The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

Resolved: Buddhism is more valid than Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,374 times Debate No: 19284
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




Round One Introductions only.

Hello I want to debate you again on a valid topic.
Debate Round No. 1


Since this debate is talking about one religions validity over another I suppose I can share the burden of proof in showing that Christianity is more valid than Buddhism. To make it clear I will be arguing from Catholic perspective. Also traditionally Affirmative sets the definitions. Neg. can refute if he wants to.
Resolved: Buddhism is more valid than Christianity, I negate the preceding resolution because of the following reasons: Contention 1; Reincarnation is incompatible with a growing population, Contention 2; Buddhism is a non theistic by nature but most likely there is a creator deity Contention 3; Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who at the very least was remarkable if not the Son of God.
Contention 1: Lets define reincarnation. Reincarnation: the rebirth of a soul in another body.(Oxford) My argument contends that a growing population is violation of any type of reincarnation that can be conceived unless it relies upon Creators creating new souls even though that defeats the purpose. Buddhism holds that reincarnation is true and if this is true than a body is inhabits one soul and the next body is inhabited by a different soul. Let us suggest that reincarnation is true, what happened with the first people to have souls? Did the child of the first people not have soul? Does one human have to die so that one may live? One could attempt argue that animal spirits may fill this role but we must consider that animals have far less mental compassity, but if the purpose of life is to "One thing I teach: suffering and the end of suffering. It is just Ill and the ceasing of Ill that I proclaim."
--The Buddha
So if this is true, can animals comprehend pain? We must remember that : Are animals capable of feeling emotional pain? Humans can certainly feel pain without physical damage – after the loss of a loved one, or the break-up of a relationship, for example. Some scientists suggest that only primates and humans can feel emotional pain, as they are the only animals that have a neocortex – the ‘thinking area' of the cortex found only in mammals.
Suffering is emotional as well as physical. But how could a animal escape suffering if they cannot comprehend this. My next part of the argument says that a Creator could cause this but it would defeat the purpose. Reincarnation or being born in another body is only possible if a Creator to fill the souls that are filled when a population increases but this defeats the concept because that means that it wouldn't be necessary for reincarnated souls to exist if a creator created them.
My second contention is a God most likely exists. I will contend this in 2 parts: The origin of the universe requires this and also the existence of Objective morality proves this as well. I will use pure science to show that a God exists(btw I will assume the position of Okeams Razor to reject the notion that more than one God exists). E=MC^2 Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, Einstein theory of relativity space=time or space and time are the same thing(this is why the universe expands). The Law of Conservation of Energy:The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system(such as the universe) is a constant. The most certain and universal of all scientific principles is that of causality. Being that this is true we can make a following conclusion:
1.Energy couldn't have been created by the universe(because that would violate its own laws)
2.Space-time started at the same time therefore when energy appeared space-time must have started.
3.Causality is relies on the fact everything(IN THIS UNIVERSE) must have a cause
4. If the preceding arguments are true than the universe must have been created by a outside source
While we may argue that this doesn't prove a 'God' it still shows evidence for the existence of a cause for the universe and that is outside the universe. The existence of objective morality concludes that a being outside the universe must exist for the following reasons(remember I said that Objective morality concludes a God not the other way around):
"Social pressures provide no basis for objective morality as they change with time and place. Any reader in social science and social constructionism will easily conclude the relative nature of social pressures.

So without God there can be no rational basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,

"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning."

Logical coherence of this argument

1. God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity
2. Atheism doesn't believe in God
3. Therefore according to the atheistic view morals are subjective

Another way of putting it is as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective morals do not exist
2. Objective morals do exist
3. Therefore God exists

For the record I just liked the way he worded this I am not appealing to authority.

My third contention is that Jesus most likely existed and if he did exist then he was a remarkable man. It should be said even if we can prove Buddha existed, he never is claimed to be a supernatural being therefore has no relevance in this debate. "
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians" (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
There are many more sources but the amount of characters remaining is limiting me, Please vote for negative today.


I will address each of my opponent’s claims in order, those claims are;

  1. Reincarnation
  2. Buddhism is non theistic
  3. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person


The reason reincarnation is compatible with a growing population, is that there are multiple Domains, which are not limited to our planet.

In Buddhism there are 6 Domains

  1. Deva
  2. Asura
  3. Human
  4. Animal
  5. Pretta
  6. Naraka

Humans are the most likely to reach enlightenment, and each realm also has a multitude of subdivisions.

Buddhism is non theistic

Buddhism is not atheistic; we simply do not make God a priority. We see the fixation on the concept of God, a hindrance in the path to enlightenment. For example Christianity; if Jesus died for your sins and you simply have to ask for forgiveness, than there would be no reason to follow the 8-fold path. According to most theist views, you simply have to be faithful to avoid suffering. Buddhists on the other hand, take the approach of self-help.

The Buddha taught something called the Four Noble truths.

The Four Noble Truths are as followed:

  1. Suffering does exist
  2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
  3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
  4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the eightfold path.

The Noble Eightfold Path is made up of 3 divisions, with 8 folds total;


1) Right view

2) Right Intention


3) Right Speech

4) Right Action

5) Right Livelihood


6) Right Effort

7) Right Mindfulness

8) Right Concentration.

Buddhism follows the middle way, which means we don’t deal in absolutes. The middle way could be compared to the ying-yang of taoism. Because Buddhists follow the Middle way, Buddhism is not faith based; Dharma is open to scientific investigation, unlike dogma which is absolute. The last words of Buddha were "Behold, O monks, this is my advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation." (1)

Jesus of Nazareth was a Historical Person

There are no historical accounts of “Jesus”, there are only a handful of historical accounts of “Christ”, after his death, but “Christ” is not a name, “Christ” is a title. Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, which is a title meaning "The Anointed One".

The name Jesus is also Greek. If Christ existed he would not be named Jesus, as there’s no J in the Hebrew alphabet.

The name Jesus stems from the Greek God Zeus. This is why Mexicans call Jesus, HaZeus. So when you pray to Jesus, you are praying to Zeus. The name YH-Zeus comes from merging the Jewish god YHVH and the Greco-Roman god Zeus. In comparison the popular first century Egyptian god, Serapis, was the result of merging the gods Osiris and Apis. The English "Jesus" comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus. Now Greek has no "y" sound, but the Latin "i" is both an "i" and a "j".

Thus YHWH becomes YH-Zeus,which becomes Hazeus, which becomes Iesus, which becomes Jesus.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, thus becomes, “the anointed Yh-Zeus of Nazareth”.

Also the story of Jesus was heavily influenced by Re-Harmakhis(Ra-Horus at the horizon), as well as other Pagan religions. Christianity at its core is a perversion of Atenism.

Atenism to Christianity

Horus (Hor) was a sky and solar god and was one of the oldest gods in the Nile Valley. (2)

Mary comes from the Egyptian word "Meri" meaning "beloved". Isis's title was the beloved, making her name, Isis-Meri. Isis stood for motherhood, love, magic, children, medicine and peace. Isis was Horus's mother. (2)

Horus's father was Osiris. Osiris was king of the afterlife and originally a god of agriculture and nature. He was the chief judge in the court in the Underworld, where all the dead citizens were trying to come through to Paradise. (2)

The "Myth of Osiris" is about his death (murdered by his brother Set) and resurrection. (2)

Set was a god of storms and disorder from Upper Egypt. (2)

In the Myth of Osiris, Set killed Osiris out of envy. Isis asked the sun god Ra to resurrect Osiris. Osiris was resurrected for 1 day. In that one day Osiris impregnated Isis, in which she gave birth to Horus, in a cave. Set took the form of a snake and bit Horus attempting to kill him, but the God of wisdom, Thoth, saved Horus. Isis hid Horus until he was fully grown. When Horus was full grown he searched for Set, in order to avenge his father’s murder. (2)

By fighting Set who had killed his father Osiris, Horus defeated all evilness in the world (symbolically).

Re (Ra) was the solar god and a major deity all over Egypt. He stood for the rising sun, life, rebirth, children, health, virility, and ect. (2)

Horus was often fused with Ra to create Re-Horakhte. Horus was also seen as a manifestation of Ra.

Re-Horakhte, meaning "Re-Horus at the horizon" was a combination of the sun god Re from Lower Egypt and Horakhty who was an aspect of Horus from Upper Egypt. (2)

From Re-Horakte, we get the story of the birth, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We also get the holy Trinity, the devil, and salvation.

Around 1340 BC, the pharaoh Amenhotep IV declared that just a single deity should be worshipped, named Aten. Unlike other Gods, Aten had no human form. Aten was praised mainly by hymns, poems and offerings of fruit and flowers. (2)

In one of the Hymns to Aten, in the 14th century BC, it sings about a trinity, with Re, Aten, and Ptah. (3)

Ptah was the creator god, and was called "The First of Gods". He was the patron of all craftsmen especially the smiths. Among some other gods he was creator of mankind, and could create life by just using words. He stood for good moral and order. He was said to have created Atum, and thus was responsible for creation of the World. (2)

Atum, meaning "The Completed One" was a creator god and was the first to rise from the water Nun at the dawn of time. He created everything and thus became the first god on earth. His body was considered the parts of all physical matter. Atum was also a aspect of Re, just as Horakhte was an aspect of Horus.Mostly Atum was depicted as a man. (2)

  • Ptah thus is the creator.
  • Osiris is the father
  • Atum is Adam
  • Re-Horakte is Jesus
  • Isis is Mary
  • Aten is the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore Ptah was often combined with the falcon god Sokar, to create Ptah-Sokar. By the middle kingdom, which lasted from 2055 BC to 1650 BC, Ptah-Sokar became fused with Osiris, becoming Ptah-Sokar-Osiris.

This merges the stories of Ptah, and Osiris, further unifying the stories of Re and Horus.

Furthermore, the Christian cross comes from the Egyptian ankh, which is the symbol of life. The roman crucified people on a cross that looked like a capital T, not a lowercase t. The Christian cross is more an ankh than a crucifixion.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponents argument thus far has been rather disappointing for three reasons, one he makes no claims that Buddhism is any better than Christianity , two he attacks claims of Christianity but shows a lack of understanding in general, and third fails to answer my attacks well. His rebuttal on reincarnation is rather disappointing because while it attempt to give multiple worlds in order to solve the growing population problem it fails ultimately to give a realistic answer. The reason being that are we are going to assume there is more than one world than we face the contridiction of Okeams Razor, so basically we are more correct to assume there is one world/heaven then there is mulitiple. We also face the problem that if this world is growing at alarming rates than should be worrying extremely about other worlds because if other worlds are dieing as fast as we are growing there is a great issue with reproducing. We must also consider he has not addressed my subargument that animals and plants have no emotional concept of suffering, so how are they supposed to escape this?
My opponents second objection is Buddhism is not athiestic, but I never claimed anything like that. I merely claimed as my opponent so kindly points out that Buddhism is not thiestic or doesn't focuse on God. But if my opponent as he seems to concede that a God exists than he has no choice but to concede this debate if any other of my points hold. As spoken of before I would be defending this from a Catholic pov. My opponent negated to mention that there would be a reason to follow the eightfold path, Why? The Catholic belief is that "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man."(CCC)
"Justification is a true removal of sin, and not merely having one's sins ignored or no longer held against the sinner by God."
--Modern Catholic Dictionary
We must not only just say "I am sorry" we must show that we don't mean to do it again. We would have plenty of reason to follow the eightfold path esspecially if it leads us to better life choices and better relationship with God. Your objection falls to your ignorance of the Christian religion. It is funny since you are saying that Buddhism is about scientific investigation when you then have the BoP of saying that this is not true for dogma because I would refer you to the evolution vs religion postition.( It should be mentioned that there are many priests that the Pope has that advise him on matters of science.
I believe my opponent has miscalculated on this next contention. I clearly stated an example where he is called Jesus not Christ. He also doesn't consider the Gospels as an account because they are non-secular but they still provide as much weight as any Buddhism texts. Technically speaking Jesus is what historians and the early church(evidence from the Consul of Trent and First Council of Nicaea) called him and even though his proper name is Yeshua it is fine to refer to him Jesus because at the time most of the educated world spoke Greek surely they knew what they were saying?!?
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord's Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

My opponents next contention is that Christianity is based on Atenism but this is false for 5 reasons. First the second contention established Christ existed. Second(this info comes from as mediator. Atenism had this common link with "normal" Egyptian religion: Akhenaten was regarded as the sole mediator for Aten on earth. The idea of a mediator is in itself not unusual: Moses is portrayed as serving something of that role, and other religions conceived of their clergy as providing some level of intermediary service. But with Atenism, this relationship went so far as to make it so that the sun-disc of Aten was "simply the hypostasis of divine kingship, a pale reflection of [Akhenaten's] own on earth, projected heavenwards."
Third,Laws and ceremonies. We all know how many rules God handed down in the Pentateuch; what did Aten do that was the same? Actually, nothing. Atenism is "devoid of ethical content." [Red.MA, 113] As Redford puts it, while Aten is the creator (albeit with no associated "creation story"), he "seems to show no compassion on his creatures. He provides them with life and sustenance, but in a rather perfunctory way. No text tells us he hears the cry of the poor man, or succors the sick, or forgives the sinner."
Forth,Henotheism to monotheism.Of relation to this is the possibility that Atenism did not apparently begin as monotheism, but as henotheism -- preference and superiority of one god over others. The earliest inscriptions of Akhenaten continue to refer to "gods" in the plural -- this may be because Akhenaten himself has not clarified his beliefs yet, or it may be that sculptors needed some time to get used to the idea of using the singular. [Red.MA, 22]
And last, Atenism was at its inception a typical Egyptian religion that "never bothered no one." Redford [Red.MA, 12] tells us:

It would never have occurred to an ancient Egyptian to postulate the supernatural as a monad -- a unitary, intellectually superior emanation. Much less would it have occurred to him to suppose that his eternal salvation depended on the recognition of such a monad. One man might choose to worship this god or that; another might even hold, for whatever reason, that other gods did not exist. But this was not important for an ancient Egyptian. He could not have cared less.
Akhenaten's monotheism, in line with this view, was neither evangelical nor exclusive. Aten became "the" god for the royalty; but he never became a god over the average Egyptian Joe, and in fact, "the degree of intensity with which the new program was pursued" went downhill "the farther one got from the royal presence." [Red.HK, 175] Akhenaten showed no interest in promulgating his faith -- not until it became to his political advantage to do so (like when the priests gave him trouble -- then evangelism became rather convenient).
We also must consider the vast number of claims about Christianity relating to other religions but they are really just objection to a religion that further validity than any religion to challanage it.
My opponent has failed to introduce contentions,all three of my contentions stand,address christianity correctly, show an understanding of basic population trends, and a failure to understand emotional pain. For these reason the voters ought to vote a negative today.


My rebuttal was lacking because I ad to delete some things because of the character limit.

My opponent calls me ignorant of Christianity, but I attended a catholic school, and had the highest grades in my religion class.

Atenism was Monotheistic not Henotheism

My opponent claims atenism is not monotheistic but Henotheistic. This is false.

Atenism believed that there was only 1 god, Aten. Aten was created by Akhenaten, to replace the pantheon. After Akhenaten's death Egypt reverted back to the pantheon. The idea of Aten evolved from Re-Horakhte. When Atenism was established all other temples was closed, and worship of all other gods was forbidden. (1)

Atenism connection to Christianity

My opponent claimed 5 reasons the connections are false;
  1. It establishes Jesus existed
  2. Akhenaten was a divine mediator
  3. Atenism is devoid of ethical content
  4. Atenism didn't start as monotheism
  5. Atenism wasn't the god for all Egyptians

All of these statements are false.


I did not establish that Jesus existed I established that he was based off of Re-Horakhte, which was a myth. Unless you can prove that Re-Horakhte was real, than Jesus is not real either.


Akhenaten was a divine mediator much like the pope is a divine mediator. Once the pope is chosen, it is believed he has a direct link with god. The pope is also often referred to as, "his holiness".

The pope's hat is also very similar to the Egyptian crown.

Atenism is not devoid of ethical conduct. The 10 commandments from the old testament I taken directly from the book of the dead.

Spell 125 of the Egyptian book he dead says
  • I have not reviled the God.
  • I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
  • I have not done what the God abominates . . .
  • I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
  • I have not caused anyone’s suffering . . . I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
  • I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
  • I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
  • I have not taken milk from a child’s mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage . . .
  • I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
  • I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
  • I have not kept cattle away from the God’s property. I have not blocked the God at his processions.

And there are more similarities as well. (2)


Atenism is monotheistic, before it was monotheistic it was not Atenism. Further more, I said Christianity was a perversion of Atenism, not that it was Atenism. After Atenism's decline the pantheon was re established. Judaism is a product of Atenism, and Christianity is a further blend of Judaism and the Egyptian religion.


Atenism as stated before, was the sole religion of all of Egypt. The old Pantheon was abolished and replaced with Atenism. (1)

The Babylonian Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud dates Jesus's death to 217 AD (3) But tradition states Jesus died in 33 AD, and Pope Peter I died in 67 AD.

If Jesus died in 217 AD, as the Babylonian Talmud suggests than the first pope would be St. Callixtus I, who is the 16th pope.

This would also place Jesus after Nero's death in 68 AD. Emperor Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome on the Christians.

So if The Babylonian Talmud is correct, than Jesus came after the Christian religion.

Flavius Josephus Interpolation

The works of Flavius Josephus, which deals with the Era that Jesus lived in, is widely regarded by historians to be interpolated by Christians. This means that it was reworded after being rewritten. So how reliable is religious texts that has been reworded by Christians? Not very. (4)

Buddhism Non theistic

In Buddhism there is something called the "Five Aggregates", which are;

  1. Form
  2. Feeling
  3. Perception
  4. Impulses
  5. Discernment

Suffering arises when one clings to an aggregate.

The Perception of god get's in the way of enlightenment, and thus is not a focus of Buddhism. We may believe in a God, but we don't cling to the perception of god, as in theist religions.

Animals, Plants, and emotional concept of suffering.

My opponent claims that, "only primates and humans can feel emotional pain, as they are the only animals that have a neocortex – the ‘thinking area' of the cortex found only in mammals"

This is obviously false.

A few years ago, that may have been the scientific school of thought, but new science proves otherwise.

Robert Defranco, Director of the Animal Behavior Center in Queens, N.Y., and author of several research papers on animal emotions, says animals definitely have primary emotions like fear, and anger. Defranco says that there is growing evidence that they also have secondary emotions like love, jealousy and greed.

It's believed that fear and possibly other emotions are linked to neurons in the amygdala.

According to Defranco, "It's a larger area in dogs than it is in humans. So we could say that the dogs will experience more emotions. They live very much more in the moment than humans do." [5]

Morality’s dependence on God.

For one to claim that Morality is dependent on a God figure is a bold statement that is completely and utterly inaccurate.

Buddhists have moral codes of conduct, even though they are not theists.

How do you know that God gave you the moral codes of the bible, and not that the concept of your idea of god, was not create in order to support those codes?

Buddhism more Valid than Christianity

Whereas Christianity is a perverted form of an Egyptian Religion, Buddhism is more real. The Egyptian religion, and thus to extension Christianity, is based on myths used to explain reality. For example in the Egyptian mythology the sun sets because Ra dies, and it rises when Ra is resurrected.

Buddhism is based around, the 4 noble truths. Zen Buddhism does not place any importance on scripture, only attaining enlightenment. Thus Buddhism is not about scripture, it’s about the 4 noble truths.

4 noble truths;

  1. Suffering does exist
  2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
  3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
  4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the eightfold path.


Suffering exists and I don’t know anyone who does not suffer.


This deals with the 5 aggregations.


When you stop what causes your suffering, suffering stops. This is pure logic.


This deals with the 8 fold path.

5 aggregations;

  1. Form
  2. Feeling
  3. Perception
  4. Impulses
  5. Discernment

Perception, Impulse, and feeling are the 3 mental factors


Form leads to contact, which leads to the 3 mental factors


Feeling leads to unwise attention, which leads to cravings, which leads to clinging, which leads to suffering.


Perception leads to Impulses


Impulses lead to repetition of contact


Discernment is why Impulses lead to the repetition of contact, and why form originally leads to contact.

8 Fold Path

  1. Right View
  2. Right Intention
  3. Right Speech
  4. Right Action
  5. Right Livelihood
  6. Right Effort
  7. Right Mindfulness
  8. Right Concentration

Right View and Right Intention are Paths of Wisdom. Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood are Paths of ethical behavior. Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration are Paths of Medication.

Unless you can prove that the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, and the 5 aggregates, are less than, or just as valid as Christianity, you have no case.






Debate Round No. 3


My opponents first claim about catholic school is irrelevent and has shown to be false through a few ignorant claims already made. His claim about Atenism being monotheistic not henothestic is not backed up by evidence even though his sources is valid it says nothing about the ideas of Atenism so my objection to it stands. For the record in my argument Jesus was established to exist, because if my argument stands for that then a conjuration of the relationship between Christianity and Atenism is false.
He also address my claim about no divine mediatior but is in Ancient Egypt the pharoahs were claimed to be divine. The Pope has never once declared his divinity, he is not exactly a meditor either he takes the role of the Apostle Peter as the head of the Church, if you are refering to ex catholico than that is another subject but it still doesn't put mediation between God and Man.
His third claim is sort of funny because the Book of the Dead(also the God refers to Horus/the Phararoh rather than Atenism) was a established lone before Atenism began to exist at all. Furthermore, to establish a connection between the two you must negate the fact that Atenism doesn't regard the Book of the Dead with meaning because according to your own summary noless Atenism believes in monotheism. you must either admit henotheism or deny the Book of the Dead evidence.
His forth claim is addressed first but his fifth objection to my objection is simply a complete either defiencicy in reading skills or a refutation of a claim I never made. I only claimed that they were not evangelical and it was exclusive. It never was a slave religion as Christianity was. It was not spread far and wide to very many people so it would be rare a hebrew slave heard anything about it.

The Talmud was evidence for existance rather than for activities. You misunderstand the purpose. Also the 4 sources cites Flavius is work it shows nothing about any kind of reworded. You have no basis for the claim that it is widely regarded by historians as being rewritten either. My opponent doesn't address the sources in my contructive so I guess I must be completely right about those. My opponent doesn't address the reincarnation, so I guess reincarnation is false as well, even though he address the animals(for the record he says nothing about plants or the great atrocity of reproduction according to the Buddhist religion[see first rebuttal]) regardless of the amygala which MAY be linked with fear they cannot comprehend pain/sufffering due to lack of a neocortex. It can easily be claimed that the amygdala is really an intinct part of the brain considering it's function is concluded to be in the areas of fear reactivity, feeding, and sexual behavior. This clearly shows that it has no relationship to emotion at all. It was never claimed that animals don't have more instinct only emotion.
My opponent claims that how do I know that my code of conduct is right and that no morality is dependant on God. But remember he addressing a claim not made. I said the that objective morality proved God existance(which has not been refuted at all) not my objective morality just objective morality.
I have addressed his claims about the connection(or lack thereof) between Atenism and Christianity rather well I think and plus this is the first we hear of any contentions attacking Christianity instead of just defending Buddhism(poorly). His 4 noble truths are not established. At least the last three are far from being certain. While I may agree with two of the contention I argue that only the first noble truth is established and unescapeable. But how can you derive to the conclusion. I need only prove that the 4 noble truths which Buddhism is established on are not really based in truth and I win this debate. Since this is the last round my opponent is not allowed to bring new evidence into the case, all I will do is deny the 2nd noble truth. Possasitions are not the source of suffering rather the lack of God is. I would like to point out that without scripture there would be no means of attaining enlightenment because according to Buddhism the only way to enlightenment but Buddhism was founded by The Buddha. Without the scriptures it is invalid. Also it should be mentioned my opponent never clarifed that he was arguing for Zen Buddhism in the early rounds while I idenfified very early. My opponent doesn't hold his own BoP very high because he claims I have to prove something while he doesn't. Which even if I a hadn't proven anything(which I have) he still has his own BoP to hold up(which he hasn't).
As of now I should win this debate purely on principle. I have defended and established the validity of all of them while my opponent drops my first point and has really only argued for that Buddhism exists and has philosophy behind it but doesn't really argue a certain validity beyond the intial value. Thank you and please vote Con.


My opponent has claimed certain things in my argument is irrelevant, but has failed to explain why or how they are irrelevant. This I can only assume is a defensive mechanism to avoid an actual counter-argument.

Pope Divinity

Luscious Ferrari's, the eighteenth-century canoeist of the Franciscan order, said that the pope was divine.

He said, "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as
it were God, and the vicar of God." (1)

Luscious also said, "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms." (1)

Luscious even stated that, "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws." 1)

Thus the pope is god on earth, and can his word is the word of god.

Book of the Dead

I never said the book of the dead was part of atenism, as Christianity and Judaism both have aspects of Atenism and the Egyptian Pantheon. Again I never said Christianity was Atenism, I said it was a perversion of Atenism.

Moses was not a Hebrew Slave

For a Christian my opponent doesn't seem familiar with Christianity, at all.

Moses was born to slave parents, but was adopted by Egyptian royalty. The Pharaoh of Egypt was his adoptive brother. As Egyptian royalty I assume he was well versed in the religion and history of Egypt.

Sources and Reincarnation

I have already addressed reincarnation, and all of my opponent's sources. Because my opponent chooses not to read my argument in full, does not mean that I did not argue the points. I can close my eyes and walk forward, but just because I can't see the wall, doesn't mean it's not there.

Basis for Claims

All claims I have made, I have cited sources for, including the unreliability of Flavius. My opponent on the other hand, has made many claims without sources.


Again Robert Defranco, Director of the Animal Behavior Center in Queens, N.Y., and author of several research papers on animal emotions, says animals definitely have primary emotions like fear, and anger. Defranco says that there is growing evidence that they also have secondary emotions like love, jealousy and greed. (2)


My opponent claims, that morals in which we are not preposition to can only be established by God, yet many Morals we have today was established not by god but by State Laws. For example statutory rape.

Validly of the 4 noble truths & 8-fold path without Scriptures

Buddha realized the 4 noble truths through meditation, not through reading scriptures. It was not given to him by the divine, it was realized, than taught to others. This means that we don't need scriptures to help us reach enlightenment. The sutras are a guide to the path to enlightenment, but are not a requirement.

The historical Buddha attained enlightenment without the use of scriptures.

I haven't dropped any points

My opponent has claimed that I have dropped points, when I haven't. This is a poor attempt to sway voters who are skimming, not reading the debate.

In conclusion

Unlike Christianity, Buddhism welcomes scientific scrutiny. Buddhism teaches personal responsibility, and does not deny nor recognize the existence of god. Reincarnation is capable, because it's not limited to earth, nor humans. New scientific break through show that animals have more emotions than humans, both primary and secondary. Christianity is a perversion of the ancient Egyptian religion, which is nothing more than myth. The pope is a newer version of the Egyptian Pharaoh, and is, or at least was considered God on Earth, by canonists. Buddhism principles beliefs are true, and does not rely on scriptures for validity. Christianity relies so heavily on scriptures that it becomes the absolute word of god, that cannot be questioned, even when challenged by science. Buddhism follows the middle way, and thus does not deal in absolutes, or perceptions.

The Buddha himself said, “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” (3)




Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Victor1976 4 years ago
This argument is very good.

I just want to comment that I am very impressed by DanT's arguments.

I would have voted for him if I got to vote.
Posted by DanT 6 years ago
I would like to point out that I'm not anti-christian. I'm actually pro-christian, even though I'm Buddhist. I believe the morals taught by Christianity is a positive one.

I was challenged, and I accepted. I did not call out Christianity, Sterasmas called out Buddhism.
Posted by ApostateAbe 6 years ago
Con could have won by calling out the false claims and the poor sources they came from and the supposed connections between Christianity and other mythologies, and the lack of evidence for Pro's own claims about Buddhism were also a problem.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
This debate focused on whether or not Buddhism was more valid than Christianity; not which of those two is truth. Sources go to pro for the photos and the abundant sources he provided. Moreover, arguments go to pro as he refuted all of con's cone toons while showing the true pagan roots of Christianity. While this dies not show Buddhism is more valid than Christianity, it does falsify most of it's teachings. Con did not respond adaquetly (in my opinion) to the objections.
Posted by DanT 6 years ago
I was unaware others made a similar connection.
Posted by DanT 6 years ago
Re- horakhte is a mix between Horus and ra
Posted by TeenageApologist 6 years ago
@ CarlosMarti123

You would think people would actually research that and find it untrue, Osiris and Dionysus even make better cases than Horus.
Posted by CarlosMarti123 6 years ago
People are still appealing to Horus to try and fail to invalidate Christianity?

Posted by DanT 6 years ago
stupid character limit.
Posted by DanT 6 years ago
It's been a day...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: the pictures beat pro, and further more con didnt refute as well as pro. But con did well to so I will throw in conduct for him
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a great debate. Full analysis in comments :-)