Archive for the ‘Atheism’ Category

Equal access to students of Religion/No-Religion in Schools/Colleges

October 22, 2019

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-was-your-religious-education-in-public-schools-by-state.225626/page-7#post-6357469

“atheism isn’t something that is “taught””

Paarsurrey Wrote:
If they don’t have something to teach, they just don’t do it, but they needn’t prohibit others as an excuse. Why should the students be deprived of introduction to religions? Keeping the students ignorant is not appropriate.
My emphasis was on the following points:

  • “As far as the Atheists, I am not against them in their persons and I am in favor of equitable treatment to them by every Religion.
  • The better idea as I visualize is that there should be periodically seminars in the schools/colleges in their halls on the subjects about religion/no-religions.
  • I don’t say that there should be teachers to teach every religion in the schools. I say that there should be seminars in the schools/colleges where representatives of religions/no-religions should give lectures on the selected topics and then there should be provision of a question answer session for the students. These seminars should be conducted by moderators of the City officials.
  • As somebody has to manage such events to provide equitable opportunity to every religion/no-religion that is interested in the event. The issue of moderators could be sorted between the school/colleges and the cities locally.
  • My point is that the students get equal access/information to the religions of believers as also to the non-believers be they Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism or any shades of them. Under the name of Secular-ism, which means equitable treatment to everybody they should not remain ignorant of Religions/No-Religions.”

Right, please?

Regards
________________
Posts #2,,#17#42,#68,#82,#86 , #116,#117#118,#120

Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills?!

May 2, 2019

Religious Forums

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atheists-outperform-theists-at-nearly-all-reasoning-skills.219942/page-12#post-6088758

#221 paarsurrey

Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

So, what? Does it prove that Atheism is reasonable, please.

Regards

Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism are totally wrong

April 30, 2019

Religious Forums

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-i-could-never-be-a-christian-or-muslim.220091/page-5#post-6085973

#90 paarsurrey

Why I Could Never Be a Christian (or Muslim)?

There is no compulsion in Quran/Islam/Muhammad, so why should one become a Muslim? Please remain with Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism till one realizes that Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism are totally wrong . Right, please?

Regards

 

“How Should Atheism Be Taught?”

February 1, 2018

The endowment of the country’s first college chair for the study of the subject draws attention to the complexity of nonbelief in America today.

By ISABEL FATTAL 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/how-should-atheism-be-taught/551885/

Paarsurrey comments:

I find following points interesting in the above article:

  1. 61 percentof “nones” said they believe in God
  2. When the New Atheism movement began, campus organizations such as the Secular Student Alliancestarted to grow in popularity, said Stephen LeDrew, a sociologist of secularism and atheism. After a while, though, many young people turned away due to what they perceived as the Islamophobia and misogyny of the New Atheist movement, a movement that they expected would align with progressive values. These kinds of concerns are compounded by the fact that self-identified atheists are disproportionately white, male, and highly educated when compared with the general public.
  3. “a philosophical approach to the world that emphasizes the methodologies of science, logic, and reason in facing up to questions of … how we should act in the world today,”
  4. Appignani was adamant that it is “strictly academic”; he said the point is that young people will now be “exposed” to the study of nonbelief and will “be able to choose” what they agree with—“and not be ostracized in the process.”https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/how-should-atheism-be-taught/551885/I

I agree with the point # 4 above that the students should have a chance to know about Atheism  and the Religion in the schools, colleges and the Universities before they are engaged in the pursuit of their active life and the professions .

 

 

“The Christian Right’s Relentless Assault on Public Education”

January 24, 2018

“The Christian Right’s Relentless Assault on Public Education”
JANUARY 22, 2018 BY ED BRAYTON

Patheos- Nonreligious: Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/01/22/christian-rights-relentless-assault-public-education/#8brcTSB3WC7tYGGY.99

I have read the above article and have noted the following points:

  1. All people have inherent worth and equality and are ‘endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,’” Zahn said.
  2. “These foundational and historical American values did not spring from the cornucopia of ‘world religions,’ but specifically from the Judeo-Christian scriptures.”
  3. But in reality, those ideals required a rejection of historical Christianity as it was conceived up to that point for hundreds and hundreds of years.
  4. Those ideas came largely from Enlightenment humanism and their opposition came primarily from the churches. It was only long after they were adopted almost universally that Christianity was redefined and they claimed credit for what they had rejected for centuries.
  5. considering a billto allow old-fashioned creationism in science classrooms as an alternative to the teaching of evolution.

 

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/01/22/christian-rights-relentless-assault-public-education/#8brcTSB3WC7tYGGY.99

I have my reservations on the above points and I intend to comment on them on the above website and give them here also for the readers.

Paarsurrey wrote:

“All people have inherent worth and equality and are ‘endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” Unquote.

All people born in this world without exception have worth and are equal as human being. It is a global truth. Religion, whatever religion it is, they have a right to claim that these have been endowed by God. The Atheist could deny it as their own right. Right, please?

Regards

“God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence

December 9, 2017

Does one’s parents (father and mother) exist/existed? What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one’s father and mother? At what age one got to know it, please?

Thread: ““God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Philosophy

Post 1: 
Paarsurrey Wrote:


The assertion “God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence 

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

Post 4: 
Mr.X wrote:
What if someone gives their reasoning that God doesn’t exist?Also, by the same logic, the assertion “God DOES exist” can be dismissed without evidence

Paarsurrey wrote:

Does one’s parents (father and mother) exist/existed? What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one’s father and mother? At what age one got to know it, please?

Regards

“Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it?”

November 30, 2017

“How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence 

Thread: “Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it? “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Philosophy

Post 1: 

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it, please? 
Paarsurrey wrote:
“How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence
Michael Antony also repudiates other usual non-arguments of Atheism:

1. Atheism Isn’t A Belief
2. You Can’t Prove A Negative like “God doesn’t exist”
3. The Burden of Proof Is On The Believer
4. Ockham’s Razor
5. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

Antony’s conclusion:
“The five ways which atheists sometimes claim exempt themselves from providing evidence of their belief all fail. Unless they make no statements about God at all, they have as much a requirement to support their statements with evidence as anyone else does”

Regards
____________
Dr Michael V. Antony
Michael Antony is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. He is writing a book on how to approach the question of whether there is a divine reality, and what it might be like.
“Where’s The Evidence?”
Michael Antony argues that the New Atheists miss the mark.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

Post 2: 

Paarsurrey wrote:

As soon as the Believers and Atheism people go into a discussion/debate the Atheism people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism. Isn’t it, please?

Regards

Sub-sets of Atheism or its denominations

November 23, 2017

Atheism is not a one body, out of confusion/doubt it is divided into divergent branches, disorders, schools of thinking; some of them claim to belong to Atheism (Agnosticism/Skepticism) from the position of ignorance while others from the position of knowledge as they claim. Right, please?
Why they be called sub-sets and why they cannot be called sects or denominations for understanding, please? Is there a language barrier/restriction, please? 

Thread: “Science does not support Atheism, does it? “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Philosophy

Post 21: 

X——- wrote:
[Replying to post 19 by paarsurrey1]
X——- wrote:
There may be similarities but I don’t think it is necessary to equate subsets of theism or atheism as ‘denominations’.

Denominations would be subsets of subsets of theism.

Paarsurrey wrote:

I am not equating them.Atheism is not a one body, out of confusion/doubt it is divided into divergent branches, disorders, schools of thinking; some of them claim to belong to Atheism (Agnosticism/Skepticism) from the position of ignorance while others from the position of knowledge as they claim. Right, please?
Why they be called sub-sets and why they cannot be called sects or denominations for understanding, please? Is there a language barrier/restriction, please?
Anybody, please
Regards

Atheism- as a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity

November 5, 2017

Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

Thread: “Atheists believe there is no God” “What a hoary canard it is
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 298: 

[Replying to post 295 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Atheism as admitted here by them is a position/no-position of ignorance, so in ignorance they see things topsy-turvy and in the whimsical ways …

D——s wrote:

I beg to differ. I was raised in a very Christian household and was saturated with the subject from birth until I left for college at age 18. It was Sunday school and the main service every Sunday morning, another service on Sunday night, then again on Wednesday night. We had two full weeks of “vacation bible school” in the summers, a week or so at a place called the Missionary Plantation Bible Camp in the mountains of NC each summer (where the first seed was planted in my head that something was seriously wrong with this whole idea), a prayer (“grace” or “the blessing’) before every meal, more religion in the boy scouts, and on and on and on. I think before it was all over I’d read the bible through twice, and I would not call myself ignorant of Christianity by age 18 … at least the Presbyterian/Baptist version prevalent throughout the U.S. southeast where I grew up. But there was nothing at all taught about other religions, other than that they were all “wrong.”‘

I eventually decided to study the different religions of the world, their origins and general beliefs, etc., and came to the conclusion that there is zero evidence for any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented in their heads over the millennia, including the Christian/Islam/Jewish flavor, or any other, having ever existed. These stories were mostly developed while humankind was scientifically illiterate and thus had no understanding of how nature worked, and gods were a convenient explanation at the time, and people in power came to realize that organized religion could be a useful tool for control of populations. So the various religions became entrenched and as has been pointed out on these forums many times most people adopt the religion of their parents or region as young children, and stay with it. Just look at a map of the distribution of religions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

So it is not always ignorance that causes people to reject religions ideals … just the opposite. Simple analysis of the probability that any of them are actually true shows that the probabilities are so low that it is impossible to believe them.

paarsurrey1 wrote:

There is no compulsion to believe in Allah-the-One-True-God, he has given this option to every human being whether they believe in Him or not, and I am satisfied with it:

[76:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[76:2] There has certainly come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing spoken of.
[76:3] We have created man from a mingled sperm-drop that We might try him; so We made him hearing, seeing.
[76:4] We have shown him the Way*, whether he be grateful** or ungrateful^.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=76&verse=0
*the right path
**he becomes a believer
^ or denies to become a believer
OOOO
There could be others who have subscribed to Atheism and then they left it, totally disgusted with it.

I believe in one’s example my sentence in the last post fits, if one doesn’t mind, please :

Quote:
Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

If I may ask one:
Did one study Quran from cover to cover, please.

Regards

Are Atheists “masters of not answering”?

November 2, 2017

Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position, please?

Thread: “Atheists believe there is no God” What a hoary canard it is?
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 284: 

paarsurrey1 wrote:
Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position, please?

B—–k wrote:
in a word, yes. Which makes it one of the easiest position to defend.

2——-316 wrote:
Atheist don’t defend they are just masters of not answering.

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

paarsurrey1 wrote:

I liked one’s post and it is to the point and very reasonable. Kindly allow me to publish it on my blog, please.

Regards