The Instigator
PeacefulChaos
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
persianimmortal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Buddha was an atheist.

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 2 votes the winner is...
PeacefulChaos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 86086
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

PeacefulChaos

Con

If you wish to accept, please state so in the comments. The first round will be for acceptance.

In this debate I will be arguing that the Buddha believed in the Supreme, Unknown, Absolute, all-creating Causeless Cause that some call God. While the Buddha did not specifically refer to It as God, I argue that He nevertheless believed in It. The burden of proof will be shared equally. Pro must argue that the Buddha was an atheist - that is, that He did not believe in God. Pro will not fulfill his or her resolution by arguing that the Buddha was an agnostic.

I do not offer any formal definition of God beyond the above, because (as I will argue in this debate), the essence of God is unknowable. Even the attributes I used to describe this entity are not adaquate. I will not be equating God with Nirvana or Dharma.

I will also not be using the Buddha's references to the devas as proof that He believed in God, as the devas are not considered to be Supreme, Unknown, or Absolute in any sense. Despite this, however, the concept of Brahma will be discussed in this debate. I assert that the Buddha rejected the notions the Hindus of the day had of Brahma, and instead taught of a kind of "Unmanifest Brahma" (which is more fitting of the above description of God). This is the only way I will incorporate the devas into my argument.

For those unfamiliar with some terms in Buddhism, I have defined a few commonly used terms below. I will be using the Sanskrit terms when writing, but when quoting from the Buddha or from His teachings, I will be using the Pali terms.

Dharma/Dhamma - (Sanskrit, Pali) the Religion, Truth, Law, Doctrine, the right way of living, etc.; there is no single meaning to this word and is difficult to define. It can largely depend on context.

Tathagata - the title the Buddha uses when referring to Himself, meaning the Perfect One, or one who has fully arrived at a condition that cannot be described.

Deva - some heavenly being that is not omniscient or omnipotent; an inhabitant of another world. Not the topic of this debate.

Nirvana/Nibbana - (Sanskrit, Pali) the state acheived by the conquest of craving or extinguishment of the fires of desire; literally "blown out" or "the going out" of a flame.

Other words may appear later on, and I can explain them when it is necessary.

While I will quote from the scripture of the Buddha, it should be known that I have derived many of my ideas and arguments from The God of Buddha by Jamshed Fozdar. I will obviously not plagarize his work, but I will draw from the compiled teachings of the Buddha that he presents in it.
persianimmortal

Pro

I accept the terms of this debate and good luck to you my friend :)
Debate Round No. 1
PeacefulChaos

Con

Thank you, persianimmortal, for accepting this debate.

1. The Buddha’s Divine Station


The station of the Buddha is one that is distinct from what man can attain. In essence, the Buddha taught that He is a divine teacher that preaches the doctrine of truth (dharma) that is lost to us with time and must be renewed. To assume that the Buddha was merely a wise and enlightened man who devised some sort of philosophy for His people would be erroneous. Indeed, a Brahmin (a Hindu of the priestly class) once questioned the Buddha, asking Him of His nature. He asked if He was a deva, a human, a yaksha (nature spirit), and so forth. Every time, the Buddha stated that He was none of these things, and clarified:


Just as a blue, red, or white lotus, although born in the water, grown up in the water, when it reaches the surface stands unsoiled by the water – just so, Brahmin, although born in the world, grown up in the world, having overcome the world, I abide unsoiled by the world. Take it that I am Buddha, Brahmin. As a lotus, fair and lovely, by the water is not soiled, by the world I am not soiled. Therefore, Brahmin, am I Buddha.” [1]

It is has thus been established that the station of the Buddha is distinct from all others, yet some people believe that it is possible to attain Buddhahood by following the teachings of the Buddha. According to His conversation with Subhuti (one of the Buddha’s disciples; they are discussing a former Buddha), this is false:

You are right, Subhuti! Verily, there was no dharma [formula, method, path] by which the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment.” [2]


He later claims that there is no dharma by which one can reach the state of the Buddha:

… but Dipankara Buddha [a previous Buddha] made that prediction concerning me because there is actually no dharma for the attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment … In case anyone says that the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment, I tell you truly, Subhuti, that there is no dharma by which the Buddha attained it. Subhuti, the basis of the Tathagata’s attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment is wholly beyond; it is neither Sat [reality] nor Asat [non-reality].” [3]

He argues that even He did not attain His station through dharma, but rather through something “wholly beyond,” essentially something transcendental (as it is neither reality or non-reality). Once again, when speaking to Ananda (another disciple), we see Him say:

This dharma, which the Tathagata has fully known or demonstrated – it cannot be grasped, it cannot be talked about, it is neither a dharma, nor a non-dharma. And why? Because an Absolute exalts the Holy Persons.” [4]

This affirms that there was some higher power (the Absolute) that exalts the Buddhas through what is essentially a supernatural or divine revelation. It was not, as many believe, a philosophy beaten out through reasoning and trial and error. In fact, the Buddha denies that this is the case:

Whoever, Sariputta, knowing that it is so of me, seeing that it is so, should speak thus: “There are no states of further-men, no excellent cognition and insight befitting the Ariyans in the recluse Gautama; the recluse Gautama teaches Dhamma on his own devising beaten out by reasoning and based on investigation” – if he does not retract that speech, Sariputta, if he does not retract that thought, if he does not retract that view, he is verily consigned to Niraya Hell for this sin.” [5]

The Buddha thus establishes that Dharma is, like His station, from something wholly beyond, and further argues that His station as the Buddha is beyond man (as we have already established). These certainly do not sound like the claims an atheist would make, as they would not believe in a higher power that gives a divine station to a teacher (i.e. the Buddha). This is undeniably supernatural. He even proclaims that His existence is incomprehensible:

Since a Tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – the Uttermost Person, The supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after dying the Tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not.” [6]

How could an individual who does not believe in any absolute higher power make such claims? It would be nonsensical, for there would be nothing to exalt the Buddha to a state of further-men.

2. The Buddha’s Teachings

Some individuals claim that the Buddha’s teachings referring to Unformed, Absolute, or any underlying eternal form of reality is, in fact, a reference to Nirvana or even Dharma; however, the Buddha clearly states:

The Element (Cause) is without beginning in time. It is the common foundation of all dhammas. Because it exists there also exist all places of rebirth and the full attainment of Nirvana.” [8]

Similarly, the Buddha again references a common foundation of sorts that allow Nirvana and dhamma to exist:

There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” [9]

This is the origin of all things. It is the Absolute. It cannot be equated with Dharma or Nirvana, for neither is the ground of being. It is the “God” that I proclaim the Buddha taught. As I have already said, the Buddha did not call It God, but rather referred to it in terms that represent our inability to understand It. He would often reject the forms of Brahma created by the Brahmins. Some people confuse this to mean that the Buddha rejected belief in God, but the Buddha taught of Brahma in a different way. For example, after discrediting the Brahmins who claimed they knew that all paths lead to union with Brahma, one of the Brahmins asked Him:

‘We are told, Gotama, that the Sakyamuni [sage of the Sakyas; the Buddha] knows the path to a union with Brahma.’ And the Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, O Brahmins, of a man born and brought up in Manasakata [a village]? Would he be in doubt about the most direct way from this spot to Manasakata?’ ‘Certainly not, Gotama.’ ‘Thus,’ replied the Buddha, ‘the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata.” [10]

This is the “Unmanifest Brahma” proclaimed by the Buddha, the Brahma that the Brahmins did not know (though they thought they did).

Although there is much more to say on this matter, I have completed both of my arguments. I look forward to Pro’s contentions and rebuttals.

[1] Anguttara-nikaya, II. 37-39

[2] Vajra-Sattva, XVII

[3] Dhammapada, vv. 271, 272

[4] Majjhima-nikaya, I. 71-72

[5] Samyutta-nikaya, III. 118

[6] Majjhima-nikaya, I. 63

[7] Ratnagotravibhaga, pp. 72-73

[8] Udana, v. 81

[9] Digha-nikaya, I. 235

persianimmortal

Pro

Before I continue, I would like to state to the voters that at heart and mind, I do NOT believe the Buddha was an atheist. I believe that the Buddha was a Messenger of God and Buddhism is a monotheistic Religion, despite the belief of some individuals. I simply accepted this debate on the grounds that I will hopefully learn some arguments from Con to present to individuals who may hold such a belief that the Buddha was indeed, an atheist. Therefore I will be taking the side of the individuals who would take the Pro-view of this debate topic for educational purposes. Let's begin:

Throughout the realm of Buddhism, there are doctrines and traditions that state a variety of things. Some state that the Buddha Himself was in fact God, while others state that the Buddha wasn't God but rather HAD a God Himself to which He prayed to. There are some who totally reject the idea of a Supreme Reality and argue that the manifestation of God rests in the nature of life around us (pantheism), while others restrict Buddhism down to the idea of consciousness and forms self-evaluating meditation techniques. The question is who's right? In order to answer this question, we need to focus on the logic behind Buddhist teachings.

So, if we compare Buddhism to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, we can conclude that Buddhism has no God or gods where people submit to in exchange for some solace. The spirit presented by the Buddha's teachings ultimately refuses to offer any sort of divinity or god-like being to help subdue anxiety or other forms of distress. Instead, freedom from such anguish rests in the ability of the individual's mind, in turn making the mind of oneself equivalent to God. How does this relate to the Buddha? Well, it is the Buddha who taught such methods of mental stress-suppression and Self-reliance, which means that the Buddha did not rely on God or a god to assist Him throughout His endeavors.

This idea that the self governs all is clear when the Buddha directly connects the self to a Godlike station and says, "I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I give birth to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the foundation" because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am everything" (The Supreme Source p.157). We can clearly see that the Buddha uses such terminology to promote an atheistic system of thought, which can be looked at as the self being the center of all that is around. So without the mind of self, control over the environment around us becomes lost.

Since we"ve determined that the Buddhist Teachings encourage the strengthening of the mind, a new question arises; did the Buddha actually believe in One God, the One True God as explained in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions? The simple answer is no, because monotheism was a very foreign concept to the Buddha and India. This was due to the world He lived in, which was filled with numerous gods with the creator Brahma being the most important. Just to show you how foreign it was, history tells us that at time of the Buddha, the only people practicing the monotheism, were the Jews. Remember, it was still 500 years before Christ came into the world. So the only way the Buddha could have known about the One True God at the time, was if the Buddha met a Jew, which He clearly didn"t.

So now, we know the foundation of the Buddhist teachings rests in the strength of the mind, we know that the Buddha did not encounter monotheism, the next question is, "can we prove the disassociation from the Buddha and God?". Well, the answer to this question is yes we can, because of the 3 Buddhist foundations known as the 3 Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma (the Teachings), and the Sangha (the Community). This Buddhist Trinity (for lack of a better term), does not include or even touch on the subject of God or a single Supreme Power, like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions do. It all revolves around the Buddha and how the Buddhist teaching is integrated in the daily life. The purpose of such an integration is so an individual can eliminate the suffering of of human life, which is a doctrine more important than the concept of God in Buddhism.
Debate Round No. 2
PeacefulChaos

Con

So, if we compare Buddhism to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, we can conclude that Buddhism has no God or gods where people submit to in exchange for some solace.

It is true that, from the available documents that we possess, the Buddha did not emphasize the Absolute in the same sense of Christianity or Islam. In fact, He often remained silent on these metaphysical matters regarding God or the universe; however, this should not be construed to mean that the Buddha did not believe in God or was ignorant on these matters. Instead, it is because of our inability to comprehend the essence of the Absolute or of God that He did not attempt to explain it. As Jamshed Fozdar said, “… for rationality here to demand empirical proof of the ineffable state is for the cup to insist on containing the boundless ocean.” That is, just as it is impossible for a cup to contain the entirety of the ocean, it is also impossible for the human mind to comprehend God.

This is supported by the Buddha’s answer to one of His listeners, Malunkyaputta, who insisted that the Buddha must answer his metaphysical questions concerning God and the cosmos. If the Buddha refused to answer Malunkyaputta’s questions, then he threatened that he would give up on a religious life. This is the Buddha’s response:

A man is hit by a poisoned arrow. His friends hasten to the doctor. The latter is about to draw the arrow out of the wound. The wounded man, however, cries: ‘Stop, I will not have the arrow drawn out until I know who shot it, whether a woman, or a Brahmin, a Vaisya, or a Sudra, to which family he belonged, whether he was tall or short, of what species and description the arrow was.’” [1]

The analogy being drawn is that the man will die before he can obtain all this knowledge, and it would be better for the doctor to administer treatment right away. In a similar manner, the Buddha taught that these questions about God would not help the people at the time to turn away from earthly desires or to the attainment of nirvana. He could spend His entire life explaining it to us, but we would die before we would understood (for, as I have already explained, it is impossible for us to understand the essence of God). The Buddha even says this about the Absolute and the nature of the cosmos:

If by the Absolute is meant something out of relation to all known things, its existence cannot be established by any known reasoning. How can we know about anything unrelated to other relations: we know nothing that is, or can be related.

Then Buddha said: ‘Subhuti, words cannot explain the real nature of the cosmos. Only common people fettered with desire make use of this arbitrary method.” [2]

Would Pro also argue that the cosmos do not exist, because the Buddha stated that we could never understand or describe it? This would surely be false. In a similar manner, it would be false to say that the Buddha did not believe in God or the Absolute merely because He told us that we could never comprehend It.

How does this relate to the Buddha? Well, it is the Buddha who taught such methods of mental stress-suppression and Self-reliance, which means that the Buddha did not rely on God or a god to assist Him throughout His endeavors.

It would not be correct to say that the Buddha never relied on God to assist Him. I would agree that Pro is mostly correct, because the Buddha stated:

“So also, my disciples, is that much more which I have learned and have not told you, than that which I have told you. And, wherefore, my disciples, have I not told you that? Because, my disciples, it brings you no profit, it does not conduce to progress in holiness; because it does not lead to the turning from earthly to the subjection of all desires … to nirvana; therefore have I not declared it unto you.” [3]

At the same time, we should look to my arguments in round 2. We clearly saw that it is the Absolute that exalts the Buddha and allows Him to teach His dharma. So while you may argue that God is not necessary for the cessation of desire, it is evident that without God, the Buddha would have never attained such a station.


This idea that the self governs all is clear when the Buddha directly connects the self to a Godlike station

The quote provided by Pro is given by the Samantabhadra Buddha. Some view this Buddha as a form of the universal Mind of Awakening, but it is nevertheless a different Buddha. The Buddha (born as Siddhartha Gautama) taught detachment from self and explicitly stated that where truth is, self is not:

There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not. Self is the fleeting error of samsara; it is the individual separateness and that egoism which begets envy and hatred. Self is the yearning for pleasure and the lust after vanity.” [4]

This does not mean that the Buddha taught that there is no self, however. He distinguished false self from true self (i.e. our physical forms and consciousness as opposed to the soul-mind). He even stated to general Siha that:

Great is a successful general, O Siha, but he who has conquered self is the greater victor. The doctrine of the conquest of self, O Siha, is not taught to destroy the souls of men, but to preserve them.” [5]

The simple answer is no, because monotheism was a very foreign concept to the Buddha and India. This was due to the world He lived in, which was filled with numerous gods with the creator Brahma being the most important.”

I agree that many of the Christian concepts of God are quite different from the Buddha’s teachings on the Absolute, yet this does not prove He didn’t believe in God. It merely proves that He would not have used the specific word “God” to describe that supreme entity. He would not have made it a personal being that we can relate to. I previously pointed out that the Buddha taught a sort of “Unmanifest Brahma”, but rejected the personal notions that people had of Brahma at the time.

This Buddhist Trinity (for lack of a better term), does not include or even touch on the subject of God or a single Supreme Power, like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions do.

I believe I have already addressed this matter above, where I talked about how knowing about God is not necessary for the attainment of nirvana. This is because the three jewels are the three things Buddhists take refuge in (or where they look for guidance), and I already established that knowledge of the essence God or the Absolute is not necessary for this.

Even though the Absolute is not in the three jewels, does this mean that the Buddha did not talk of the Absolute? No. There are a myriad of things not included in the three jewels that the Buddha still spoke of and believed in. Following this logic, we could deduce that the Buddha believed nothing exists except for the three jewels, which would, of course, be false.

[1] Majjhima-nikaya, I. 63

[2] Vajra-Sattva, XXX

[3] Samyutta, v. 437

[4] Katha Upanishad, III. 7

[5] Mahavagga, VI. 31

persianimmortal

Pro

Con confirms Pro's argument by telling us that Buddhism does not hold such teachings of a Supreme God like Christianity or Islam. And Con is right to say that the Buddha was silent on such topics however, we can conclude that monotheism was indeed foreign to the Buddha and His understanding on such a topic was limited due to His lack of connection outside of India, into the realm of Monotheism. It's is important to note that Con provides us with an example, by relating the impossibility of an ocean being in a cup, to the comprehension of God for the human mind. I agree that both is impossible to overcome however, this again confirms my point on the Atheistic stance of the Buddha, how He fails to touch on such a subject and then basically tells us that humans are ultimately dependent on their minds to provide them with the necessary means of mental stability.

Throughout the verses that Con has presented to us, it's clear to us that the Buddha is iffy on the questions that are asked of Him. These such questions of the same nature, have been reportedly asked of Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, and Jesus Christ, to which they reveal and make the people somewhat understand the Prophet's capabilities. This difference between the Semitic Messenger's of God and the Buddha rests in the timeframe in which they appeared. I'll elaborate:

The order in which the alleged Messengers of God came is as follows:
1) Adam
2) Noah
3) Abraham
4) Krishna
5) Moses
6) Zoroaster
7) Buddha
8) Jesus Christ
9) Muhammad
10) the Bab
11) Baha'u'llah

We can see now that in this sequence, Krishna is the first alleged Messenger of God that has arrived in India and His Teachings have stayed with the Indian people for almost 3000 years. This 3000 year old knowledge gave rise to the Buddha's Teachings.
In between Krishna and the Buddha, we have 2 Monotheistic Messengers who's Messages were in its maturing and growth stages, respectively. My question to Con would be, "if the Buddha claimed Monotheistic beliefs, then why do 2 Messengers appear between Krishna and the Buddha, whos Messages share the same spiritual content and are continued AFTER the Buddha?" This question cannot be answered unless we consider the Buddha to be a chink in the chain of Monotheism.
This also confirms that Buddha has no interaction with Monotheism that begins Adam and the only way we can confirm this claim is to separate the sequence in 3 columns:

Semitic:
Adam
Abraham
Noah
Moses
Jesus Christ
Muhammad

Iranian:
Zoroaster
the Bab
Baha'u'llah

Indian/Dharmic:
Krishna
Buddha

So this now shows us that the bulk of the Monotheistic Religions are outside of India and have no connection to the Indian continent at the time of their arrivals. So we can now conclude that Monotheism is officially foreign to the Indians at the time of Krishna and the Buddha. This also answers Con's question which states, "Would Pro also argue that the cosmos do not exist, because the Buddha stated that we could never understand or describe it?" Briefly the Cosmos does and did exist, but the fact that every Messenger of God makes an attempt to describe it, confirms the Buddha's Atheistic approach to such an "unanswerable" question at His time. Had He been in contact with the outside world, His ability to answer such questions would indeed be easier.

Con has also stated that my argument regarding the Buddha not relying on God is wrong because the Buddha, as Con writes, teaches His followers to attain Nirvana. Nirvana is a term that relates with the English word Salvation. This Nirvana, is the commonly associated with Buddhism, but not restricted to is as it was present in the time before the Bhagavad Gita (Buddhist Holy Texts) were written. So Nirvana is a term that is again, borrowed, for a lack of a better term.

In conclusion, these concepts of God and a Higher Power, may be referenced in the Buddhist Teachings but we must understand that at its core, there is God has no influence on the Buddha's approach to answer such important question of God's existence and such. This tells us that the Buddha may be trying to explain His Atheistic approach through spiritual means.

your turn :)

PS: I DO NOT believe that the Buddha was an Atheist and I can prove that the Buddha was a Messenger of God who taught the core belief of One God, just like Con can. Everything Con is saying is correct and very accurate, but I am simply replying to his points based on the responses I have received in the past regarding this debate title. Again, the Buddha was a Messenger of God that did teach Monotheism. This debate is for educational purposes. Con's arguments are all correct :))
Debate Round No. 3
PeacefulChaos

Con

As I am short on time, my rebuttals this round will be comparatively shorter.

I agree that both is impossible to overcome however, this again confirms my point on the Atheistic stance of the Buddha, how He fails to touch on such a subject and then basically tells us that humans are ultimately dependent on their minds to provide them with the necessary means of mental stability.

Pro finds my statements regarding the Buddha’s idea of God to be proof of his atheistic stance; however, it is evident that the Buddha has stated that this transcendental Supreme Being exists (known as the Absolute). This is, without a doubt, a truth. This simple fact should be enough to prove myself right. Simply because the Buddha did not describe the Absolute in the same terms as Jesus or Muhammad does not mean that He did not believe in God at all. To assume this would be a non sequitur and would be contrary to the Buddha’s statements concerning the existence of God. Pro’s attempts to demonstrate that this is atheism have no basis.

I refer my opponent to my previous argument where I demonstrated that the Buddha made similar statements regarding the true nature of the cosmos (and even of the Tathagata). The Buddha certainly believed in the existence of the cosmos and the universe but stated they were beyond comprehension. He even argued that He (the Tathagata) was beyond comprehension (I demonstrated this in round 1). Does this mean He did not believe in the Tathagata or in the cosmos? Once again, this would be false. Pro attempts to disprove this argument by saying:

Briefly the Cosmos does and did exist, but the fact that every Messenger of God makes an attempt to describe it, confirms the Buddha's Atheistic approach to such an "unanswerable" question at His time.

I must emphasize that the other prophets are not relevant to the teachings of the Buddha for this debate and that my opponent’s logic does not follow. What the other Messengers of God taught in the past is not relevant to the Buddha’s teachings on the existence of God.

Throughout the verses that Con has presented to us, it's clear to us that the Buddha is iffy on the questions that are asked of Him.

The Buddha was quite clear and firm on the matter of God. He explicitly stated where He received His divine station and knowledge of dharma and demonstrated that His station is beyond men. He clearly told His followers that He was not uncertain on these metaphysical matters, but rather that the knowledge He had on these matters would not be conducive to the people of His time.

Pro asks me the following question:

If the Buddha claimed Monotheistic beliefs, then why do 2 Messengers appear between Krishna and the Buddha, whos Messages share the same spiritual content and are continued AFTER the Buddha?

I am not sure why Pro asks me this, as it has no bearing on the teachings of the Buddha that I have presented. Unless Pro can demonstrate my presentation of the Buddha’s teachings to be false, this appears to be irrelevant. Regardless, the answer to this question does not somehow prove that the Buddha was an atheist. By this logic, Jesus was also an atheist. There were many prophets before and after the time of Jesus with similar spiritual content, and these religions established by these prophets continued on after Jesus. Does this somehow mean that Jesus was an atheist? Of course not. It simply doesn’t follow.

Likewise, the logic that the religions of prophets continue on after the Buddha is almost entirely irrelevant to the beliefs of the Buddha.

Con has also stated that my argument regarding the Buddha not relying on God is wrong because the Buddha, as Con writes, teaches His followers to attain Nirvana.

This would be incorrect. I did not argue this. My argument was that, without the Absolute, it would have been impossible for the one known as Siddhartha Gautama to attain the station of the Buddha. This achievement was the result of the exaltation of the Absolute. The dharma He taught was also from the Absolute. This is how the Buddha relied on God.

Conclusion:

My arguments presented in round 2 are still valid. Many of Pro’s rebuttals consist of correlations between Buddhism and other religions, which are not relevant to the Buddha’s belief in God. If Pro is to succeed in this debate, he must demonstrate that the Buddha did not believe in God. He has not succeeded in doing this and has, at best, argued that the Buddha was “iffy” on these matters.

Note: I recognize Pro’s actual beliefs in this debate and thank him for playing devil’s advocate.

persianimmortal

Pro

persianimmortal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
PeacefulChaos

Con

Extend all arguments.
persianimmortal

Pro

persianimmortal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Yavneh 1 year ago
Yavneh
@Persian immortal, regarding the Judaism vs. Christianity debate, could you please check up on the comment stream and let us know if you are willing to accept the three teammates who want to join Con. Please reply on that comment stream, not this one, so I can get the e-mail. Thanks,
Yavneh
Posted by PeacefulChaos 1 year ago
PeacefulChaos
If you'd like, then yes.

Just wondering, would you be playing devil's advocate?
Posted by persianimmortal 1 year ago
persianimmortal
Should I accept?
Posted by PeacefulChaos 1 year ago
PeacefulChaos
I've made a couple of edits to the debate.

@trump4life -

Based on your conduct in previous debates (especially the one concerning Buddhism), I am reluctant to accept you as a contender. Thank you for your interest.
Posted by trump4life 1 year ago
trump4life
I would like to contend.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kirigaya-Kazuto 1 year ago
Kirigaya-Kazuto
PeacefulChaospersianimmortalTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, is a shame really.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
PeacefulChaospersianimmortalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited turns.