>>27677
Not the anon who sent it but here's the transcript (Albeit I changed some of the punctuation that the automated transcript made, and cut out the last bit saying to support his ministry if you'd like and thanks for watching since it's not a part of the argument or context)
Sorry for the wall of text! I don't have the time right now to format it better, but it should hopefully be of use.
Source is @TestifyApologetics by the way
Mafett asked to critique Eastern
religions like Hinduism and Buddhism in the same way that I've gone after Islam or Mormonism, but really they're not even in the same category. At least in Islam and Mormonism, you get some historical claims, names, events, and things you can investigate. Hinduism and Buddhism don't really even give you that. And that makes them a whole lot harder to critique in one sense, but in another way, it makes it easier to dismiss them. There's just really nothing to work with. no historical core, no public miracle, no falsifiable claim holding the whole thing up. Once you really just strip away all the cultural weight and spiritual branding, what you're left with is a set of philosophies that don't even hold together logically, let alone stand up historically. Let's start with Hinduism. In most versions, everything is ultimately one. Brahman is the only reality, and distinctions between people, actions, and even moral good and evil are just illusions. But when you think about it for just a few moments, that falls apart. If all is one, who's being deceived? If distinctions are illusions, then so is the distinction between truth and falsehood, which really just undercuts the whole system. And karma assumes that there are real moral agents making real choices. But if you're just Brahman and so is everyone else, then who exactly is responsible? Who's being judged? Reincarnation also depends on personal identity. But if you don't remember anything and you are never really a distinct self to begin with, then the whole thing is just a meaningless repetition. There's no moral continuity and there's no justice, just an incoherent mess. And Buddhism doesn't really solve the problem. It denies the self entirely. You're not a person with a soul. You're just a temporary bundle of thoughts and sensations. But if that's really true, then who exactly is suffering? Who is the one who's following the eight-fold path? Who is the one who reaches enlightenment? the entire system presupposes the very thing that it denies. And then on top of that, you're told that desire is the cause of suffering and that the ultimate goal is to eliminate desire. But that goal is in and of itself a desire. So the whole system is just self-defeating. So even before you get to questions of evidence, both systems are just internally incoherent, putting the prior probability for them being true on the floor. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it does make some sense even if our pea brains just can't comprehend it all. Then we would ask what exactly is the evidence for Hinduism? There are some miracle stories but they're not tied to actual eyewitnesses. For instance, there's Krishna, one of the most revered avatars of Vishnu. He's said to have lifted a mountain with his finger and multiplied himself to dance with hundreds of maidens all at once and a lot of other crazy stuff. But these stories come at least a thousand years after the supposed events with no eyewitnesses. Even more recent miracle workers like Satya Saiiba had been accused of doing some shady slight of hand tricks for their so-called miracles like manifesting watches and rings. And he was accused of being a sexual predator and he got rich off of his phony miracles. For Buddhism, it's not much better. The Buddha might have actually existed, but the miracle stories like controlling weather or taming elephants show up hundreds of years later. The earliest biographies of Buddha come from 300 to 500 years after his death. There's just no chain of testimony, no public miracle claims that you can verify here. And the weird thing is is that most of these space don't even pretend to care about logical consistency or historical grounding. If you ask them about contradictions or a lack of evidence, you'll usually just be met with a shrug. That's just western thinking they'll say is if coherence and truth are just cultural preferences instead of universal standards. But if a worldview can't be true in principle or in practice, why should we take it seriously at all? Christianity, on the other hand, makes public falsifiable claims and it all hangs on a historical event, the resurrection of Jesus. That claim is embedded in multiple early sources. The gospels give you names, places, and physical resurrection appearances witnessed by groups of people. And I discuss why those documents are trustworthy in other videos. And the apostles were willing to suffer for it. Not for some mystical philosophy, but for what they claim to have actually seen. So this is in a nutshell why I don't spend my time debunking Hinduism or Buddhism. It's just that both of these systems fail internally and there's no verifiable historical core to even investigate. So there's just not really much to say.