“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

[Diogenes]

It is a common topic on this forum, variously phrased, that morality not only comes from God, but comes from the god 'I believe in.'
Christopher Hitchens famously challenged people to find a moral statement that could not be sincerely uttered by an atheist.
"No takers," he claimed.
Stated another way, Hitchens wrote, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Conversely, Hitchens and many others can easily find many examples of immoral statements made in the name of God or of religion.

The question for debate is whether either of these statements can be refuted.

[TRANSPONDER]

... If the Bible has to be true and intended by God or it wouldn't exist, then the Bhaghavad Gita has to be true and Hinduism true or it wouldn't exist.

I think you are missing the crucial point, if the book has something that people would not have thought on their own, then it is probably from other source.

Then one might get the claim the bible is somehow superior to the others. I'd say the Tripitaka is superior to the Bible.

Then I would like to hear why you think it is superior.

I have yet to see anything in the bible that humans could not have thought of. Rather most of it sounds like the woefully limited worldview of people who thought the world was flat, the celestial things were objects fixed in a sky dome, that could be put there to mark existing daylight of stopped to allow a battle to finish; and you could repopulate the world from breeding pairs (supposing they survived) in a mere 1000 years. The Bible is very much the product of limited human imagination.

Buddhism is superior because it doesn't do war or venegeance, but preaches enlightenment through personal effort, not by grovelling to a god's vanity, and through peace, not conquest. Which is more than you can say for the Abrahamic religions, especially just now.

[Purple Knight]

So God became evil when he flooded the world?

I don't think so.

I don't think so either, and I think that's because it's not evil to fight evil, even with force, if that's really what you have to do. If I find myself more powerful that God, and charge him with the unrealistic expectation of total pacifism, and make him let Noah's family die when there was no other way to protect them, I'm the bad guy.

[1213]

...
I have yet to see anything in the bible that humans could not have thought of.

Bible shows that there was only one continent at the beginning, how could ancient people have known it?

Also, I think the idea that people should love even their enemies is something that humans would not develop on their own.

But, the biggest reason to think Bible is not from humans purely is that atheists don't understand it without contradictions. If it would be just from humans, there would not be so much problems in understanding it.

Rather most of it sounds like the woefully limited worldview of people who thought the world was flat, the celestial things were objects fixed in a sky dome, that could be put there to mark existing daylight of stopped to allow a battle to finish; and you could repopulate the world from breeding pairs (supposing they survived) in a mere 1000 years. The Bible is very much the product of limited human imagination.

The idea of "flat earth" is a good example of how poorly people understand what they read. I think humans have too poor imagination to make up the Bible on their own. I have not yet seen people imagining anything that they have no example.

Buddhism is superior because it doesn't do war or venegeance, but preaches enlightenment through personal effort, not by grovelling to a god's vanity, and through peace, not conquest. Which is more than you can say for the Abrahamic religions, especially just now.

Interesting, is it not vengeance to force someone to continuously be reborn and possibly even in less appreciated form? And the end goal Nirvana is basically to be annihilated, which is also not necessary very positive outcome. But, at least they can't blame any god for all that, because allegedly they don't have any god.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I have yet to see anything in the bible that humans could not have thought of.

Bible shows that there was only one continent at the beginning, how could ancient people have known it?

Also, I think the idea that people should love even their enemies is something that humans would not develop on their own.

But, the biggest reason to think Bible is not from humans purely is that atheists don't understand it without contradictions. If it would be just from humans, there would not be so much problems in understanding it.

Rather most of it sounds like the woefully limited worldview of people who thought the world was flat, the celestial things were objects fixed in a sky dome, that could be put there to mark existing daylight of stopped to allow a battle to finish; and you could repopulate the world from breeding pairs (supposing they survived) in a mere 1000 years. The Bible is very much the product of limited human imagination.

The idea of "flat earth" is a good example of how poorly people understand what they read. I think humans have too poor imagination to make up the Bible on their own. I have not yet seen people imagining anything that they have no example.

Buddhism is superior because it doesn't do war or venegeance, but preaches enlightenment through personal effort, not by grovelling to a god's vanity, and through peace, not conquest. Which is more than you can say for the Abrahamic religions, especially just now.

Interesting, is it not vengeance to force someone to continuously be reborn and possibly even in less appreciated form? And the end goal Nirvana is basically to be annihilated, which is also not necessary very positive outcome. But, at least they can't blame any god for all that, because allegedly they don't have any god.

The thing is that rebirth is not imposed by a god, but by natural circumstances.If anything, humans did it to themselves by developing desires. Buddhism teaches then a way of escape. If for example, Christ had taught that prayer and fasting would reduce sin until you had none, that would be as good as Buddhism. In fact Christianity tacitly admits it by pretending it is good deeds that saves when it really isn't - it is Faith in Jesus. Now, I suspect that Karma is as godlike as a god can be, and if so, arguably imposed 'suffering' as plainly as God imposed sin.

That is not the fault of Buddhism any more than Christianity is to blame for Sin. The religions teach a way out of it, but Buddhism teaches personal effort and peace, while Christianity teaches grovelling to a deity and a rather nasty End Times.

I get what you say about Nirvana. Atheism sees the advantages of Oblivion and offers it easier even than Buddhism. But most take the shortsighted view that they want to escape dying and get a nice cozy and privileged afterlife. Same with the lay Buddhists I've met. Buddhism is morally better than Christianity but that doesn't mean it has to make sens, or that the experts even really understand it.

[1213]

The thing is that rebirth is not imposed by a god, but by natural circumstances.If anything, humans did it to themselves by developing desires. Buddhism teaches then a way of escape. If for example, Christ had taught that prayer and fasting would reduce sin until you had none, that would be as good as Buddhism. In fact Christianity tacitly admits it by pretending it is good deeds that saves when it really isn't - it is Faith in Jesus. Now, I suspect that Karma is as godlike as a god can be, and if so, arguably imposed 'suffering' as plainly as God imposed sin.

I think same can be said in Christianity also, all undesired things humans did it to themselves. And Christianity also teaches a way out of misery and sin. And according to Bible, eternal life is a gift for those who are righteous.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Room. 6:23

And the idea of karma, I believe it is copied from the Bible:

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man may sow, that he also will reap.
Gal. 6:7 (Pro. 22:8)

...Christianity teaches grovelling to a deity ...

In that case we are not speaking of same thing.

...Buddhism is morally better than Christianity but that doesn't mean it has to make sens, or that the experts even really understand it.
[/quote]

If something doesn't make sense, how could anyone know is it true or good?

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing is that rebirth is not imposed by a god, but by natural circumstances.If anything, humans did it to themselves by developing desires. Buddhism teaches then a way of escape. If for example, Christ had taught that prayer and fasting would reduce sin until you had none, that would be as good as Buddhism. In fact Christianity tacitly admits it by pretending it is good deeds that saves when it really isn't - it is Faith in Jesus. Now, I suspect that Karma is as godlike as a god can be, and if so, arguably imposed 'suffering' as plainly as God imposed sin.

I think same can be said in Christianity also, all undesired things humans did it to themselves. And Christianity also teaches a way out of misery and sin. And according to Bible, eternal life is a gift for those who are righteous.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Room. 6:23

And the idea of karma, I believe it is copied from the Bible:

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man may sow, that he also will reap.
Gal. 6:7 (Pro. 22:8)

...Christianity teaches grovelling to a deity ...

In that case we are not speaking of same thing.

...Buddhism is morally better than Christianity but that doesn't mean it has to make sens, or that the experts even really understand it.

If something doesn't make sense, how could anyone know is it true or good?
[/quote]

No. You buy the Christian flummery of what is 'righteous'. It is not right action, which Buddhism has, but right Belief. If you think that anything will save a person other than Belief in Jesus (never mind doctrinally correct belief) then you have bought the Big Lie. And if you deny that salvation is achieved through grovelling to a deity and suppose it's through good deeds, you and I are indeed not speaking of the same thing - I'm talking of the actual doctrine, and you are talking of lying Christian propaganda. Deeds do not save - If they did, you would not need Jesus, the Bible or Christianity. Correct Faith saves. Understand your own religion before you try to explain it.

You are wrong about reaping and sowing. Indeed you quote this without understanding it. Karmic retribution is not mocked? No it's God. It is God, dishing out punishment, not the natural law of karma .If Karma was a Thing, you would not need gods. Indeed, Karma in Buddhism makes gods redundant. Christianity and Buddhism and indeed all religions i can think of grapple with the injustice of nature (only humanism faces up to this unwelcome reality) and they all invent an afterlife administration of justice through divine reward or through karmic Merit for correcting the unfairness and injustice of reality. In short, you cannot claim the Bible as the origin of this, or rather Christianity - which was half a century later than Buddhism. Judaism does not have afterlife justice, but biting the Bullet - God can do as he likes, just or unjust.

Finally, I agree. While I like Buddhism (past affections rather than present credit), I do not believe it because the dogma does not make sense, and none of the Buddhists I've talked to have even thought about it, let alone make sense of it. It's the old rather astonishing problem - religious savants study up to university masters degree level and yet never understand it because they never think outside the Box. Apart from those who do question and they are the ones who deconvert. All their reasoning, all their expertise, is within the box of unquestioning belief. They pretty much betray this by making remarks that supposedly validate their religion (e.g 'it is not a religion - it is a way of life') when they ALL say this, so it's the old business of ignoring or dismissing other religions which little or no consideration.

Like just in the last few posts. Buddhism and Islam are ignored unless I happen to raise them as valid alternatives to Christianity. What then? From a position of clearly knowing little about any of those religions, there are cherry - picked quotes or indeed claims (lifted off some apologetics site, I guess) that make it look as though those other religions validate Christianity, which they don't. The whole system is designed to allow the believer to keep fooling themselves. But they don't fool me.

[1213]

...It is not right action, which Buddhism has, but right Belief. If you think that anything will save a person other than Belief in Jesus (never mind doctrinally correct belief) then you have bought the Big Lie. And if you deny that salvation is achieved through grovelling to a deity and suppose it's through good deeds, you and I are indeed not speaking of the same thing - I'm talking of the actual doctrine, and you are talking of lying Christian propaganda. Deeds do not save - If they did, you would not need Jesus, the Bible or Christianity. Correct Faith saves. ...

Sorry, I rather believe what is actually said in the Bible than your twisted idea of Christianity.

In Bible eternal life is promised for righteous. And righteousness is not the same as grovelling, or believing, or working. It is the same as wisdom of the just. And if person has that wisdom, it comes visible in that person's actions. And then the actions show who is righteous.

...Christianity - which was half a century later than Buddhism. ....

Any proof for that?

I think the teachings in OT are also Christian and there is lot of the same as in the NT.

[TRANSPONDER]

...It is not right action, which Buddhism has, but right Belief. If you think that anything will save a person other than Belief in Jesus (never mind doctrinally correct belief) then you have bought the Big Lie. And if you deny that salvation is achieved through grovelling to a deity and suppose it's through good deeds, you and I are indeed not speaking of the same thing - I'm talking of the actual doctrine, and you are talking of lying Christian propaganda. Deeds do not save - If they did, you would not need Jesus, the Bible or Christianity. Correct Faith saves. ...

Sorry, I rather believe what is actually said in the Bible than your twisted idea of Christianity.

In Bible eternal life is promised for righteous. And righteousness is not the same as grovelling, or believing, or working. It is the same as wisdom of the just. And if person has that wisdom, it comes visible in that person's actions. And then the actions show who is righteous.

...Christianity - which was half a century later than Buddhism. ....

Any proof for that?

I think the teachings in OT are also Christian and there is lot of the same as in the NT.

What you believe is irrelevant. Sheer logic invalidates you and the peddled Christian lie. If good deeds alone saved, then Good people who had never heard of Jesus would be saved before Christians who were not actually very good.

That is not what works. One has to believe in Christianity to be saved, or there would be no need of it.

You are fooling yourself if you think the OT is Christian. It is totally about God supposedly looking out for the Jews and damn all other peoples. The Law, the temple and sacrifices were everything. The NT is wrenching the OT god free of Judaism and making a Christianised and even Gentile - greekified Jesus trhe only thing that saves. The Law, the Temple and the sacrifices were irrelevant. This is what's in the NT and especially Paul and if you don't see that, you don't know what the Bible says but only what you want to believe it says.

Buddha is dated to around 6000 BC. Deny the chonology if you want.

first thing you find online - if one looks rather than demand 'proof'

Is Buddha older than Christianity?
Buddhism and Christianity - Wikipedia
Origins and early contacts. The history of Buddhism goes back to what is now Bodh Gaya, India almost six centuries before Christianity, making it one of the oldest religions still being practiced. The origins of Christianity go back to Roman Judea in the early first century.

[1213]

That is not what works. One has to believe in Christianity to be saved, or there would be no need of it.

In Biblical point of view, it is enough if for example God declares all sins forgiven.

You are fooling yourself if you think the OT is Christian. It is totally about God supposedly looking out for the Jews and damn all other peoples. The Law, the temple and sacrifices were everything. The NT is wrenching the OT god free of Judaism and making a Christianised and even Gentile - greekified Jesus trhe only thing that saves. The Law, the Temple and the sacrifices were irrelevant. This is what's in the NT and especially Paul and if you don't see that, you don't know what the Bible says but only what you want to believe it says.

Essentially the whole Bible is about righteousness and the teachings are the same in OT and NT, righteous people will live.

Buddha is dated to around 6000 BC.

first thing you find online - if one looks rather than demand 'proof'

Is Buddha older than Christianity?
Buddhism and Christianity - Wikipedia
Origins and early contacts. The history of Buddhism goes back to what is now Bodh Gaya, India almost six centuries before Christianity, making it one of the oldest religions still being practiced. The origins of Christianity go back to Roman Judea in the early first century.

Why do you believe it is dated correctly?

But, it is true that Jesus came on earth only about 2000 years ago. However, I think Christianity is continuation of Jewish teachings and much older than 2000 years.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is not what works. One has to believe in Christianity to be saved, or there would be no need of it.

In Biblical point of view, it is enough if for example God declares all sins forgiven.

You are fooling yourself if you think the OT is Christian. It is totally about God supposedly looking out for the Jews and damn all other peoples. The Law, the temple and sacrifices were everything. The NT is wrenching the OT god free of Judaism and making a Christianised and even Gentile - greekified Jesus trhe only thing that saves. The Law, the Temple and the sacrifices were irrelevant. This is what's in the NT and especially Paul and if you don't see that, you don't know what the Bible says but only what you want to believe it says.

Essentially the whole Bible is about righteousness and the teachings are the same in OT and NT, righteous people will live.

Buddha is dated to around 6000 BC.

first thing you find online - if one looks rather than demand 'proof'

Is Buddha older than Christianity?
Buddhism and Christianity - Wikipedia
Origins and early contacts. The history of Buddhism goes back to what is now Bodh Gaya, India almost six centuries before Christianity, making it one of the oldest religions still being practiced. The origins of Christianity go back to Roman Judea in the early first century.

Why do you believe it is dated correctly?

But, it is true that Jesus came on earth only about 2000 years ago. However, I think Christianity is continuation of Jewish teachings and much older than 2000 years.

Obviously if all sins were forgiven and Jesus, God and Bible were not needed, we would not need Christianity.Churches or religion. You know as well as i do that Belief in Jesus, the bible and Christianity is needed to be saved. You equivocate Righteousness. In the OT Righteousness is following the Mosaic law, in the NT Righteousness is about following Jesus and the law, Temple and sacrifices don't matter. Paul makes this very clear. But if yopu cite Judaism, Buddhism is a revision of Hinduism, and Hinduism appears to date back to the time of Sumer.

Of course I mean 600 BC not 6,000. This is the generally accepted date and what evidence do you have that it's wrong? It doesn't matter which date you ascribe to Judaism (the evidence suggests it's at most 11th - 10th c BC because Christianity is 600 years later than that date. As I recall your argument went,there is no case for supposing Buddhism borrowed from Christianity or any Biblical religion.

Wiki. No written records about Gautama were found from his lifetime or from the one or two centuries thereafter.[23][24][39] But from the middle of the 3rd century BCE, several Edicts of Ashoka (reigned c. 268 to 232 BCE) mention the Buddha and Buddhism.[23][24] Particularly, Ashoka's Lumbini pillar inscription commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to Lumbini as the Buddha's birthplace

There has been debate over the time of Buddha (I doubt he even existed, when i have little doubt that Jesus did ) some saying it might go back to 800 BC or earlier, and some going as late as 300 or so BC coinciding with the life of the Buddhist king Asioka. But Asokha really has to predate the more reliable date of Jesus to the time of Augustus and Tiberius,