Buddhism is better than Christianity

Argument I: Defining Reasonable.Con is making two excuses. One is that it's Mahayana Buddhism. This changes nothing. It has Gods and Reincarnation as well. Comparing the Mahayanist Gods to saints is a poor comparison, as Christian saints aren't held as Gods (not to be confused with classic Catholicism), while Buddhas actually are."In Mahayana Buddhism, however, the universe is populated with celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas who are worshipped as gods and goddesses. The historical Buddha is honored in this way, but most other Buddhist deities are adapted from the cultures Buddhism has encountered — from the pantheon of Hinduism to the indigenous religions of Tibet, China and Thailand." (1)The second excuse is that they are Hindu Gods. This is like saying that Russia isn't in Asia because it's in Europe, when it is actually in both. Buddhism shares many Gods and Goddesses with Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism does also have Dragons (Nagas). "The fathers of the Mahayana were considered to be Nagarjuna, who lived between the first and second ceturies of our era... Legend has it that Nagarjuna recieved instruction from the Nagas (Serpent Kings) when he visited their Dragon's Palace under the sea." (2)Much of Pro's continuing argument misunderstands the point of me bringing it up. I brought them up so that you couldn't say Buddhism wasn't more reasonable. Pro literally just said that Because A and B both have C, B is less reasonable. Albeit, Christians do not have temples to their demons.I have shown that Mahayan Buddhism has gods (their Buddhas) and dragons. Christianity: One God. Reincarnation of God and someone God liked.Buddhism: Many Gods. Rebirth of everyone. Dragons and Nagas.Pro doesn't understand his own religion. Assuming they don't worship Gods when they do.[1] http://www.religionfacts.com...[2] http://www.buddhanet.net... ]Argument II: Morality.Pro's argument is still argumentum ad novitatem, a fallacy. No, we can not all agree on that idea. Many people would argue that the new moral concept of Government Healthcare is wrong, and many would argue that the ancient concept of Abortion is good. Pro can't argue that because it's 'newer', that it must than be by de facto 'better'. Morality is relative to each person.Pro claimed that homosexuality isn't immoral, while half the US population and most the world would disagree. This again returns us to relative morality. Also, Pro claims to have these studies, but shows none. Many people would claim that Christianity is more moral BECAUSE of it's stance on Homosexuality. Pro is making objective claims on relative morality.Pro now argues that Christianity is less moral because of it's Pro-life stance, claiming that it's harder to be pro-choice when you're christian, but I've proven last round that Buddhists are equally Pro-life. Pro is grasping straws now. Pro then cherry-picks the Bible. It says you may hand down your slaves as inheritance, because that isn't because enslavement was permanent, but because it's entirely possible to die before the slave's seven year contract is up."Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." Exodus 21:1-36Pro is listing off a verse that doesn't truly represent what the definition of a slave would have been. It says 'slave' but by today's definition, their slaves are quite different. He also forgets that he quotes from the Hebrew book of laws. The law doesn't support the owning of slaves, but it doesn't make illegal what was a normal thing at the time. Similar to laws today not supporting the use of alcohol, but also not outlawing it. Leviticus isn't religious text, it's legal text added in because Hebrew culture of the time, religion and law were one in the same. This doesn't imply that they are one in the same today, but that the Bible keeps them because they are necessary to understanding Hebrew culture and religion, which is important for understanding the bible, as It's context for the Old and New Testament, while the New Testament (which is Christian) outlawed slavery.Pro does bring up Ephesians 6, but doesn't understand that it 1) told masters their duties as well, outlawing mistreatment of slaves, and 2) was a message to people who still owned slaves, as it was too culturally normal that you couldn't expect Slavery to disappear until long after Christianity had uprooted the concept."9) Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master[d] and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." Ephesians 6:9."The apostles were to teach servants and masters their duties, in doing which evils would be lessened, till slavery should be rooted out by the influence of Christianity." (3).Pro's last argument also comes down to my prior statement. The book doesn't want slavery, but can't make it illegal, similar to how the law doesn't want alcoholism, but can't really make it illegal. You couldn't make slavery illegal, so you restrict it with rules.[3] http://www.christnotes.org...]Argument III: Giving Meaning to Life.Pro plays semantics, a crime against reason and logic. Life, as defined by religion, has no boundaries. "Everlasting life in Heaven" for Example. My argument still stands. What one defines as giving life meaning depends on the person. Some believe meaning is given through enjoying life with luxuries, while some believe it is personal sacrifice. My other dropped argument was that many would claim life has more meaning under Christianity because there aren't as many years or second-chances. Pro has officially dropped this whole case, making definitions instead of refuting my many claims.Argument IV: Discrimination.Pro is ignorant of what discrimination is. Discrimination implies you won't even sit with the person, not that you agree with them on everything. By that logic, disagreeing with someone is discrimination. Christianity says to treat all people equal regardless of if they are gay, female, or atheist. Everyone has a chance into heaven, even gay people. The Bible may state want is wrong, and can claim who goes to hell, but that isn't discrimination. By Pro's logic, the law discriminates against murderers by saying murder is bad and you will be punished for it.Having to accept Jesus isn't discrimination. Claiming only white people can accept Jesus is discrimination. Even gay people can come to accept Christ. Pro's argument is etirely invalid.Argument V: Convincing Others to Join.I did in fact counter his point by exclaiming that trying to save people from what you believe will send them to eternal hell is far from immoral. Convincing someone to join a group isn't evil, forcing them to is. Seeing that they will suffer if they don't, so you try to convince them to is even less immoral. And claiming they will endure hell isn't immoral. That's a cheap shot on Pro's end, using a play on language to demonize such a concept. By Pro's logic, the law is immoral by threatening prison time for rape.Pro's case is still hypocritical, claiming it's wrong to convince one to join your religion, but this whole debate comes down to him saying "mine's better." Pro didn't counter if of my arguments here.Conclusion: Pro understands nothing of either religion he argues about. Whichever one is better is a relative matter, as is which one is more moral and which one is less reasonable.Pro should learn about his religion before debating it. He neither understood that Buddhism has Gods, dragons, or was even Pro-life. He doesn't understand the difference between one Bible book from the other and doesn't take cultural context into account. He has based his whole argument off this ignorance.