Convert me if you can

[Rayaan]

I notice how you buzzed past the limitations of Islamic evidence.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that there are more evidences in Christianity than Islam. You still didn't prove that to me after so many replies.

Here are 20 more arguments for Islam:
Why The Quran Cannot Be Written By Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Beyond the letters of the church founders, both in and out of canonical scripture, there are historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others. There is also the established church which probably had a better idea of what Jesus said and taught than some guy in another country who came along six centuries later and could only have heard about Jesus from the people he claims got it all wrong.

What else do you have to support Christianity aside from the historical documents?

Also, I asked you make a list for the evidences for Christianity to prove to me that they are better than Islam's, but I see that you didn't even reply to that. Seems like you can't do it then.

Does this mean I believe in the Christian claims? No.

You don't believe in the Christian claims, so that makes all the historical documents that you mentioned above completely unreliable to you.

Their supposed evidence collapses under close scrutiny.

That means that all the evidences for Christianity are a pile of bullshit to you just lilke Islam. Or would you say that Islam has a slightly bigger pile? If so, then state the reason.

However, at least they give me something to scrutinize.

Every religion gives you something to scrutinize including Islam. Not only Christianity. And that's a pointless assertion to make anyways.

Because the Hadiths are oral tradition, highly unreliable sources that can't be considered corroboration. Additionally, I regard the Hadiths as the Islamic Acts, since it serves the same role.

I'll post what I said earlier, which is that the hadiths are not analogous to the Book of Acts because the many of the hadiths have been passed down with a sound chain of transmission, and they were narrated by many different people whose exact names and their relation to the Prophet (pbuh) are also recorded, and from a scholarly perspective, the Acts of the Apostles clearly does not have the same level of authenticity as the statements that are compiled in Sahih al-Bukhari. This means that the Acts of the Apostles are less reliable than the hadiths of Bukhari.

I don't think Jesus ever existed. If he did, the Christian holy book is the only detailed source of information.

And that means that all those historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others are wrong in supporting that Jesus existed. So that's not a plus point for Christianity either.

Also, I don't know why you would think that Jesus didn't exist if there is more evidence for his existence than his non-existence. It seems like you're only saying that to escape from answering the question all the way at the bottom of my previous post (which you didn't reply to), because either way you know that the Christians are more likely to be wrong in believing that Jesus is the son of God assuming that he existed.

Again, advantage: Christianity.

How is Christianity an "advantage" to you? How is that possible if you believe that Jesus didn't exist?

I have to emphasize that this contest is a choice between which religion is the bigger pile of bullshit, but in my analysis, Islam doesn't hide it as well.

So that means that Christianity is a bigger pile of bullshit since you said that "Islam doesn't hide it as well." Then, why do you still believe that Christianity is an advantage for you?

More importantly, this is the first thing that you said in your original post:

Let's pretend that I've decided I need religion in my life. I've decided to choose between Christianity and Islam.

And in your last post, you're saying that Christianity is the bigger pile of bullshit out of the two, and yet, you would go for the bigger pile of bulllshit. What's the reason?