“Does science support Atheism, positively?”

April 22, 2014

I started a discussion on my favorite religious education discussion forum on the above topic.
The viewers could read/join the discussion at the forum accessing the following link or they may comment at this blog Paarsurrey; and then after due deliberation form their own sincere opinion independently.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively.html

paarsurrey wrote:

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3734739-post23.html

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Doom
I assume its mentioned in a few history books here and there. As far as formal studies go, I can only guess… which I will now do!

theology
sociology
political science
philosophy

I would assume text books dealing with these subjects have a fair chance of mentioning atheism and drawing conclusions based on it.

The above subjects are not disciplined by the scientific method (proper); I meant:

“And over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology.”

Science – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please keep this in mind while you make your research on the topic.

Thanks and regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-4.html#post3734795

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest

In other words, science is an affirmative rejection of any god that has knowledge unobtainable by man through mere observation.

Science does not say god does not or cannot exits. Science says there is nothing we can learn from god that we cannot learn on our own.

Citations please as requested in the OP.

Regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-5.html#post3734830

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest
I never said science ‘positively’ supports atheism.

Thanks and regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-6.html#post3734876

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest
We all must make an assumption, either we accept the basic assumptions of science and believe what we see, or we accept revelation/authority and believe what we are told and what we read.

Can’t we live with an assumption in science in matters relating to our secular life and with other assumption pertaining to our ethical, moral and spiritual matters?

This is like separating “church” and “state” for life.

Secular (based on science) and spiritual (based on Revelation) models could work in their orbits like sun and moon and earth; never colliding with one another.

Regards

Similarities in life accounts and teachings of Buddha and Jesus

April 22, 2014

One is implored to read/join discussion on the following religious education forum to see the context of this post and then after due deliberation form one’s own independent opinion:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/161610-has-buddhism-influenced-christianity-6.html#post3734246

paarsurrey Wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnimitra
Well, the reason I baulk at letting this theory bite the dust , is because the similarities do not seem to stop at mere moral codes and ethical injunctions.

Not only does it not limit to morality, it is also pervasive through the biography of both the men.

To strictly follow chronology , I would request you to examine the birth of Jesus and Buddha first. I dont want to take too much at a time

Compare the names of the mothers– Queen Maya and Ma(r)ya.
Mâyâ was later regarded as a virgin and King Suddhodhana as a stepfather, just like Joseph.

Both of them are visited by celestial beings (an angel and a white elephant who foretells the birth of the savior )

Buddha is born while his mother is in a travel, under a tree. Jesus is also born while in travel.

Buddha emits a dazzling light and Jesus elicits a blue star.
Buddha receives homage from Gandharvas and Devas in the Sky. Jesus gets homage from angels in the sky.

Buddha is called son of God (devaputra), descended from Brahma. Jesus also claims lineage from “Abraham”.Compare the names “Abraham” and “Brahma”

Both are thus of royal descent. Jesus is called son of David and Buddha is of the great Ishkavu dynasty

Wise men gather in both cases.

In a text called Nidhanakatha, a noble woman says of the Budhda “Verily, that mother is blessed, who has given birth to a man like this one”.
Luke 11.27 talks of a woman who praises Mary –”Blessed is the womb, that bare thee and the paps which thou hast suckled.”

Of course, there are differences like Maya dying seven days later . But I do think all the above are too protruding from the coincidental.

For more similarities in life accounts and teachings of Buddha and Jesus one may like to read quite a few pages from the book “Jesus in India”:

“SECTION 2
Evidence from books on Buddhism”

Let it be clear that Buddhist scriptures have made available to us evidence of various kinds, which, on the whole, is enough to prove that Jesus (on whom be peace) must have come to the Punjab and Kashmir, etc. I set out this evidence herein, so that all impartial people may first study it, and then by arranging it as a connected account in their minds, may themselves come to the aforesaid conclusion. Here is the evidence. First: the titles given to the Buddha are similar to the titles given to Jesus. Likewise, the events of the life of Buddha resemble those of the life of Jesus. The reference here, however, is to the Buddhism of places within the boundaries of Tibet, like Leh, Lhasa, Gilgit and Hams, etc., which are the places about which it is proved that they were visited by Jesus.”

Pages 83-99
“Jesus in India” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

Regards

Buddha and Jesus got knowledge and wisdom from the same one source; hence their similarities

April 22, 2014

One is implored to read/join discussion on the following religious education forum to see the context of this post and then after due deliberation form one’s own independent opinion:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/161610-has-buddhism-influenced-christianity-6.html#post3734188

Paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by idav
I believe the gnostic chritian interpretation parralels the mahayanian buddhist school of thought.

I believe it is possible for anyone can tap into the source since god is within all and they parallel when it works. Whether people attach needless dogma to the concepts doesnt change what it is at its core.

I agree with your thought that since Buddha and Jesus got knowledge and wisdom from the same one source, which I believe to be the light/revelation from the One-True-God, hence similarities in their teachings and the world-view; though they were some five hundred years apart in time.

Regards

Jesus’ body same after deliverance from the Cross and after when he was seen by the people

April 21, 2014

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/what-do-jesus-post-resurrection-wounds-tell-us-about-our-own-resurrected-bodies/#comment-22967

paarsurrey Says:

April 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm
@votivesoul :April 8, 2014 at 10:06 pm
“Is the post-resurrection body of Messiah the same as the post-ascension body of Messiah?”

There was no resurrection of Jesus from the real dead; it was from the near-dead.

There was no ascension of Jesus after the event of Crucifixion. Hence it is most correct to state that Jesus’ body was the same after when he was delivered from the Cross and after when he was seen by the people when he came out of the tomb he was laid.

Resurrection from the physical and literal dead and ascension of Jesus to skies is a made-up story by Paul, scribes and Church.

It has got nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings.

Attributes of God mentioned in Quran

April 21, 2014
Mirza Bashir Ahmad

Mirza Bashir Ahmad

Islam says that we have One God Who is Gracious—i.e., He takes care of all our needs and He provides us with our requirements without our asking or striving for them. Islam says that we have One God Who is Merciful—i.e., He produces the best reward for our efforts and does not let them go in vain.

Islam says that we have One God Who is the ‘Lord of the Day of Judgment’—i.e., He pronounces reward or punishment for our deeds. He warns us of the consequences of following the wrong path, so that we do not become heedless and forget the goal of our life that He has ordained for us. One day we will be held answerable before Him.

Islam says that we have One God Who is Most Forgiving—i.e., when we strive in His path, He forgives our mistakes and shortcomings and protects us from their ill consequences.

Islam says that we have One God Who is the Acceptor of repentance—i.e., when we feel true remorse for our sins and turn towards the right path with true sincerity and wholeheartedly pledge to get rid of consequences of sins and to do good deeds, God too comes to our help, accepts our repentance and covers our sins with His mercy.

Islam says that we have One God Who is All-Powerful—i.e., nothing is beyond His power, no matter how difficult or impossible it may seem to us. Islam says that we have One God Who is All-Hearing—i.e., He hears the call of everyone and there is no voice that does not reach Him.

Islam says that we have a God Who is All-Knowing—i.e., no deed or thought, whether overt or covert, is beyond the sphere of His knowledge. Islam says that we have One God Who is the Helper—i.e., at times of crisis and difficulty, He comes to our aid, provided we have a true relationship with Him.

Islam says that we have One God Who is Eternal—i.e., He has always been and shall always be; time does not have any effect on Him. Islam says that we have One God Who is the Most Majestic —i.e., He is the perfect blend of all that is perfect and all that is good, and He alone is worthy of our adoration.

Islam says that we have One God Who is very Loving—i.e., He loves those who establish personal communion with Him, and He shows more love and loyalty towards them than any other lover. Islam says that we have One God Who Speaks—i.e., He bestows His speech upon those who have established communion with Him.

Though He is the knows of all subtleties and invisible to our eyes, He sprinkles the pure water of his loving speech upon those whose hearts are ablaze with the fire of His love, lest it should burn them to ashes. How beautifully the Promised Messiah(as) (Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama‘at) has said:

‘But for Your grace, I would have perished and turned to dust; God knows where this dust might, then, have been thrown.’

This is the God presented by Islam. I do not ask you to believe in Him. All I say is that these are the attributes of our God as proclaimed by Islam. Islam goes further and proclaims that we can find this God if we seek and strive for Him. Do you now consider this search and investigation to be useless and irrelevant? If you have a mind that ponders and a sensitive heart, you will never consider this quest futile.

Pages 23-25
“Our God” by Mirza Bashir Ahmad

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/OurGod.pdf

Truthful Religion is natural; science is not that natural

April 19, 2014

I find the following article at the blog “patheos” very interesting and informative:
“Is science more “unnatural” than religion?”
March 21, 2014 By Connor Wood

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2014/03/is-science-more-unnatural-than-religion/

I give below its synopsis:

• “Robert McCauley, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Emory University, thinks that religion is natural, but science isn’t.”
• McCauley has “outlined in a recent book – titled, aptly, Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not – is that religious beliefs arise from our basic, evolved cognitive predispositions and biases, while science is only possible when we struggle hard to overcome those biases. “
• “Cognitive scientists reason that the single most important feature of our ancestral environments was always other people. We learned how to hunt and fish from others, for example. As children, we learned our language from others. “
• “McCauley believes that maturationally natural systems get at the core difference between science and religion – religion relies on them, while science shuns them.”
• “Science, in other words, is hard. And religion is just what comes naturally.”

This is just to introduce to the article consisting of 1387 words, approximately. The viewers are suggested to read the article in original to form their own opinion independently and without bias.

Baseless “original sin”: invention of sinful Paul, sinful scribes and sinful Church

April 19, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/easter-in-ten-words/comment-page-1/#comment-14249

PAARSURREY says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:46 am
@INSPIREDBYTHEDIVINE1 :April 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
” ‘God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
Because that makes perfect sense’
This baseless creed has been invented by sinful Paul and sinful Church.”
This is fascinating. I’d forgotten that Islam doesn’t favor Paul. Christians do though. Thus, right here in John’s backyard, we have not one, but two omnipotent religious experts on the origins of existence. However, the two experts are members of two very different all-knowing religions. Paul is not vile to a Christians. To Christians he is a Saint and the true spreader of Christianity. But to Muslims, he is vile and evil. He spread untrue ideas about Jesus around. Two vastly different views from two totally infallible faiths. Is Paul a Saint and wonderful, or is he a vile idiot who spread a baseless creed about the Holy Trinity. Both can not be right. Calling Paul baseless and vile means the Holy Trinity is made up bullshit and Jesus isn’t God and did not rise from the dead on Easter. Saying Paul’s a Saint and his creed correct, is saying Jesus is God; did rise from the dead, and, along with two other gods, is part of a trilogy of gods that, in reality, are just one god. SOM’s infallible faith and Paarsurey’s infallible faith can not both be right. Only one can be right on this. Is, or isn’t Jesus the one true God? Let me repeat, is Jesus or isn’t Jesus God? Is Paul a vile idiot, or a Saint in Christ’s Church, the Church of the one true God. Things get so bloody complicated when people simply can’t say, “I don’t know. I might be wrong,etc.” I do not know nor pretend to know, how the universe came to be. It’s existence is proof it exists, not proof magical fairies made it. I do not have faith gods do not exist, BTW. They might, and I’m open to meeting them when they show up, but as of today, I’ve seen no evidence for believing they have. SOM, your brain hasn’t just been washed, it’s been bleached, salted, and fried. Your views are fundamentally sophomoric and reflective of an insipid indoctrination into an antiquated and dying belief system. Your rhetoric is redundantly circular, your reasoning laden with confirmation biases and your lack of wit tedious, boring, and insulting to the intelligence. Thus, whenever I respond to it, I do so with the all the respect I feel it deserves. I’ve said my last bit on this matter as I’ve grown quite bored of it. Paul: vile creed maker and vile man or Saint? Jesus, prophet, or God?” Unquote

I don’t bash sinful Paul. I only defend Jesus and Mary and their teachings. I have mentioned core teachings of Jesus from the Bible (Matthew 22:36-40); there is no place in Jesus’ core teachings of the baseless creeds invented by sinful Paul, sinful scribes and the sinful Church.

I have qualified Paul, scribes and Church with the word “sinful”; because they collaborated to invent the creed of “original sin” out of thin air and made all humanity sinful by birth for nothing. They say that everybody is sinful except Jesus; and everybody does not exclude Paul, scribes and the Church. I have only highlighted what this baseless creed is.

All humans whatever their religion or no religion are born innocent; when they attain maturity and are confirmed of what is good and what is evil in their conscience; then they become virtuous or sinful as per their concepts and deeds.
If a sin is committed one could ask forgiveness from the One-True-God; He may forgive.

Jesus said he was Son of Man or Son of Adam; if Adam would have been a sinful person and Jesus would have believed that and of the original sin; he would have not ascribed any son-ship to Adam. Paul invented this creed on his own collaborated by the scribes of Bible and Church.

Paul, scribes and the Church have nothing to do with Jesus and Mary and their teachings and deeds.

Regards

God sacrificed himself?!

April 18, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/easter-in-ten-words/comment-page-1/#comment-14239

PAARSURREY says:
April 18, 2014 at 8:21 pm

“God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
Because that makes perfect sense”

This baseless creed has been invented by sinful Paul and sinful Church.

This is not teachings of Jesus.

Jesus’ core teachings are as follows:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:36-40

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40

Regards

God and His attributes form core teachings of every religion

April 18, 2014
Mirza Bashir Ahmad

Mirza Bashir Ahmad

All religions in the world invariably raise the question of God Almighty before us. God and His attributes form the very core of the teachings of every religion and billions of their followers believe their religions to have originated from God and to be based upon the Divine Word which has been revealed throughout the ages and has kept the world illuminated.

Though some teachings of these religions have been interpolated and corrupted, they were originally based on Divine Revelation. Hence, religions provide much more detailed, clear, and definite descriptions of the Being of God, than human nature or human reason.

In other words, the brief message contained in human nature and reason has been elaborated by revelation. Human nature and reason only hint at the possibility of the existence of God, but religion tells us as a matter of absolute certainty that we do have a God, Who is our Creator and Master and Who has sent us to this world for a special purpose.
The different religions may differ on many of their teachings, but they are in total agreement on the basic points. For example, they agree that the universe has a Creator and Master with complete control over our lives and that He has ordained some purpose for our lives and also taught us the ways and means to achieve it.

Religions teach that death is not the end of man’s life, rather there is another life after death in which we shall get a reward for the deeds of our present existence. This unanimous testimony of all religions brings forth the question of Almighty God in such a way that we are compelled to investigate and find answers.

If all the above claims made by different religions are true, then being unaware of God is the greatest loss we can possibly suffer in this world, for such ignorance would mean that we have lived our lives in vain. On the other hand, all religions claim that recognition of God and a strong relationship with Him is greater than all the gains which we can possibly acquire in this world. Establishing this relationship means that we have achieved the goal for which we were created, and that we have fulfilled the purpose of our lives. Hence we conclude that the search for God is so important that no sensible person can afford to ignore it for an instant.

After discussing the unanimous testimony of religions, I would like to say something in particular about the teachings of Islam. Islam tells us that we have One God, Who is our Creator and Master, and that He has brought us into existence from nothingness and it is He Who controls our lives. He wants us to achieve a higher status. He has made all kinds of provisions for our welfare.

Our God 21-23: word count 472
“Our God” by Mirza Bashir Ahmad

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/OurGod.pdf

Atheism does not follow from a lack of evidence for God’s existence

April 18, 2014

paarsurrey:

Paarsurrey says:

I mostly agree with your arguments in the post.

Regards

Originally posted on Theo-sophical Ruminations:

No evidence equals atheism When you ask an atheist why they are an atheist, it’s not uncommon for them to respond, “Because there is no good evidence that God exists.”  If that is their only justification for atheism, they have made a gross logical blunder.

In the case of genuine dichotomies (such as God’s existence: God exists, or God does not exist), the lack of evidence for A is neither evidence against A, nor evidence for B.  In order to conclude that A is true or B is true, one must have positive evidence for the truth value of A or B.  The absence of evidence for both A and B simply means that we must suspend judgment.

Applied to the debate over God’s existence, even if one wants to argue that there is no good evidence for theism, it does not follow that theism is false, and it certainly does not follow that…

View original 164 more words


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers