Posts Tagged ‘Agnostic’

The Creator God does exist; no doubt about it

March 14, 2014

I wrote following post on uncleE’s blog; the viewers could comment here even if they differ with me.
“Is there a God?”

“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”

MAR 14, 2014 @ 19:58:50

“Without reasons, we should be agnostic, with no strong belief either way. ”

I think I don’t agree with you.

I believe in One-True-God very naturally; like I believe in the existence of my parents or like I believe in the existence of my own self. I don’t need any other reason to believe in Him.

This is the start of belief in the One-True-God; there are/could be more or higher stages to this belief; but if one is Agnostic or Atheist; then he has to provide me the reasons and arguments that “the One-True-God does not exist”. I will see the flaws in their reasons and arguments.

“The Atheist Blogroll”

February 5, 2014

“The Atheist Blogroll”

I wrote following post on the above “The Atheist Blogroll”:

paarsurrey said

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. I am not an Atheist or Agnostic or Skeptic; though I respect them and would like to discuss with them; if they stick to reason as far as reason could go.

February 5, 2014 at 10:29 AM

“Are 93% of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences Atheist and Agnostic?”

July 18, 2013

Scientific Method fails miserably in religion : it is not designed for it

 There took place a good discussion on the above topic in my favourite discussion forum <>;one could view the post one likes by clicking the # of post. One could join the discussion in the forum or here in this blog by one’s comments which are always welcome:



Originally Posted by Shermana

It has been frequently stated that 93% of members of the National Academy of Scientists are Atheists or “Agnostics”. 

Is there a way to prove what percent of them are not “Agnostic” or are of the “Atheist-leaning Agnostic” category?

If so, can one draw an inference from this number about the NAS from this number? Especially in light of the whole “Can science disprove God” concept? Can we suggest there may be confirmation bias in their publications one way or another? Can such a confirmation bias be ruled out? Can it be inferenced that this number has nothing or little to do with their general statements and conclusions?

For instance, if one said that Creationist Institutes are overwhelmingly if not entirely Christian, then many might completely reject their conclusions if they aren’t Christian due to a perceived confirmation bias. Does the same apply to those on the other end of the belief spectrum?

Paarsurrey said:

Even if there is one scientist who believes in the one true God; that proves that science is not exclusive of religion.


Paarsurrey said:

Science does not deny the one true God; it is not a subject of science. If a scientist believes or does not believe in Him; it is neither a concern of science nor it has any bearing on the existence of the one true God, in my opinion.

It is something very personal of an individual.

#24 Originally Posted by Shermana

#25 MysticSang’ha

#26 Monk Of Reason


 Paarsurrey said:

It is the choice of the Atheists/Agnostics and their other connotations associated with them to live in doubt; they may come out of it and opt to live in certainty; if they so please.

#28 Revoltingest



Paarsurrey said:

Who forced one to live in doubt? If nobody forced or compelled then it is sure to be an option.


Paarsurrey said:

But scientific method though useful in science for which it has been designed yet it fails miserably in religion; it is of no use in religion.

Religion does not deny usefulness of the scientific method in science; rather it supports it.

#33 Sculelos

#34 Kilgore Trout

#35 Sculelos


Originally Posted by Sculelos

Unseperateable means : To not be able to be unattached from the study of energy of a higher (infinite) form giving his energy to us pouring energy into us. This is not recognized by the dictionary but it is a word and that is it’s meaning.

Inseparable means a pulse that is spread in you and locked on from some other divided locked (aka finite) energy source. 

So yes I stay with my saying that they are Unseperateable.

Paarsurrey said:

I am with you.

Nature is the Work of the one true God; religion is the Word of one true God; they are from the same one source.

Buddha was not an Agnostic

May 15, 2013



Buddha was not an Agnostic, in my opinion; his ways have nothing common with the atheists. Just to gain some ground the Atheists, in my opinion, try to include him in their folds but ultimately they reject him one being with them.

I may, for instance, here refer to Christopher Hitchens, he had to write a chapter in one of his books “There is no ‘Eastern’ solution”, I think keeping that in his mind.

The truthful religion favors free enquiry and does not favor blind faith.

Buddha was not with the Agnostics; he spoke against Skepticism/Agnosticism:

Courtesy our friend Tathagata (#79)

“The Buddha was NOT an Agnostic. It is scripturally false to say he was an Agnostic. He was in fact vehemently opposed to Agnosticism and he called them “evasive eel-wrigglers.” See the Brahmajala Sutta and the Samannaphala Sutta.


“Ambiguous Evasion [edit]

The concept of ambiguous evasion or eel-wriggling (Pali: Amaravikkhepa) is introduced in the Brahmajala sutta. When hearing Buddhist teachings, the Buddha claims that people would react with four forms of ambiguous evasion:

  1. Evasion out of fear or hatred of making false claims.
  2. Evasion out of fear or hatred of attachment.
  3. Evasion out of fear or hatred of debate.
  4. Evasion out of fear or hatred of admitting ignorance.

In other words, when a person would hear the dharma, they would respond, “I don’t know. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. I can’t say it’s true because I don’t know and I can’t deny it’s true because I don’t know.”

The idea is that the person isn’t considering the arguments presented (see Kalama Sutta), but stubbornly adhering to irrational agnosticism out of feelings of fear or hatred.”

Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was not a skeptic, atheist or agnostic

March 19, 2013

Siddhartha GautamaImage of Siddhartha Gautama

image of Buddha

The history and life account of Siddhartha Gautama is imbued with the Buddhist denominational feuds. Buddha did not write any biography that would have survived to our times that could be relied upon for certain.

The skeptics who claim to follow reason should not follow a denominational line just because it suits their philosophy, this would be a biased approach on their part.

Please just see above some pictures of Siddhartha Gautama.

Please tell me frankly; are there any renowned skeptics like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc., who ever are used to be seen in such postures in their daily life?

So, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was not a skeptic, atheist or agnostic, he never was.



Buddhism is sometimes described as nontheistic because of the absence of a creator god, but that can be too simplistic a view.[120][121]

  1. According to Merv Fowler, some forms of Buddhism have incorporated concepts that resemble that of Brahman, which suggests theism. Merv Fowler, Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices(Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 34: “It was inevitable that the non-theistic philosophy of orthodox Buddhism should court the older Hindu practices and, in particular, infuse into its philosophy the belief in a totally transcendent Absolute of the nature of Brahman.”
  2. ^Wallace, B. Alan Ph.D. (November 1999). “Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?” (PDF). National Conference of the American Academy of Religion lectures. Boston. p. 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2014.“Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavaºga to the tath›gatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance.”



Holy War -the peaceful version- with reasons, arguments and peaceful dialogue

The News:

One will, perhaps, love to read the following:

“Holy War”: Is it Armageddon? with its ” Peaceful Version”! 1

“Holy War”: Is it Armegiddon / Armageddon? – with its “Peaceful Version”! 1 | paarsurrey (

One will be taken aback to note that Armegiddon/Armageddon is nothing like as one would have imagined or known so far. It is not to be fought with any physical and destructive weaponry and or the lethal arsenal of the day. It is peaceful and in fact, I understand, it has already started and it is sown like a seed!

It was a debate between the Pauline-Christianity (represented by Mr. Abdullah Atham) and the Second Coming 1835-1908 , that took place in Urdu language and was published then by the name “Jang-e-Muqaddas” in 1893 ( 22 May 1893 to 5 June 1893) in the then British India and has been recently translated and published in English by the name “The Holy War”:

The Holy War — A DEBATE BETWEEN ISLAM & CHRISTIANITY — Jang-e-Muqaddas (


From: a peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim


These are the days of Armageddon – the final battle between good and evil –The peaceful Version! 3 

Has Armageddon already started with the advent of Second Coming 1835-1908 ?– The peaceful Version! 2

Click to access Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf

Atheists- had always been in minority; and will remain as such

April 29, 2012

I don’t think any worthwhile Atheistic or Agnostic society existed in the ancient in any large numbers. Had it been so? I would like to know status of women in those cultures or civilizations. That is why sometimes I think that there was no worthwhile Atheist Agnostic culture anywhere in the world in the ancient times; might be no Atheist Agnostic existed in those times; and it might be simply a recent growth; please correct me if I am wrong. No disrespect intended; I am open to change and to revise my opinion.

Thanks and regards


Paarsurrey defends all revealed religions on Truth

May 17, 2011

Paarsurrey defends all Revealed Religions on Truth; refusing to believe their mythical part and reinstating the reason part that they have missed under debris of time; Paarsurrey also appreciates the Atheists Agnostics Skeptics Apatheists if they adhere to reason and rational arguments and they don’t ridicule and deride the theists.

Is it not fair?

Paul founded the modern “Christianity and Church” with the sole purpose of character assassination of Jesus

January 23, 2010

Paul founded the modern “Christianity and Church” with the sole purpose of character assassination of Jesus

Paul is NOT total Christianity

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friends

Let the Catholics and Protestants say the above words (Paul is NOT total Christianity); why should an Atheist Agnostic plead their case? Let the Catholics Protestants stand on their own feet; and defend their own faith.

Present “Christianity” is founded by Paul; Paul’s absurdities have nothing to do with Jesus and Mary. “Christianity’ of Paul and the “Church” was invented at Rome only with the sole purpose of character assassination of Jesus in his absence; when he took refuge in India, with Mary his mother, from the atrocities of Jews.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.


Jesus and Mary of Quran vs. the Celebrity Culture

November 21, 2009

Jesus and Mary of Quran vs. the Celebrity Culture

Hi the good friends here

The West must love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran as their Social role Model to save the family institution- a natural bond, instead of following the Celebrity Culture so rampant in West perhaps mostly promoted by the confused Atheists Agnostic having no revealed Book or a natural system for life.

It is true that the reason oriented and enlightened Christians find no rational hero in the mythical concepts of Jesus- being son of god or god, and Mary- as an intercession, presented by cunning Paul and Church and the sinful scribes; and hence they leave Christianity silently .The Celebrity culture hardly promotes any family bond for sure.

The Church and the Christians should therefore present Jesus and Mary of Quran as a role model to salvage all such people.

This is also useful for the Atheists to become pro-life.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran


The Creator Selects and Appoints the Messengers

November 11, 2009

paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friends

It is not Muslims considering the choice of making Muhammad a Messenger Prophet of the Creator-God Allah YHWH. It is the Creator who selects and appoints a perfect human on this office. Let us see what happened in the time of Noah as mentioned in Quran:

[71:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[71:2] We sent Noah to his people, saying, ‘Warn thy people before there comes upon them a grievous punishment.’
[71:3] He said, ‘O my people! surely I am a plain Warner unto you,
[71:4] ‘That you serve Allah and fear Him and obey me.
[71:5] ‘He will forgive you your sins and grant you respite till an appointed time. Verily the time appointed by Allah cannot be put back when it comes, if only you knew!’
[71:6] He said, “My Lord, I have called my people night and day,
[71:7] “But my calling them has only made them flee from me all the more.
[71:8] “And every time I called them that Thou mightest forgive them, they put their fingers into their ears, and covered up their hearts, and persisted in their iniquity, and were disdainfully proud.
[71:9] “Then, I called them to righteousness openly.
[71:10] “Then I preached to them in public, and also spoke to them in private. [71:11] “And I said, ‘Seek forgiveness of your Lord; for He is the Great Forgiver. [71:12] ‘He will send down rain for you in abundance,
[71:13] ‘And He will strengthen you with wealth and with children, and He will give you gardens and He will give you rivers.
[71:14] ‘What is the matter with you that you expect not wisdom and staidness from Allah?
[71:15] ‘And He has created you in different forms and different conditions. [71:16] ‘Have you not seen how Allah has created seven heavens in perfect harmony,
[71:17] ‘And has placed the moon therein as a light, and made the sun as a lamp? [71:18] ‘And Allah has caused you to grow as a good growth from the earth, … 1&verse=10

So, like Noah other Messengers Prophets have been selected by the Creator- God Allah YHWH. They have to be accepted by other human being for their ethical, moral and spiritual uplift.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friends

I like your gesture for not opposing my above post for almost a weak. I am happy that my Atheist Agnostic friends have accepted a very natural approach as mentioned above that the Messenger Prophets are selected by the Creator – God Allah YHWH; this is very essential in terms of evolution of Man.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

%d bloggers like this: