The Instigator
PotBelliedGeek
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
bman77
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Islam is more logical than Christianity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
PotBelliedGeek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,296 times Debate No: 41106
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

PotBelliedGeek

Pro

In this debate, I will argue that Islam is more logical than Christianity. This is a purely theological debate, a comparison of the teachings of each religion in light of logic and simplicity. My opponent, preferably a Christian, will argue that the teachings of Christianity make more sense than the teachings of Islam.

R1: Acceptance (No arguments allowed in this round)
R2: Arguments (No rebuttals allowed in this round)
R3: Rebuttals and Arguments
R4: Rebuttals and conclusions (No new arguments allowed in this round)

By accepting this debate, My opponent agrees to this layout and to the following rules:

This remains a debate on Christianity and Islam, no other ideology is allowed into the debate.

No personal insults or offensive tones. This is a sensitive subject, but I hope to approach it objectively.

Criticizing the religion in question or its texts is allowed, but must be in a respectful manner.

I look forward to a great debate!
bman77

Con

I am a Christian and I accept the challenge. I agree to your terms and I agree to that this debate remain respectful to both sides.
Debate Round No. 1
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

I will begin by discussing two of the most essential beliefs in Christianity, and present the more logical counterpart in Islam.

1. The Trinity VS. Islamic Monotheism

The doctrine of the Trinity is in essence the belief that God is a single entity made up of three distinct "persons" or "beings", if you will. God is, according to this doctrine, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. It is not correct, according to the general Christian view, to conceptualize God as a group of three, that is too polytheistic. Nor is it proper to see God as one being with three different parts, as this is too unitarianistic. To settle the confusion that undoubtedly arises from this belief, the clergy simply says that the true nature of God as the Trinity is incomprehensible to the Human mind, and should not be pondered upon.

In direct contrast to the Doctrine of the Trinity is the concept of Islamic Monotheism. It is the belief that God is only one being, on essence, and one power. He has not, according to the general Islamic view, begotten any children, nor has he shared power with anyone. This is a simple and logical representation of God, as the sole creator of the universe. As a result, there is never any confusion about the identity of God, and most Muslims understand it perfectly.

2. The Original Sin VS. Inborn Innocence

The Original Sin is the concept that Human beings are innately born sinful, as a result of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. The implications of this are tremendous, and its effects are see throughout the Christian tradition. This is why a child must be baptised, according to most Christians, as the child must be ritually cleansed of his inborn sin and induced into Christiandom in order to be saved. In this doctrine lies inherent patriarchy, as Eve is portrayed as the temptress and thus this is passed upon her daughters. In essence, this doctrine places the burden of parents sin upon their children, without the child being responsible in any way.

This doctrine is represented in these Bible verses:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
Romans 5:12-14



Inborn Innocence in Islam is the belief that a child is born free of blemish and sin. This stems from a greater concept in Islam. Islam states that none is responsible for the actions of others, none shall be punished for the actions of others, and none shall be rewarded for the actions of others before God.

This belief is derived from these Qur'anic verses:
And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Qur'an 35:18

Is there any reward for good other than good Qur'an 55:60


This idea is far simpler than the doctrine of the Original Sin, and aligns with contemporary logic and reason in a way that the Original Sin never could.



With that, I conclude my opening argument.
bman77

Con

Thank you for your argument, Pro.
Now before I start my argument, I am going to emphasize a notion that most Muslims and Christians generally accept: Allah (the Islamic god) and God(meaning the Christian god) are seen as the same god.

1)Islam illogical
Islam follows the teachings of Muhammad and claims to uphold the teachings of Jesus and many other prophets in the Christian Bible (3:84 AYA). but this is simply illogical because Jesus states to Philip in John 14:6. (I am sorry but I cannot right these out as I am unskilled with the keyboard and do not know how to type in Italics). So if the Koran says that Muslims must also follow the teachings of Jesus, Then don't Muslims also have to accept Jesus as the son of god and therefore become Christians? That renders Islam illogical

2) Jesus Versus Muhammad
Both claim to be messengers of god, but which one is logically more likely to be the one we should follow? Is it more logical to follow the teachings of someone(Muhammad) who only had one encounter with an angel(Koran 74:1-5) and not god, rather than someone who IS god? (John 10:30). And I needn't remind anyone that Muhammad was a big time sinner before and after he had been told to spread his teachings and make the trip from Medina all the way to Makah. How is it logical to follow the word of a man who tortured others but never suffered any torture himself (i.e. Muslims 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436,595, 734, 764) Instead of the word of Jesus Christ who never sinned himself but instead bore the punishment for all of the sins that WE committed so that we might be granted an eternal life with god that we do not deserve?

I conclude my argument

These are my sources :

http://carm.org...

http://www.answering-islam.org...

http://www.seekgod.org...

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Debate Round No. 2
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

1. "Islam follows the teachings of Muhammad and claims to uphold the teachings of Jesus and many other prophets in the Christian Bible (3:84 AYA). but this is simply illogical because Jesus states to Philip in John 14:6. (I am sorry but I cannot right these out as I am unskilled with the keyboard and do not know how to type in Italics). So if the Koran says that Muslims must also follow the teachings of Jesus, Then don't Muslims also have to accept Jesus as the son of god and therefore become Christians? That renders Islam illogical"

Here my opponent cites the Islamic belief that Muhammad in fact bears the same message as Jesus, Moses, and Abraham. He claims that if Muhammad did indeed believe in Jesus' message, then all Muslims should go be Christians. There is an innate fallacy in this argument, and it stems from an incomplete understanding of that Islamic belief. Please see the following verse from the Qur'an:

When God asked Jesus, son of Mary "Did you tell men to consider you and your mother as their gods besides God?" he replied, "Glory be to you! How could I say what I have no right to say? Had I ever said it, You would have certainly known about it. You know what is in my soul, but I do not know what is in Yours. It is You who has absolute knowledge of the unseen.
- Qur'an 5:116

Islam states that Jesus never told the people that he he was divine. This belief was invented after Jesus and ascribed to him. My opponent may cite a Bible verse to counter this argument, but that assertion is circular. The contention is that the Bible does not contain the original teachings of Jesus, but rather was fabricated at a later date.

2. "Both claim to be messengers of god, but which one is logically more likely to be the one we should follow? Is it more logical to follow the teachings of someone(Muhammad) who only had one encounter with an angel(Koran 74:1-5) and not god, rather than someone who IS god? (John 10:30)"

Here my opponent states that since Jesus is God, it is more logical to follow him rather that follow Muhammad. This is fallacious, as we have already discussed. It is illogical to believe that Jesus is God.

I will explain a little further. My opponent is arguing that since the Doctrine of the Trinity is true then it is more logical be a Christian. I covered this in R2. Compared to the Islamic version, the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical. Between the two doctrines, logic dictates that the Islamic version is more sound. It is therefore incorrect to argue that Jesus is god, and then try to base logic on that.

I will simplify. Christians say that Jesus is God, and therefore should be followed instead of Muhammad.
Muslims say that Jesus is not God, and therefore he should not be followed instead of Muhammad.

I explained in R2 that the Islamic version of God is more logical. My opponent did not contest this, but instead built his next argument on an illogical base.

3."And I needn't remind anyone that Muhammad was a big time sinner before and after he had been told to spread his teachings."

Here my opponent states that Muhammad was a sinner and therefore it is illogical to follow his teachings. I have a number of rebuttals to this topic.

1. "Sinner" is an ambiguous term. In order to make this argument, my opponent must first define "sinner" and then illustrate that Muhammad fell into this category.

2. My opponent has cited no sources for these claims.

3. This is a textbook example of the "Ad Hominem" logical fallacy. We are debating the teachings Islam versus the teachings of Christianity. Unless you tie it into this subject, then the personalities and actions of religious figureheads are irrelevant.


4."and make the trip from Medina all the way to Makah"

This line honestly serves to lower my opponents credibility. My opponent did not thoroughly research his topic before arguing. My opponent refers to the Hijrah, where Muhammad's townspeople tried to assassinate him and his followers, so he fled his hometown Makkah, and and escaped to Yathrib, which he renamed "Madinah".

5. "How is it logical to follow the word of a man who tortured others but never suffered any torture himself"

Here my opponent is referring to the early Arab doctrine "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". He cites an incident when a gang of eight men attacked a Shepard, severed his limbs, and gouged out his eyes, leaving him to die in the desert. After apprehending the suspects, muhammad ordered that the same be done to them. Whether hammurabi's code is moral or not is the subject for another debate.

Muhammad did suffer torture at the hands of his enemies in Makkah, where he was forced to watch his followers brutally murdered. He was forced to observe one of his female followers as she was slowly killed by a spear being pushed up her vagina, and he could do nothing [1]. Muhammad and his followers were quarantined in the desert and starved for months on end[2]. To say that Muhammad never suffered torture shows a blatant level of ignorance regarding Muhammad and the early years of Islam. Muhammad and his followers suffered torture for ten straight years before escaping into the desert.

6.instead bore the punishment for all of the sins that WE committed so that we might be granted an eternal life with god that we do not deserve?

Here my opponent illustrates the Christian belief that Jesus suffered the punishment of humanity's sins, and we in turn receive a reward that we do not deserve.

Contrast this belief with that of Islam, that Jesus did not suffer punishment for all our sins. Islam states that no one shall bear burden for that which they did not do, nor be rewarded for that which they did not do, before God. I assert that the latter is far more logical than the former. For reference to this belief, please see the verses quoted in R2.

In conclusion, the teachings of Islam are more logical than their Christian counterparts, especially when analyzed side by side. My opponent did to address any of the my arguments made in R2, and failed to support his argument in R3.

Sources:

1. Al-Mustadrak 3/383
2. Sahih Al-Bukhari
3. the Qur'an
bman77

Con

bman77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PotBelliedGeek

Pro

I am unable to finish my debate. Final exams start next week and Imust devote all of my time to study. This concludes my arguments.
bman77

Con

bman77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by graveyard 1 year ago
graveyard
PotBelliedGeek is a better debater, but bman77's arguments are more correct. You cannot argue Islam is more logical than Christianity by saying "God only has one identity" (do tell what that is) when you likewise claim in your argument that the book you got this idea from is, what 500 years earlier was said otherwise, telling the truth. That's like me saying, "everyone tells me Hitler was in charge of murdering millions of people, but I have a NEWER source indicating Hitler had nothing to do with those murders" without verifying any proof of that later source and without thus assuming the original sources of who were there at the time more likely.
Posted by SemperVI 3 years ago
SemperVI
Great point Arabrab! I would have also argued Pro's stated definition of the Trinity according to the Quran scripture. Point in understanding, the Quran describes and teaches Christianity is Tritheistic as evident by his appeal and implication that Islam is monotheistic and Christianity is not. Point in fact, Pro instead described a Trinity, more specifically a Triune, consisting of three in one and asserted a logical fallacy it could not be comprehended by a person. You made the point perfectly it could, just as (mind, body, spirit) refutes the evidence to the contrary. The argument is an Islamic fundamental misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. In fact, it is misrepresented not as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as Pro suggested. It is described as Allah, Jesus and Mary. Implying Mary is considered a deity
Posted by arabrab 3 years ago
arabrab
The Trinity VS. Islamic Monotheism

The trinity can be viewed as water. The same water molecule can be in three different forms, a solid, a liquid, and a gas. Jesus states that he and father are one. John 10:30.

You state: "He has not, according to the general Islamic view, begotten any children, nor has he shared power with anyone." Allah (one of his 99 names ) cannot have a son to share power with because he needs a consort. Who will marry allah?

Sahih International
[He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing."

The Original Sin VS. Inborn Innocence

You are 100% incorrect about babies having to be baptized in order to cleanse original sin. There is nothing man can do to earn salvation. Salvation comes through the blood of Jesus alone. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3 Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9-10.

The real problem with this debate is that you give human clergy power over the only source The Bible.
Posted by SemperVI 3 years ago
SemperVI
Ouch Con, Pro served up two softball arguments right over the that could be refuted in a few sentences and you did not even attempt to address them. It's all good practice makes perfect. Good debate fellas.

Is it appropriate to give advice in the middle of a debate via comments. I am new to debate.org, not new to debating.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
PotBelliedGeekbman77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: ff = Conduct to Pro. Failure to link sources = sources to Con. Providing a rebuttal (as opposed to not doing so as Con did) = args to Pro.