CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't believe in god because, as a scientist, I don't choose to put blind faith in something without tangible evidence. If you do believe in god or gods, then that's great for you. My only stance on religion is to keep it to yourself. Don't shove jesus down my throat and don't use your faith to justify harming someone else. If you can do that and still be faithful, then awesome, keep doing what you're doing.
Religion is for the lazy minded individual who choose not to question what they have been told or what they read, you only have one life to live and to live it by the rules of a religion is a waste!! religion only eases the fear of death for those who fear it, you should fear not living your one life not what comes after it!! as a youth I went to a religious school but I had the common sense to question the dribble I was told, when you truly break religion down and the rules it try's to enforce, its laughable and defies me why anyone could be so blinded and not question it??
Your right we are lazy, but religion is the biggest culprit for lack of questioning, we don't accept many things these days without some form of substance to back the theory up? I don't think it takes to much effort to look at religion and breakdown what it preaches to think its just all a bunch of man made nonsense.
I personally believe most religious people are not fundamentalist. They do not take the scriptures literally. So there should be no conflict with religion and reality.
I absolutely detest religion. It is not only a retarded thing to believe but the main religions are all evil (not including Buddhism as I do not class it as a religion).
There are no violent sects of Buddhism. Please proceed to name them. Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism are fundamentally peaceful. Anyone who is violent cannot be a Buddhist, it contradicts everything Buddhism is about. Buddhism encourages peace, religion encourages violence.
You should probably read this book. Buddhist Warfare by Michael Jerryson. Violence in Buddhism is older than Islam as a whole.
Don't worry though. Your ignorance is not unique. Western society rarely understands much about Asian cultures or religions. The reverse is true as well.
I am not at all ignorant of Buddhism. I was a Buddhist for the best part of three years and practiced regularly and deeply studied the texts. Buddhism is older than Islam, that is the only reason why. The Buddha was extremely peaceful, more peaceful than the majority of people would deem logical. He even said this:
Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching.
However Mohammad was a war lord. Buddhism is naturally less violent than Islam. If Buddhism was as violent as Islam or more violent then there would be Tibetan terrorist groups, like the Muslim ones targeting the West, only targeting the Chinese. The Communist government in Chinese has caused far more harm to the Buddhist people of Tibet than the West to Muslims in the middle east yet the Tibetans remain completely peaceful. This shows that Buddhism naturally is peaceful and influences people to be peaceful, the inverse effect of Islam.
What about the violence that Buddhism stopped? Buddhism stopped war in India when Emperor Ashoka converted.
Anyone who is violent cannot qualify as a Buddhist. Before you scream "No true Scotsman", this is a valid claim to make as a Buddhist is someone who follows the Buddha's teachings and the Buddha explicitly denies any kind of violence. Buddhist violence or warfare doesn't exist.
The Buddha was extremely peaceful, more peaceful than the majority of people would deem logical.
However Mohammad was a war lord. Buddhism is naturally less violent than Islam.
Jesus was peaceful too. That does not make the followers peaceful.
Christians have killed more people than Muslims or Buddhists. By your logic, it should be more like Islam > Christianity > Buddhism in terms of violence.
The Communist government in Chinese has caused far more harm to the Buddhist people of Tibet than the West to Muslims in the middle east yet the Tibetans remain completely peaceful.
While both groups have been persecuted, the Middle East people were harmed a lot more than Tibetans.
A lot more people in the Middle East died from the Cold War incited conflicts than Tibetans from China. The destabilization caused by the struggle of the superpowers is still visible today.
Anyone who is violent cannot qualify as a Buddhist. Before you scream "No true Scotsman", this is a valid claim to make as a Buddhist is someone who follows the Buddha's teachings and the Buddha explicitly denies any kind of violence. Buddhist violence or warfare doesn't exist.
You are basically 1600 years of persecution by Buddhist majorities does not count because they couldn't possibly have been Buddhist even though they were.
Jesus was peaceful but he supported the Old Testament, which was violent. Also one of his apostles Paul was rather unpleasant. However there is not a word of violence or hatred in Buddhist scripture. That is why Buddhism is more peaceful than Christianity.
You can't count the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the Cold War as a valid stimulus for terrorism against the West because the West was on the Muslims' side. The Western countries which they later attacked committed huge amounts of money to helping their cause, as I am sure you would know.
The only valid stimulus you can consider for terrorism against the West were the times when we invaded Iraq. While lots of Muslims suffered there the numbers cannot compare to the 1.2 million Tibetans brutally slaughtered by the Chinese. Furthermore at least the West did not set about to destroy Islam in the Middle East. The Chinese did try and destroy Buddhism in Tibet and even to this day many monasteries lie in ruins and the monastic community has never recovered. Also China still occupies and suppresses the Tibetans to this day and at least the West are out of the Middle East. Yet despite this oppression the Tibetan people remain entirely pacifistic in their cause which shows that Buddhism is peaceful. If they weren't Buddhists they would have resorted to violence.
1600 years of persecution by Buddhist majorities? Up until now it has been a onesided affair of Muslims persecuting Buddhists. That is why Buddhism was wiped out (or virtually wiped out) in Afganistan, India (including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh), Indonesia and the Maldives. It is only now that the Buddhists are fighting back. And why are they fighting back? Because of years of oppression from this satanic religion and also the fact that the Muslims in South East Asia have been resorting to terrorism. I hate how the media is demonizing the Buddhist there when the whole thing was sparked by Muslim violence. There was little to no coverage of the Buddhist monks being murdered unprovoked in Southern Thailand or bombs being detonated during Buddhist teachings in Burma. I think it is because the left-wing dominated media wants to fight back against the perception that Islam is violent.
That is what I said. I am saying Christianity texts are more violent than Islam texts.
You can't count the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the Cold War as a valid stimulus for terrorism against the West because the West was on the Muslims' side
The West was not on anyone's side but their own. Once the Soviets were driven out, they abandoned the ruined nation. All they did was fund, train, and arm "rebels" to drive back the Red Menace. The conflicts of the Cold War had nothing to do with internal struggles, but the struggles of two superpowers.
You should probably look up the 2008 Lhasa Riots if you think Tibetans are only violent towards Communists. A lot of strife has built up between Buddhists and Muslims in East Asia.
I was referring to the East Asia region where Buddhism is a majority.
It is only now that the Buddhists are fighting back. And why are they fighting back? Because of years of oppression from this satanic religion
Name one case of a Buddhist majority government being oppressed by the Muslim minority. There have been violent acts back and forth, but the oppression has always been committed by the majority.
on the other hand i can understand where you're coming from, but it's not religion that's evil, it's the people that use it as a justification to terrorize or use force on others.
The fact that you claim that all religions are evil, proves how little you know of them. I advise you and all the others that criticize them to invest some time into understanding religion before stating your point of view. Furthermore I find your comment very offensive for many reasons. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mind you stating your opinion, but insulting others is not the way to do so.Moreover your opinion on Buddhism demonstrates how little you know about the true meaning of religion and faith
I know plenty about religion, thank you very much, you condescending so-and-so. If you would like me to I could provide informed reasons as to why every religion is evil, meaning the actual beliefs themselves, not just the actions of those within them. You are clearly just some stupid left-wing apologist. In that case I am glad I have offended you.
FYI: I was a Buddhist for almost 3 years and I daresay know more about it than you are likely to.
If you would like me to I could provide informed reasons as to why every religion is evil, meaning the actual beliefs themselves, not just the actions of those within them.
Can you provide informed reasons as to why the religious side of Buddhism is evil? I'm aware that you personally treat Buddhism as more of a philosophical thing, but there are many worldwide who adhere strongly to the religious aspects of Buddhism, such as the karmic cycle. Some sects even prescribe omniscience to Buddha as well as any other hypothetical individual who attains enlightenment.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely- It is entirely possible to treat Buddhism as a religion and simply not practice or lend much credence to the religious aspects of it, and view it as simply a lifestyle and philosophy- But the religious aspects are there and are adhered to by many, so for some Buddhism is certainly a religion.
An example of the religious side of Buddhism being evil is the belief that if something bad happens to you it is because you did something bad in either this life or a past life. Including rape and being born with horrible disabilities.
Another example is Buddhism can be exploited to get wealth and power from the laymen. An example is how the Dalai Lamas used to rule like dictators over suffering, horrifically treated serfs while living in Palaces.
An example of the religious side of Buddhism being evil is the belief that if something bad happens to you it is because you did something bad in either this life or a past life. Including rape and being born with horrible disabilities.
Is this actually believed by Buddhists? I was under the impression that the penalty for misdeeds in past lives was to be reborn into a lower social class, or even species in the next life, as opposed to simple bad things happening in your current life. I can see that for those born with disabilities, but not necessarily those subjected to rape.
No objection whatsoever to the wealth and power argument.
Aside from that, I appreciate your candor and willingness to reply, even when it's in regards to a lifestyle that you yourself adhere to, at least partially.
I was under the impression that the penalty for misdeeds in past lives was to be reborn into a lower social class
No, the caste system is a Hindu belief, the Buddha rejected it
or even species in the next life
This part is right though. How also it is believed wrongdoing can result in being reborn as a "hungry ghost" or even in a Naraka-a Hell realm.
pposed to simple bad things happening in your current life
No, Buddhists believe bad actions also karmically resulting suffering in your current life, however I have just found the Buddha said that the belief that absolutely all suffering is a result of Karma is a wrong view, so not all people who suffer horrible things are believed to have necessarily done something bad in a past life resulting in it.
No, the caste system is a Hindu belief, the Buddha rejected it
I was referring more to socioeconomic class than caste, but no big deal.
This part is right though. How also it is believed wrongdoing can result in being reborn as a "hungry ghost" or even in a Naraka-a Hell realm.
Yeah, that's what I was going for.
No, Buddhists believe bad actions also karmically resulting suffering in your current life, however I have just found the Buddha said that the belief that absolutely all suffering is a result of Karma is a wrong view, so not all people who suffer horrible things are believed to have necessarily done something bad in a past life resulting in it.
Good, that's a mark in favor of them. I suppose the criticisms regarding power and wealth are sufficient alone though. Thank you!
How can you call someone else condescending, then said that you know more about religion than someone else because you were a Buddhist for a bit over 2 years and insult them for their political ideology?
I meant that I knew more of Buddhism then was likely to as I was a Buddhist. I was only being condescending because this touchy, oversensitive arse got like that with me.
So you pulled an "I know you are but what am I"... Why? And since you do not know what their religious background is, you don't know if they have more personal experience with Buddhism. For all you know, they could have been Buddhist before you were even born.
Well you can hardly blame me if I have some religitard running their mouth off at me.
Well, I never said that I definitely knew more of Buddhism than she did, only that I knew more than she was likely to, as she probably has never been a Buddhist as Buddhists make up such a tiny minority of the world's population. Particularly as she is from Egypt which is mostly Muslim except from a Coptic minority.
the fact the you still view it as acceptable to insult people, proves nothing but the fact that you are incapable of tolerating other opinions.
Anyways we're drifting off topic here.please do provide me with some of these reasons. And yes you may know allot about Buddhism, but that does not mean that in the eyes of others it isn't a religion. Everyone has a way of interpreting things. But anyways I do admit that my comment on how you view Buddhism was wrong because you were clearly stating your opinion and not attacking it.
-Both the New and Old Testament are homophobic, it is only that the Old Testament is more extreme and actually says that gays should be killed (Leviticus 20:13)
-The Bible says to stone naughty children Deuteronomy 21:18-21
what do you want me to say? You won. I read all of them and even though I don't believe some of the stuff there you made your point. You are right I don't need to degrade myself even further my adding another comment or still trying to prove you wrong
Well for an atheist it has no meaning;for a priest,he has high regards for it and for me,I sit in the mean;To me ,as I've always said it's the belief we hold and I follow my instincts and beliefs.
I am agnostic, I don't believe one way or another. If asked I would awnser, possibly. Without evidence for or aginst I don't wish to make an uninformed judgment. And it really has no current affect on my personal decisions so Manet later in my life I will research a bit more and make a choice one way or the other but really the belief in a deity should have no effect on a person's life choices. If you need to consult someone else about making a decision it may not be the best choice to do it.
Against agnosticism: Don't think you can get away with not choosing a side. Newsflash--you're running out of time. You ship has already embarked on the journey. You'll die someday and by then it will be too late to make up your mind.
Agnosticism means you don't know if there is or is not a god or gods. I am not religious because there is no proof of a divine entity and I don't put blind faith in something without proof. I am not atheist because lack of proof does not equal lack of existence. In the middle ages, Europeans didn't know the Americas existed, they had no proof. That didn't mean that America came into existence only when they sailed over here.
Furthermore, I think if there is a god and a heaven, I'm not going to be penalized because I didn't go to church and pray. I live a moral life and I'm a good person; if this "god" can't see past that and sends me to your "hell" for not worshiping him/her/them, then I don't really want to go to their heaven.
Agnosticism is most certainly a side, simply on a different spectrum. There are two spectrums that make up religious belief theism to atheism, and gnosticism to agnosticism. One can be like me, a "Pragmatic Agnostic" (I didn't choose the term), and believe that humanity is incapable of knowing. That is hardly "on the fence", as people often say.
I've made up my mind, religion is a load of old tosh!! we as humans fear death its what awaits us all, and funny enough religion try's to ease that fear by creating a false after life, we go to heaven and live for eternity my arse!! we die and our time on this world is over, our one shot at life is complete, as soon as you get to grip with that reality religion serves no purpose!
no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus ..... no need for religion .... only Jesus .....
The idea of Christian atheism is moronic. You can be an atheist who appreciates Jesus' moral teachings but not a Christian atheist. Atheism goes against the vast majority of what Jesus preached.
I am not opposing you but an athiest doesn't believe in a got at all hence the name a, meaning not or without, and theist, which if I am remembering correctly is the belief in a deity. Christians are theists who believe in the existence of a deity. You can't be both.
no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion .... ..... no need for religion ....!