Resolved: Buddhism is more valid than Christianity

My opponents argument thus far has been rather disappointing for three reasons, one he makes no claims that Buddhism is any better than Christianity , two he attacks claims of Christianity but shows a lack of understanding in general, and third fails to answer my attacks well. His rebuttal on reincarnation is rather disappointing because while it attempt to give multiple worlds in order to solve the growing population problem it fails ultimately to give a realistic answer. The reason being that are we are going to assume there is more than one world than we face the contridiction of Okeams Razor, so basically we are more correct to assume there is one world/heaven then there is mulitiple. We also face the problem that if this world is growing at alarming rates than should be worrying extremely about other worlds because if other worlds are dieing as fast as we are growing there is a great issue with reproducing. We must also consider he has not addressed my subargument that animals and plants have no emotional concept of suffering, so how are they supposed to escape this? My opponents second objection is Buddhism is not athiestic, but I never claimed anything like that. I merely claimed as my opponent so kindly points out that Buddhism is not thiestic or doesn't focuse on God. But if my opponent as he seems to concede that a God exists than he has no choice but to concede this debate if any other of my points hold. As spoken of before I would be defending this from a Catholic pov. My opponent negated to mention that there would be a reason to follow the eightfold path, Why? The Catholic belief is that "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man."(CCC) "Justification is a true removal of sin, and not merely having one's sins ignored or no longer held against the sinner by God." --Modern Catholic Dictionary We must not only just say "I am sorry" we must show that we don't mean to do it again. We would have plenty of reason to follow the eightfold path esspecially if it leads us to better life choices and better relationship with God. Your objection falls to your ignorance of the Christian religion. It is funny since you are saying that Buddhism is about scientific investigation when you then have the BoP of saying that this is not true for dogma because I would refer you to the evolution vs religion postition.(http://www.ewtn.com...) It should be mentioned that there are many priests that the Pope has that advise him on matters of science. I believe my opponent has miscalculated on this next contention. I clearly stated an example where he is called Jesus not Christ. He also doesn't consider the Gospels as an account because they are non-secular but they still provide as much weight as any Buddhism texts. Technically speaking Jesus is what historians and the early church(evidence from the Consul of Trent and First Council of Nicaea) called him and even though his proper name is Yeshua it is fine to refer to him Jesus because at the time most of the educated world spoke Greek surely they knew what they were saying?!? Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord's Supper. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy. Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers. My opponents next contention is that Christianity is based on Atenism but this is false for 5 reasons. First the second contention established Christ existed. Second(this info comes from http://www.tektonics.org...)Pharaoh as mediator. Atenism had this common link with "normal" Egyptian religion: Akhenaten was regarded as the sole mediator for Aten on earth. The idea of a mediator is in itself not unusual: Moses is portrayed as serving something of that role, and other religions conceived of their clergy as providing some level of intermediary service. But with Atenism, this relationship went so far as to make it so that the sun-disc of Aten was "simply the hypostasis of divine kingship, a pale reflection of [Akhenaten's] own on earth, projected heavenwards." Third,Laws and ceremonies. We all know how many rules God handed down in the Pentateuch; what did Aten do that was the same? Actually, nothing. Atenism is "devoid of ethical content." [Red.MA, 113] As Redford puts it, while Aten is the creator (albeit with no associated "creation story"), he "seems to show no compassion on his creatures. He provides them with life and sustenance, but in a rather perfunctory way. No text tells us he hears the cry of the poor man, or succors the sick, or forgives the sinner." Forth,Henotheism to monotheism.Of relation to this is the possibility that Atenism did not apparently begin as monotheism, but as henotheism -- preference and superiority of one god over others. The earliest inscriptions of Akhenaten continue to refer to "gods" in the plural -- this may be because Akhenaten himself has not clarified his beliefs yet, or it may be that sculptors needed some time to get used to the idea of using the singular. [Red.MA, 22] And last, Atenism was at its inception a typical Egyptian religion that "never bothered no one." Redford [Red.MA, 12] tells us: It would never have occurred to an ancient Egyptian to postulate the supernatural as a monad -- a unitary, intellectually superior emanation. Much less would it have occurred to him to suppose that his eternal salvation depended on the recognition of such a monad. One man might choose to worship this god or that; another might even hold, for whatever reason, that other gods did not exist. But this was not important for an ancient Egyptian. He could not have cared less. Akhenaten's monotheism, in line with this view, was neither evangelical nor exclusive. Aten became "the" god for the royalty; but he never became a god over the average Egyptian Joe, and in fact, "the degree of intensity with which the new program was pursued" went downhill "the farther one got from the royal presence." [Red.HK, 175] Akhenaten showed no interest in promulgating his faith -- not until it became to his political advantage to do so (like when the priests gave him trouble -- then evangelism became rather convenient). We also must consider the vast number of claims about Christianity relating to other religions but they are really just objection to a religion that further validity than any religion to challanage it. My opponent has failed to introduce contentions,all three of my contentions stand,address christianity correctly, show an understanding of basic population trends, and a failure to understand emotional pain. For these reason the voters ought to vote a negative today.