Convert me if you can

[DeistPaladin]

And what are your evidences for Christianity?

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

Beyond the letters of the church founders, both in and out of canonical scripture, there are historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others.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.

Does this mean I believe in the Christian claims? No. Their supposed evidence collapses under close scrutiny. However, at least they give me something to scrutinize.

You already agreed with me before that Muslims also use the Hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh), not only the Quran. I don't know why you're trying to go back again.

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.

And do you believe that Jesus actually said that or no?

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

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.

[Regens Küchl]

@ Deist Paladin, my dear soon to be converted muslim

Something happened to mine and your post at page 5. After reading your post 44 I countered every argument therein in my post 45.

But yesterday I had to see that in post 45 not only most of my arguments had vanished but my single remaining argument had your answer already attached to it, making it look like it come from me. But in the post under my name the sentence :
"Makes me think they preserved it for illogical reasons. So what?" must have come from you for I did not write it !

Not only did most of my post vanish but it also must have merged with your answer. Very odd.
Perhaps a new wonder of Islam, wouldnt you say so too ? Allah plays with thi thread as a sign that you should join Islam.

Anyway, I learned that you have cultivated three ground-reasons for your distrusting Islam more than christianity. We will work on your belief from hereon. Your three reasons (which I will successfully counter in time) are :

1) Why should Mohammed (blessed be his name) have known more about Jesus than the christians of his time ?

2) If Mohammed (blessed be his name) were right, that would make Jesus in your eyes a "Failed Prophet" and in your eyes that would be some paradox that discredits Islam even if Islam is right.

3) You say that the claim for christianity has more evidence (lets at this point not yet talk about the substance and scrutinizing of both evidences) You made the following list for Islam :

Islam's Claim: God spoke to Muhammad

Evidence Offered:
1. "Look how beautiful the poetry of the Koran is." (appeal to art)
2. "Islam has grown and so it must be true." (appeal to popularity)
3. "There's scientific knowledge in the Koran that Muhammad couldn't have known."

OK, so far your critic on Islam. Now we will scrutinitize it systhemathically.

At first I have to beg you humbly for something; make that list under point 3 of your ground reasons in the same way for christianity.

Write down christianitys claim(s) and than number the evidences 1, 2 , 3, and on.

But please do not forget to add as evidence 3 the alleged fullfillments of soandsomany biblical prophecies, for them are the analogy for Islams scientific knowledge of the Koran.

OK, awaiting your list, please.

[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?

[Ashendant]

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.

Are you joking? or are you just trolling?

[Regens Küchl]

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?

The historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others are worth nothing and nonexistent because they are interpolated by later christians and/or misunderstood.

Read this excellent article at the rational response squad forum and you will be wiser:
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus)
http://www.rationalresponders.com/silenc...sus?page=1

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Beyond the letters of the church founders, both in and out of canonical scripture, there are historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others.

Oh dear,,not that tired nonsense AGAIN. Those documents are neither contemporary nor evidence. There is actually no evidence for the historicity of Jesus nor for any of the claims made in the NT,which is, along with the Qur'an, myth.

[DeistPaladin]

Oh dear,,not that tired nonsense AGAIN. Those documents are neither contemporary nor evidence. There is actually no evidence for the historicity of Jesus nor for any of the claims made in the NT,which is, along with the Qur'an, myth.

The historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others are worth nothing and nonexistent because they are interpolated by later christians and/or misunderstood.

I completely agree on both counts. Christianity is bullshit. The supposed evidence for Christianity collapses on investigation. How many times must I say this to make myself clear?

Christianity offers bullshit as evidence but Islam presents absolutely nothing. You have to dig to realize what a con job Christianity is. Islam is an obvious con.

My opinion: Christian Bullshit > Islamic Jack Shit. Both are a pile of shit.

Clear?

[Rayaan]

The historical documents found in Tacitus, Josephus, and others are worth nothing and nonexistent because they are interpolated by later christians and/or misunderstood.

Read this excellent article at the rational response squad forum and you will be wiser:
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus)
http://www.rationalresponders.com/silenc...sus?page=1

Thanks, I'll take a look at it more thoroughly.

But I think it's equally possible that Jesus existed since there is not much evidence for the contrary.

[Minimalist]

But I think it's equally possible that Jesus existed since there is not much evidence for the contrary.

I'm just curious. What evidence of "non-existence" do you think you would like to see?

[DeistPaladin]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it more thoroughly.

The non-existence of Jesus sinks Islam as well.