The Kemetic Religion is a Force for Good in the World

I'd like to start by looking at my opponent's case. Remember-- it isn't my burden to prove that Kemetism is a force for bad, just hers to prove that Kemetism is a force for good. This is where I've won this debate. Even if you believe everything she said about my case, she's failed to defend her own burden. She has dropped nearly all of her arguments, and ignores the most crucial ones that I put against her case. Looking at her first point, remember the evidence I provide-- people who believe in religion are more likely to be depressed than atheists (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...). This was definite part of my point that religion makes it harder to deal with, and my opponent simply doesn't address it. People suffering from these problems would be better off without Kemetism. Her only point that she continues to defend here is the idea that a community is beneficial. But the community is not beneficial because of Kemetism, it is beneficial because it is a community. Kemetic followers could easily have these same benefits outside of Kemetism. There are communities dedicated to pretty much everything- other religions, fandoms, and, perhaps most importantly, communities dedicated to helping people overcome mental health issues. All of these provide the same, if not greater, benefits than the Kemetic community. She never justifies why Kemetism is CREATING the good of community. She drops most of her other arguments, except charity. Yet again she fails to prove this. I give direct evidence that humans are hard wired to be good, and Kemetism doesn't make them better. Atheists are more likely to give to charity. I give the warrant for why this is true: Ma'at is simply believing in things like kindness, but humans strive for these without Ma'at. Ma'at isn't a guide for how to achieve kindness. It never gives followers the means of achieving the end (kindness). Nuanced philosophies encourage exploring the world, and gaining answers, giving a deeper view than just "we should be kind". Not only do I give you both a reason behind this, as well as actual statistics, it is her job to be showing that Kemetism creates more charity than what would exist in a world withoout Kemetism, and insofar as she hasn't done that, she hasn't proved her side. Going back to my case, I'd like to apologize if anything I said offended my opponent, but I would ask her to realize that not all Kemetics belive the same subset of beliefs she does, and I was speaking on all of Kemetism, not just her beliefs. I researched Kemetism. Everything I mentioned is believed by some or all Kemetics. I'm not some big mean liar. Her rejection of certain parts of Kemetism just goes to show how morally flawed those parts are. She claim that Kemetics don't actually believe in the gods. I really did do research, and found Kemetics who do believe this (example: , "SCIENCE CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF EGYPTIAN GODS"). There are people who believe the Egyptian gods are real. Kemeticism IS BY DEFINITION the belief in these gods. Her definition is "The modern-day revival of the worship of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon". Saying you don't have to actually believe it to be Kemetic is like saying I can be a Greek Neopagan by reading Percy Jackson. Next, she just glosses over how horrible the 42 Confessions are. She says Kemetics don't actually believe this, but if you examine the source I offered (http://cushiteforum.com...) it is FROM A KEMETIC. Then she says that it isn't actually what determines whether you go to heaven or hell but, if you look at the source it specifically says that Anubis weighs your soul based on these characteristics. I understand that doing one thing won't condemn you forever, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the eyes of Kemetic belief, being gay is on the same level of being a child predator. Let's look at each of the confessions I cite. The one about questioning leaders, she says Kemetics should be smart enough to know to question leaders sometimes. But if Ma'at is supposed to be a framework for guiding your life, Ma'at should be able to tell you when to question your leaders. If it's a complete framework, you should be able to USE Ma'at to know that. You shouldn't have to abandon Ma'at and work outside of it. Ma'at is an incomplete philosophy, unable to evaluate even the most basic decisions, like "should I support Hitler". If you were to stick to Ma'at, without deviating, you would support a leader like Hitler. Abandoning Ma'at is essential to making good decisions. "I have not been sacrilegious in thought or deed." Even under her interpretation of sacrilege, "violation/misuse of what is sacred", if I think something that is in violation of sared Kemetic beliefs, that's not good. Even thinking it is bad. To me, that encourages blind acceptance. The MOST IMPORTANT one when looking at my truth argument is the one she ignores entirely. "I have not spoken against the sacred teachings" In my opponent's ideal world, all Kemetics will still question the faith. But by reading what it actually says, the meaning is clearly that you can't talk out against the faith. If someone converts to Kemetism, there's no other way for them to take it. The fact that she doesn't believe these things simply shows her morals are better than Ma'at. I'm not saying Kemetism will automatically be strict or dogmatic, I'm just saying that these guidelines for living live under Ma'at actively discourage questioning and truth seeking. Under exploitation, my evidence was specifically linked (http://rationalwiki.org...). There is much indication to believe that the creator of Kemetic Orthodoxy is personally profitting off of it. Last, let's look at beliefs. The guideline (yes, it is a guideline, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an atrocious thing to say) that you should not "allow yourself to be abused" is not acceptable. Telling someone who is abused to just "not take it" is incredibly offensive. It's a negative message because it makes not letting anyone abuse you a guideline for your life. There's only 42 guidelines. Murder gets one guideline. Just one. And not "letting yourself" get abused gets one guideline. You can imagine how someone may feel horrible about themselves as a result. This is, by any definition, victim blaming. It assumes you are abused because you "let yourself" be abused. That's ridiculous. On homosexuality, interestingly enough, the translation that is used by Kemetic Orthodoxy that my opponent refers to (http://www.netjer.org...) is actually a translation made by Tamara Siuda. How convenient that she tries to change the horrible side of the religion to get more believers in to line her pockets. It isn't just a mistranslation. In the actual 42 declarations, it says, "I have not been an adulterer, homosexual or child molester." (I would also like to point out that the source for this was a website from a Kemetic follower.) This isn't a mistranslation. They are three distinct things. You can't just say "oh whoops, the adultery and homosexuality really just meant child molester", because child molester was already listed. And personally, I find it really hard to mix up "homosexuality" and "child molestation" anyways. I'll concede that they do eat the sacrifice, that was my mistake for misreading that. But sacrificing animals, which she concedes is wrong, is a belief, according to Kemetics themselves (https://thetwistedrope.wordpress.com...). "Water fowl or duck" and "pigeons" are things that should be sacrificed. At the point where she hasn't proven any specific benefits that would NOT exist in a world without Kemetism, and I show you specific HARMS that the Kemetic religion brings about, it's clear that Kemetism is in no way a force for good.