Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

1.) EvidenceI looked at all the sources provided by Con for evidence, and all of them belong to Christian websites. This gives rise to pseudoscience, or the twisting of fact to support a belief. I would personally love to see a scientific website which gives evidence for Christianity, not a Christian website.Buddhism (at least the one perpetrated by The Buddha) didn't delve into speculation, but only a way to end suffering. If one wants to know about the universe, nature, or life (biology), I highly suggest they consult a science book. Not a religious book, but a science book. If one wants to know how the universe came to be (why there is something rather than nothing), I suggest you learn physics, and try to discern this great mystery for yourself, and all of mankind. 2.) EvolutionHere is a site showing proof of evolution. I won't go into detail, as this isn't an evolution debate.http://humanorigins.si.edu...Con states that science disproves previous theories. Yes, science evolves to make new discoveries. Actually, a lot of things Darwin originally said about evolution were incorrect, but so far, he had the correct gist. Yes, Science changes. But shouldn't scientific claims the Bible makes also be subject to change? After all, if the Bible is science, it should be subject to change. But if it were to change, it would mean that it wasn't the word of God, since God is omniscient, or all knowing. Thus, if the Bible was wrong, it wouldn't be the word of God. So, if the bible cannot be subject to change, the Bible is not scientific, for it cannot be improved upon.3.) Blind FaithWhen something challenges Christianity, Christians tend to fight back. Science is a great example. Look at the history of how the Church persecuted Scientists and prohibited theories set forth that contradicted biblical teachings. The story of Galileo is a great example. Con also states that someone is not a true Christian if they don't study and evaluate the Bible. I ask Con, how can you set the standard to what a true Christian is? Can't only God do that?4.) Christian StandardYes, we are arguing for our respective ideologies. But, you tended to hold Buddhism up to a Christian Standard, meaning if anything went against Christian teachings, it wasn't worthy of being "good".5.) The Buddha vs. JesusBuddhism does have a basis. It does have a source. That source is the teachings of The Buddha, and his teachings can be found in the Pali Cannon. By many different ways, I mean many different sects that have different practices and differing teachings, but still based on the core teachings of The Buddha. There is Zen, Tantric, Tibetan, Theravada, and many more. The Bible actually does thrust its belief in you. If one does not believe, they are condemned (to hell, I presume),"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16http://www.openbible.info...Con seems to make some wrong assumptions about The Buddha. The Buddha did not claim superiority over others. A belief in Buddhism is that everyone has the Buddha Nature, or the potential to become a Buddha (an enlightened person). In Buddhist stories, there are many accounts of people rising to Arhants, and then becoming enlightened. The Buddha also did not brag, for he did not say that only he could deliver a person to nirvana. Quote the Buddha "You should do your own work, for the Tathagatas only teach the way." You see, The Buddha said he discovered a path towards salvation, but each individual must walk the path themselves. Jesus said that he was the only path to salvation, and the only way to get salvation is to believe in him. You see, The Buddha also didn't want someone to follow the path proposed by him blindly. In the Vimamsaka Sutta, The Buddha tells the monks ( in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha says he never thought of controlling the community of monks) to examine him (The Buddha) and his teachings, so that they would be fully convinced of the value of his teachings. It is even said that on his deathbed, The Buddha asked his disciples to question him on his teachings, so they could clarify some points. But, they did not, in respect to their dying teacher. And think about it. The Buddha gave up royalty to teach people how to end suffering. And he got no gain out of that. He gave up his life of pleasure and luxury to help other people. The Buddha also stated, in his visit to Kesaputta (which I account in a previous round), he told the people not to be persuaded by tradition or religious text, but by analyzing and using ones free thought. He encouraged free thought, unlike Christianity, which asks for blind faith (as shown in the Biblical quote and other arguments). Also, Con has yet to show how the passage from Deuteronomy is not relevant.6.) ConclusionIn my rebuttals to Con's arguments, I have made my case for Buddhism (I know I did not make an entire section for "case for Buddhism"). I hope the voter sees how much more relevant Buddhism is in our modern day, 21st century, first world society, and how it is "better" than Christianity.I would like to thank the readers, the voters, and especially LaughItUpLydia for this great debate. This debate also means more, as it shows how two people of opposing ideologies can still have a civil debate without having to resort to petty insults and other "stuff" (for lack of a better word). Again, I sincerely thank LaughItUpLydia. I again ask the voters to keep an open mind, and again, thank you.