These two religions can be analysed on many levels. I wouldn't go so far as to state one is better than another. Spiritually, they don't differ so much as they both imply believing in a supreme, omnipotent, almighty God who created people and chose some to teach about him. For an atheist, both religions here are equal, they both require you to believe something basing on a text from the past and give you no evidence for the existence of God (for some people a sentence like "Look around you, it had to be created by God" is not enough).

As religions they both are hierarchical and institutionalised and both have different denominations according to the interpretation of their Holy Texts. All the denominations can spend days providing "evidence" to support their interpretation. So many interpretations of one and the same text means the text is not perfect itself. And how can a perfect creature like God create something imperfect to teach imperfect people how to worship him? Here also, both religions are the same - both Holy Texts allow different interpretations. Catholic Church is just a denomination of Christianity, a group of guys who decided to bring some order into how the religion should be exercised. Thus there are Church rules that they may change (if I'm not mistaken, they've changed the rule that you shall fast on Friday - fast as in not eat meat). Their power is supposed to be given to them by God who made Peter(?) his representative in the world and ordered him to build his church

Both these religions have been invented and took place of pagan religions in different parts of the world. To make pagans convert, some traditions, rites and customs had to be adopted (Xmas tree, offerings etc). Muslims might interpret communion like an act of cannibalism but it is just bread and wine that symbolise accepting Christ, not eating him I find it unhygienic though that somebody touches pieces of bread that he later puts into the mouth of people.

I believe the biggest difference between these religions is visible socially, and here Islam seems to be where Christianity was 6 centuries ago. Unlike Muslims claim, the conflict in Middle east is not about religion, first of all countries participating are secular, not Christian countries. Then, it is about zone of influence (and oil) only. Both religions are guilty of bloodshed, Crusaders, suicide bombers, janissaries etc. The difference is, Crusades ended centuries ago, bombers are still active.

Religions are dangerous not only to infidels but also to their own followers if they are not willing to accept them the way the society demands them to. Here also, Islam seems more strict than Christianity. Honour killings, punishing converts, social ostracism are not associated with Christianity. Of course, not all countries with Islam being the main religion are the same, Turkey, for instance, would never seem Muslim to me if it weren't for the minarets and a few veiled women. Yet, not all countries are like Turkey. Religious freedom is more likely to be guaranteed in Europe or America than in the Middle East. And religious freedom does not mean the ability to choose to do like everybody does. It is the ability to decide against wearing veil, going to church, abstaining from sin. I am free not to follow my parents' religion. My friends who are Catholic sin and are not punished for that (if what they believe in is true they will be judged after death) - they drink, they have sex, they don't go to church and nobody dares to punish them for it. I'm afraid it is not the same with people in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iraq.

To sum up, although these both religions are so similar in sense of origin, history and creed, they differ in terms of social freedom.

.

I already mentioned this to him. He is a man and ZZ is his idol

.