Buddhism is better than Christianity

Argument I: Defining Reasonable.What is reasonable and what isn't reasonable is, at times, objective, but also at times very relative. Such a case happens with Evolution. Many people believe it's reasonable for Evolution to create complex life, while others (like me) feel it's unreasonable considering the complexity of life.In this case, what is defined as reasonable depends on one's observation. A likely approach one would take with this topic is to look at God, much like Pro did. Pro, however, isn't looking at the God factor right because he is wrong. Buddhism is full of many Gods and Goddesses. There is not estimate, as the number was so high -- including Gods for nearly every aspect of life -- that it's nearly impossible to count the number of current or past deities. There are also many demons and holy entities. The misconception that Buddhism has no Gods comes from Buddha's teaching that there is no Creator. More studies show us that he claimed a creator God was a rumor made by (ironic for Pro's case) Brahma, one of their three biggest gods (1).Considering this from a God perspective, Christianity's single God looks much more reasonable, but that's still relative. Another thing Buddhists believe in is Rebirth, similar to Reincarnation, but not quite the same. This concept is laughable to most scientists, and many other's.The third thing Buddhism believes in that most people would consider laughably unreasonable is Dragons (2). While an awesome concept, as something you are legitimately trying to believe in, Dragons are far from reasonable to most.1] http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com...2] http://buddhism.about.com...]Argument II: Morality.Morality is arguably the most relative concept in the world. What one defines has Moral is different from each person to the next. Claiming something to be more Moral is like claiming Monster is better than Amp, it's a matter of taste. A Muslim believes Islam is more moral, a Christian believes Christianity is more moral, a Socialist believes having a lot of money is immoral, and a capitalist believes Socialism is immoral.It's important to understand that Buddhism, and it's morals, are 2,000 years old as well (3) so that point is mute. Pro's case is argumentum ad novitatem, the fallacy of assuming that because it is newer (which it isn't), it is correct or more moral.Pro brings up cases in the bible that he believes to be immoral. His examples includes hatting gays, which is literally the most incorrect assumption of Christianity ever. The Bible preaches against being gay, not against gay people, and Paul condemned the hating and killing of gay people. Pro's other examples are being against Abortion and imposing religion on others. Many non-Christians are pro-life, and hundreds of millions of people are Pro-Life, much like myself. I am greatly convinced that abortion is murder, so from my perspective, being pro-life is moral. This is, again, relative morality. More than ironically, however, is that most Buddhists are also against Abortion (4).The same thing goes for Buddhists. "We, Buddhists, in a country where the majority of the people is Buddhist, firmly disagree with legal abortion and the destruction of life. If you do not want something to happen, don't do it". - Phra Mahamanoj, assistant monk in Suan Kaew Temple.The last example is a misconception. The Bible never says to force one's religion unto another, but to spread it peacefully. An open-minded person must see this concept through a believers eyes. If you believe that not trusting Jesus will get you sent to HELL, and you do nothing to save the non-believer, why should you deserve heaven when you didn't care that your best friend was going to hell? Is attempting to save people from hell now immoral?Pro also leaves much of the writing out of cultural and historic context, especially with the typical Slave verses. One must understand that words change. The terminology here also changed. A 'slave' back then was more a servant by today's standard. Their slaves were contracted employees. They worked seven years, got paid doing so, and then was free to do whatever they wanted.As for the 8 Paths and the 10 Commandments, that's relative. About 3,800,000,000 (3.8 billion) Muslims and Christians would disagree, claiming the 10 Commandments are superior.3] http://buddhism.about.com...4] http://www.speroforum.com...]Argument III: Giving Meaning to Life.Saying "Life is infinitely less significant in Christianity," is an impossible claim to support. Just because you live only 100 years before dying doesn't mean your life has less meaning. A men who lives to be 100 can have as much many in their life as one who lives to be 50. It does well to mention that you live while in Heaven also, so that would have meaning as well. The assumption that live only has meaning if it's on Earth that you live is simply not true.It's also important to note that a life has meaning on Earth even after death. One's memory and the ripple effect of their actions still exist after death. Ultimately, which ever one gives life more meaning depends on perspective, and more important, which one is true. If Christianity is true, than Buddhism's eternal life cycle has zero meaning, as you only live the same 100 or less years.Finally, from my perspective, Christianity gives life more meaning because of how short our Earth life is. The less number of years you live, the more important they are.Argument IV: Discrimination.Christianity doesn't discriminate. It was shocking to the first Christians when they were informed that anybody, even Gentiles, could be saved. People discriminate, not Christianity itself. Christianity was also one of the first religions in it's area to involve women and make them important figures. Both religions were famously unique for how they taught men to treat their women. Both also taught women to respect their husbands and be obedient. Christianity claims Christians are sinner also. Pro lacks an understand of basic Christian beliefs. In Christianity, anyone can be saved, regardless of race, prior religion, gender, age, or even past crimes. Considering what someone does to be a sin isn't the same as discriminating against them. This implies that thinking theft is wrong is discrimination against thefts, or that thinking murder is wrong discriminates against Murders. I firmly believe Democrats are wrong, but I don't discriminate against them...Argument V: Convincing Others to Join.I discussed this in Argument II: Morality. Christianity doesn't force itself onto others. It teaches people to convince others to join, not force them to. If you believe someone is going to hell for not believing, and you just let them go there, why then should you deserve heaven? If you believe that, and do nothing, you are a terrible person.This case is highly hypocritical of Pro. Claiming that telling people your religion is the best one (convincing them) is wrong, and yet he is hosting a debate about how his is the best.Conclusion: Like many things in life, this is a matter of persection.