Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#3619

Islam vs Christianity

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

I, Rayhan16, am on the side of Islam. I would like to debate someone who is on the side of Christianity. This debate is about which one is the truest religion.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for voting :)

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for the vote.

I actually think you did not fully grasp either Pro's not my case, though. Especially not my rebuttals to Pro.

RFD decision

Okay so who won? We can probably just dismiss r5 since nothing really happened there. R1 and R2 is probably most important. Pro wins the Trinity point contradiction as Con concedes it, that's easy. He says the bible has too many errors and contradictions, which Con didn't address, so Pro wins that too. He also wins the point about eye for and eye and young women being taken, since Con did not address those. Alright. That seems somewhat significant. Which points did Con win?

Con tells us that the Allah's wrath can be used for killing and death arbitrarily, though doesn't properly address the idea that Allah himself is the one doing it. This argument is shaky. Con does point out with help from the article that they are not tolerant towards minority groups or other religions. He is winning in the real world argument practically speaking. But I do not know how heavy to weigh this argument since he didn't suggest how important this was. Okay. That's fine. Con spends a lot of paragraphs saying the "deceiver" makes things confusing especially with Shaitan. However, Pro addresses this properly telling us that the context matters, and Con didn't really address if the new context got rid of "deceiver". I am not sure if Pro's ignorance of Honor killing is Genuine mistake, or an attempt to bypass the argument. Con definitely wins that argument.

Okay, it's a surprisingly close call. Pro has definitive Contradictions and advocate of violence for Bible (though didn't address the avoidance to fall for temptation). He also has the trinity being confusing, and that Allah was not necessarily a Deceiver.

What's left is Con's real world impacts, especially in the killing of others who don't agree with them, plus the honor killings. Honestly, he probably should've gone with the actual "how does the religion's people act" argument in the first place. Since meaning and interpretation doesn't match up with person's actions. I buy that the Muslim people *with* evidence from passages are encouraged to enact "allah's wrath". Since the real examples do show this.

I can understand what Pro means, but he needs more to explain why the Muslims may be misguided and a poor representation of Islam in general. Perhaps showing the Christian side of things could help. Pro got too entangled up trying to explain his solidity beliefs and appealing to "who is right, who is wrong", while forgetting about what the Christianity contradiction means. He could have argued that it was so confusing and impossible to resolve, people lose faith in Christianity and that is just untenable, thus possibly losing to even a morally unjust Islamic group of persons. He could also point out that people misinterpret, perhaps expanding the Deceiver point and tell us that the Con's examples are very extreme.

The winner is Con.

RFD continued

Pro gets a bit annoyed and saying that Islam is peaceful, repeating that the religion is not following violence since there is not as much resulting actions in real life. He also tells us that the verses are related to War, though I am not sure what that means. He repeats points that con hasn't addressed, with the eye for eye and keeping young girls to themselves. He knows Con is pointing out society thinking is different all the time, but Islam establishes solid rules with no murder or rape. Pro's argument gets a little muddy here, but he does conclude that Muslims get rewards for not doing sins or doing rewards, while arguing that the bible doesn't have same meaning passages.

Con improves his arguments by telling us that the Muslims are not religiously tolerant. He also tells that one to deem a hypocrite they can be furious and use "allah's wrath" as blind justification. Thus the murder and war would indeed be justified. He continues by saying the sinning violently to bring others to Islam would still teach love and peace somehow. He warns us that the "state of war" is constant, somehow.

Pro argues that the cursing is done by Allah himself and not the person following Allah. He also says the violently forcing people into Muslim would still be sinning, so Con's argument wouldn't apply. He also says there is sinning except in wars, and then blindly says that the society itself has no respect and no conscious. However, he does say the Muslims did give women rights... this is starting to feel like it is deviating from the debate a little, but okay.

Con comes back with evidence a little late to outweigh Pro's showing of the "rape the young girl" quote from Bible, arguing that it took quite a bit to get rid of killing for being victim of rapes. He argues that Muhammad inherently used compulsion and terror, and that they were blackmailing or slaughtering those that refused. (Uhh... evidence please? This argument's kind of new...)

Pro comes back and rambles on about how he does not want to change his belief, for ... whatever reason, it's unclear. He tells us that it does however give a firm foundation and also happiness. He also randomly says some various topics go against Christianity, but it's really too late for that now. He merely dismisses Muhammad's killing as saying it was perfect. Well, there's really no support either for this. He does however repeat the Bible contradictions, which are indeed questionable and confusing.

Con leaves a final parting shot in trying to show "1 contradiction in Quran", which I refuse as his burden of proof, since this is obviously absurd and just a confident statement from Pro. Common sense feels like he would still have to show the overall topic which is Islam vs Christianity.

RFD

This debate is a comparison of two religions that are vastly different... ho boy here we go.

So Pro attacks Christianity first, stating that Jesus being God was absurd, especially if God worships God and seems absurd, especially if God is not a man. And if Jesus is a part of God yet can do nothing, that is self contradictory. He further asks who wrote the gospels, and the holy book has too many contradictions and errors. He establishes his confidence in asking Con to find one error in the Quran, then lists a few bible errors, but doesn't tell us how there are errors here. He concludes with the ideas that Quran has never been changed or significant errors.

Con concedes the part regarding the trinity, but brings attention to Allah. He tells us that Allah has been "Great deceiver" especially with quotes from Quran, then brings the ideas that Allah is brutal and sadistic, especially in the quote "allah is severe in requiting". He explains that Allah is the one to fear and Shaitan offers the same thing, so there is no significant difference between the enemy and allah. He continues by telling us Islan is about the surrender, especially the men in charge of women, instilling fear, and continues how the punishment of dropping Muslim faith is very severe. He should have done more analysis, but it's okay. The article is quoted as the Muslim community has even silenced ex-Muslims, while Christianity has had no such examples... yet. ( I commend con's bravery for doing this, as Christians do have... a history of terrible campaigns.)

Pro Counters that Allah is a planner, taking the positive meaning with ambiguous meaning of "mkr". He argues that the context doesn't work since it has to have a negative meaning after it. He argues that Con is changing the meaning of words, especially with mistranslation, as it donates to ex Muslims. Hmm. He then points out the Lord has been Deceiving as well, with a few quotes, and continues that the people being scared is fine as he decides all the heaven or hell. There are also quotes for fearing the God in the Bible too, so it is not unique to Muslims. Pro also points out the Christianity's lack of information and heavy errors are severe. He also points out the "rape young women" quote from 31:17, but merely dismisses Muhammad doing a similar thing (according to Con) due to already covering the reasons in other debates. (Well... could you summarize these reasons please? Haha.) He also completely ignores the real world impacts of Muslim community...

Con goes back to being somewhat lazy, telling you that the Allah god does encourage being brutal and savage, while the bible had nothing encouraging severe violence. He continues that the Quran has a war encouraging people murdering those in God's name, and that the Quran is too inflexible, and that Pro didn't significantly show bible changes. Con also tells us that Bible has shown not to give into temptation, while islam is silent on this.

To be continued

I would vote against islam, but my voting rights were taken away due to me voting against animal slavery.

-->
@RationalMadman

I wish I could. I do work 6 days a week and am just on here when I am on break at work and can't do anything anyway

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

Are you interested to vote on this debate? 2 days left

-->
@RationalMadman

Don’t think I’ll get to this one in time.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Undefeatable
@Bones
@ComputerNerd

Please vote if you find time.

Bump to encourage voting (really busy this weekend, or I would vote).

-->
@Dynasty

Kid, you said in dm's you don't want to debate because of 'dawah script', stop it

Forgot this exist. Kid, what makes you think WeaponX is wrong, even though WeaponX is right?

-->
@oromagi
@TWS1405

The debate is complete.

I am predicting what I have preached.

-->
@Dynasty
@ComputerNerd

The debate is complete.

First of all, you are the one who messaged me to say if you want to debate. You asked me for key terms and I gave them. You rejected them. I rejected yours. We needed to come to common ground, however you did not want that. Now you are lying about Allah being a deciever because it is a matter of translation, I am sure you have been watching too much videos on this. It is helper, not deciever.

Secondly, I accepted but on my terms which you rejected

Thirdly, I never disrespected anyone and I said this in the dm, I only asked why did you leave Islam. I gave you a statement, you left because it is to do with emotion rather than logic. And you said logic? What logic? All you needed to do is tell me why you left Islam or you could have said save it for the debate. But you gave an ambiguous answer.

Fourthly, the original Quran is still the Quran we have today, Birmingham manuscripts have been carbon dated back to the time of the Prophet, and it is all there in black and white. The evidence is there, but you choose to accept it not.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@WeaponX

This is not the way to handle it. Stop discussing the PM contents and mods please be alert.

First, You messaged me first to ask why I rejected Islam. One of the reasons is the original Q'uran rejects history and a whole lot more major problems...one of them is it made a claim for its perfect preservation, but it's false which shows that allah is consistent with his character as being a deceiver (he said he was a deceiver).

Secondly, when I issued you a debate, you accepted. But, you got bent out of shape when I corrected you on why you're the definition of the Bible is not accurate and challenged you to show me academic evidence of why I should accept your definition.

Third, when you continued to talk with disrespect to me which included hoping for me to go to hell, I asked for your age to remind you that it's unbecoming for a young Muslim to disrespect someone older than them whether they're a Muslim or not. I can say that because I was in Islam.

You messaged me with "I don't even want to preach, but it is just funny. I can tell you left Islam because of an emotional reason, nothing to do with logic".

No, don't preach to me, debate me so I'll elaborate on why I reject Islam since you messaged me first to ask why I rejected Islam. One of the reasons is the original Q'uran wasn't perfectly preserved so it's actually showing allah is consistent with his character as being a deceiver (he said he was a deceiver).

You asked me for my age and then attacked me, then blocked me, don't lie

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm new to this site and already I can see why RationalMadman and others are stern with you just from my personal experience. Your anger and words of attack against me in the inbox were because I rejected Islam. Rather than doing that, debate me. Nevermind, you blocked me. Interesting.

-->
@RationalMadman

I just wanted to state my opinion. Plus I want you to realise that every single question I have asked has had no response by you. But I will still end up losing because it is what it is.

-->
@rayhan16

What is it you want from me? A concession or sympathy?

-->
@rayhan16

It's a historical fact concerning Second Temple Judaism Monotheism at the time of Jesus and it's irrelevant to your opinion about the unfairness of DA. You're assuming that I wasn't a Muslim once. That being said, I sent a challenge for a debate in your message.

-->
@RationalMadman

So you are debating against what you are debating for? That makes no sense, throughout this entire debate you have just talked about Islam. Nothing about Christianity. When I asked you about Christianity, you kept on talking about Islam. You claim its some kind of horrific religion when there are non-Muslims saying it is peaceful. It's only you and a handful of people that say Islam is a violent religion because you don't understand it.

And the best part of this debate is, no one cares about my views. I just see Christians and atheists etc commenting on Islam, rather than Christianity. It is evident that I have won the debate, people like Barney who apparently served in Iraq and other non Muslims will always vote against Islam because they see it as some kind of threat to the western world. But the Muslim empire gave so much to the western world, no one cares.

This debate thing is just a side hobby, I don't care about the outcome. I think this is pretty obvious because I have debated people who I have lost against. Unfairly, but still.

The reason why I am highlighting these flaws in the voting and juridical system of this website, is no matter the outcome, Islam will always lose. Which I find canny because it will be the non-Muslims who are the losers. But enough of that.

I am sure you think that you won this debate. As do I. Every voter thinks I have won it. However you will end up winning. It goes back to the bs of this entire thing, it's a shambles

-->
@rayhan16

I have just defeated misterchris in a debate against Christianity.

Do not blame me for your flawed thuglike religion being what it is. Be happy, since if my irl identity is revealed and yours is revealed, only I will get death threats.

-->
@RationalMadman
@ComputerNerd
@WeaponX

One thing I have realised on this site, is everyone leaves comments challenging Islam, but none whatsoever challenging Christianity. Your recent round, RationalMadman, was very poor, you gave new points and they don't have any backing, but you will still win this round as well because of the bias against Islam

-->
@ComputerNerd

What are you talking about? Everyone has a right to decide their own religion, I am debating and so is Con. Islam is not a business that has a USP to tell people that it is the right religion. It is all over the religion, peace embodies Islam, not the other way round.

The Catch 22 is a weird thing to establish, because I have already done so. I said forcing others into Islam is a sin anyway, so they are not a good Muslim by sinning violently, and not a good Muslim forcing people to the religion. Its a lose-lose.

-->
@rayhan16

So you encourage the censorship and silencing of millions of free thinkers in exchange for a religion which prides itself on being a peaceful and accepting religion?

Also you need to answer the Catch-22 (If one is sinning violently and brutally in order to force others into Islam, they are both a good Muslim and yet a complete Munafiq to the verses teaching love and peace), I see this as an important thing.

-->
@rayhan16

To your statement " The belief that Jesus is God is totally absurd".

If you understood The Second Temple Jewish Monotheism, you would see
how it would be conceivable.

Jesus's 12 apostles and the 1 st century Christians who were predominantly
Jewish worship Jesus as God, but it didn't compromise
or abandoned Jewish Monotheism.

And to this day, we the Church still don't see it as
compromising or abandoning it.

Jewish scholars like Daniel Boyarin have said,

"Jews, in general, did entertain a Logos and so were explicitly binitarian
in their theology. It is only the rabbis in response to Christianity
who begin to make such opinions heretical."

Therefore, because of verses in the Torah, the Jews
at the time of Jesus (Second Temple Judaism) were binitarians

-->
@Dynasty

Quran has never been changed
There are no contradictons in the Quran
No errors or copious errors in the Quran, Please send the exact link that novice guy sent in our debate, it is false
The Quran could not be written by anything other than God

Side Note:

Make a debate, I will accept.

If you think you know better than a Muslim, go for it.

Make the debate.

Make it 1 week writing
1 month voting
30,000 characters.
To the max.

If you can't or won't, go away

-->
@Ehyeh

Dawah script at its finest.

-->
@rayhan16

"Quran has never been changed"
Quran has been changed. May I suggest you do more looking?

"No contradictions in the Quran"
There are contradictions in the Quran

"No errors or copious errors in the Quran"
There are errors or copious errors in the Quran. You want me to do what Novice_II did and quote you Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami"

"we must nevertheless take into consideration that there are over 250,000 manuscripts of the Qur’an scattered all over the globe. When comparing them it is always possible to find copying mistakes here and there; this is an example of human fallibility, and has been recognized as such by authors who have written extensively on the subject of “unintentional errors.”

"The Quran could not be from anything other than God. "
The Quran could not be from God, as you haven't done the research.

"Bible errors and contradictions"
The Bible doesn't have errors or contradictions, and those passages you quoted are cherry-picked.

"This is actually the opposite of the Bible, which has been corrupted and changed. "
This is actually the opposite of the Quran, which has been corrupted and changed.

Side note, not to an insult, but given you're 16, I can tell you don't know any better (Or shows that you have been indoctrinated).

-->
@Ehyeh

Don't understand what is so funny. If you have nothing positive to say, don't comment on my debate.

Good day

hahahaha

-->
@Ehyeh

Do I care?

same arguments every debate.