November 24, 2015

Posts #153 , #159#182#193,#206,,#213#230,#238 ,#241,#244

Paarsurrey also no tumblr

November 24, 2015

You’ve made 50 posts on Tumblr!

You’re well on your way to becoming a Tumblr superstar.
Just remember all my vital encouragement once you get famous.


Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015

Post #37

Paarsurrey wrote:

Every religion has a core of the teachings, nothing of that belongs to the physical and or material domains of sciences (the temporal realm), so in fact, religion gives a free hand to the people of sciences to explore things for the benefit humans beings. The founders of revealed religion did not speak anything against the scientists, they need not, as they deal the ethical, moral and spiritual realms the source of which is Word of Revelation based on their experiences (not experiments).
If there is an overlapping, if the specific religious system set by the founders of religion is intact , they do accept it, if it is not intact it may take sometime for acceptance.


Post #38

Spiny Norman said:

Spiny Norman
A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015

Post #35

Paarsurrey wrote:

I like many of your points in the post.

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015
Post #1
Paarsurrey opened the topic and  wrote:

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.

BlueTuna likes this.
Post #34

Paarsurrey wrote:

Does any of this stuff has got anything to do with Biology? Please

Post #27

George-anandaGeorge-ananda wrote :

I meant Stephen Hawkin (typo that I said Hawkins). But anyway, quotes and opinions from non-scientists are aplenty too. But back to the OP question, science people can have quacky views on religion undeniably.

Post #39

Not directly.

Is there a complete list of countries where Islam spread by the sword?

November 22, 2015
Post #124

A Greased Scotsman said:

A Greased ScotsmanPagan – Greek polytheism

Thank you. At least you admit it’s even a possibility that Islam was spread through violence and intimidation. That’s a breath of fresh air on this thread.

What of Mohammed though? He also spread Islam through intimidation and violence – are you saying Allah’s messenger could also have gotten it wrong? Especially in light of the numerous verses that talk about fighting against non-believers?


Post #125

muhammad_isa said:


No .. I am not saying that Muhammad, peace be with him, did anything wrong .. I’m saying that people who are at war are most likely to behave in an undefined manner .. not in accordance with their beliefs..

It’s a simple statement to say that ‘Islam was spread by the sword’ .. could you also say that ‘modern capitalism was spread by the atom bomb’ ?

Too simplistic .. Almighty God knows our individual intentions .. who is guilty and who is not from amongst mankind of ALL faiths .. He knows who begins aggression and who defends themselves.

Post #127

Paarsurrey wrote:

There is no possibility for that. Religion never spreads by sword, because sword cannot convince one at heart. Muhammad told very clearly that one can become muslim when one’s heart witnesses the truth and then one declares with one’s tongue of the ONENESS of G-d and the prophet-hood of Muhammad:

One can become Muslim when one’s heart witnesses the truth and then one declares with one’s tongue of the ONENESS of G-d and the prophet-hood of Muhammad:
“Anas reported that the Holy Prophet said: There is no one who testifies truly from his heart that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, but Allah prohibits for him the fire of hell.”
(Mishkat al-Masabih, Book of Faith, ch. 1, sec. 1)

“A person becomes a Muslim by leaving all that contradicts the meaning of the following Testification of Faith, believing in the heart and declaring with the tongue”

To become a Muslim one must simply pronounce the Shahadah (Declaration of Faith) through his/her heart and tongue with sincerity and conviction.
The English translation is:
“I bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger”.

Is there a complete list of countries where Islam spread by the sword?

November 22, 2015
Post #129

Paarsurrey wrote:

Your sentence that I have coloured in magenta (in italics above) is not clear. Please elaborate.

G-d did not abandon Muhammad, he was successful in every field, and this is a clear and brilliant sign , as mentioned in Quran of his being a truthful prophet of G-d and the Meccan idolaters were wrong in not accepting him rather opposing him tooth and nail:

[58:21]Certainly those who oppose Allah and His Messenger will be among the lowest.
[58:22]Allah has decreed: ‘Most surely I will prevail, I and My Messengers.’ Verily, Allah is Powerful, Mighty.

And that is the open secret of Muhammad being successful.
Note: Nobody has yet provided a complete list with consensus of countries where Islam spread by sword as is commonly alleged superficially.

Should one believe or not believe in gravity or that earth is round?

November 20, 2015
Post #60
viole said:
If I did, I would flip my religion all the time depending on the professional I am talking to.
If I ask different physicists about gravity, it is plausible I would get the same explanations. Explanations that do not depend on where they were born or what their parents know about physics.
Can you say the same about religion?
– viole
Post #86
paarsurrey said:
Don’t you already believe in gravity?
Post #93
viole said
I do not believe in gravity. I accept the evidence thereof everytme I weight myself in the morning. Different thing.
But my point relates to the fact that most scientists agree on the same epistemology when it comes to scientific issues. Independently from their culture and upbringing, in general. Belief in God, on the other hand, is fragmented in clusters. If you are born in Saudi Arabia you will probably become a Muslm. If you are born in Alabama, probably not. But if both individuals study physics, they will both agree on the qualities of gravity.
Why do all believers in gravity, as you would call them, agree on what gravity is, while believers in God do not?
– viole
Post #97 paarsurrey said:
You don’t believe in gravity? You don’t believe that Earth is round? Do you?
Do you think that science is the only knowledge that exists in the world, except it there is no other knowledge? Do you, please?
Your generalization about the truthful religion is wrong. In almost all parts of the world it is spreading and people convert to it. Even yesterday I was introduced to two persons, on got converted to Islam from Christianity belonged to Canada and the other was a Hindu who got converted to Islam he belonged to Trinidad.

Paarsurrey wrote:

On what basis? Please
That does not prove that people are not converting to the Truthful Religion. Does it? Please

I did not say, that it will happen in your life-time and or mine. Did I? Please
It will happen within three hundred years after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 though.


Hot Debate : Why one must believe the “Academia” or the “scholars”?

November 20, 2015

Post #52 icehorse said:


I’ll quickly reiterate what jonathan said so eloquently a few posts back:
It all boils down to verifiable, repeatable evidence.
Yes, I agree that there are fakers in the world. Fakers can’t produce verifiable, repeatable evidence.
Post #80 paarsurrey said:
Please let us know as to what one understands from the words “evidence”, “verifiable” and “repeatable”. One’s own understanding not of the lexicon, please.
Post #85 leibowde84 said:

Evidence that is not only documented, but also is within reach of the common person. Verifiable just means that we don’t have to take anyone’s word for subjective experiences or anything. We can look at the evidence and verify the theory presented by an acedemic. Repeatable means that you can conduct a controlled experiment yourself and see the same results.
paarsurrey said:
Now please fit them on history. Right?

Post #99 Paarsurrey wrote:

Can one go back in time and verify the history of Greece say in the time of Socrates as it happened and repeat the events of his life? Please


Point of Hot Debate:Why one must believe the “Academia” or the “scholars”?

November 18, 2015
Post #30

You like this


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers