Are Judaism, Christianity and Islam Mythical and Immoral Cult/Religions? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Are Judaism, Christianity and Islam Mythical and Immoral Cult/Religions?

Debate Information

The scriptures of the so-called Abrahamic religions ...Judaism, Christianity and Islam (with Hinduism as a kissing cousin), are violent, sexist, misogynistic, discriminatory and judgemental. The religious books are weapons that have been used to perpetrate mass genocide.

The mythical scriptures of Judaism and Christianity document Hashem and God as engaging in mass genocide, atrocities and crimes against humanity. Including collective punishment resulting in the deaths of innocent people, including innocent children and babies outside the womb and inside the womb (abortion).

They are mythical fabrications that are stolen legacy from ancient Africa-Kemet/Anu ( Egypt/Ethiopia) mythical religious stories and characters...as well as bssic astronomy. The relgious books are full I f historical errors, biological errors, scientific errors, contradictions and omissions of information that should be included.

They are mythical and immoral cult cult/religions. 

Oh yeah...and Judaism, Christianity and Islam are slavery cult/religions. The scriptures of Judaism and Christianity read like an operational manual with guidelines and instructions for the enslavement of humans, including children and babies. 
PlaffelvohfenTreeManxlJ_dolphin_473Swolliw



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hot under the collar for nothing.

    Why stop there? What about Buddhism, Shintoism, African Folk Religions, Mormonism, Scientology, and what not?
    PlaffelvohfenTreeManxlJ_dolphin_473
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @Jean

    I would argue that there is something especially nefarious about monotheistic religions. See, say, the Ancient Greek religion/mythology was irrational and promoted certain atrocities, in some cases including human sacrifice and brutal torture and execution methods - but, with all that said, it allowed for a lot of ideological pluralism. You could worship different gods, or none at all. And the gods themselves were exemplars of various human traits, good and bad alike; they were not idolized and considered the only valid source of morals - rather, they were pitted against each other, often mocked and criticized. People did not as much worship gods themselves as they did the ideas that they represented.

    Ancient Greece could not have inquisition, or crusades, or theocratic governments, or totalitarian churches. It did not have a unified religious ideology that would make those justified in the eyes of the most devoted religious fanatics.

    Compare it to monotheistic religions, where the god is supreme and his wisdom is unquestionable, where heretics are to be destroyed as they are deemed to oppose the central dogma everyone is supposed to be a slave to. It is no accident that Socrates laughed at the Greek gods and was widely respected for it, even by the priests of those same gods - but nobody in Saudi Arabia or Iran laughs at Allah and gets away with it. Even Europeans laughing at Allah or Muhammad sometimes get slaughtered by Islamic fanatics who cannot bear the thought of anyone on the entire planet seeing their god and his "messengers" as something other than holy supreme beings.

    Buddhism and Shintoism at this point are fairly benign religions, yet. Buddhism is mostly about digging deep in human psychology and body and perfecting them, and Shintoism is mostly about respecting nature and tending to it. Sure, they still feature a lot of mythological and pseudo-scientific gibberish, but they do not impair the individuals following them in any significant ways. A "Shintoist fundamentalist" at this point would be someone like a beautiful geisha tending to a garden: one could say that she is wasting her life, but then she has a lifestyle that even many atheists find quite appealing.

    All these people would benefit significantly from shedding away their religions altogether, no doubt. But it seems to me that monotheists have a lot more to gain here than polytheists, who, in turn, have a lot more to gain here than "spiritualists". Religions are not equal, and the Abrahamic religions in particular are an especially nasty brand that has caused an immeasurable amount of suffering on this planet.
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Jean

    I would argue that there is something especially nefarious about monotheistic religions. See, say, the Ancient Greek religion/mythology was irrational and promoted certain atrocities, in some cases including human sacrifice and brutal torture and execution methods - but, with all that said, it allowed for a lot of ideological pluralism. You could worship different gods, or none at all. And the gods themselves were exemplars of various human traits, good and bad alike; they were not idolized and considered the only valid source of morals - rather, they were pitted against each other, often mocked and criticized. People did not as much worship gods themselves as they did the ideas that they represented. ...

    There is nothing monotheistic about the Holy Trinity.
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    Budhism isn't so bad. Its less vile than the other religions.
    @Jean
    JeanPlaffelvohfen
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    personally, i would believe china was better. Although there were state religions, it was never forced onto people to believe in a religion. Furthermore, the wide range of religions all lacked an idea of a 'perfect being' who has wholesome power over mankind. @MayCaesar
    Swolliw
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    TreeMan said:
    Budhism isn't so bad. Its less vile than the other religions.
    @Jean
    You appear to be unaware of what is happening to the Rohingya people in Burma today at the hands of the Buddhist soldiers.  
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @Jean
    Why stop there? What about Buddhism, Shintoism, African Folk Religions, Mormonism, Scientology, and what not?

    Because, for example Buddhism and Scientology do not  prescribe Hashem and God as engaging in mass genocide, atrocities and crimes against humanity. Including collective punishment resulting in the deaths of innocent people, including innocent children and babies outside the womb and inside the womb (abortion).

    That is why he stopped there.

    Jean
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @Jean
    There is nothing monotheistic about the Holy Trinity.

    All Abrahamic religions are monotheistic.

    Isn't it enough that you have only one repulsive, violent, sexist, murderous master to answer to?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @TreeMan
    Budhism isn't so bad. Its less vile than the other religions.

    Quite right and, strictly speaking, Buddhism does not really qualify as being classified as a religion.

  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Jean
    Why stop there? What about Buddhism, Shintoism, African Folk Religions, Mormonism, Scientology, and what not?

    Because, for example Buddhism and Scientology do not  prescribe Hashem and God as engaging in mass genocide, atrocities and crimes against humanity. Including collective punishment resulting in the deaths of innocent people, including innocent children and babies outside the womb and inside the womb (abortion).

    That is why he stopped there.

    You're another who has not heard of the deeds of the Buddhist soldiers against the Rohingya in Burma.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @Jean

    Burma is ruled by a totalitarian military regime that actually heavily oppresses Buddhists. One of the main problems the regime encountered when it took over 3 decades ago was heavy ideological resistance in Buddhist temples, and the temples were destroyed and burned down, their inhabitants imprisoned, tortured and executed. It is still dangerous to profess open Buddhist beliefs in that country, and people only get away with it by mixing it in with traditional folklore activities.

    To see the actions of the Burman army as a consequence of their alleged Buddhist beliefs is quite illogical. Buddhism is far from a peaceful religion in general, despite the popular view on this - but this is a poor example to use as an illustration of it.

    Not all religions are equal. So many people try to just indiscriminately dismiss them all as being illogical - but they are illogical in different ways and offer different prescriptions to their practitioners. There is no case to make for, for instance, Shintoism being just as violent a religion as Islam. Shintoism may be interpreted in many ways, but to interpret it in a way that sanctions chopping heads off those women who disobey their husbands would require some very elaborate mental gymnastics, while in Islam this can be derived directly from the foundational texts.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -   edited July 22
    @Jean
    You're another who has not heard of the deeds of the Buddhist soldiers against the Rohingya in Burma.

    The soldiers are government soldiers carrying out orders of the government, and not in the name of their religion. By the way, there is no such place as Burma, in case you haven't heard.

    But I do take your point though, since 90% of Myanmar is labelled as Buddhist. But let's not divert from the overwhelming atrocities still carried out in the name of Abrahamic religions.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Jean

    Burma is ruled by a totalitarian military regime that actually heavily oppresses Buddhists. One of the main problems the regime encountered when it took over 3 decades ago was heavy ideological resistance in Buddhist temples, and the temples were destroyed and burned down, their inhabitants imprisoned, tortured and executed. It is still dangerous to profess open Buddhist beliefs in that country, and people only get away with it by mixing it in with traditional folklore activities.

    To see the actions of the Burman army as a consequence of their alleged Buddhist beliefs is quite illogical. Buddhism is far from a peaceful religion in general, despite the popular view on this - but this is a poor example to use as an illustration of it.

    Not all religions are equal. So many people try to just indiscriminately dismiss them all as being illogical - but they are illogical in different ways and offer different prescriptions to their practitioners. There is no case to make for, for instance, Shintoism being just as violent a religion as Islam. Shintoism may be interpreted in many ways, but to interpret it in a way that sanctions chopping heads off those women who disobey their husbands would require some very elaborate mental gymnastics, while in Islam this can be derived directly from the foundational texts.
    All the soldiers who murdered Rohingya and raped children are Buddhists.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited July 22
    @Jean

    I believe you intelligent enough to find multiple problems with your statement. If not, I would love to hear what unbelievably thorough survey could have produced such a strong claim: I have never heard of statistical methods that allow one to survey a representative sample of a sufficiently large group and conclude that all members of that group have certain mutable property X, with zero uncertainty.

    Even if your statement was correct (it quite demonstrably is not), it would still be up to you to draw the connection between them being Buddhist and the acts of violence they have committed. I have explained why, in my view, there is no such connection in this case; you have not addressed my argument in any way.

    I do not think Buddhism a peaceful religion, and in many texts that many Buddhists consider foundational there are certain controversial prescriptions easily interpretable as suggestions for violence. But what has happened in Rohingya does not have any obvious connection to those, and, in fact, it is easily explained by the ethnical tensions that have existed in that region for centuries and have nothing to do with either Islam or Buddhism. You could say, perhaps, that the difference in religions is inherently a part of the ethnical tensions, and that would not be unreasonable - but you see how, all these factors taken into account, you cannot easily connect those events to Buddhism.

    Not every murder committed by a Buddhist is caused by Buddhism; not every murder committed by a Muslim is caused by Islam. That should be fairly obvious to everyone. If I murdered someone, it would be wrong for you to say, "He murdered someone because he was an atheist" - although, I am sure, certain members of Debate Island would not hesitate to draw such connection. :)
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Buddhism is no more peaceful than any other religion.

    MayCaesar said:
    @Jean

    I believe you intelligent enough to find multiple problems with your statement. If not, I would love to hear what unbelievably thorough survey could have produced such a strong claim: I have never heard of statistical methods that allow one to survey a representative sample of a sufficiently large group and conclude that all members of that group have certain mutable property X, with zero uncertainty.

    Even if your statement was correct (it quite demonstrably is not), it would still be up to you to draw the connection between them being Buddhist and the acts of violence they have committed. I have explained why, in my view, there is no such connection in this case; you have not addressed my argument in any way.

    I do not think Buddhism a peaceful religion, and in many texts that many Buddhists consider foundational there are certain controversial prescriptions easily interpretable as suggestions for violence. But what has happened in Rohingya does not have any obvious connection to those, and, in fact, it is easily explained by the ethnical tensions that have existed in that region for centuries and have nothing to do with either Islam or Buddhism. You could say, perhaps, that the difference in religions is inherently a part of the ethnical tensions, and that would not be unreasonable - but you see how, all these factors taken into account, you cannot easily connect those events to Buddhism.

    Not every murder committed by a Buddhist is caused by Buddhism; not every murder committed by a Muslim is caused by Islam. That should be fairly obvious to everyone. If I murdered someone, it would be wrong for you to say, "He murdered someone because he was an atheist" - although, I am sure, certain members of Debate Island would not hesitate to draw such connection. :)
    Without question, the murders, rapes, and ethnic cleansing of the persecuted Rohingya in Burma was perpetrated by the Burmese army which is 100% made up of Buddhists. You are in error to characterize the Buddhists as a peaceful people. You do not want to believe this.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited July 23
    @Jean

    I have never "characterized the Buddhists as a peaceful people". The point I was making is completely different. After so many detailed comments, you are still responding to a strawman... That is truly impressive!

    The Burmese army also is not "100% made up of Buddhists". I actually studied the Myanmar regime in detail a while back, and the way the army is formed there has absolutely nothing to do with religion. There is no requirement that a soldier must be a Buddhist in order to join the army.
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Jean

    I have never "characterized the Buddhists as a peaceful people". The point I was making is completely different. After so many detailed comments, you are still responding to a strawman... That is truly impressive!

    The Burmese army also is not "100% made up of Buddhists". I actually studied the Myanmar regime in detail a while back, and the way the army is formed there has absolutely nothing to do with religion. There is no requirement that a soldier must be a Buddhist in order to join the army.
    I guarantee you that the Burmese soldiers who murdered infants and children of the Rohingya and their families are 100% Buddhists.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch