddhists are also against Abortion (4).

The same thing goes for Buddhists. "We, Buddhists, in a country where the majority of the people is Buddhist, firmly disagree with legal abortion and the destruction of life. If you do not want something to happen, don't do it". - Phra Mahamanoj, assistant monk in Suan Kaew Temple.

The last example is a misconception. The Bible never says to force one's religion unto another, but to spread it peacefully. An open-minded person must see this concept through a believers eyes. If you believe that not trusting Jesus will get you sent to HELL, and you do nothing to save the non-believer, why should you deserve heaven when you didn't care that your best friend was going to hell? Is attempting to save people from hell now immoral?

Pro also leaves much of the writing out of cultural and historic context, especially with the typical Slave verses. One must understand that words change. The terminology here also changed. A 'slave' back then was more a servant by today's standard. Their slaves were contracted employees. They worked seven years, got paid doing so, and then was free to do whatever they wanted.

As for the 8 Paths and the 10 Commandments, that's relative. About 3,800,000,000 (3.8 billion) Muslims and Christians would disagree, claiming the 10 Commandments are superior.

3] http://buddhism.about.com...
4] http://www.speroforum.com...
]

Argument III: Giving Meaning to Life.

Saying "Life is infinitely less significant in Christianity," is an impossible claim to support. Just because you live only 100 years before dying doesn't mean your life has less meaning. A men who lives to be 100 can have as much many in their life as one who lives to be 50. It does well to mention that you live while in Heaven also, so that would have meaning as well. The assumption that live only has meaning if it's on Earth that you live is simply not true.

It's also important to note that a life has meaning on Earth even after death. One's memory and the ripple effect of their actions still exist after death. Ultimately, which ever one gives life more meaning depends on perspective, and more important, which one is true. If Christianity is true, than Buddhism's eternal life cycle has zero meaning, as you only live the same 100 or less years.

Finally, from my perspective, Christianity gives life more meaning because of how short our Earth life is. The less number of years you live, the more important they are.

Argument IV: Discrimination.

Christianity doesn't discriminate. It was shocking to the first Christians when they were informed that anybody, even Gentiles, could be saved. People discriminate, not Christianity itself. Christianity was also one of the first religions in it's area to involve women and make them important figures. Both religions were famously unique for how they taught men to treat their women. Both also taught women to respect their husbands and be obedient.

Christianity claims Christians are sinner also. Pro lacks an understand of basic Christian beliefs. In Christianity, anyone can be saved, regardless of race, prior religion, gender, age, or even past crimes.

Considering what someone does to be a sin isn't the same as discriminating against them. This implies that thinking theft is wrong is discrimination against thefts, or that thinking murder is wrong discriminates against Murders. I firmly believe Democrats are wrong, but I don't discriminate against them...

Argument V: Convincing Others to Join.

I discussed this in Argument II: Morality. Christianity doesn't force itself onto others. It teaches people to convince others to join, not force them to. If you believe someone is going to hell for not believing, and you just let them go there, why then should you deserve heaven? If you believe that, and do nothing, you are a terrible person.

This case is highly hypocritical of Pro. Claiming that telling people your religion is the best one (convincing them) is wrong, and yet he is hosting a debate about how his is the best.

Conclusion: Like many things in life, this is a matter of persection.
Debate Round No. 2
Dwint

Pro

1) In this first argument, my opponent mixed concepts and beliefs from Hinduism, Zen Buddhism and other schools of Buddhism in order to disprove an argument about Mahayana Buddhism.

I would like to remind my opponent we are debating Mahayana Buddhism. There are a great number of Buddhist Schools that believe in gods and even worship Buddha, but these schools are separated from the main branches of Buddhism and only share a small number of concepts and scriptures. Saying all Buddhists believe in gods because there is a school of Buddhism that teaches gods exist is ignorant and it's like saying all Christians believe Jesus was not God because a sect teaches that.
Also, my opponent mentioned Brahma, a Hindu god[1] in a debate about Buddhism. These are different religions with different concepts and mixing them is like mixing Islam and Christianity. Your second source is about dragons in Zen Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhists don't believe in dragons and have very different concepts.
The closest thing to gods Mahayana Buddhism accepts are higher being. They do not have any supernatural powers, they are just reincarnated in a different form because their previous life was lived right. There is a big difference between higher beings and gods, higher being are not worshiped. Saying they are gods is like saying Christians saints are gods.
Also, I would like to point out Christianity also teaches there are countless demons and angels in this world, making Christianity, by your logic, less reasonable.[2][3]

Belief in gods is in general not reasonable, because their existence cannot be proven. Your arguments regarding Buddhist gods were wrong, so from this point of view Christianity remains less reasonable. Rebirth is not less reasonable than eternal life, heaven and hell or demons and angels. Every religion has some unreasonable mystical elements:
-in Buddhism, we have higher being and rebirth
-in Christianity, we have God, Satan, hundreds of angels and demons, heaven, hell, purgatory and eternal life

These are all unreasonable concepts, but Christianity has more of them.

2) First of all, I think we can all agree our morality evolves and newer moral standards are better than old ones. When it comes to morality, newer is better, because morality in constantly evolving. Even is the Buddhist scriptures are 2000 years old, they were "ahead of their time" as they are compatible with current moral standards.

How is hating gays incorrect, if the Bible clearly states gay people should be killed
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."[4]
The Bible teaches being gay is immoral and despite numerous studies that show it isn't a choice, the church continues to condemn homosexuality and treat it like a sin.

" If you do not want something to happen, don't do it" - Buddhism teaches we should give up pleasure, including sex, so pregnancy is in a way the result of carving (the source of all suffering). Dalai Lama said abortion is acceptable if the child has problems or if it would be very hard for the parents to raise him.[5] The most common reason for abortion is raising the child and Buddhism can understand that.
You don't have to be a Christian to be anti-abortion, but it's very hard to be a Christian and not be anti-abortion, because the church teaches abortion is wrong and the fact is most anti-abortion people are Christians[6]


The Bible doesn't seem to treat slavery like that:[7]

" However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. "(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

"
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. "(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. "(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

And talking about morality, how is sex slavery moral?


" When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. " (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Christians can try to defend the Bible, but ultimately it is a book that preaches old moral standards that are now considered immoral.

The 10 Commandments are clearly inferior to the Eightfold Path. Looking at it objectively, the first 4 commandments are about worshiping God, so there's no morality there. There are only 6 commandments about morality and they are very abstract and simple (don't kill, don't steal...) The Eightfold Path is only about morality and it explains everything in more detail.[8]


3)
life = the condition that distinguishes organisms from dead organisms,
Everything that happens after death is not part of life and is therefore irrelevant when debating the meaning of life. For a Christian life is short and continued with eternal existence, but the actual life is short and has only one meaning : obey God. For Buddhists, life is an infinite cycle, their life is eternal, just like their existence and for them the meaning of life is to find the true nature of the world and to understand what the world really is.

4) I think it is pretty clear from point 2 that Christianity discriminates against gays and encourages slavery which is a form of discrimination.
According to the Bible, only Christians can be saved. Christians have to obey God in order to earn salvation, but non-Christians don't stand a chance.

John 3:18: "...whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
John 14:6: "Jesus answered: 'No one comes to the Father except through me'"

5) My opponent didn't counter my point. He agreed Christians have a duty to "convince others to join" which is exactly my point.
Buddhism is not my religion, I simple consider it superior to Christianity. The problem is Christians don't simply inform us about their religion, they threaten us with eternal torture if we don't convert to Christianity( not a Christian = eternity in hell)

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://biblehub.com...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://www.evilbible.com...
[8]http://www.buddhanet.net...;
donald.keller

Con

Argument I: Defining Reasonable.

Con is making two excuses. One is that it's Mahayana Buddhism. This changes nothing. It has Gods and Reincarnation as well. Comparing the Mahayanist Gods to saints is a poor comparison, as Christian saints aren't held as Gods (not to be confused with classic Catholicism), while Buddhas actually are.

"In Mahayana Buddhism, however, the universe is populated with celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas who are worshipped as gods and goddesses. The historical Buddha is honored in this way, but most other Buddhist deities are adapted from the cultures Buddhism has encountered — from the pantheon of Hinduism to the indigenous religions of Tibet, China and Thailand." (1)

The second excuse is that they are Hindu Gods. This is like saying that Russia isn't in Asia because it's in Europe, when it is actually in both. Buddhism shares many Gods and Goddesses with Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism does also have Dragons (Nagas).

"The fathers of the Mahayana were considered to be Nagarjuna, who lived between the first and second ceturies of our era... Legend has it that Nagarjuna recieved instruction from the Nagas (Serpent Kings) when he visited their Dragon's Palace under the sea." (2)

Much of Pro's continuing argument misunderstands the point of me bringing it up. I brought them up so that you couldn't say Buddhism wasn't more reasonable. Pro literally just said that Because A and B both have C, B is less reasonable. Albeit, Christians do not have temples to their demons.

I have shown that Mahayan Buddhism has gods (their Buddhas) and dragons.

Christianity: One God. Reincarnation of God and someone God liked.
Buddhism: Many Gods. Rebirth of everyone. Dragons and Nagas.

Pro doesn't understand his own religion. Assuming they don't worship Gods when they do.

[1] http://www.religionfacts.com...
[2] http://www.buddhanet.net...
]

Argument II: Morality.

Pro's argument is still argumentum ad novitatem, a fallacy. No, we can not all agree on that idea. Many people would argue that the new moral concept of Government Healthcare is wrong, and many would argue that the ancient concept of Abortion is good. Pro can't argue that because it's 'newer', that it must than be by de facto 'better'. Morality is relative to each person.

Pro claimed that homosexuality isn't immoral, while half the US population and most the world would disagree. This again returns us to relative morality. Also, Pro claims to have these studies, but shows none. Many people would claim that Christianity is more moral BECAUSE of it's stance on Homosexuality. Pro is making objective claims on relative morality.

Pro now argues that Christianity is less moral because of it's Pro-life stance, claiming that it's harder to be pro-choice when you're christian, but I've proven last round that Buddhists are equally Pro-life. Pro is grasping straws now. Pro then cherry-picks the Bible. It says you may hand down your slaves as inheritance, because that isn't because enslavement was permanent, but because it's entirely possible to die before the slave's seven year contract is up.

"Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." Exodus 21:1-36

Pro is listing off a verse that doesn't truly represent what the definition of a slave would have been. It says 'slave' but by today's definition, their slaves are quite different. He also forgets that he quotes from the Hebrew book of laws. The law doesn't support the owning of slaves, but it doesn't make illegal what was a normal thing at the time. Similar to laws today not supporting the use of alcohol, but also not outlawing it. Leviticus isn't religious text, it's legal text added in because Hebrew culture of the time, religion and law were one in the same. This doesn't imply that they are one in the same today, but that the Bible keeps them because they are necessary to understanding Hebrew culture and religion, which is important for understanding the bible, as It's context for the Old and New Testament, while the New Testament (which is Christian) outlawed slavery.

Pro does bring up Ephesians 6, but doesn't understand that it 1) told masters their duties as well, outlawing mistreatment of slaves, and 2) was a message to people who still owned slaves, as it was too culturally normal that you couldn't expect Slavery to disappear until long after Christianity had uprooted the concept.

"9) Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master[d] and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." Ephesians 6:9.

"The apostles were to teach servants and masters their duties, in doing which evils would be lessened, till slavery should be rooted out by the influence of Christianity." (3).

Pro's last argument also comes down to my prior statement. The book doesn't want slavery, but can't make it illegal, similar to how the law doesn't want alcoholism, but can't really make it illegal. You couldn't make slavery illegal, so you restrict it with rules.

[3] http://www.christnotes.org...
]

Argument III: Giving Meaning to Life.

Pro plays semantics, a crime against reason and logic. Life, as defined by religion, has no boundaries. "Everlasting life in Heaven" for Example. My argument still stands. What one defines as giving life meaning depends on the person. Some believe meaning is given through enjoying life with luxuries, while some believe it is personal sacrifice. My other dropped argument was that many would claim life has more meaning under Christianity because there aren't as many years or second-chances. Pro has officially dropped this whole case, making definitions instead of refuting my many claims.

Argument IV: Discrimination.

Pro is ignorant of what discrimination is. Discrimination implies you won't even sit with the person, not that you agree with them on everything. By that logic, disagreeing with someone is discrimination. Christianity says to treat all people equal regardless of if they are gay, female, or atheist. Everyone has a chance into heaven, even gay people. The Bible may state want is wrong, and can claim who goes to hell, but that isn't discrimination. By Pro's logic, the law discriminates against murderers by saying murder is bad and you will be punished for it.

Having to accept Jesus isn't discrimination. Claiming only white people can accept Jesus is discrimination. Even gay people can come to accept Christ. Pro's argument is etirely invalid.

Argument V: Convincing Others to Join.

I did in fact counter his point by exclaiming that trying to save people from what you believe will send them to eternal hell is far from immoral. Convincing someone to join a group isn't evil, forcing them to is. Seeing that they will suffer if they don't, so you try to convince them to is even less immoral. And claiming they will endure hell isn't immoral. That's a cheap shot on Pro's end, using a play on language to demonize such a concept. By Pro's logic, the law is immoral by threatening prison time for rape.

Pro's case is still hypocritical, claiming it's wrong to convince one to join your religion, but this whole debate comes down to him saying "mine's better." Pro didn't counter if of my arguments here.

Conclusion: Pro understands nothing of either religion he argues about. Whichever one is better is a relative matter, as is which one is more moral and which one is less reasonable.

Pro should learn about his religion before debating it. He neither understood that Buddhism has Gods, dragons, or was even Pro-life. He doesn't understand the difference between one Bible book from the other and doesn't take cultural context into account. He has based his whole argument off this ignorance.
Debate Round No. 3
Dwint

Pro

1) My opponent insists Buddhists worship gods. The definition of Buddhism clearly states it is a "non-theistic religion" Some Schools of Buddhism worship gods, but we are debating the main branch of Buddhism : Mahayana
My opponent fails to make a crucial distinction between the Buddhist religion and the Buddhist mythology and folklore. The Buddhist religion is non-theistic, it doesn't worship any gods.

mythology = a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person[1]
folklore = the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people[2]

Mythology and folklore form around all major religions, but they are not part of them. The Greek religion worshiped Zeus and other gods, but it had nothing to do with Hercules or other heroes. In every culture, there is a clear distinction between mythology, folklore and religion. Egyptian mythology, containing stories about Osiris and Horus has nothing do to with their actual religion. The myths were based on real gods, but they weren't mixed with religion.

The exact same thing applies to Buddhism. The religion is separated from mythology and folklore. My opponent's quotes are part of mythology, but he chose to ignore this fact and treat it like religion in order to save his argument.
" Legend has it that Nagarjuna recieved instruction from the Nagas (Serpent Kings) when he visited their Dragon's Palace under the sea."

If it's a legend, it has no place in religion. His whole argument is based on the Buddhist mythology, a subject that is not debated here.
Mythology and folklore are in general unreasonable.
Just as a note to my opponent, the Christians mythology is just as unreasonable as Buddhist mythology and has it's own dragons, sea monsters and unicorns[3]

Now, back to his argument, it is based entirely on mythology and folklore. Looking at Buddhist mythology, you can see every point in his argument is found in mythology rather than religion and has no place in this debate[4]

"I have shown that Mahayan Buddhism has gods (their Buddhas) and dragons. "
This affirmation is simply not true. The Buddha insisted on the idea that he is not divine and that anyone can achieve buddhahood. All the other deities my opponent mentioned are, as I showed, myths.

So, when debating religion and not mythology, the only unreasonable aspect of Buddhism is rebirth, while Christianity has the existence of God, the miracle of Jesus, Moses and other saints as well as the existence of heaven and hell.

2) Here, my opponent goes as far as contradicting the Bible. If Leviticus is only in the Bible because of the Hebrew culture, then why is it still in the Bible 2000 years later? The Church had no problem in removing several books from the Bible[5], so why is it still here if it's not true and it doesn't serve any actual purpose?
"the New Testament (which is Christian) outlawed slavery." Not exactly[6]

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Indeed, people have different moral values, but the ones debated here are usually agreed upon by almost everyone. I don't think you can find too many people in the western world who think slavery is moral. Slavery and discrimination and widely condemned and considered immoral around the world and Christianity supports discrimination (against homosexuals)
Christianity supports immoral standards that Buddhism doesn't.

My opponent ignored by point regarding The 10 Commandments, so I guess he agrees with me.

3) My opponent's "many claims" were based on a wrong definition of life. Religion offers a continuation to life, but it doesn't redefine it. This is the reason why it's called afterlife. An atheist and a Christian don't have different definitions of life, the Christian believes his existence will continue after his life ended.

existence = the state or fact of existing; being.[7]
life = the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual[8]
There is no need for semantic tricks. You can exist after death, but you can't live after it. Even Christianity describes life and the afterlife as different stages of our existence, not as a single one.

4) discrimination = The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex[9]

Christians treat homosexuals as disgusting sinners, because that's what their Bible tells them to do. The law punishes murderers, the Bible teaches you to discriminate against certain groups, so this analogy is invalid.
Religious discrimination is also encouraged in the Bible:

“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." -Deuteronomy 13:6-10

5) Everyone think his religion is real and better. My opponent accepted this debate in order to prove his religion is better than Buddhism. Just like Christians think non-Christians will burn in hell, Buddhists think non-Buddhists are living in an illusion and are wasting their lives. Every religious person thinks other are wrong, but this doesn't mean anything. I don't care what a Christians thinks will happen to me. I don't believe in hell and I'm not afraid of something that I don't think it's real just because someone else thinks it's real.
How often do you hear Buddhists say we are all wrong and we should convert? How often do you hear Christians say Jesus is the way and we are all going to burn in hell? Buddhists have an opinion, we are all entitled to have one, but they keep it for themselves.
Christians don't just inform people about their beliefs, they threaten them. Pro didn't counter my point. My argument was that Christians try to convince people to join their religion, while Buddhists don't. Christians threaten people with eternal torture, but you never hear a Buddhist trying to convince you to agree with him and the Buddha strongly suggested informing yourself before choosing Buddhism.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://www.bibleufo.com...
[6]http://www.evilbible.com...
[7]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[8]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[9]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
donald.keller

Con

Argument I: Defining Reasonable.

Pro continues to claim that Buddhism had no Gods. The first problem is that this "clear" definition of his isn't given anywhere in the debate. The second issue is that I've actually shown reliable sources, including several Buddhist sites, that show that Buddhism has Gods.

Pro last attempt is to bring up mythology. He claims that Greek Gods had nothing to do with Hercules, which is entirely 1) false, 2) ironic a case to make, and 3) entirely irrelevant. Hercules was a major part of Greek mythology. And by Pro's logic, no religion has Gods, as Gods are apparently a separate mythology that simply formed around a religion or culture. Buddhist worship Gods like any other group. Nagas, Gods, mythology, it's all apart of the Buddhist ideology. Religion is merely the combined form of a group's ideologies and myths. Buddhism formed around those myths, and as so, those myths became a part of what Buddhists believe.

Conclusion: Both religions have Gods. Whichever religion is more reasonable simply depends on whoever is deciding.

Argument II: Morality.

Pro didn't read my case. If he had, he would have seen this line:
"...but that the Bible keeps them because they are necessary to understanding Hebrew culture and religion, which is important for understanding the bible, as It's context for the Old and New Testament..." He could only have made that claim of his if he 1) purposefully ignored this, or 2) didn't read my argument.

Pro should read his opponents case next time he makes an argument. As for Timothy and Luke, this falls under the exact same argument I made. I will repeat my argument instead of typing it twice: "The law doesn't support the owning of slaves, but it doesn't make illegal what was a normal thing at the time. Similar to laws today not supporting the use of alcohol, but also not outlawing it." It would have been religious suicide to trying banning slavery, sp they made rules until then.

Pro claims I have dropped the Ten Commandments argument. Even more evidence that he isn't reading my arguments. If he did, he would have known that I refuted it in our first round.
"As for the 8 Paths and the 10 Commandments, that's relative. About 3,800,000,000 (3.8 billion) Muslims and Christians would disagree, claiming the 10 Commandments are superior." Ignoring this argument is poor conduct.

Pro brought up moral stances in the US, forgetting that the US isn't the only nation in the world. Those numbers change drastically when showing everyone. Even then, it ignores my whole claim about relative morality. I brought up numbers only to show that even with Pro's idea of what defines morality, he is still wrong.

Pro has dropped every other case he made. He especially dropped his case about homosexuality and abortion. Pro also dropped my claim that the definition of Slavery was different back in the days that the Hebrew Books of Law were written. While he shows text regarding it, his examples never hint to what the definition may be. Meanwhile the text he ignored, the ones I posted, did define it exactly as I said it was defined.

Conclusion: Morality is relative.

Argument III: Giving Meaning to Life.

My definition for life was not wrong. My definition was the defining of life from a religious perspective. Pro played semantics with his argument, but his definitions, that he only just brought up after realizing he couldn't win the argument from a religious perspective, had no place in a debate regarding a religious perspective on life. Afterlife is still life. As it stands, the Afterlife is literally just life after death,.. not the lack there of. Pro is continuing to argur semantics instead logic.

My "many claims" also included the following argument that Pro officially dropped.
"My other dropped argument was that many would claim life has more meaning under Christianity because there aren't as many years or second-chances."

Pro's idea of more value is by having more of something, but economics realistically calls that devaluing. The more lifes you get, the less they mean to you. Pro also dropped my case about how it's relative. One may define giving life meaning as being moral and giving up your time for others, while someone else defines it as partying and taking extreme risks. Pro continued to not refute my claims.

Conclusion: Christianity gives a great deal of meaning to life, but ultimately, it's matter of how one defines giving life meaning.

Argument IV: Discrimination.

Pro's argument is Appeal to Emotion... Phrasing and wording his argument to pull on emotional strings. Since Christians also see themselves as "disgusting" sinners as well, his argument is really pointless. Being discriminatory towards a group implies they, because of their group, can't be forgiven, but Christianity believes all groups of people, Gay, Muslim, Female, Black, or any other, can be forgiven and accepted into the group.

Pro is referring back to a Hebrew book of law. Again, he doesn't take time to understand the religion he talks about. That book is the laws of the Hebrew people, not of Christians. Like I said earlier, books like those are kept because they are necessary context. Jews felt only the Hebrews could be forgiven, while the New Testament (the Christian texts) said all groups may be forgiven, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. Since non-gays can go to hell too, his claim is even more mute.

Pro dropped my entire case of how his logic implies the Government descriminates against murders for saying what they did was wrong, and punishing them for it.

Conclusion: Christianity does not discriminate.

Argument V: Convincing Others to Join.

Incorrect. I accepted to prove that whichever one is better depends on the person involved. Pro would know that if he'd paid attention to my arguments. Of course everyone thinks their religion is better, but I won't go out of my way to say "Mine's better than yours!" By doing so, Pro has hurt both his Argument II: Morality, and Argument V: Convincing Others to Join cases.

Pro is making a fallacious and highly unsupportable claim that all Christians threaten people over religion. Some have, and some Buddhists have. Pro's claim shows absolute ignorance. Pro never tackled my case, instead choosing to attack an entire religion in his own intolerance or their beliefs.

My argument stands, while Pro's is unsupportable. Pro should remember that here, it wasn't the Christian trying to convince people his religion was better.

Conclusion: Convincing people to join a group, especially to save them for eternal hell, isn't immoral.

Final Conclusion: Pro's entire case is ignorant of both religions. Which ever religion is more moral or more reasonable, or gives more meaning to life, is relative. Ultimately, which religion is better is a relative matter.

Pro has dropped the following arguments:
- Every case not about slavery in Argument II.
- Argument on how the definition of Slave was different.
- Every claim in Argument III about how people define 'giving life meaning' differently.
- My claim about how Christinity would give each year more value because you don't get as many chance to mess up.
- My claim about how his logic implies the Legal System descriminates against murderers for punishing them and saying their actions are wrong.

Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
@Kbub I Actually brought that up when refuting his argument about convincing others to join lol.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
I'm not sure if it is Buddhist to advocate such a stance....
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Got cut off (expanding a little as well)...

---VOTE RFD continued---
"Pro's entire case is ignorant of both religions. " pretty well sums up the problem of this debate, even if "Convincing people to join a group, especially to save them for eternal hell," is a rational that borders on terrorism (not to say suicide bombing level terrorist).

Neither religion seems outright good. This vote does not fall merely to the failed BoP issue. Con claimed with sources that the particular branch of Buddhism believes in gods and dragons, pro without refuting the sources played a semantics game of No True Scotsman... On top of other issues, Con takes a strong lead in better presentation and better refutation.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
---VOTE RFD---
"written in the Bible and haven't changed in over 2000 years." Flawed statement, as the bible was written less than 2000 years ago; in addition to how much gets changed in each new 'translation.'

"I firmly believe Democrats are wrong, but I don't discriminate against them" simply hilarious, but summed up a lot of cons (perhaps flawed) beliefs. "If you believe someone is going to hell for not believing..." this statement honestly sounds like terrorism; not to mention constricted by the pope... in fact while many people have been made into saints (officially in heaven), not even one person in the history of the world is officially recognized as being in hell.

"...in order to disprove an argument about Mahayana Buddhism." This seems like a very good point, but if doing comparisons of single branches, which branch of Christianity is in question? While generalizing Christianity may actually fine, the teachings of Wikipedia are to my knowledge not endorsed by any branch of Christianity (things like the list of demons, that included ones from Zoroastrianism is costing pro the source lead he otherwise would have enjoyed).

"the fact is most anti-abortion people are Christians[6]" where in the source does it actually say that?

"The Eightfold Path is only about morality and it explains everything in more detail.[8]" 404 Not Found. However I think a really good debate could be made just comparing the 10 Commandments and the Eightfold Path to determine in depth which is better.

"only one meaning : obey God." Where is that written? I know a bit more about Christianity than Buddhism, but actual fabrications (as already pointed out about the claimed content of sources) are a horrible way to debate.

"My opponent's quotes are part of mythology, but he chose to ignore this fact and treat it like religion in order to save his argument." This would have had serious weight if not for pro intentionally committing this earlier.

"Pro's entire case is ign
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
@Haroush: I wasn't trying to argue against him. I wanted to prove that whichever one is better is a matter of perspective. Either way, thanks :) I agree he had much more sources.

What made you change your vote?
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
To say this was an easy vote would be a lie. It was incredibly difficult for me to judge this one as both make great arguments against each others religion with good sources. Of course, Pro had more sources, but Con had some great rebuttals as well. In my honest opinion, this debate was almost a tie coming from my perspective. S&G I gave to Con because of Pro's wall of text in round 2 and 3.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
ER: I did bring up that Mahayana Buddhism doesn't have a creator. I brought up that Buddha said that the idea of a creator was a lie spread by another God. When he brought p that it was Mahayana Buddhism, something I didn't notice at first, I still showed that they had Deities (gods), while Pro argued that Buddhism (saying Buddhism, not Mahayana Buddhism) was atheist. Either way, thanks for voting :)

Pro: I should have mentioned... Nontheist isn't the same as Atheist. Nontheism can still have Gods. It's more the idea that there is no one supreme gods. Greek mythology would be Nontheist.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
It's terribly ironic that Pro is in another debate arguing against Objective Morality, and than here he is arguing that Buddhism is more moral.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 3 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Bhuddism is a self deluding lie. It's nothing but an attempt to convince oneself that they do not deserve the death penalty...........somehow they think they can make themselves better so they can have eternal life and get a "don't burn in hell for eternal death" free card. Bhuddism seeks to make one' self one's own God, it is the desire of the devil but the devil knows Who he is trying to fool........and who he is trying to take down to fire of hell with him by convincing them to trust in self-deluding lies.
Posted by awesomejj101 3 years ago
awesomejj101
In your eyes Buddhism is better than Christianity, and thus to you it is a fact. But it is really not.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Dwintdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con effectively showed that which ever religion is preferred is a relative matter. Both are identical in many ways, both are also different. But like Con showed, which one you prefer is a matter of relative preference.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Dwintdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed this belief is completely subjective, and you cannot prove that one is better than the other.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Dwintdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: (more in comments) Pro managed to convince me that Buddhism is not better, by route of being less rational as represented by him. ARGuMENTS: Pro won pieces of the argument, and lost others; in R4 playing a game of semantics of what he defines something as having greater authority than accepted definitions by respected scholars. SOURCES: Leaving this tied. Pro had volume of sources (see comment section for some problems here), con aimed for quality to get his point across; conduct nearly shifted in cons favor due to some of the issues exemplified here.
Vote Placed by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
Dwintdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Dwintdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of PRO's points relied on confusing fundamentalist Christians with the entire religion while CON at least attempted to keep his points in regard to Buddhism in general. The development over gods was a mess on both sides - I had to go look up Mahayana Buddhism (which does not claim a creator or god but does have deities). I totally lost the thread of that point in the debate and so leave it as is. CON also provided a stronger argument that better is in the eye of the beholder, which PRO never really countered. PRO tried with saying everyone thinks his/her religion is better, but that negates PRO's case for an objective measuring standard. PRO also used many Old Testament excerpts to attack Christianity, which seems less valid than using the Bible. For all this, I give arguments to CON.