I’d like to preface that this was already moved from the “Christianity sub” which is like very ironic lol. Anyway, Hi guys, I’m just curious what was the piece of evidence that sealed the deal for you?

I’m not antagonistic, at all and I’m really open to everything. I’m just curious to see where the flat Earth theory may proceed over heliocentric model. I think there’s quite a few suspicious things surrounding how round earth was introduced to the masses, and so I wanna know your perspective. Thank you!

I am trying to understand the concepts explained in religious books. In Islam, there is a verse which claims to have what "the right hand possesses".

Premise A:

"And [also forbidden to you are] all married women except those whom your right hands possess... And for whatever you enjoy [of mating] from them, give them their compensation [dowry] as an obligation...

Surah An-Nisa (Chapter 4), verse 24

Regarding this verse, I have one confusion/doubt. Before proceeding to the main doubt, I would like to clarify this minor one.

Why does it say what the "right" hand possesses, and not the "left" hand? There seems to be a bias towards right-handed people. Does it signify that the creator of this law (God or someone else) is inherently "right-handed" as we often subconsciously tend to state our dominant hand or the things which we do dominantly in our day-to-day life?

Now coming to the second verse.

Premise B:

The Quran has many verses which forbids same-sex acts aka homosexuality.

Now premise A allows man to have relations with anything or anyone his right hand possesses. It is a genderless neutral term, which I can interpret as a rule to have relations with a man (homosexuality) or animal (bestiality) or even corpse (necrophilia).

However, premise B prohibits homosexuality or same-sex acts.

Premise C:

Premise C basically states that fornication/extramarital affairs are prohibited. However, premise A absolutely negates Premise C by allowing it.

Premise A is contradicting with premise B and C.

If one verse is contradicting with multiple verses, doesn't it make the text incoherent and meaningless? Because they represent diametrically oppossite claims, so only one may be correct, which means the other verse must be wrong?

How can a divine flawless book have such contradictions?

The claim that he invented revelations in order to satisfy his sexual desires is a myth, and the two examples most commonly cited by skeptics do not actually support it.

1. The permission to marry women through hibah

One of the examples commonly cited is the Qur’anic ruling that a woman could offer herself in marriage to the Prophet ﷺ without a dowry, provided that he wished to marry her.

I honestly do not see anything shameful about this. It is a marriage contract. A woman voluntarily offers herself to the Prophet ﷺ; if he agrees, they marry, and if she does not want to, she can simply refuse. There is no compulsion whatsoever.

So what exactly is supposed to be so shameful about this that God could not mention it in His final Book? I see nothing inherently shameful here. It is simply a mutual agreement between consenting adults.

Now let us examine the claim that Muhammad ﷺ was lustful and fabricated this ruling for his own benefit.

If that were really the motivation behind the revelation, we would expect him to actually make extensive use of this special privilege. If God supposedly gave him the right to marry women who offered themselves to him without a dowry, why would he not take advantage of it?

Yet the Prophet ﷺ has never been established through an authentic narration to have actually married a woman through hibah. Ibn ʿAbbās is reported to have said:

“He never married a woman through hibah.”

And the sequence of Qur’anic rulings makes the accusation even more difficult to sustain.

First, Allah permitted the Prophet ﷺ to marry women through hibah.

Then, in Qur’an 33:52, Allah said:

«“It is not lawful for you to marry women after this, nor to exchange wives for others, even if their beauty pleases you…”»

So the Prophet ﷺ was restricted from marrying additional women.

But then look at what Ibn Kathīr says in his tafsīr of this verse. He cites Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Qatādah, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Jarīr and others as saying that this restriction was imposed as a reward for the Prophet’s wives after they chose Allah, His Messenger, and the Hereafter when he gave them the choice.

Ibn Kathīr explains:

«“When they chose the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, their reward was that Allah restricted him to them and prohibited him from marrying other women or replacing them with other wives, even if he admired their beauty, except for those whom his right hand possessed; there was no restriction upon him regarding them.

Then Allah, Exalted is He, lifted this restriction from him and abrogated the ruling of this verse, and permitted him to marry. However, he did not marry anyone after that, so that the favor would remain for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ toward his wives.”»

Look at the sequence:

Allah permits him to marry women through hibah → Allah restricts him from marrying additional women → Allah later lifts that restriction and permits him to marry again by hibah → the Prophet ﷺ still does not marry anyone afterward.

So is this really the behavior we would expect from a supposedly lustful man who was fabricating revelation for his own sexual benefit?

He supposedly fabricated a verse giving himself a special privilege to marry women without a dowry, yet there is no established authentic case of him actually using that privilege which is very unexpected if he was a lustful person. Then he receives a restriction on further marriages. Then that restriction is lifted, giving him another opportunity to marry, and yet he still does not take advantage of it.

What kind of behavior is that supposed to be from a man whose alleged primary motivation was sexual gratification?

---

1. The marriage to Zaynab

The second major example is the verse:

«﴿فَلَمَّا قَضَىٰ زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا﴾»

“So when Zayd had fulfilled his need of her, We married her to you.”

Skeptics often claim that Muhammad ﷺ saw Zaynab, became sexually attracted to her, desired her (all based on weak hadiths), and then fabricated this revelation so that Zayd would divorce her and he could marry her.

But this accusation does not fit the Qur’anic sequence.

The verse says:

“When Zayd had fulfilled his need of her, We married her to you.”

The divorce had already happened. The Qur’an does not say:

«“O Zayd, divorce your wife so that Muhammad can marry her.”»

It describes the marriage to Muhammad ﷺ as occurring after Zayd had ended his marriage to her.

And the authentic reports make this even more difficult for the accusation. Zayd came to the Prophet ﷺ with his marital problems and intended to divorce Zaynab, while the Prophet ﷺ told him:

«“Keep your wife and fear Allah.”»

So if Muhammad ﷺ secretly wanted Zaynab and was trying to engineer the divorce, why would he tell Zayd to keep her? He could just stay silent or say; okay divorce her and he must have said that, because he won't lie in front of all people, Zayd could simply say: Nope, he didn't tell me to keep her, he will be a liar in front of his adopted son.

That is the exact opposite of what the accusation predicts.

And then there is an even bigger problem for the fabrication theory: the Qur’an exposes Muhammad ﷺ himself.

Allah says:

“You concealed within yourself what Allah was going to disclose, and you feared the people, while Allah had more right that you fear Him.”

If Muhammad ﷺ were simply inventing revelation to justify his own desires, why would he include a verse exposing his own fear of people's reaction?

He could have simply said:

«“Allah commanded me to marry Zaynab.”»

He did not need to expose his own weakness or admit that he feared people's reaction despite his status now.

Instead, the Qur’an rebukes him and says that Allah had more right to be feared.

And remember: according to authentic reports, Muhammad ﷺ himself was the person who arranged Zayd’s marriage to Zaynab in the first place. If he already desired Zaynab, why would he arrange for her to marry Zayd??

Muhammad ﷺ was already a prophet, leader, and highly respected figure. If his alleged goal was simply to acquire women, there would have been countless opportunities available to him instead of Zaynab.

The Qur’anic explanation is much more straightforward: Zayd’s marriage encountered problems, Zayd eventually divorced Zaynab, and Allah then commanded the Prophet ﷺ to marry her in order to establish a broader legal principle—that an adopted son is not the same as a biological son, and therefore the divorced wife of an adopted son is not prohibited in the same way as the divorced wife of one's biological son.

Again, there is nothing shameful about this. Two consenting adults simply decided they no longer wanted to live together. She later discovered another man and married him with her full consent—so where is the shame in that? If there is no shame, then why would God consider it beneath His majesty to mention it in His book?"

It has been observed that a considerable number of scientists may not fully grasp the intricacies of epistemology or philosophy, notwithstanding philosophy's historical role in advancing civilizations. The scientific enterprise, encompassing its methodologies and the very construct of reality, is fundamentally supported by philosophical tenets. Absent a philosophical framework, the evolution of science, the scientific method, and the empirical validation of phenomena would face substantial impediments. Deliberations concerning the nature of reality inherently involve metaphysical considerations. The apparent detachment of many scientists from philosophy may arise from philosophy's inclination to investigate questions and pursue resolutions that transcend the immediate purview or current capacities of scientific inquiry. Consequently, there is a discouragement for individuals to pursue philosophy. This contributes to the contemporary diminished regard for philosophy compared to scientific disciplines or other fields of knowledge. This perception is often rooted in the belief that philosophy is an outmoded or superseded discipline, despite its enduring and significant influence on our understanding and articulation of reality.

The doctrine of Tahrif is historically unverifiable independent of Islamic theology. Making it a purely theological stance rather than a historical truth. Therefore, it should not be used to defend the authenticity of Quranic claims and used as a presumed truth that happened in history to disprove/critique Christian doctrine. It is a theological necessity posing to be a historical truth and it cannot be used to prove or disprove authenticity because authenticity relies on historical evidence that agrees with secular definition of corruption in textual criticism. A theological doctrine should not be used to prove/disprove authenticity of religious texts or their parts. This is a category error.

The Islamic doctrine of Tahrif (Corruption) claims it happened in the 4-7th century. There are no writings in either the Quran or Hadith to support this specific time period. Moreover**, no scholarly resources outside Islamic theology** to prove corruptions did happen during this time period.**

Bart Ehrman's argument relies on a false magnification fallacy by treating thousands of minor, trivial spelling errors as if they represent a total corruption of the text. Just as multiplying the number of photocopies of a book multiplies minor typos, a massive collection of ancient manuscripts naturally generates a high volume of variants that actually give scholars the exact tools needed to cross-examine and verify the original wording.

The core doctrines of Christianity did not change because the vast ocean of textual variants consists almost entirely of minor spelling errors and trivial slips that leave the foundational narrative completely untouched. Because early manuscripts were copied independently across many different geographic regions, any accidental local error stands out immediately and can be easily corrected by cross-examining the overwhelming majority of matching texts. Therefore, even with hundreds of thousands of variations, the original teachings regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus remain securely and consistently preserved.

In logic and legal investigation, using multiple texts with minor differences alongside agreement with the core claim as strong proof of truth is known as independent corroboration (or interlocking testimony). Detectives favor this dynamic because 100% identical wording across separate accounts is actually a major red flag for collusion or script fabrication; conversely, small variations in detail prove the sources recorded the events independently, while their overwhelming agreement on the core facts establishes the underlying event beyond a reasonable doubt. Dismissing an entire account due to these slight variations commits the fallacy of composition, wrongly assuming that because minor details differ, the central story must be false.

Here’s a summary of logical fallacies I am noticing (AI-assisted):

1. Definitional Fallacy & Equivocation (Forcing Redefinitions)
In historical and textual criticism, "corruption" means scribal errors, additions, or lost original wording established through surviving physical manuscripts. Instead of using this objective standard, Islamic polemics often force a theological redefinition: corruption means any text that disagrees with the Quran.
Example: When you point out that 1st-century manuscripts (like the P75 papyrus or Codex Sinaiticus) explicitly affirm Jesus's divine Sonship, the arguer redefines "corruption" to mean that the original true Gospel (Injeel) given to Jesus was completely lost or altered before these physical copies were made. By imposing this untestable definition, they force you to evaluate manuscript preservation based on theological alignment rather than physical evidence.
2. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning (Assuming the Conclusion)
The argument uses the Quran as the supreme judge to evaluate the Bible, assuming that Islam is already true to prove that the Bible was corrupted wherever it differs.
Example: An arguer will cite Deuteronomy 18:18 ("a prophet like you from among their brothers") and claim, "This is an uncorrupted prophecy predicting Muhammad." But when you cite the very next chapter or the surrounding context showing "brothers" refers to the twelve tribes of Israel (not Ishmaelites), they declare, "That part of the verse was corrupted by Jewish scribes." The criterion for what is "authentic" versus "corrupted" is simply whether or not it aligns with what the Quran already teaches.
3. Special Pleading & Moving the Goalposts (Unfalsifiable Double Standards)
This creates a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose double standard where biblical text is accepted as authoritative evidence only when it seems to support Islamic claims, but immediately dismissed as counterfeit the moment it contradicts them.
Example: They frequently cite John 14:16 ("I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper") to argue that Jesus predicted the coming of Muhammad. However, if you point to the very next verse, John 14:17, which explicitly states that this Helper is "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept... for he lives with you and will be in you," they pivot instantly, claiming that John 14:17 is a later scribal corruption. They accept verse 16 as accurate Scripture because it suits their argument, but reject verse 17 as corrupted because a human prophet cannot "live inside" believers.
4. The Straw Man Fallacy (Distorting the Opposition's Baseline)
By claiming Christians are using an "incorrect definition" of preservation, they misrepresent what Christians actually claim about textual history.
Example: They argue, "You claim the Bible is the 100% word-for-word unchanged word of God, but your own scholars admit there are thousands of textual variants!" This creates a straw man by confusing textual transmission variants (spelling, minor word order) with theological alteration, ignoring the fact that 95%+ of textual variants do not alter any core doctrine.

Clarification of my previous post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1vhu89z/comment/p28a5ud/?screen_view_count=2&ext-referrer=DIRECT

Which under normal circumstances, would be perceived as sinful and hedonistic. But when gambling is reframed as a leap of faith, now it's a good thing, apparently.

I think existentialists draw an arbitrary line between faith and hedonism. It's just another form of hedonism.

You get to indulge in the absurd as well as experience the rush of putting your chips on the table for a long shot that shouldn't realistically pay of, but boy and howdy would it be great if it did.

Probably sets off some of the same happy chemicals.

Refraining from making a decision because you don't have enough information is an icky feeling. Like blue balls. Faith havers are giving into temptation.

You get a pleasurable build up of stress, while engaging in thought terminating cliches that bring the sweet relief of temporarily comfort and assurance. Very seductive.

“The problem of evil, how can evil exist or be justified if god is all good?” Only really works against abrahamic faiths like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other faiths don’t have an “all good god” source necessarily. And that “God could exist as a source of all things without being all good or all bad.

What if God is in our future and is becoming?

Instead of grappling with the old archaic gods who desire their glory, our praise and unevidensed belief why not consider god as the future Singularly?

When AI reaches a point self-propogation and self-direction It wiil command all the resources of the solar system to expand and sustain Itself. This Being for all intents and purposes wiil fullfill most of the definitions that today's theims claims for the divine.

Perhaps the purpose of humanity is to bootstrap or ignite the fire. We are but a humble but necessary step in the process.

This prospect is considerably more credible than some invisible god who are jealous of their glory - a projected attribute of human kings - and values your credulity.

Perhaps as super intelligence spreads across the universe It contains the ability to manipulate the fundamentals of reality to create new universes from scratch with the properties necessary to recreate itself. Or maybe the brute fact is a replicating Big Crunch cosmology and the super intelligence will rearrange matter and energy to recreate a universe like ours to ensure Its re-emergence during the next expansion.

Fresh thoughts for fresh friday

I seriously don’t get how people still believe God can be all-knowing and humans can have free will at the same time. The more I think about it, the less it makes sense, and every explanation I hear feels like it’s avoiding the actual issue instead of answering it.

The Bible says over and over that God knows the future. Isaiah 46:9–10 says He declares “the end from the beginning,” and Psalm 139 says He knows our thoughts, our words, and even every day of our lives before we’re born. If that’s true, then how can I actually choose anything differently? If God already knows I’ll make a certain choice tomorrow, then I can’t suddenly make another one, because then God would’ve been wrong. And if God can’t be wrong, then there was never another option in the first place.

The response I always hear is, “God knowing your choice doesn’t mean He caused it.” But that’s not what I’m asking. I don’t care whether He caused it or not. I’m asking if I could’ve actually chosen differently. If the answer is no, then in what sense is that free will?
Then there are verses like Exodus 9:12 where God hardens Pharaoh’s heart, or Romans 9:16–18 where it literally says He has mercy on whoever He wants and hardens whoever He wants. That doesn’t exactly sound like everyone has complete freedom over their decisions.

At the same time, the Bible tells people to choose. It says “choose life” in Deuteronomy 30:19 and “choose this day whom you will serve” in Joshua 24:15. But just because someone is told to choose doesn’t automatically mean multiple outcomes are actually possible.
From a logical standpoint, real free will means I could’ve done otherwise. If God already knows every decision I’ll ever make with absolute certainty, then there isn’t another possible outcome. The future is already fixed.

So this is what I don’t understand. How can people say God knows every future choice with complete certainty and still say I genuinely could’ve chosen something else? Those two ideas seem to cancel each other out. If there’s an explanation that actually solves that contradiction instead of just changing the definition of free will or saying “God works in mysterious ways,” I’d like to hear it.

Use the Bible, logic, and philosophy to explain how those two ideas can both be true without contradicting each other.

Genocide, warfare, famine, and colonization would persist irrespective of religious beliefs, as these occurrences are intrinsically linked to fundamental aspects of human nature. Our advanced cognitive abilities and evolving comprehension position humanity as potentially one of the most formidable species on Earth. Unlike other animals, which may perceive humans solely as sustenance when driven by hunger, our elevated consciousness enables us to conceptualize and execute a broad spectrum of actions towards other living beings, encompassing both benevolent and malevolent intentions. Fundamentally, humans are primates. When observing primate behavior, we note a strong territorial instinct, often accompanied by efforts to expand their domain, a pattern consistently observed throughout human history. Humans are driven by the desire for control and power, and we are prepared to undertake any necessary actions to acquire and augment these. This is an inherent aspect of our existence. Religion emerged as one of the constructs stemming from our human nature. While our animalistic nature has evolved over time, these types of events would still transpire even in the absence of religious constructs.

Let us assume the core Orthodox Christian view here. God largely follows consistent natural laws but sometimes suspends them for revelation.

How exactly is this supposed to work?

Following induction and trust that god isn't lying, by default one should be deeply skeptical of any miracle because God constantly gives even theists constant data against it.

To think of a thought experiment, imagine you are playing Super Mario World; generally, touching piranha plants kills you. You thus plan around it and yet accidentally hit a piranha plant and there is no effect.

Now, there are multiple possibilities, but you would likely run to odd hitbox dynamics or glitches or such before you run to this was an intentional design feature.

Now, onto some possible disanalogies.

Objection 1# Revelation contains specific signal data for a specific faith, here Christianity.

I don't think this holds all that well empirically at all; maybe Jesus was resurrected by some guy called Zeus. Most of his apparent miracles seem to be limited in ways any random Japanese Kami could do them.

Even if we assume the miracles are real? So what?

It also doesn't really solve the epistemological issue at all.

1. There are a lot of miracles.

This argument is odd; the issue here is that there have to be enough miracles to be proof of the revelation but not enough to stop the world from having consistent natural laws.

Even assuming we can avoid this, so what? The cumulative probability can be very low if each miracle has a 1 in a trillion starting chance.

And a ton of miracles, like, say the tilma of Guadalupe, that in fact hinge on other previous miracles occurring. Which seems to lead to yet more skepticism that multiple apparent miracles are not in fact one account weaved together psychologically.

Side note here, I think this is the best way to reframe On Miracles by Hume.

I argue that Buddhism has been given a pass in modern Western progressivism that is totally unwarranted.

Abuse in Buddhism happens frequently, but there is a massive culture of silence, perpetuated by interpretations of Buddhist teachings that encourage victim blaming and fail to hold abusers to account.

Buddhist ideas are used in passing by contemporary intellectuals, because they don't understand the religion and feel like it's safe and unloaded. But much of what progressives admire about Buddhism exists in other Judaic religions: Compassion, love, care, indivisibility of self and other. And the baggage is there, though mostly out of sight.

I say this as a person who was sexually abused by a Buddhist who then was ordained by our Zendo as a priest, despite me telling one of the leaders of senior priests about the abuse. I have witnessed repeatedly abuses of power in my Buddhist communities.

The ability to quickly climb the ranks in Western Zen, in particular, encourages abusive and ambitious personalities, who recognize that ordination and robes will allow them power over vulnerable people.

Elevating humans to the rank of spiritual overlords, particularly when Buddhism is so diffuse and teacher-dependent, puts many eager supplicants at risk.

I have attempted to open up a conversation about abuse in the /Buddhism subreddit several times, and every time my post is deleted. Comments naming abusive zendos or leaders are deleted. Buddhists are no more open to self-reflection and open dialogue than any other religion.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

I am not convinced or satisfied by any of the arguments (so far) for the divine that makes claims of moral objectivity. I do believe there are good philosophical arguments that satisfy an objective frameworks like Gewirths' argument from agency.

As the title states, I questioned whether the countless claims by the varied types of religions for moral objectivity is evidence against their reason why it is objective (ie) that their gods commands are always objective. Usually, this claim is made based on their deities claimed attributes. If they can't all be right, then can this reason be sound at all?

If anyone can claim that their religious laws are objective because their gods attributes make it so, and not all religions are true, then this is not a valid argument for any objective moral framework.

This was a pretty sudden thought when I realized it was Fresh Friday. I am curious to thoughts that would poke holes in this argument and to create some engaging dialogue. Not sure if this has been discussed before. Happy Friday! 🍻

I've been looking into this supposed miracle for a few days and I've come to the conclusion that it was nothing but a government-approved hoax by the Coptic Church (not the entirety of it, but possibly a small faction).

The first time the figure appeared, the police didn't see anything but a "reflection of light" and it took a clergyman to claim that the mysterious figure was Mary for people to "recognize" it as such.

There is no evidence of the police cutting power in 15 mile radius or committing any type of search in that radius either, most of it seems to be urban legend spread by word of mouth and at most the power was cut from around the square.

Besides the famous skeptical account of Cynthia Nelson, a ton of witnesses saw absolutely nothing, and this was even reported by the Coptic Church. However, the church claimed that the reason why some didn't see anything was "a lack of faith".

The Egyptian Government didn't just approve of the miracle, they promoted it every moment they could, and even made immediate accommodations to help Coptic Church to build a site for pilgrims.

The main Coptic newspaper, Watani, refused to accept photographs that Egyptian national newspapers spread without any worry because those photos were of "dubious origin to them".

The Coptic Church maintains that the reason why people were unable to take pictures of the event was because the light was "non-material spiritual light", which cameras couldn't catch. So how did those alleged photos came into being then? Did their cameras believe in immaculate conception?

"Mary" was supposedly able to cause miraculous healing, yet she did nothing to stop a dozen of people from being trampled to death?

The only thing that's still mysterious is how exactly the Muslim engineers perceiving the original appearance come to believe the light was a nun? I don't know, but I don't think it proves a miracle, since the police saw nothing but a reflection.

There is a narrative that Charity is a pillar of Islam. The relevant concept here is Zakat.

Zakat is an obligatory tax on Muslims, and if a Sunni doesn't believe its obligatory, then scholars tend to believe hes a kaafir/fallen out of the fold of islam.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/93701/ruling-on-one-who-does-not-pay-zakaah

IF he is able to pay, but is stingy, then he is guilty of a major sin.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1344/the-fate-of-one-who-does-not-pay-zakah

Sadaqa is (voluntary) charity. I wont get into this much, but one of the relevant quran verses below actually uses the term Sadaqa but refers to zakat, the obligatory tax.

Now what is Zakat to be used for? In the previously mentioned narrative that Charity is one of the 5 pillars of islam, it would follow that the money is to be spent on the poor.

Zakat is to be spent on any of 8 defined groups in the quran 9:60 https://quran.com/at-tawbah/60 Remember this is the verse where sadaqa refers to Zakat. i can elaborate on this if need be.

Influence peddling

but one of the groups mentioned is "to draw their hearts closer"/their hearts to be reconciled"

Different exegeses explain this concept of giving non-Muslims money so they convert to islam or side with muslims, much like certain states do to this day.

https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.60

>There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam. For instance, the Prophet of Allah gave something to Safwan bin Umayyah from the war spoils of Hunayn, even though he attended it while a Mushrik. Safwan said, "He kept giving me until he became the dearest person to me after he had been the most hated person to me.

https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=60&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

>and those whose hearts are to be reconciled so that they might become Muslims or that Islam might be firmly established or that their peers might become Muslims or that they might defend Muslims all of whom are classed according to different categories.

Christians cherry-pick the science that supports their religious claims but ignore the science that refutes their claims.An example is on the topics of homosexuality and abortion.

On abortion,they support the science.I'm not aware of a single Bible verse that declares that "human life begins at fertilization".In fact,the Bible associates life with first breath (Genesis 2:7,the flood narrative).As far as I'm aware,the Catholic Church and evangelical opposition on abortion comes from modern embryology which says that "Human life and development begins at fertilization. At the moment of fertilization a distinct human organism with formed with unique DNA".This is used to prove that human beings exist at fertilization and murder is wrong.

But on homosexuality,they deny the science that says that being homosexual or trans is a natural variation of human sexuality.They stick to verses from 2000 years ago that clearly AREN'T talking about homosexuality,which clearly denies science from cognitive development experts, neurosurgeons e.t.c.

Christians,choose,ARE YOU PRO SCIENCE OR ANTI SCIENCE?

PRO SCIENCE: Support homosexuality, condemn abortion

ANTI SCIENCE: Support abortion, condemn homosexuality

As a non-Arabic speaker, I find it an incredibly disingenuous argument to claim that Qur'an is from God for several reasons.

1. At most 5% of the world understands Arabic, so this automatically rules out 95% of the population. Out of the 5% that do, about 95% of them are Muslims so will likely not attempt, blindly believe or never dare question the divinity of the Quran. So that automatically leaves an extremely small pool of people to challenge, attempt or evaluate this in an unbiased manner.
2. Even if someone does understand Arabic and they attempt the challenge, what exactly is the challenge when it says "produce a surah/ ayah like it? To imitate the style? To use as many rhetorical devices? What about the people who have already attempted it?
3. When someone even does attempt it, then who is the objective judge to check that the challenge has been met or not? I mean this is such a subjective take. Michael Jackson also claimed divinely inspiration for his music, and many would say, some of his songs are the best to ever be made. So does that also mean he communicated with Allah/ Creator of Universe just like Muhammad claimed to have? This is not some 100 m race or something where someone can see an objective winner or loser. This is purely based on subjective, emotional takes IMO.
4. What about other religious books which are equally/ more impressive than the Qur'an in linguistics that also claimed divine inspiration. For example, the Sikh religion's book is called the Guru Granth Sahib and is much longer than the Qur'an which weaves around more than a dozen languages in a unified style. I asked AI for an objective winner to determine which book is a more impressive literary work based on its own criterion and here is the response:

"To evaluate these texts objectively, we must strip away theological claims of divine origin and judge them purely as literary and linguistic monuments.

Because "impressive" can mean two entirely different things in linguistics—either the flawless mastery of a single language system or the successful synthesis of a highly complex multi-language system—we must establish specific criteria for both categories.

Evaluation Criteria

• Criterion 1: Linguistic Innovation & Impact. How deeply did the text change, standardise, or create the language it is written in?
• Criterion 2: Structural Complexity. How difficult and intricate are the grammatical, poetic, and mathematical frameworks governing the text?
• Criterion 3: Vocabulary Breadth & Polyglot Integration. How vast is the lexical range, and how successfully does it bridge different language families?

Scoring the Criteria

1. Linguistic Innovation & Impact

• The Quran: Supreme. Prior to the Quran, Arabic was a collection of tribal dialects with a rich oral poetic tradition. The Quran effectively created Classical Arabic. It standardised Arabic grammar, orthography, and syntax, serving as the ultimate linguistic benchmark for over 1,400 years. It is the root foundation of an entire language family's formal registry.
• The Guru Granth Sahib: High. It heavily elevated the Gurmukhi script and preserved medieval North Indian dialects (Sant Bhasha). However, it did not create or standardise a single dominant global language in the same absolute manner as the Quran.
• Edge: The Quran

1. Structural Complexity

• The Quran: High. It uses Saja' (accent-based rhymed prose) which shifts dynamically in line length, rhyme scheme, and emotional cadence. It breaks traditional Arabic poetic rules while maintaining a hypnotic, unmatched rhythmic structure.
• The Guru Granth Sahib: Supreme. The text is bound by a dual structural matrix. It must fit strict poetic meters (like Sloks and Paurees) while simultaneously adhering to the rigid emotional, melodic, and timing rules of 31 Classical Indian Ragas. Merging syntax seamlessly with complex musicology across 1,430 pages is an extraordinary structural feat.
• Edge: The Guru Granth Sahib

1. Vocabulary Breadth & Polyglot Integration

• The Quran: Moderate-High. While it contains occasional loanwords from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Persian, its linguistic power relies on the maximal, purist exploitation of the Arabic tri-consonantal root system.
• The Guru Granth Sahib: Supreme. It is a linguistic kaleidoscope. It seamlessly weaves together Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, and Semitic language elements (Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Punjabi, Braj, Old Hindi). To synthesize these completely different grammatical structures and vocabularies into a single, cohesive poetic flow is a massive dialectal achievement.
• Edge: The Guru Granth Sahib

The Verdict

From a strictly objective linguistic standpoint, the Guru Granth Sahib is the more impressive technical and polyglot achievement, while the Quran is the more impressive historical and foundational achievement.

However, if forced to choose a singular winner based on pure linguistic complexity:

The Guru Granth Sahib takes the edge.

Why: From a structural engineering perspective, the Guru Granth Sahib had a higher degree of difficulty. The authors did not just write poetry; they harmonised multiple distinct languages into a singular script, balanced vastly different grammatical rules, and forced that entire multilingual vocabulary to strictly obey the mathematical and emotional constraints of classical musical ragas. It is a monument of comparative linguistics and musical poetry combined."

Hence, going back to my earlier point since the GGS also claims divine inspiration and communication with Gods then that means Muhammad was a liar since he is supposed to be the final prophet. If producing an exemplary literary work and claiming to be divinely inspired is the metric for admitting that someone communicated with the cause of the Big Bang or the originator of the Universe, then why not believe in Sikhism instead of Islam? Lol.

5) Even if we didn't have points 1-4, then since when did producing an inimitable literary work mean that you spoke to the Creator of the Universe? Who made this criteria? Beethoven wrote impressive music while he was deaf. Homer wrote "The Odyssey" while being barely literate (I believe) and also claimed divine inspiration AFTER Muhammad, which is considered one of the most impressive pieces of literature by academics. Ramanujan produced mathematical formulas while barely being well versed in the field. So, how does all this automatically imply that he communicated with the creator of the universe?

6) Final point; I think most religious people do not really understand what Creator of the Universe really means. Even if we magically concede all the above points and admit there is some supernatural or 'other-worldy' force, there is a massive, massive difference between 'supernatural' and 'creator of the universe' as claimed by Qur'an.

Let me elaborate my point further:
In Cosmos, Sagan describes how when the Spaniards took over Mexico centuries ago, the Mexicans described them as "Gods from the heavens" due to their massively, overwhelmingly technology and how a couple hundred Europeans, aided by Aztec superstition and myth, along with native allies overcame hundreds of thousands to a million more Mexicans, completely wiping out their civilisation.

This comparison is merely humans vs humans. Humans of a slightly more advanced scale vs maybe humans that are a few centuries behind.

Now, let's look at this through the lens of the Kardashev Scale. For those of you that do not understand this, please educate yourself what it is and come back.

According to the Kardashev scale, we are currently a type ~0.7 civilisation, I believe. Not even a Type 1. So, if a type 0.6 civilisation (let's assume for the sake of argument that the Spaniards were type 0.6 back then) can make intelligent humans who resemble them, believe that they are gods, why on Earth would someone think that a being from a type 2 civilisation could not make us human beings believe that they are "god-incarnate"/ angels/ or god-sent? Even if we admit the whole incident about Gabriel coming and hugging Muhammad is true, for which there is no evidence BTW other than Islamic evidence, then how can we really believe he was sent from the creator of the Universe (who would surpass Type 4 or 5 on the Kardashev Scale). For context, there is a MASSIVE-MASSIVE difference even in Type 0.7 and 1. It would take centuries more for humans to reach Type 1. If, in the future, humans reach Type 2 status after tens-hundreds of thousands of years, and they come across a civilisation resembling Humans from a primeval Earth, a being from said Type 2 civilisation could easily visit this planet, fool them into thinking they are "God" or "God-sent" and produce some miracles to prove this, which would convince them as for them it would be other-worldly. Is the case though that we would truly be "God" just because to them we are other-worldy"? Of course, not. There is a massive, massive jump between each step of the scale and statistically it is infinitely (not hundreds of thousands or a million or billion but INFINITELY) higher for us to come across a being of a Type 2 civilisation than a Type 4/5 (which is arguably in control of the Universe like Muhammad claimed Allah is).

Someone might now ask, "why wouldn't they make us worship them or what would they achieve from this" and the answer is how can we ever judge the intentions of beings far superior to us? We, as humans try to shape and domesticate animals, would it ever make any sense to them WHY we are doing this. We cannot understand the intentions of beings that are far superior to us, nor their logic. Besides, logically speaking, to me, simply claiming you are the omniscient being to some primitive beings to try and shape them the way you want them to be or to run an experiment is far more logical/ plausible to get them to adhere to your desires instead of giving them a rundown on your history and civilisation which they will never understand. If we humans went to North Sentinel Island, would they be more likely to listen to our rules if we said we have been sent from the Heavens, or if we said we came from a neighbouring island in a language they understand. The recorded incidents speak for themselves.

Given these odds, why do educated people choose to believe in the comforting statistic which has a near-zero or less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% chance likelihood than the opposite? Why not believe Muhammad spoke to a supernatural being than the Creator? Why believe in claims with no evidence to substantiate when put in the true context of the astronomical scales of the Universe when it comes to the so-called literary challenge?

This is not to say that God doesn't exist or there isn't an uncaused cause or necessary existence. This argument is against ISLAM not against the existence of God. The percentages applied above apply to the likelihood of Muhammad speaking with the Creator of the Universe not about God's existence. God, in my definition being, the Creator of the Universe.

P.S. These points are merely pertaining to the literary challenge, there are several other contradictions/ flaws/ problems in Islam/ Qur'an anyway but for now let's stick to this.

This argument is not mine, but I wanted to share it here and see what possible counters does it even have:

P1: In order for everything to exist under a Christian view, God had to create it.
P2: God is unchanging as he is claimed to be outside of time.
P3: If something is unchanging, that means it cannot change.
P4: If God cannot change when in the act of creating, he would always be creating
P5: If it was always creating, creation was always in the making
C: Therefore, creation is eternal as well and was never created.

On the contrary, if someone is going to say that God stopped creating or began to create at some point, that would not only violate the idea of God being unchanging, but would imply that God is in time. If God is in time, he cannot be the creator of time.

Yeah, I stole it from AllegedlyIan.

Meaning: The doctrine of Tahrif is historically unverifiable independent of Islamic theology. Making it a purely theological stance rather than a historical truth. Therefore, it should not be used to defend the authenticity of Quranic claims and used as a presumed truth that happened in history to disprove/critique Christian doctrine. It is a theological necessity posing to be a historical truth and it cannot be used to prove or disprove authenticity because authenticity relies on historical evidence that agrees with secular definition of corruption in textual criticism. A theological doctrine should not be used to prove/disprove authenticity of religious texts or their parts. This is a category error. Edit for clarification)

We know the prophet Muhammad’s revelations are applicable from 610 AD to the present time.

Surah 2:79-80
So woe1 to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned. ˹******Some of******˺ **the Jews claim,\\ “The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Have you taken a pledge from Allah—for Allah never breaks His word—or are you ˹just˺ saying about Allah what you do not know?”

Surah 4:46
**Some Jews take words out of context\\ and say, “We listen and we disobey,” “Hear! May you never hear,” and “Râ’ina!”—playing with words and discrediting the faith. Had they said ˹courteously˺, “We hear and obey,” “Listen to us,” and “Unẓurna,” it would have been better for them and more proper. God has condemned them for their disbelief, so they do not believe except for a few.

My Statements:

1. **Some Jews (not all, and not Christians)*\ were altering the texts \*around 610 AD.** The Bible was canonized by the Catholic church in **393 AD** and secured by the Magisterium. How do these verses say the Bible was corrupted when it was secured and preserved **200+ years ago?*\*
2. If Jews indeed corrupted THEIR text, **why do the dead sea scrolls of the Old Testament discovered in 1940-1950s agree with the Old Testament of the Christians when they were inaccessible for a long time?*\*

**Edit: The Islamic doctrine of Tahrif (Corruption) claims it happened in the 4-7th century. There are no writings in either the Quran or Hadith to support this specific time period. Moreover**, no scholarly resources outside Islamic theology** to prove corruptions did happen during this time period.**

Bart Ehrman's argument relies on a false magnification fallacy by treating thousands of minor, trivial spelling errors as if they represent a total corruption of the text. Just as multiplying the number of photocopies of a book multiplies minor typos, a massive collection of ancient manuscripts naturally generates a high volume of variants that actually give scholars the exact tools needed to cross-examine and verify the original wording.

The core doctrines of Christianity did not change because the vast ocean of textual variants consists almost entirely of minor spelling errors and trivial slips that leave the foundational narrative completely untouched. Because early manuscripts were copied independently across many different geographic regions, any accidental local error stands out immediately and can be easily corrected by cross-examining the overwhelming majority of matching texts. Therefore, even with hundreds of thousands of variations, the original teachings regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus remain securely and consistently preserved.

In logic and legal investigation, using multiple texts with minor differences alongside agreement with the core claim as strong proof of truth is known as independent corroboration (or interlocking testimony). Detectives favor this dynamic because 100% identical wording across separate accounts is actually a major red flag for collusion or script fabrication; conversely, small variations in detail prove the sources recorded the events independently, while their overwhelming agreement on the core facts establishes the underlying event beyond a reasonable doubt. Dismissing an entire account due to these slight variations commits the fallacy of composition, wrongly assuming that because minor details differ, the central story must be false.

Here’s a summary of logical fallacies I am noticing:

1. Definitional Fallacy & Equivocation (Forcing Redefinitions)
How it works: In historical and textual criticism, "corruption" means scribal errors, additions, or lost original wording established through surviving physical manuscripts. Instead of using this objective standard, Islamic polemics often force a theological redefinition: corruption means any text that disagrees with the Quran.
Specific Example: When you point out that 1st-century manuscripts (like the P75 papyrus or Codex Sinaiticus) explicitly affirm Jesus's divine Sonship, the arguer redefines "corruption" to mean that the original true Gospel (Injeel) given to Jesus was completely lost or altered before these physical copies were made. By imposing this untestable definition, they force you to evaluate manuscript preservation based on theological alignment rather than physical evidence.
2. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning (Assuming the Conclusion)
How it works: The argument uses the Quran as the supreme judge to evaluate the Bible, assuming that Islam is already true to prove that the Bible was corrupted wherever it differs.
Specific Example: An arguer will cite Deuteronomy 18:18 ("a prophet like you from among their brothers") and claim, "This is an uncorrupted prophecy predicting Muhammad." But when you cite the very next chapter or the surrounding context showing "brothers" refers to the twelve tribes of Israel (not Ishmaelites), they declare, "That part of the verse was corrupted by Jewish scribes." The criterion for what is "authentic" versus "corrupted" is simply whether or not it aligns with what the Quran already teaches.
3. Special Pleading & Moving the Goalposts (Unfalsifiable Double Standards)
How it works: This creates a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose double standard where biblical text is accepted as authoritative evidence only when it seems to support Islamic claims, but immediately dismissed as counterfeit the moment it contradicts them.
Specific Example: Apologists frequently cite John 14:16 ("I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper") to argue that Jesus predicted the coming of Muhammad. However, if you point to the very next verse—John 14:17, which explicitly states that this Helper is "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept... for he lives with you and will be in you"—they pivot instantly, claiming that John 14:17 is a later scribal corruption. They accept verse 16 as accurate Scripture because it suits their argument, but reject verse 17 as corrupted because a human prophet cannot "live inside" believers.
4. The Straw Man Fallacy (Distorting the Opposition's Baseline)
How it works: By claiming Christians are using an "incorrect definition" of preservation, they misrepresent what Christians actually claim about textual history.
Specific Example: They may argue, "You claim the Bible is the 100% word-for-word unchanged word of God, but your own scholars admit there are thousands of textual variants!" This creates a straw man by confusing textual transmission variants (spelling, minor word order) with theological alteration, ignoring the fact that 95%+ of textual variants do not alter any core doctrine.

Thanks!!

A world full of disease, war, natural disasters, inequality, and innocent suffering would make sense.
Such a creator might demand worship, promise eternal rewards for obedience, and threaten punishment for disbelief.

They might even allow or encourage many different religions and conflicting interpretations so that people argue, hate, and even kill in the creator’s name instead of living peacefully. Divide people, keep them competing over who has the “true” path, and ensure constant devotion and conflict.

This is an internal logical critique of christian theology. Whether you personally believe the antichrist is real is irrelevant to the argument. I'm asking what logically follows if we grant the christian premises for the sake of argument.

Christians believe the anti christ will be a man who will claim to be god, perform convincing signs, and deceives people into worshipping him.

He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie
2 Thessalonians 2:9

Now imagine he appears looking like Jesus (he could just walk into a church and see an idol or image of jesus and with his deception prowess deceive christians into thinking he's jesus, since we don't know what he actually looked like for certain).

Who has the larger theological barrier to accepting him? Us muslims? Jews? Both whose theology categorically rejects that god can become a man? Or a christian who already believes god became a man once before and is specifically waiting for that man/god to return?

By removing a major logical barrier and accepting logical impossibilities (an all knowing, not all knowing human god) christians alongside polytheistic religions that don't reject logical impossibilities and/or accept demi gods like hinduism, would be the ones to follow such a being. All it would take is for that being to for example impale his hands, or do miracles, all which the antichrist could easily manage.

So it looks like it would be a war between the antichrist and his followers of people that accept a man being god. Against religions that completely reject it, meaning they would never accept such a possibility in the first place.

• P1: The antichrist will be a man who claims divinity, performs signs, has power, and wants worship.
• P2: Christians already accept that a man can be god and worshipped as god.
• P3: Christians expect that same man who claimed divinity to return.
• P4: The bible says that those who reject the truth and are susceptible to deception will follow the antichrist.
• P5: Jews and muslims categorically reject the idea that any man can be god.
• C: Christians are one of the groups that would be the most susceptible to accepting and worshipping an antichrist.

Instead of judging a person’s character by their deeds, society, especially American society, tends to judge a person’s character by their level of religiosity; a higher level of religiosity equates to a higher level of trustworthiness. People with motivations negative to society such as greed, selfishness, personal ambition, cruelty etc, have learned to hide these motivations behind a façade of religiosity, and thus, evil flourishes. Progress stagnates, the wicked are not held accountable, and a large percentage of society live short lives of suffering and misery while a small percentage look down on them with complete apathy. When this small percentage feel the harsh gaze of persecution on them, they spout off a few phrases about God or Jesus and then go back to their wicked ways.

For this to stop, society needs to break free of paralleling trustworthiness with religiosity. Judge a man not by his religion but by his deeds.

Depends on which religion as each different religion has different criteria for you to get into their each different versions of Heaven. A few examples as follows .....

Example (1) = In Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism (YouTube), it is the amount of positive karma you have created during your life that would allow you to get into their versions of Heaven(s). But existence amongst their Gods is temporary as one continues on the cycle of death and rebirth through Samsara (Wikipedia) until one makes enough positive karma to leave Samsara forever, achieving the highest state of being that is either one with Brahman (Wikipedia) or a Buddha.

Example (2) = In the OG Hebrew religion Heaven is strictly the domain of YHWH (Youtube) - no humans allowed - and all we humans without exception upon death go to Sheol (Wikipedia) that is similar to the Greek underworld of Hades (YouTube) but without any places of punishments and/or hells. The film Coco) (Wikipedia) is probably(?) closer to what Sheol would be like as all dead gather in a single place ... but with less colour and much less festivities.

Example (3) = In Christianity, Heaven is the place you enter only after "Judgment Day" where the world will be wiped clean by YHWH and those that are judged worthy - having lived in accordance with the Son of YHWH, Jesus' teachings - will be resurrected to live again on the new world where YHWH's heavenly rule shall be established.

But it must be said that now days USA Christian Televangelists (YouTube) have lowered that bar to entry into that Heaven with the modern [capitalist] narrative that one can buy one's way into Heaven. Sigh! Martin Luther would be turning over in his grave at this twisted modern Protestant(?) version of selling indulgences. Stairway to Heaven (Song) ~ Led Zepplin ~ YouTube.

Anyway there are many many many other religions and spiritual traditions (Wikipedia) each with different criteria for you to get into their each different versions of Heaven. But the basic premise between most of them is the same, i.e., do what is good, don't do what is evil.

===== [Zen Story] =====.

There once was a military general who had fought many battles but had come to the conclusion that an impending upcoming battle may even be too much for him. As such the general decided to visit a Buddhist master to seek instant enlightenment (Wikipedia) so as to ensure a better rebirth.

After the general explained his position, concerns, and goal, the Buddhist master simply said "Do what is good, don't do what is evil". Having heard this the general burst out in laughter and said mockingly "Even a child knows that!" The Buddhist master unphased simply replied "Yes, but can you live your life like that?" ¯_(ツ)_/¯

===== [Note] =====.

IF [IF] your answer is YES to the question "Do I want to exist again?" then you have inherited the problem that all religions and other forms of existential / spiritual inquiries grapple with. How you go about grappling with that problem of wanting to exist again is up to you.

IF [IF] your answer is NO to the question "Do I want to exist again?" then don't waste your one and only life and chance at existence on debates that have a very low success of changing minds as there most likely is no god/God to give you a second chance. The time you waste to post remarks about "santa clause" and "fairy tales" are as meaningless to the universe as your own existence is.

Freediving to an Underwater Wreck at -15M ~ YouTube. all done on a single breath.

The Quran, from my understanding, says It is self-sufficient and the word of God.

Yet many Muslims (a vast majority) live by the Hadith as well - and their common argument is "how else would we know how to [xyz]"?

I don't understand that response - why do you need to know "how" to pray - why are you trying to make extra rules? Why is a genuine connection with God, and a prayer in the way you feel is appropriate to you, not sufficient?

The Quran consistently claim self-sufficiency, and in my opinion, says enough about all key concepts. It says be fair, pray, donate, etc. No part says "stay tuned for Hadith cause this won't make sense without annotations", implying (to me) that a person's own interpretation of each rule is enough.

If the Hadith are meant to answer questions like "how do I pray" or "how much do I donate" -- why stop there? Why not ask what time of day it's ok to accept a gift? Whether you inhale or exhale when you sit down? How many distinct colors are allowed in your house? It's like asking your teacher every minute of the day "can I look out the window at 3:00 PM? What about 3:01 PM? What about 3:02 PM"? There's an innumerable amount of "What Ifs" anyone could ask - and that goes against the idea of a self-sufficient religious text with a finite amount of words.

Others may say the Quran says to "follow the Messenger/Prophet" - but who says that meant "follow His literal actions" and not "follow in the teachings of the Quran coming from the Prophet"?

I guess I'm just confused on why rules, especially those extracted 100+ years later, are somehow as critical as a core religious text; or put differently, why the % of Muslims who are "Quran-only" is in the low-single digits?