Instigator / Pro
21
1578
rating
200
debates
54.75%
won
Topic
#6097
Buddhism vs Christianity
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
0
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2
After 3 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 9,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Contender / Con
5
1561
rating
112
debates
59.38%
won
Description
This debate revolves around two syllogisms.:
1. Which is more true? (Historical, scientific, and evidence of the supernatural)
2. Which leads to a more fulfilling life?
Pro argues for buddhism, Con for christianity.
On-balance.
(Only FishChaser can accept.)
Round 1
Pro
#1
Definitions:
Buddhism - A religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Siddhārtha Gautama that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by cultivating wisdom, virtue, and concentration.
Christianity - The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
BOP/Framework
This is an “on-balance” discussion that compares the eastern asian religion of Buddhism and the western religion Christianity. I am representing buddhism, Con shall support and defend christianity. Both sides share two goals.:
- Prove their religion leads to a more fulfilling life.
- Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable. (Evidence can be historical, archeological, scientific, or supernatural.)
If neither side meets their burden, then whoever provides more evidence makes the more compelling case and therefore wins.
Now I shall make two defensive core arguments, and two aggressive.:
The first one is that buddhism offers the solution which is the ultimate goal of life, and the second contention is that the supernatural forces and stories are very plausible.
Third contention is that christianity perpetuates suffering, and my fourth contention is that christianity’s teachings are partly inspired by buddhism.
The Founder
As relevant as it is for us to clash the weight and transgressions of the teachings, so too is it equally important to discuss the founders.
The Father of Buddhism is Siddhartha Guatama. He was the prince and son of a warrior-king, and being born a royal caused him to live a life of pleasure and indulgence. Despite yielding to these desires, Siddhartha was unsatisfied with the current lifestyle he was leading, so this led him to abandon his lifestyle of privilege and travel in search of wisdom.
It was through his experiences that he learned that suffering exists and that suffering is inevitable. But through meditating, he discovered how to free himself from suffering, and so it was that he gave up the responsibilities of his royal duties and renounced his title of prince to become a monk. Siddhartha would continue to spread his teachings to others in India.
The Four Noble Truths
While buddhism doesn’t provide answers to every issue, the four noble truths are among the basic tenets of buddhism. Of which I intend to use this fourth round to explain the basics and fundamentals. These are what they are.:
- Suffering
- Cause of suffering
- End of suffering
- The path that leads to the end of suffering
Buddhism identifies two different kinds of suffering.: Physical and mental.
Aging, sickness, and death are recognized as inevitable, and the pursuit of pleasure is temporary. The first truth is about identifying and acknowledging that there is suffering, the second is about identifying the reason, the third is that recognizing the end of suffering is accomplished through achieving nirvana which is the what, and the fourth is the way in how to achieve nirvana AKA The Eightfold Path.
The Noble Eightfold Path/Karma
The rules for the eightfold path are right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Following this course is thought to yield a positive karmic balance, diverting from it of course would lead to a negative karmic balance. Engaging in neutral karma likewise has no rewards or consequences.
The Cycle of Rebirth
There are six realms that are determined by the karmic balance, which are divided in two categories: Positive and negative.
Positive
- Gods
- Demigods
- Humans
Negative
- Animals
- Ghosts
- Hell
Con
#2
Every religion other than Christianity is either atheist, has hypocrite gods who claim to be benevolent while they watch humans suffer, or has gods that admit they don't care about us. The Christian God makes us suffer sure, but he actually came down and suffered FOR US unlike any other God. The Christian God in doing so proved that he has unconditional, self-sacrificial love and that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of human suffering.
Buddhism has a system of "karma" but no God that determines what brings good or bad karma. It's kind of weird for reality to be governed by morality when there is no source for that morality and this alone debunks buddhism if it can't be adequately addressed.
The first one is that buddhism offers the solution which is the ultimate goal of life
The end result of Buddhism and Christianity is more or less the same except for a key difference. In essence both are saying "you are born into a world of suffering but if you follow our religion you go to a perfect place with no suffering when you die and if you don't you go to an even worse place". Sure, in Buddhism there are extra worlds between humans and hell but if you do bad enough you still end up in hell. The really important difference though is that Nirvana is a vague, mindless state of bliss and heaven is an actual kingdom where you live a life and don't just float in a state of emptiness. I have trouble getting behind a religion where the ultimate goal is floating all alone in vague, impersonal, nihilistic emptiness instead of one where you experience the infinite greatness of God and live forever in perfect harmony with your brothers and sisters in heaven.
the second contention is that the supernatural forces and stories are very plausible.
There is actual evidence of the supernatural in Christianity, can Buddhists say the same? We have:
1: Shroud of Turin
2: eucharistic miracles
Those are just the main ones. We have the alleged burial cloth of Jesus Christ which no one has been able to prove as a hoax and we have communion wafers that literally start bleeding and growing cardiac tissue which have been confirmed in laboratories.
Third contention is that christianity perpetuates suffering
Christianity has done the complete opposite overall, unless you cherry pick specific instances where INDIVIDUALS did bad things and blame it on Christianity as a whole. Christian churches have done way more good than harm, including more charitable work than any other type of institution in history and literally inventing the modern hospital system.
You could argue that because hell lasts forever in Christianity, it quite literally "perpetuates" suffering in that way sure. Lets face the facts though, there are people who literally deserve to burn forever and don't deserve a second chance. The fact that Buddhism allows Hitler to go to Nirvana eventually is a flaw, not an up side.
my fourth contention is that christianity’s teachings are partly inspired by buddhism
Buddhism plagiarized Hinduism but turned it nihilistic and godless. It didn't evolve out of Hinduism in the same way Christianity evolved from Judaism. Christianity says "Judaism is true and we are the true continuation of it" whereas buddhism is an obvious rip off of a superior religion but claims to be something different and better.
Hinduism has karma (called dharma), it has the same 6 realms and reincarnation, it has a complex concept of God and it has yoga and meditation. Most of what buddhism did was to remove the Gods and the yoga and put more emphasis on meditation, then call it something different.
Hinduism has karma (called dharma), it has the same 6 realms and reincarnation, it has a complex concept of God and it has yoga and meditation. Most of what buddhism did was to remove the Gods and the yoga and put more emphasis on meditation, then call it something different.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Rebuttals
Buddhism has a system of "karma" but no God that determines what brings good or bad karma. It's kind of weird for reality to be governed by morality when there is no source for that morality and this alone debunks buddhism if it can't be adequately addressed.
This concept is seen as strange and bizarre to many theists, that require some form of belief in the sentience in morality or judgment. But this perception is a misconception.
The buddhist system karma doesn't rely on the assumption of a deity making a judgment call, as the buddhist universe is mechanical. Meaning that the processes of karma work on autopilot, rather than a judgment of any kind. Think of cause & effect.
Chemical reactions do not require intent or deliberation, the way they function is beyond any sentient control. And karma operates the same way. Actions and feelings yield certain outcomes, and humans as biological creatures are neurologically wired to crave & seek out positive karma. It is how our spirits are programmed.
The end result of Buddhism and Christianity is more or less the same except for a key difference. In essence both are saying "you are born into a world of suffering but if you follow our religion you go to a perfect place with no suffering when you die and if you don't you go to an even worse place". Sure, in Buddhism there are extra worlds between humans and hell but if you do bad enough you still end up in hell. The really important difference though is that Nirvana is a vague, mindless state of bliss and heaven is an actual kingdom where you live a life and don't just float in a state of emptiness. I have trouble getting behind a religion where the ultimate goal is floating all alone in vague, impersonal, nihilistic emptiness instead of one where you experience the infinite greatness of God and live forever in perfect harmony with your brothers and sisters in heaven.
Heaven is cosmic bliss, which is still an existential horror in a way.
All beings are stripped of misery, and the ability to think critically. They are cursed with the feeling of eternal ecstasy and what makes it worse is that the brothers, sisters they loved on earth and were forced to leave behind most likely did not make it because they were atheist or a different religion. The fate of them burning perpetually never once crosses the minds of those in heaven. You are forced to turn a blind eye to their suffering, forever. And the worst part is there is nothing you can do about it.
If Con uses that criteria to define one as nihilistic, the same principle must apply to the other version.
There is actual evidence of the supernatural in Christianity, can Buddhists say the same? We have:1: Shroud of Turin2: eucharistic miraclesThose are just the main ones. We have the alleged burial cloth of Jesus Christ which no one has been able to prove as a hoax and we have communion wafers that literally start bleeding and growing cardiac tissue which have been confirmed in laboratories.
The authenticity regarding the Shroud of Turin is much in doubt. While speculation and debate gives it room for discussion, the professional opinion of the scientific community is that its true origin is from the medieval era rather than the time of Jesus, making it a forgery.
Eucharistic miracles are legends that started from rumors, but even christian scientists are urging believers against the claim that this evidence is reliable.
There are likewise legends about the Guatama Buddha's own stories which include miracle healings, teleportation, self-cloning, elemental control, and other supernatural powers.
Christianity has done the complete opposite overall, unless you cherry pick specific instances where INDIVIDUALS did bad things and blame it on Christianity as a whole. Christian churches have done way more good than harm, including more charitable work than any other type of institution in history and literally inventing the modern hospital system.
I concede this point, but the quantity of total contributions by one organization versus the other falls outside the scope of this debate.
The specific focus is individualistic, in which lifestyle is more beneficial for the person making the choice.
Emphasis on meditation that treats it as a priority leads to emotional fulfillment. As we can observe that practitioners of meditation are usually free from stress, sickness, and things that threaten their peace of mind. This remains true for meditators even in circumstances that aren't ideal.
You could argue that because hell lasts forever in Christianity, it quite literally "perpetuates" suffering in that way sure. Lets face the facts though, there are people who literally deserve to burn forever and don't deserve a second chance. The fact that Buddhism allows Hitler to go to Nirvana eventually is a flaw, not an up side.
This perceived-flaw also exists in christianity.
Christians do not know that Hitler went to hell. If he asked for forgiveness in his final moments, he would be accepted into heaven without condition. Not all brothers and sisters who lead a life as good people on earth may not make it to heaven if they didn't accept Jesus in their hearts, but Hitler most certainly could have.
The buddhist perception of morality and lifestyle assumes that all humans were murderers or barbarians in a past life, just as morally depraved as Hitler. Such bad karma would cause them to be reborn into the lower levels. There are even stories of The Buddha killing people in war, as an act of defending his people. When he died, he went to Hell.
Buddhism plagiarized Hinduism but turned it nihilistic and godless. It didn't evolve out of Hinduism in the same way Christianity evolved from Judaism. Christianity says "Judaism is true and we are the true continuation of it" whereas buddhism is an obvious rip off of a superior religion but claims to be something different and better.Hinduism has karma (called dharma), it has the same 6 realms and reincarnation, it has a complex concept of God and it has yoga and meditation. Most of what buddhism did was to remove the Gods and the yoga and put more emphasis on meditation, then call it something different.
Buddhism preaches tolerance and would never make such claims of being superior to any religion, as that would be proselytism.
Proselytism is a violation of the core principles of buddhism.
There is a western consensus that buddhism is a nontheistic religion, and while that may for a lot of buddhists. There are different schools and branches which do have their own gods/goddesses. There is just no supreme gods/goddesses.
Some of the popular deities include.: Maitreya, Vairocana, and Akshobya.
In general, buddhism isn't there as an alternative or substitute to hinduism. There are many hindus who are also buddhist, making buddhism an extension of their beliefs. "Keep your gods, but follow these practices and see if they work."
Con
#4
Chemical reactions do not require intent or deliberation, the way they function is beyond any sentient control. And karma operates the same way. Actions and feelings yield certain outcomes, and humans as biological creatures are neurologically wired to crave & seek out positive karma. It is how our spirits are programmed.
Why would the universe be rigged to respond to our actions on a moral basis and punish or reward us for good behavior by chance? Humans can have a moral compass because we are sentient beings that exist in interpersonal contexts. Karma can't merely be a natural result of that, it is akin to the universe awarding us good behavior points or bad ones based on our actions and setting up specific planes of existence to send us to based on our morality. Since cause and effect doesn't have a moral compass, it is unlikely to conveniently set up a system like this on it's own.
All beings are stripped of misery, and the ability to think critically. They are cursed with the feeling of eternal ecstasy and what makes it worse is that the brothers, sisters they loved on earth and were forced to leave behind most likely did not make it because they were atheist or a different religion. The fate of them burning perpetually never once crosses the minds of those in heaven. You are forced to turn a blind eye to their suffering, forever. And the worst part is there is nothing you can do about it.
This is a mix of truth, gaslighting and strawmanning so lets unpack this point by point.
"all beings are stripped of misery" yes, sounds good so far
"and the ability to think critically" this is conjecture, no one ever said God would stop you from reasoning in heaven
"They are cursed with the feeling of eternal ecstasy" it's weird that you expect the person reading this to accept something that sounds completely good as a "curse" at face value
"brothers, sisters they loved on earth and were forced to leave behind most likely did not make it because they were atheist or a different religion" if you accept Christianity as true it is implicit that you agree with God's judgement and anyone who went to hell deserved to be there
"You are forced to turn a blind eye to their suffering" again you already agreed with God's decision, you are not forced because you consent and agree to trust God's judgement
the professional opinion of the scientific community is that its true origin is from the medieval era rather than the time of Jesus, making it a forgery.
The actual consensus is that no one knows, and the methodology used to date it to the middle ages is notoriously flawed. The fact of the matter is that there is no real proof that it is a hoax, it holds up to forensic analysis and the image is burned into the cloth in such a way that no proposed method of forgery has been able to reproduce. The article you linked as a source refers to the 100% invalid carbon dating that dated new cloth from the edges of the shroud that were added to repair it after it caught on fire and an X-ray dating technique that supports my case but is also flawed. It doesn't mention any new study that supports your case at all and the false advertising of the headline suggests your source is untrustworthy.
Eucharistic miracles are legends that started from rumors, but even christian scientists are urging believers against the claim that this evidence is reliable.
On multiple occasions they have been tested in labs, and found to have living human cardiac tissue "interwoven" into the bread in a way that defies any conceivable hoaxing method.
I concede this point, but the quantity of total contributions by one organization versus the other falls outside the scope of this debateThe specific focus is individualistic, in which lifestyle is more beneficial for the person making the choice.
This debate revolves around two syllogisms.:
1. Which is more true? (Historical, scientific, and evidence of the supernatural)
2. Which leads to a more fulfilling life?
Pro argues for buddhism, Con for christianity.
On-balance.
This is the debate description you gave, you are now backpedaling and ignoring that this relates to the first syllogism as well as the second one. The Christian churches have "led to a more fulfilling life" for many individuals as they have provided food, clothing, shelter, education, medical treatment, and hope of salvation to countless people. Meditation has benefits but will it save your soul? Will it feed the poor and starving? Will it build civilizations?
Christianity having a greater impact on the world than any other religion isn't just an isolated fact, it adds credibility to it as the true religion and thus relates to the first syllogism. It stands out as having the greatest impact, thus it stands out as being the greatest religion.
Christians do not know that Hitler went to hell. If he asked for forgiveness in his final moments, he would be accepted into heaven without condition.
This is a ridiculous blanket statement about Christian soteriology (i.e the science of how one is saved). Soteriology varies widely between Christian groups and you are assuming all Christians adhere to an extreme version of the protestant "sola fide" (faith alone) concept.
If Catholicism is true for example you can't just go through your whole life committing severe mortal sins and then ask for forgiveness on your death bed. Hitler would have had to confess it all and live for many, repentance-filled years as a devout catholic to make up for it.
Proselytism is a violation of the core principles of buddhism.
If you choose Buddhism over other religions you implicitly thought Buddhism was a better/more correct path.
There are different schools and branches which do have their own gods/goddesses. There is just no supreme gods/goddesses.
Did these deities set up the karma/realm system that requires a morally driven creator to exist? Are they just made up or copy/pasted in from local folk religions separate from Buddhism?
From your own source:
An important first question to ask is if there even are any Buddhist gods.
If you asked “the Buddha” himself, he would likely say “no.”
This is twice I have used pro's own sources against him, so I implore voters to recognize his sources as mine now and award me the vote in sources. I have commandeered his sources like a true source-pirate.
In general, buddhism isn't there as an alternative or substitute to hinduism. There are many hindus who are also buddhist, making buddhism an extension of their beliefs.
What is REAL Buddhism though? Is it up to Buddha what that is, or is it up to every random sect and minority group who identify as Buddhist? Your own source said he likely didn't recognize any gods.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I thank users for the reading of this debate, and Con for agreeing to discuss this with me.
Those of you who wish to participate and give your final thoughts may now feel free to vote.
Spectators will recall that I had four contentions, but only two I defended while the other two of mine I dropped completely.
Now judges will have to determine who met the two syllogisms the closest which were.:
- Which leads to the more fulfilling life?
- Which worldview is more realistic, given the available evidence?
My analysis of mine and Con's arguments as a voting framework.:
- In the first round, I identified and defined the problem of life which is suffering, and that there are two kinds of suffering.: Physical and mental. The process involves the steps of observing and acknowledging suffering exist, learning the solution which is what to do to end suffering, and how to end suffering AKA The Eightfold Path. I gave an introduction to a pragmatic way of living that involves living with purity of intention and mindfulness, things that will yield an ideal life. In my opinion, this means I meet my BOP for lifestyle fulfillment. I also mention the healing effects of meditation and how they lead to freedom from stress, or illness.
- Con doesn't really address this or make the case for how christianity is a more fulfilling lifestyle. He claims the benefits are eternal happiness and re-kinship with loved ones, but this only occurs after death which falls off-topic. Con does mention that christianity has made more contributions, but I declare this off-topic because this is irrelevant to which brings an individual more contentment & satisfaction through living a christian lifestyle or a buddhist lifestyle.
- Now the second syllogism about which is more realistic, given the available evidence. I mention the miracles of Siddharta, but I did not support this with evidence. Just speculation and claims, so I did not meet the BOP for the second syllogism.
- Con did attempt to provide evidence for christianity. More specifically, The Shroud of Turin & The Eucharistic Miracles. The problem is the shroud of turin is unreliable and the consensus of the scientific community is that it is a forgery. The Eucharistic Miracles on the other hand haven't been proven true at all, and they can't.
So it's safe to say that neither me or Con met our BOP for the second syllogism. For the first syllogism, however I believe this is a victory for me.
If I were voting on this debate, I would reward Pro the victory for this alone.
I will now wrap up this final round with rebuttals.
Rebuttals
The actual consensus is that no one knows, and the methodology used to date it to the middle ages is notoriously flawed. The fact of the matter is that there is no real proof that it is a hoax, it holds up to forensic analysis and the image is burned into the cloth in such a way that no proposed method of forgery has been able to reproduce. The article you linked as a source refers to the 100% invalid carbon dating that dated new cloth from the edges of the shroud that were added to repair it after it caught on fire and an X-ray dating technique that supports my case but is also flawed. It doesn't mention any new study that supports your case at all and the false advertising of the headline suggests your source is untrustworthy.
If the actual consensus is that nobody knows. This suggests nothing can be completely ruled out or supported either.
Which means the correlation behind the evidence and the claim is nonexistent. Thus the evidence is too weak to substantiate this case.
On multiple occasions they have been tested in labs, and found to have living human cardiac tissue "interwoven" into the bread in a way that defies any conceivable hoaxing method.
This doesn't suggest anything divine. If anything, this indicates a crime has been committed.
The actual source of this has been unverified, like the name of the institution or the name of the journal.
This is the debate description you gave, you are now backpedaling and ignoring that this relates to the first syllogism as well as the second one. The Christian churches have "led to a more fulfilling life" for many individuals as they have provided food, clothing, shelter, education, medical treatment, and hope of salvation to countless people. Meditation has benefits but will it save your soul? Will it feed the poor and starving? Will it build civilizations?
Christianity has perpetuated poverty by creating a system that profits from the poor. From overpaying their leaders to making unearned income by stealing the hard-earned wages from the commoners and the working class, and being free from taxation. To then demanding free labor in the form of cleaning and sending their missionaries out to preach The Gospel, risking their lives without payment. But none of this addresses the original problem.
Buddhism solves the problem of greed and struggle by teaching that all suffering is impermanent and that contentment is the greatest wealth anyone could strive for. Bodhisattvas regularly use their power to mitigate poverty and suffering through leveraging their wealth as a resource against struggling.
This is a ridiculous blanket statement about Christian soteriology (i.e the science of how one is saved). Soteriology varies widely between Christian groups and you are assuming all Christians adhere to an extreme version of the protestant "sola fide" (faith alone) concept.If Catholicism is true for example you can't just go through your whole life committing severe mortal sins and then ask for forgiveness on your death bed. Hitler would have had to confess it all and live for many, repentance-filled years as a devout catholic to make up for it.
But we are not arguing one form of christianity versus one form of buddhism. This debate uses them rather broadly, as in comparing which one is better in general. And this is a common christian rule about the state of forgiveness and redemption.
If you choose Buddhism over other religions you implicitly thought Buddhism was a better/more correct path.
A person choosing buddhism doesn't mean they believe it is superior to hinduism, it only means they prefer it more.
Someone eating more sweets & processed food while neglecting vegetables does not dispute that vegetables are healthier, only that their desire for sweets is stronger. The tolerance of buddhism means you can also be a practicing hindu while also remaining buddhist. Christianity denounces other religions as an apostasy, meaning it is impossible to be both buddhist and christian.
What is REAL Buddhism though? Is it up to Buddha what that is, or is it up to every random sect and minority group who identify as Buddhist? Your own source said he likely didn't recognize any gods.
Just like christianity has a bunch of denominations with its own rules & requirements, buddhism has its own branches and different schools.
While buddha himself did not preach against having belief in gods, he did not encourage people to follow any particular one. One thing that remains true for all buddhist schools and branches is that there are no supreme gods.
It is no different from certain denominations of christianity claiming that the saints or Mary have achieved godhood and are in the same category as god, theosification. And it is no different from certain denominations of christianity only recognizing the holy trinity as the only relevant godforce.
Con
#6
Con doesn't really address this or make the case for how christianity is a more fulfilling lifestyle.
You're outright lying at this point. I don't deny that meditating has benefits, the question is would you rather live in a world with none of the benefits of modern western civilization all of which were influenced or even entirely brought about by Christianity as long as you are free to meditate? I would rather never meditate in my entire life but be able to reap the benefits of Christianity. Lets face it, Buddhism has nothing to offer aside from meditation whereas Christianity has brought education, medicine, food, clothing, shelter, moral values and the promise of eternal life to many people. This of course is a reiteration of my previous argument which you are attempting to gaslight the audience into forgetting I made.
He claims the benefits are eternal happiness and re-kinship with loved ones, but this only occurs after death which falls off-topic.
Is an afterlife still a life? If so then it still pertains to living a more fulfilling life (syllogism 1)
Con does mention that christianity has made more contributions, but I declare this off-topic because this is irrelevant to which brings an individual more contentment & satisfaction through living a christian lifestyle or a buddhist lifestyle.
Notice how Pro dishonestly attempts to narrow the scope of the debate to the temporal benefits of practicing the religion (as opposed to the benefits of the religion generally in improving quality of life/afterlife) when this was never specified in the debate description.
So your argument is that being able to meditate in a poverty stricken shithole brings more contentment and satisfaction than living in a prosperous Christian civilization. Because lets face it, Buddhism hasn't contributed to making the world a better place to live and Christianity has.
If the actual consensus is that nobody knows. This suggests nothing can be completely ruled out or supported either.Which means the correlation behind the evidence and the claim is nonexistent. Thus the evidence is too weak to substantiate this case.
That's not how it works. If there is a 50/50 chance that the shroud of Turin is real based on the available evidence but there is no similar artifact supporting Buddhism whatsoever, then in this regard Christianity is at 50% and Buddhism is at 0%.
If the scientific consensus was that it's a forgery, that wouldn't even mean anything because there literally isn't a shred of evidence that it's a forgery. That's the same as saying a majority of people are assuming something they can't prove because that's the only explanation that fits their own assumption about reality. Anyone who assumes the shroud of turin isn't real when they can't prove it on any level isn't a real scientist, they are literally just shilling for secularism.
Christianity has perpetuated poverty by creating a system that profits from the poor.
Christian churches have done more charity than any other form of institution and Christian countries tend to have the highest average incomes.
Buddhism solves the problem of greed and struggle
There is still plenty of greed and struggle in every single Buddhist nation on earth.
But we are not arguing one form of christianity versus one form of buddhism. This debate uses them rather broadly, as in comparing which one is better in general. And this is a common christian rule about the state of forgiveness and redemption.
So you're so intellectually dishonest that you are going to single out one of many versions of Christian soteriology to strawman all of Christianity while refusing to define what counts as actual Buddhism and what doesn't so you can pick and choose any angle to argue from that you want? On one hand you're saying no one type of Buddhism is "true Buddhism" and that we must debate about them broadly, but on the other you're saying one type of Christianity represents all of Christianity.
Christianity denounces other religions as an apostasy, meaning it is impossible to be both buddhist and christian.
You can reap all the benefits of Buddhism while being Christian. Christianity doesn't forbid meditation. You can't reap the benefits of christianity while being ideologically buddhist though, because all of it's temporal benefits which can be personally practiced (which pro claims are the only thing within the scope of the debate) come from meditation, moderation and mind-work which can be practiced as a Christian, but the actual beliefs such as reincarnation are heretical in Christianity.
It is no different from certain denominations of christianity claiming that the saints or Mary have achieved godhood
There are no real Christians who believe this.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Voting Justification:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6097/comments/64357
End at this:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6097/comments/64351
If it somehow gets jiggled later, it is 6 parts, you can surely find it.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
1. Which is more true? (Historical, scientific, and evidence of the supernatural)
Pro and Con both cite miracle claims. Con put himself at a disadvantage by not citing any sources, meaning that Pro was able to at least reduce it to being speculative evidence. In the final round, Con argues that if we don't know whether the Shroud of Turin is real, then the odds are 50/50. One could arguably say the same about Buddhist miracle claims if we start from a position of agnosticism, and Con doesn't really argue for why "not knowing" equals a 50/50 chance. Furthermore, the "truth" of Buddhism argued for by Pro isn't entirely based on supernatural claims. Pro uses cause and effect as an example of a true Buddhist teaching. I think Con could have argued along these lines as well by citing Christian teachings like "thou shalt not commit adultery" which most people agree with, but their case boiled down to assuming that supernatural claims have a 50% chance of being true by default, and as that was argued in the final round I can't afford it much weight. Con does dispute the point on cause and effect, but I still think that leans toward supporting Pro, since natural cause and effect could be argued to basically be a Buddhist teaching whereas arguing that a deity influences cause and effect required more evidence than Con provided.
2. Which leads to a more fulfilling life?
Meditation is conceded as having benefits for the individual practicing Buddhism. Christianity is conceded to have a positive impact on society, but the impacts are based on how I interpret the description. Since the second topic asks which religion leads to "a more fulfilling life" (singular) rather than "more fulfilling lives" (plural), the most obvious life to examine would be the person practicing the religion. This puts Con's arguments outside the scope of the debate, since helping 100 other people live fulfilling lives doesn't really address the "a fulfilling life" that the description refers to. There was potential for Con to argue that helping others leads to fulfillment, but in this case, meditation ended up being the only point left within the scope of the debate.
As Pro wins on both contentions and provided sources to justify his arguments, Pro wins on arguments and sources.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Getting this in under the wire.
I'm awarding the win to Pro on this one. I think he lays out a very clear case early on for how Buddhism yields a more fulfilling life for the individual, which necessarily can and does extend beyond them. Con's response is that things can still be bad anyway, which may mitigate that positive, but it doesn't do anything for his case. Also, maybe don't end the debate by saying that Christians can meditate too since that implies that Buddhists having it as a core precept is a positive. Con's kind of giving up that point in the end, and with no direct responses to much of the concepts Pro presented in R1, that puts him in a bad spot.
Con's case on this point doesn't work so well in his favor, either. I get the point on charity, but a) it seems like there's a mix of good and bad things that Christians have done for the world at large, even if this one is just a straight up good, and b) for all you keep stating that it is consistent with leading "to a more fulfilling life," I don't really see it. It leads to a more stable and prosperous world in general, sure, and it might improve the lives of others, but I needed some clear reframing of what makes a "fulfilling life" specifically, not an assertion in R2 that more people living longer and better lives necessarily makes those lives fulfilling. The term has a meaning that you're not digging into and I think Pro does a better job setting up what that looks like. The same is true for Con's prosperity argument. Lastly, the point about the afterlife is an instance of trying to add in another term to the resolution. It specifically says "life" and arguing in the final round that "afterlife" suffices isn't going to work for me. You could argue that life is made more fulfilling with the promise of that future afterlife, but not just that the afterlife being a better experience supports the resolution as described.
As for truth, I end up siding with Pro here as well, in that I think both sides don't do enough to support the historical truth of their respective religions. Nothing here suffices as any kind of historical or scientific evidence beyond assertion. Con can't just keep arguing that the Shroud of Turin or eucharistic miracles exist and are evidence without any kind of sourcing and hope to meet his burden. I disagree that uncertainty affords him a "50/50 chance" that anything he's suggested is true - you don't automatically get a coin flip probability just because it cannot be proven either way. And the existence of cardiac tissue in communion wafers is only ever going to suggest the possibility of a miracle, not serve as proof thereof.
Also, yes, I'm awarding sources to Pro. Much as Con gave some responses on these points, a lot of these arguments stand and those responses don't exactly flip the sources in Con's favor. The support for Pro's case lends him more support in the "fulfilling life" department by making this not just about his opinion, whereas much of Con's perspective comes down to personal preference.
I thought I had replied already, so sorry for the delay…
The vote in question reads to me like it’s focused heavily on the con side so as to give advice and help con do better in future. That said, it does give a sufficient amount of detail in the pro side as well, even if it’s much less than what’s offered to con.
The source allotment could be nitpicked but to what ends? With only one debater using any, it feels like a foregone conclusion.
"What if someone's sources undermine their own point?"
Well, sure, if you linked those sources too, it would be different. But when it comes to objective standards, anyone can say that any source says anything, literally. There were debates where people claimed same sources said completely opposite things. So generally, I cannot agree with your quote from a source if you didnt even link the source you quoted from there. I would have to be biased to say both sides provided equally good sources when you literally provided none of yours, none. So even if some of his sources are bad, yours are non-existent.
"It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words""
Well, yeah, what else is conduct supposed to be for? Conduct is for forfeit and insults, personal attacks. You will probably always lose conduct point if you do personal attacks. Some voters may choose to ignore conduct, but its not any advantage for you to rely on hope that voters will always ignore it. Same with sources point.
Your view of this is very much wrong.
What if someone's sources undermine their own point? What if someone's sources do absolutely NOTHING to support their point? You're saying you should still give them points for completely ineffectual or self-refuting sources which is retarded.
It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words" on this site but outright lying and distortion isn't seen as a conduct issue. It shows that truth doesn't matter at all to people on this site and votes are based on which opponent is seen as more likable and who is better at appealing to semantics and putting all the BoP on their opponent.
"Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial"
The sources point is awarded for quality and presence of sources. When one side has no sources while the other has, no matter how low quality those sources are, they are still somewhat better than none.
"he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate"
Lying doesnt lose conduct. It loses argument there. Lying = claim not true
So yeah, even if I can justify giving you argument points here, it would take over 10 of my votes just to make debate tie now. Literally anyone who votes for you cant reasonably give you even 3 points here. I dont see why you refuse to use sources there. At least 1 source per round would make it somewhat possible to give tie on sources. But as it stands now, for every 1 vote against you, you need 5 votes for you just to make simple tie in debate.
Anyone who didn't vote for me in this debate is both retarded and has personal grudge against me
Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial to the debate and he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate.
Its okay to disagree with voters, but at this point, even if I or someone could cast 10 votes in your favor, it still wouldnt outweigh their votes. You objectively lose sources point here as you used none. So no one can reasonably leave sources tie. Conduct also is questionable. You gave your opponent plenty of advantage here. Even if you won arguments, you objectively lost 3 points on sources and conduct.
https://youtu.be/ZsfKFBaWcyk?si=Z_eSV0dLNxKv4J7X
✌️🙏
If that's how you see it, I very much disagree with all of your take-aways, but so be it. I'm not going to continue to belabor this in the comments here. If you think the votes are so fundamentally flawed, then there's no way all three should stand under the voting standards. Report them. Invite more people to give their thoughts on the debate. Haranguing us for taking the time to vote on this when this is the first attention the debate is getting is not helping you or anyone else.
Remember that Lancelot used intellectually dishonest tactics and outright lies which I pointed out throughout the whole debate and you still voted for him. Remember that I debunked buddhism completely in the first round because it claims the universe operates with a moral framework with no moral agent governing it.
All 3 of you (we all know who the third is) are retarded ass holes who skimmed the debate looking for excuses to vote against me without thinking about any of my arguments at all. Look at your fucking votes, they ALL treat me as wrong by default and go out of their way to interpret the debate through pro's POV.
you interpreted the debate in a biased way designed to give him more benefit of the doubt and me more BoP.
It was close. I mentioned arguments that could have won.
Because I don't think I performed as poorly in this debate as you all are suggesting.
What makes you think I don't like you as a person?
wow, 3 incredibly biased shitty votes in a row that are all based on not liking me as a person with long-winded explanations that attempt to mask bias with superfluous justifications that treat me as having higher BoP and pro as the default winner.
Wait nvm
Voting Justification (1/6)
Sources: Pro used several to back up Buddhist principles and concepts even apparently showing deities of Buddhism (I will approach blank slate and validate this) while casting doubt on Shroud of Turin's validity.
Con used literally zero sources.
Conduct: Con degrades Buddhists as plagiarists, nihilists and then attacks Pro personally in the final Round. If this were pro debating he'd be docked conduct marks (plural). Pro's several new points in Round 3 are poor conduct also.
Where it tips over the edge to me giving Pro conduct is Con adds a degrading word 'sh**hole' in Round 3, to all Buddhist regions. That is over the line for formal debating.
Voting Justification (2/6)
Pro presents a case based on 4 contentions.
"offers the solution which is the ultimate goal of life, and the second contention is that the supernatural forces and stories are very plausible.
Third contention is that christianity perpetuates suffering, and my fourth contention is that christianity’s teachings are partly inspired by buddhism."
He asserts 2-pronged Burden of Proof that both sides share equally:
"Prove their religion leads to a more fulfilling life.
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable."
Voting Justification (3/6)
Con decides to go full blast and assert as case against ALL non-Christian religions as follows:
"Every religion other than Christianity is either atheist, has hypocrite gods who claim to be benevolent while they watch humans suffer, or has gods that admit they don't care about us. The Christian God makes us suffer sure, but he actually came down and suffered FOR US unlike any other God. The Christian God in doing so proved that he has unconditional, self-sacrificial love and that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of human suffering."
This can be taken as Con believing in a different burden of proof(BoP).
It would seem in Con's perspective, the burden of Con is to prove that Christianity is the sole religion that has gods that are neither atheist (doesn't even say atheistic, increasing what he has to prove) nor hypocritical (here 'hypocrite' had to be a typo/error) as well as that the value system in Christianity matches very much how the God acts.
In fact it seems to be the case that Con wants the debate about the gods of the religions specifically.
"It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. "
I think that's the other debate...
Voting Justification (4/6)
During what proceeds, the clash in both sides' views of BoP is essentially why neither seems to understand the case the other is making and debates as if their opponent is either deceptive or deluded. Con's Round 3 is blatantly stating that he sees Pro as a deceiver. Pro's Round 3 does similar but masks the wording. Pro adds many new points in Round 3 which I disregard all of in my vote as my voting ethics are that closing Rounds are for rebuttals and reinforcement only.
It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. The issue for Con is the debate isn't specific on which Christian sect is being debated against. Therefore when Pro rebukes about Hitler potentially being in Heaven if he repents and prays last minute, he is correct and even without sola fide, I know for a fact Christians are banned to declare with firm assurance about who went to Hell (judge not lest ye be judged etc). This seems to be Pro's point sort of. I do not claim Pro states the ban on humans judging humans to Hell, he instead proves something huge against Con; that the Christian God has only based its morality on faith and dedication to it rather than whatever system Con said that dooms Hitler to Hell.
Voting Justification (5/6)
I am confused at what Con exactly assumed the BoP was as the debate progresses. He seems to go from starting bold with saying all non-Christians gods are atheist or hypocrites to saying Buddhism is nihilistic plagiarism and that it has no god.
Pro sticks to his 2-pronged BoP but in my opinion he barely succeeds. For example Pro doesn't prove that Buddhists have more fulfilling lives than Christians anywhere in the debate as far as I see. This is also completely failed by Con to be denied as a valid BoP.
Where it seems the real debate lies then is in the 2nd part Pro offers:
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable.
Voting Justification part (6/6)
There seems to be some sort of brain chemistry logic from Pro. I disregard brand new Round 3 points, I refer to Round 2. In Round 2, Pro says people are wired to feel karma so to speak. Meanwhile I don’t see where Con gives evidence of the reward system of Christianity being proven. He is more eager to prove that Jesus was real. Jesus being real does not exactly prove Christianity correct. Pro didn’t even deny it.
Furthermore, it appears that Con concedes that meditation does actually work. He even says Christianity permits Buddhist meditation. That needs FAR MORE elaboration then to explain how that isn’t a wrong religion caving in to a truer one, incorporating an irrefutable benefit.
As for Eucharistic miracles, we are at a loss. Con insists labwork backs him up and gives 0 while Pro says it is a bluff in essence and Con fails to source or back up which lab work when proved it.
Again, I'd say fulfillment and quality of life are distinct terms. You can argue that if you'd like, but I didn't see any kind of reframing of the topic on your part that put the terminology into a different perspective. Just pointing back at the topic and saying you meet it with your argument because it wasn't spelled out that fulfillment is individual doesn't tell me anything about how you'd define fulfillment and why I should believe your framing. Pro gave me a great deal of reasoning for what fulfillment looks like in his first round, so yes, I'm favoring that.
I don't know what standard you think I'm holding you to that does not apply to him. He set up his case on a pretty clear standard of what fulfillment looks like and argued that throughout. If you want, I can go through all the ways in which he does that, I just didn't feel the need to point to multiple dropped arguments. They set up a sufficient case that required challenges that undermined his perspective and supported yours. To that end, I expected that, if you were going to challenge his view of fulfillment, you would have engaged on how he presented fulfillment and not just say that quality of life improving = fulfillment because a shitty life isn't fulfilling.
I've removed several of Barney's votes before and I know he wouldn't hesitate to remove mine if it didn't meet the standards for voting on the site. But it's up to you what you choose to do about it.
Read whiteflame's vote and tell me if you see an issue or not. He focuses way more on my arguments being wrong than pro's being right, as if he is treating me as the one who has higher BoP and pro as the default winner. He also doesn't actually substantiate his vote that much, he is mostly just saying "I don't agree with con because in my opinion he's wrong" with little to no elaboration.
Would your life be as fulfilling if your quality of life was drastically lower? Come on this isn't rocket science.
You're essentially holding me to a standard you're not holding him to and treating him as the default winner. Your vote is more about why my arguments aren't good enough than why his are sufficient.
If I report your vote that would be like reporting police brutality to the other cop who is beating me while two officers are beating me.
That's a... very selective reading of my vote.
I didn't say he "did better in the evidence department," I said "I think both sides don't do enough to support the historical truth of their respective religions." You were the only one to include examples to support your side, but you didn't provide any evidence to support their historical truth. At best, I'd give you that there's some chance of historical truth from your argument whereas Pro provided none, but the standard for truth is a high bar.
I addressed the quality of life argument. Fulfillment and quality of life are not interchangeable terms.
I'd say if you're conceding that meditation is a positive, then you're conceding Pro's entire argument as to why it's a positive and how that interrelates with fulfillment from a Buddhist perspective. At best, that's mitigation of the benefits of meditation because some Christians will garner it too. And yes, I'd say that's a negative connotation when you're conceding that meditation is a distinct positive and not acknowledging all the specifics of why, in a Buddhist context, Pro established that to be important for fulfillment.
If you have that much of a problem with it, report the vote. Barney will take a look at it.
Your vote sucks and is dripping with bias. You are blatantly going out of your way to only see pro's side of the debate. You even say he did better in the evidence department when there is NO proof of buddhism and the things I mentioned at least might be proof of christianity. You are essentially saying "well pro provided no evidence, but I don't like con's evidence so I'm favoring pro's complete lack of anything that even remotely resembles evidence".
Your entire quality of life is thanks to Christianity. Every aspect of modern western society that you benefit from would be replaced with oppressive backwards shariah law muslim theocracies or with savage pagan tribes killing each other instead of building western civilization.
You say I am conceding on the meditation point. My point was clearly that buddhists can't benefit from what christianity has to offer but christians can benefit from what buddhists have to offer, but you went out of your way to superimpose a negative connotation because the entire mod team on this site has it out for me.
Every time someone votes for me mods delete it and every time a mod votes on one of my debates it's against me. You let retarded biased votes remain as long as they are against me.
I assure you there are no worries.
A vote is always appreciated, but never expected.
Damn, I completely lost track of this. Still got a day, I'm going to try and blitz through it and post a vote.
I may get voting privileges soon depending on an AI debate.
What I wanted to say to you is that you need to remember to use sources.
For instance you are wrong that Caths and EO arent against Buddhist meditation. They are. We only supoirt meditsting with christ in mind or holy spirit etc. we also insist on the music if used being gregorian chants, catholic hymns or at least not remotely demonic in lyrics or vibe.
You could still have won that point if you found protestant sources saying the Buddhist meditation is fine.
Take your time, no need to rush into it.
The truth is there's plenty of time to wait.
I'll try to get to this, remind me if I'm slow.
I don't know if you guys are interested in debates or discussions that compare eastern asian religions with judaism or christianity, but would you guys like to vote on this?
I think it's a pretty quick read. 3-rounds
I can make any modifications if the description is incomplete