The Instigator
cloudbox0
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bbowhan
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Hare Krishna is a cult

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
bbowhan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,504 times Debate No: 20370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

cloudbox0

Pro

I respect your beliefs & im willing to argue about them.
bbowhan

Con

Hello and I wish my opponent luck in this debate.

"Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare"

This is a famous poem from the beliefs of the Hindu faith, particularly the Bhakti denomination. It is nothing more than offering praise and love to god Krishna, and extending that love throughout your being to achieve pure awareness of the Krishna Consciousness. Hinduism is the oldest existing religion in the world, at around 5,000 years. Neither the mantra nor the religion can be properly described as a cult, unless one defines 'cult' to be synonymous with 'religion' in general.

I hold that the status of cult only applies if there is excessive zeal or fanaticism, excessive adulation to leaders, indications of severe coercion, and various predatory behaviors in recruiting converts and retaining the faithful. Although Hinduism, like any religion, has its share of absolutists, it and its beliefs tend to be comparable (not worse or more dangerous) to that of other religions, and better than some.
Debate Round No. 1
cloudbox0

Pro

hello thank you for accepting,

well hare krishna is a cult BECAUSE it was introduced in 1966 IN CALIFORNIA! it is a fake religion/cult because the belief is not from its original country (India). Hare Krishna devotes chant 2 hours a day! chanting, chanting, chanting, chanting Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

DOESN'T THAT SEEM BRAINWASHING!! Another point is they NEVER EAT MEAT, humans have been eating meat for thousands and thousands of years now with this NEW AGE CULT the devotes don't eat meat have a look

you lose these nutrients

iron
calcium
zinc
copper
manganese
selenium
riboflavin
fat soluble vitamins, particularly vitamin D
The best sources of these are meat, poultry and seafood, which Hare Krishna's avoid.
bbowhan

Con

OK, I'm probably going to need to know what your definition of cult is, that Hare Krishna is a cult and any other major church is not. It would be especially useful if you could contrast it with your church, whatever that may be.

You said that Hare Krishna started 1966 in California. That is just silly- Cali is a huge cultural melting pot, and creates radical and outlandish ideas in science, technology, religion, even fashion and entertainment continuously. New ideas and thoughts are being tried out all the time. Ditto for the year- the 60s counterculture movement tried essentially everything, as if for the first time. You cannot convice people that all that ferment counts as a cultish behavior- will you argue that the Beach Boys are a cult? I looked this up on the google box- Wikipedia says it was founded in New York [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Also Religion facts indicates that Swammi Prabhupada went to New York first then San Fransisco [http://www.religionfacts.com...].

Then you mentioned the chanting of "Hare Krishna" as a form of brainwashing. Brainwashing is a deliberate and systematic torture, meant to break will and force a new belief into someone. What the chanting looks like is a meditative ritual, or part of a yoga routine. Again, many religions do much the same thing- the Catholic "Ave Maria" is the first thing that popped into my mind.

You correctly said that Hare Krishna is vegitarian. So what? Lots of people are vegitarian, both as part of a religious organization and through personal choice and have been for thousands of years. Vegitarians know how to get enough and the right kind of plants to get all the nutrition they need. It really doesnt have anything to do with whether the group counts as a cult or not.

Again, Pro, I think you shoud tell everybody what a cult is and is not, so we can determine if the Hare Krisha movement counts or not. I also think everyone should check out the videos in the comments- funny stuff there!
Debate Round No. 2
cloudbox0

Pro

ok ill tell you that hare krishna is a cult
New-age, quasi-eastern spirituality is actually just so called spiritual justification for the intense narcissism of western humanoid. How self-satisfaction and infantile egocentrism became the virtue par excellence of contemporary Western culture certainly is something to look at. This is an pseudo ideology that condones self-indulgence of heavy duty materialistic society as a bona fide spiritual practice.


WHITE PEOPLE ARE HARE KRISHNA DEVOTES - HARE KRISHNA DOES NOT COME FROM IT ORIGINAL COUNTRY (INDIA)!!!!! It is a fake religion! same as Mormons, Jahovah Witness ETC. If you become a devote of Hare Krishna it blocks your freedom and quite possibly your soul.
bbowhan

Con

I didn't ask you to assert that Hare Krishna is a cult, but to define the concept of cult in a way that we can distinguish the cultist aspects, if any, of Hare Krishna which you have not done. Without that, here is an argument that is completely not demonstrated, and you haven't even approached your burden of proof.

The next paragraph is, well weird (I looked up Pro's profile, he is 14*. That explains much). New Age spiritually does tend to be self serving, I agree. It is also such a broad category that any generalized statement is impossible, as it will be certainly refuted by some aspect of New Age beliefs. As far as the pseudo ideology, Hare Krishna is mostly noted for its asceticism and simplicity of life and does NOT - even cannot- be considered "self-indulgence of heavy duty materialistic society". They work long hours, have many prayers per day, and live simple, monastic lives in denial of most worldly goods, alcohol and drugs, even coffee and tea!

As far as the last paragraph, it is a rather sad bit of racism, and wrong as well. Swammi Prabhupada was Indian, and a monk in the tradition of Vaishnava Hinduism for years before setting on his mission, as I have already alluded to. Vaishnava itself is a tradition dating back centuries and has many adherents in the old country. As far as the 'fake religion' is concerned, well aren't all religions fake to some degree? Using faith and ritual to conceal the fact that there core beliefs are inescapably unproven and unprovable is fakery by any definition.

This is the conclusion of the debate. I hope my opponent enjoyed it, however I urge the followers to vote for me as he did not address his own assertion.

*Note to self- get profile information before committing to a debate in future.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cloudbox0 5 years ago
cloudbox0
rasist
Posted by bbowhan 5 years ago
bbowhan
cloudbox-
You said that quasi-eastern is (and presumably the krishnas are a cult ) because of 'stupid white people believing eastern religions'... So exactly how much melanin content is the boundary for intelligence or enlightenment in your view? Or to ask the same question in another way, exactly how racist are you, in relation to how much brown in your fellows?
Posted by SweetPotato 5 years ago
SweetPotato
Quasi eastern would actually be a religion that resembles eastern religions. It doesn't mean their beliefs are incorrect, though.
Posted by SweetPotato 5 years ago
SweetPotato
It's*. Quasi has a specific meaning, and when it is tacked on o a word, it doesn't magically get a new meaning.
Posted by cloudbox0 5 years ago
cloudbox0
ITS NOT Quasi its QUASI-EASTERN!
Posted by SweetPotato 5 years ago
SweetPotato
That is not what quasi means. Dear lord you are an ignoramus.
Posted by cloudbox0 5 years ago
cloudbox0
quasi eastern relates to ----- new-age stupid WHITE people believing eastern religions ETC.
Posted by SweetPotato 5 years ago
SweetPotato
Excuse me, doesn't*.
Posted by SweetPotato 5 years ago
SweetPotato
There you go again with poorly spelled inflammatory statements. Just because a belief system is recent doen't mean it is incorrect. That is just an ignorant statement.
Posted by bbowhan 5 years ago
bbowhan
cloudbox0-
No I don't read 'Rick Ross Institute' which I have never even heard of before and don't care about in the slightest now. The point of this debate was for you to provide your arguments yourself. Also, what is 'quasi-eastern' even mean anyway, and how can that be remotely relevant?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
cloudbox0bbowhanTied
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: Pro's arguments were ridiculous.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
cloudbox0bbowhanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Her arguments where logical, pro had some really crazy ones. Also she used 2 sources which made her more convincing, also hence the source point. Also pro used Mormons and claimed them to be fake, wanting me to give con conduct but didn't. Also he talked about races which on my opinion made no logical sense. Then he says it blocks your soul, like really? He made illogical not well planned out arguments, con actually made some logical sense. Con is the winner.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
cloudbox0bbowhanTied
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: I would've given the conduct point to Con as well, but then he used ad hominem in the last round. Arguments from Pro were somewhat ridiculous and are potentially offensive. Clear win for Con on arguments.