Archive for the ‘atheists’ Category

Atheists! Is only a scientific evidence to be considered as evidence?

February 13, 2014

My comments at blog; “Random thoughts”; topic:“Do these people think about what they tell us of their god”; link:

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/do-these-people-think-about-what-they-tell-us-of-their-god/
http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/do-these-people-think-about-what-they-tell-us-of-their-god/comment-page-1/#comment-11786

paarsurrey says:
February 14, 2014 at 02:37
@ shelldigger says:February 13, 2014 at 23:10

For instance; the Atheists demand from us evidence, provable evidence and proofs; if we ask them for the same; they are not prepared to give us one.

They are not even ready to define as to what they mean from evidence with their own words.

Is only a scientific evidence to be considered as evidence?

“I SAW THE SUPERNOVA LAST NIGHT”

February 13, 2014

“I SAW THE SUPERNOVA LAST NIGHT”

My comments on blog “evidencebasedreality.com”; topic mentioned above; link below:

http://evidencebasedreality.com/
http://evidencebasedreality.com/2014/01/25/i-saw-the-supernova-last-night/comment-page-1/#comment-197

Paarsurrey:

@ shelldigger
It sometimes looks strange to me; like an Atheist using a 12.5″ telescope to view a supernova “A star that blew up sometime around 12 million years ago, just became visible to us from our vantage point in the universe”; instead of insisting on seeing it with the naked eye or mere with “logic”.

On the other hand Atheists often insist seeing the One-True-God with their naked eye.

Is not it a contradiction on their part?

Please
http://evidencebasedreality.com/2014/01/25/i-saw-the-supernova-last-night/comment-page-1/#comment-197

“Ghosts: An Atheist Touchstone”

February 13, 2014

My comments on triangulations blog:
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/ghosts-an-atheist-touchstone/
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/ghosts-an-atheist-touchstone/#comment-124153

paarsurrey
02/13/2014 at 2:56 pm
@ trueandreasonable :02/13/2014 at 12:45 pm

“An atheist can believe in ghosts spirits esp and other supernatural things and still be an atheist.”
I don’t get you exactly. How an Atheist can believe in ghosts spirits esp while he is not ready to accept the existence of One-True-God?

Similarly: How can a naturalist accept ghosts etc as a natural phenomenon while he is not ready to accept the One-True-God who exists and the nature has come into existence at His command?
This would be a dire contradiction, I think.
Please elaborate your viewpoint.

Any Atheist or Naturalist could also respond, please.

Atheists! Please don’t label others as “stupid” or “delusional”

February 13, 2014

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/ghosts-an-atheist-touchstone/
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/ghosts-an-atheist-touchstone/#comment-124144

paarsurrey
02/13/2014 at 11:26 am
@Howie : 02/13/2014 at 10:30 am

I think instead of labeling others as “stupid” or “deluded” that you rightly said just makes the person mad and less likely to hear one’s point of view; I think the right approach is that one should give one’s good reasons and arguments and tell the other person that his point of view is unreasonable.

Thanks

I also wrote the following comments:

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/ghosts-an-atheist-touchstone/#comment-124142

paarsurrey
02/13/2014 at 10:59 am

There is no mention of Ghosts in the Revealed Book of the truthful religion from the One-True-God. Those who believe in ghosts believe out of superstition; and have weak psyche.

To be an Atheist only one has to deny God; absolutely no knowledge required

August 6, 2013

The Atheists in these blogs are of different hues and shades; they have often stated that they have only one thing in common that they deny existence of God.

They don’t have necessarily to be a scientist or following the scientific method that they have to hide behind many a times. It is sufficient to be ignorant to become an Atheist.

The New Atheists have an additional quality; they disrespect, ridicule and deride while reason rests aside.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

“You heathens, time is now to convert to Islam”

August 4, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

I never called you or anyone else as “heathens”. Did I?

I don’t want to convert you to Islam unless you are convinced heart and soul.

makagutu

  • paarsurrey says:

    “In verse 8: 52″
    I give the verse with the verses in the context:

    [8:51] And if thou couldst see, when the angels take away the souls of those who disbelieve, smiting their faces and their backs, saying: ‘Taste ye the punishment of burning!
    [8:52] ‘That is because of that which your hands have sent on before yourselves, and knowthat Allah is not at all unjust to His servants.’
    [8:53] Their case is like the case of the people of Pharaoh and those before them: they disbelieved in the Signs of Allah; so Allah punished them for their sins. Surely, Allah is Powerful and severe in punishing.
    [8:54] This is because Allah would never change a favour that He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition, and know that Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
    [8:55] Their case is like the case of the people of Pharaoh and those before them: they rejected the Signs of their Lord, so We destroyed them for their sins. And We drowned the people of Pharaoh, for they were all wrongdoers.
    http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=8&verse=46

    There is no mention of slavery in them. I don’t find it in these verses. Please mention where do you see it.

  • paarsurrey says:

    “there is nothing in the Koran that warrants enslavement of another. A look at Surat 8 will dissuade anyone of such a notion ”

    You mention chapter 8; don’t give the verse number; please provide it for good discussion.

    Thanks

  • paarsurrey says:

    “that there is a god, and that this god chose one dumb fellow to reveal to his word, in Arabic, the dumb fellow then got some idle typist to listen to his rambling and together they compiled a holy[sic] book.”

    It is wrong; Quran was not collected this way. I think you people should know as to how Quran was collected. I give a link, try reading it, just for information:
    Pages 354-368
    http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

    At least one should have correct information; only then one could discuss meaningfully.

    Thanks

Random thoughts

Friends, if, the resident muslim apologist on my blog, Paarsurrey is to be believed, then it is inhuman to ridicule ideas people believe in and you are not a true humanist. These beliefs are, but not limited to, believing that there is a god, and that this god chose one dumb fellow to reveal to his word, in Arabic, the dumb fellow then got some idle typist to listen to his rambling and together they compiled a holy[sic] book.

He wants, you and me, to believe, as his responses to this post, suggest, that Islam is submission to god with reason. Yes, you read that clearly.  What reason, apart from being born in a certain geographical area, to believing parents and being too lazy to inquire or not being exposed to contrary ideas would one have for submitting to god?

Our apologist is a kindly gentleman who also…

View original post 373 more words

Are Atheists morons? I don’t say that they are

August 3, 2013

 

paarsurrey
August 3rd, 2013 at 7:44 am

“By trying to demonstrate an untenable position of the opposing belief you seem to think that through a process of elimination the ”Last Man Standing” as it were, will be Christianity.”

But that is what Atheists are also doing exactly; by simply proving “Christianity” as false; they think Atheism/Materialism will prove to be true; never giving any evidence, which the atheist demand of others, that the “one true God does not exist”.

Dibilis points inconsistencies of the Atheists

July 22, 2013

 

I am pleased to give below comments from Mark Hamilton, a theist, and Keith Pinster, an atheist:

 

  • Mark Hamilton
    July 21st, 2013 at 2:16 am

    “So, now you are presuming to know what OTHER people think?”

    “The ONE AND ONLY reason that atheists speak out is to defend ourselves against theists trying to shove their superstitions down our throats. ”

    So know you claim to know the motivation behind every atheist who argue about metaphysics? That’s a pretty bold statement for someone who just a paragraph previously chewed out someone for making a similar claim. Your statement also seems pretty impossible to back up, especially in the face of individuals like Richard Dawkins. Do you really believe that the only reason he speaks out is to defend himself? That’s a pretty bold claim to make and I’d like to see some evidence to back it up.

    Also, if the only reason you’re speaking out is to defend yourself from “theists trying to shove their superstitions down our throats” then what are you doing here? You chose to come to this site. Nobody forced you. I’ve seen you commenting on other posts, so you’ve obviously been seeking out more. It would be one thing if Dibilis had come to your house, knocked on your door, and started proselyting. It’s another for you to show up on his own blog by your own violation and then start complaining that he’s shoving theism down your throat.

    • Keith Pinster
      July 21st, 2013 at 7:27 am

      “So know you claim to know the motivation behind every atheist who argue about metaphysics?”

      No, what I’m saying is that if religiots weren’t trying to force their beliefs down our throats, there would be nothing for atheists to fight against.

      “…then what are you doing here?”

      You choose to defend theism against atheism. I am just answering YOUR challenge. Paarsurrey is the one that invited me. I know it sucks to have someone show how moronic religion is, but part of defending our society against the imposition of religion is to come to sites like this and show the audience that religion is nothing but suppositions and speculations and are not logically valid.

      “…if Dibilis had come to your house…”

      Wrong. This is not my house or Dibilis’ house. This is a public forum designed by someone to refute the concept of atheism. Are you saying that people don’t have the right to defend themselves, especially from irrational, illogical and overtly stupid and untrue statements?

  • Mark Hamilton
    July 21st, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    “Are you saying that people don’t have the right to defend themselves, especially from irrational, illogical and overtly stupid and untrue statements?”

    I wouldn’t say that’s a right exactly, but so far the only irrational, illogical, and untrue statements I’ve seen have come from you.

    If you actually made an argument I might possibly be impressed. Instead you just rant about how there is no evidence for theism and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that has been presented all over this site. That and you insult everyone by calling them morons, superstitious, etc. It must be a very strange world where you come from, where people defend themselves by calling other people idiots. I’m sure you’ve shown a lot of people the light with your behavior. I’ll try your method the next time I’m on an atheist’s blog. I’ll just call his statements overtly stupid, insult him and his readership, and then claim that I’m just defending myself from atheists trying to shove their beliefs down my throat. That’ll convince them for sure!

    • Keith Pinster
      July 21st, 2013 at 10:41 pm

      Of course you would say that, since you hold tightly to a delusional superstition. Anyone who points out the inconsistency of your delusion would obviously seem “irrational” to you. That doesn’t surprise me at all.

  • Mark Hamilton
    July 22nd, 2013 at 12:29 am

    Okaaaay….but my point was that you are the one running around calling people’s beliefs irrational, insulting them, and calling them delusional without actually making an argument. I haven’t done that yet. I was trying to point out how ineffective your own method of discourse was.

    “Anyone who points out the inconsistency of your delusion would obviously seem “irrational” to you.”

    Does that mean you are the one clinging tightly to a delusion? And that we seem irrational to you because Dibilis is pointing out the inconsistency in your own beliefs? That actually seems like a pretty good explanation, since you’ve yet to provide any argumentation or, well, reason for your caustic rhetoric. The only person I’ve actually seen trying to “point out inconsistencies” has been Dibilis. If you’d care to make a logical argument instead of claiming that people who believe differently from you must be delusional then maybe we’ll talk.

    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    Paarsurrey adds:

    one may click the dates on the comments; that would lead one to the blog of Debilis where the comments and discussion is in progress.

Science and Naturalism

July 21, 2013

Paarsurrey says:
I like following points mentioned by you.

1. science is not bound to a particular philosophy

2. I will have to define some terms. When I say “science” I mean the scientific method. Science is (as I’ve said in previous blog posts) organized and methodical learning. Science is about asking questions, performing experiments, and then asking more and better questions based on the results. Science is tool, and it is a tool that is open to anyone who can think. Whether you are Hindu, Christian, or an atheist you can perform science. A scientist only needs to believe two things on faith; that nature is reasonable and that nature is understandable.

3. If everything has a reason then science as a concept will work; if everything just happens for no particular reason, if there are no “laws” defining how things work, then science is only an illusion.

4. To be a scientist you do not have follow any particular creed. That is why there are excellent scientists both past and present who are Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Christians, etc. However this fact is not immediately apparent to all people.

5. Now it is understandable why so many people, if only unconsciously, believe that you must be a naturalist to be a scientist. That is because of the limits of science itself. Science can only tell us about things inside of nature; things we can observe and test. If there is a God outside of nature then science cannot prove his existence.

You have used simple words but have explained a lot; this bridges gaps between the Theists and the Atheists.

The Page Nebula

I recently had the pleasure of having an intellectual conversation with a friend who I had a disagreement with. It’s a rare pleasure to be sure, and the fact that it is rare probably says more about me than anything else. Most of my friends agree with me on the matters I care most about, and if there is disagreement we would rather not bring up the subject. This is, I think, typical of most Americans (or perhaps I should say most white Americans; African-American culture is more accepting in general of honest conflict between friends and family which is to their credit). The only reason I came into open argument with this friend was the fact that he repeatedly aired his contrary views on Facebook and it is infinitely easier to get into an argument over the internet than it is in person. On the internet I have all…

View original post 1,409 more words

Atheism vs Meaning

July 16, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

It is Ok that the Atheists find meaning in life as do of course the Theists; though the Atheists are very late in this realization.

Can the Atheists mention the sum total of their achievements for betterment of humanity in the world at large since the inceptions of time?

Fide Dubitandum

The-meaning-of-life-41955043789_xlargeContinuing on with David Smalley’s “Top 10 Reasons I’m an Atheist”, we have this:

2. Living by the means of man helping man, and realizing time on earth is not a practice run, creates an urgency of life that requires fulfilling.

The first thing that occurs to me, in reading this, is to wonder if Smalley realizes that this doesn’t remotely make atheism true. I don’t think he’d really argue that something is true just because it makes us feel a sense of urgency. But, if not, why does he list it as a reason to be an atheist?

Perhaps he simply means that it is something that makes him feel better about being an atheist. If so, he’s allowed it, but I don’t see why anyone should be persuaded by this.

But, moving on to my second point: It’s simply not true that only atheists have a sense of…

View original post 232 more words