What has Christianity truly contributed to humanity

[Angrboda]

Denying the obvious just makes you foolish.


Since the point was about the falsehood of your statement, and not any trait of Buddhism, this is a nonsequitur.  It's irrelevant.  A red herring.

False on both counts. 

Let's examine them more closely.

"The genetic fallacy is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument on the basis of its origin rather than its content. Under the genetic fallacy, we judge a claim by paying too much attention to its source or history, even though this criticism is irrelevant to the truth of the claim." 

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/genetic-fallacy/

Citing Christ on Christianity or Buddha on Buddhism is not a Genetic Fallacy.

Now you're just blathering nonsense. The genetic fallacy occurs when you validate or dismiss something that follows an origin based upon the qualities of the origin. All that you're showing here is that you don't do logic well. But then, I wouldn't expect a mere money changer to know anything about the divine science of logic. And the second is so obviously true that you have to be crassly dishonest to deny it.

[no one]

And still I wait. Let me guess, you missed my question?

[Nishant Xavier]

Lol. Verbal duelling, is it, that you want? Ok. I'm not a "money changer", but an Investment Banker. But before that, I wanted to be a Priest, so I have studied Theology and Philosophy non-academically. The question is whether our Christian Philosophy is superior to your neo-pagan false philosophy.

If someone says Religion must be false because we have some hard-wiring to be religious beings, that's an example of the Genetic Fallacy. Showing how something originates does not show to be false, as Dr. Craig, the Best Christian Philosopher in the world today in my estimation, has often explained.

Next, citing Buddha on Buddhism is perfectly appropriate, unless you want to accuse yourself of being crassly dishonest for doing so earlier. It follows that likewise citing Christ on Christianity is perfect appropriate for the same reason - Christianity means the Moral Doctrine and Teaching of Jesus Christ.

[Nishant Xavier]

Wonder. Why Christians told me Atheist Ground is hard when it's so easy for me. And quite fun too. Lolol. Look forward to polite and pleasant debates if possible, but more than ready for verbal jousting if anyone wants to continue those as well. Later.

[Angrboda]

If someone says Religion must be false because we have some hard-wiring to be religious beings, that's an example of the Genetic Fallacy. Showing how something originates does not show to be false, as Dr. Craig, the Best Christian Philosopher in the world today in my estimation, has often explained.

[emphasis mine]

Since I didn't do that, this is irrelevant. All I pointed out was that your argument was invalid due to a fallacy.

Next, citing Buddha on Buddhism is perfectly appropriate, unless you want to accuse yourself of being crassly dishonest for doing so earlier. It follows that likewise citing Christ on Christianity is perfect appropriate for the same reason - Christianity means the Moral Doctrine and Teaching of Jesus Christ.

[emphasis mine]

Since I wasn't citing Buddha on Buddhism but rather as an example of someone who had taught a message comparable to that of Jesus, thus refuting your claim that Jesus was unique, I did not do this either and this is a strawman.

This isn't verbal dueling so much as it is you continuing to show your incompetence.

[Silver]

Well, yeah, it's easy to ignore reason for spouting nonsensical claims of fallible religious faith.

[Deesse23]

If god knows everything, you fucking moron, there are no chances.

Fallacy of Equivocation.

That's not what chances mean in this context. It means God gives you the chance to be saved - if you choose to Love God - or not.

If your god is omniscient, then he knows what you will choose, before you choose. What you choose was predetermined. Ergo, you have no choice
Is your god omniscient? Does he know everything from the future?

Now, let's make the Positive Case that Christianity is Good and Great even irrespective of the question of its Truth before coming to the objections:

Why would you make that claim if you thought you had any good arguments for the truth of christianity? This kind of argument is typically brought forward when one knows that he has no good arguments for the truth of his original proposition. You aren't a utilitarianist, are you? If one of us would become christian because your argument of utility would convince us, we still would go to hell for not truly believing.

So what is this bullshit about? You want to make people tolerate Christianity, knowing they still would go to hell. How cruel. Isnt your job to love your neighbour, and try to save him (although your church says we are already saved)? Instead you are trying now to push christianity while still letting your neighbour go to hell.

How selfish, and dickish.

[no one]

When christibois are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they just ignore this situation at hand.

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to polemics, your god doesn't know how to solve the Problem of Evil without permitting evil. So there's one bit of short-sightedness right there.

I should think an omnipotent god could teach humans compassion and gratitude without, you know, making them suffer evil. I didn't have to kill my son to teach him that killing is wrong. Why can't your god impart compassion as easily?

The Mother of God once told a Saint, and this is important: "The Glory of Eternal Life and Happiness is incompatible with the Shame of not having duly labored for its attainment."

Eternal Happiness is so Great a Good that in light of it a little temporal suffering is infinitesimally small. That doesn't mean we should cause or be indifferent to people suffering, not at all, we already saw above Christ taught to love all neighbors and even so-called enemies and provide for their material and spiritual needs. But it does mean, we should all value and love the Great Good of Eternal Happiness for ourselves above all, and consider the Cross we have to carry to get there to be little and light in comparison. 

That's what it means to seek the Kingdom of God first: and those who do that will have all else added to them, according to the Lord's Promise, and the Saints' experiences. Seek Eternal Happiness first. Btw, any sufferings you bear, and bear patiently, for the Love of God, as the Martyrs did, Earns/Merits Eternal Rewards.

More can be said, but that should suffice for now.

Did I miss anyone?

Somehow your all-powerful god cannot teach happiness without cancer or earthquakes. Some god you got there. *yawn* You don't seem to realize that you are arguing that your god needs evil. It follows, then, that your god is not omnipotent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ok. Respond or don't respond just as you please. We will see in the Real World who wins in the next 1 or 2 decades.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/202...ffiliated/

Read it and weep, kiddo.

Currently, about three-in-ten U.S. adults (29%) are religious “nones” – people who describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religious identity. Self-identified Christians of all varieties (including Protestants, Catholics, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Orthodox Christians) make up 63% of the adult population. Christians now outnumber religious “nones” by a ratio of a little more than two-to-one. In 2007, when the Center began asking its current question about religious identity, Christians outnumbered “nones” by almost five-to-one (78% vs. 16%).

Given the demographics of this change (there's a strong correlation between youth and lack of belief), things are only going to get worse for you religionistas.