Posts Tagged ‘claim’

A claim under the guise of making no claim

August 27, 2015

<>Thread:”Atheism or atheisms?”.

Please click the post # below to view,to comment and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #176


A good point, I appreciate it.

Atheism is 100% faith-based :SILENCEOFMIND

May 11, 2014

May 9, 2014 at 3:34 pm

Since you cannot prove atheism, that means you have 100% faith in it.
You have no evidence for atheism. You just believe it because you hate Christianity.
To reason out rational arguments the claim you are making must be able to stand on its own merits.
Because atheism cannot stand on its own merits, the atheist is left making bigoted attacks on bigoted attacks and committing verbal abuse on anyone who dares offer disagreement.

Paarsurrey says:

I appreciate your comments.


May 11, 2014 at 4:01 pm
@JOHN ZANDE : May 11, 2014 at 3:37 pm

He might be sometimes; but I have never seen any positive argument favoring Atheism from anybody .
Whenever somebody challenges Atheism; they hide behind “burden of proof”; that suggests Atheism is faith based; cannot stand on its own feet.

I know that Christianity is mythical; it does not belong to teachings of Jesus; and is based on Pauline creeds.

Atheism is a fruit of Pauline Christianity; it surfaced in reaction to mythical creeds of Pauline Christianity.


Atheism cannot be a position of default or position of origin; why?

February 19, 2014

paarsurrey said…
@ Calladus :

“I lack any belief in a deity.

This is a “default” position for me. I have not found sufficient evidence to encourage belief in a deity.”

I don’t get you. Were you an Atheist when you gained consciousness as a child, as far as you remember?


18/2/14 9:19 AM

Calladus said…
My earliest memories were full of magic, wonder and fear.

I was scared to death of the “Bumble”, from the Christmas animation, “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer”.

I was also pretty scared of monsters and ghosts – I’d read about them in “Tales from the Crypt” comics that my older teenage neighbor liked to read.

And, I thought that butterflies were magical – we were in the middle of the Monarch butterfly migration path, and our yard would be filled with them every year.

I don’t remember much about Church at this age, because I’d go to the Pre-kindergarten child care when Mom and Dad went to church. I played with the blocks there and built things with them.

As a child, I’d have my father check under my bed and in my closet for monsters, and I’d have my mom leave the hallway light on.

So if you are claiming that my “default position” is whatever I believed as a child, then it would be about Bumbles, ghosts and monsters.

But no deities. I just didn’t think about them.

18/2/14 10:54 AM

Calladus said…

I think I see a pattern here. People think that “Belief” is some sort of binary logic. Sort of like computer logic, that is either 1 or 0, or “True” or “False”.

And what is funny, is that binary logic isn’t even true with computers. There is a Third State, known as “Tri-state” or “Hi-Z”, which are both fancy ways of saying, “Disconnected”.

I don’t have a belief that a deity exists. I don’t have a belief that a deity does NOT exist. I don’t bother with believing, or disbelieving.

Instead, I’m disconnected from belief in a deity.

As are you, dear reader, about a great many things.

For example you are disconnected from belief in Trugs. You don’t believe in a Trug, you don’t disbelieve in a Trug.

And if I informed you that a Trug was a supernatural creature, you might still not form a belief stance on Trugs. After all, why bother? It doesn’t affect you one way or another.

No matter what I say about a Trug, you are unaffected unless I can bring some sort of convincing evidence.

18/2/14 11:04 AM

paarsurrey said…

@Calladus :18/2/14 10:54 AM

“So if you are claiming that my ‘default position’ is whatever I believed as a child, then it would be about Bumbles, ghosts and monsters.”

I wanted to know the original position or the original default position since you got consciousness of existence of life.I don’t think you would have described your position as Atheism at that time.

Am I right?


18/2/14 12:13 PM

Calladus said…
No, I would not have described my “position” as atheism at the age of 4 or 5.

Who would?

Please, tell me what child would describe ANYTHING as their life philosophy at the age of 4 or 5?

Maybe you know of a child prodigy?

18/2/14 1:30 PM

Paarsurrey said: ( paarsurrey sent these comments but these are still awaited to be published after moderation; not yet exhibited on the Calladus blog):

@ Calladus:18/2/14 1:30 PM
“No, I would not have described my “position” as atheism at the age of 4 or 5″

May be I could not express my thoughts properly.
There must be a first stage at which you would have been able to name it as Atheism.
At what age this happened?
Before it; it was not Atheism.


Paarsurrey adds further to the above discussion:

I think there would be only few or a negligible minority of people in the world who would have Atheism as a default position or the original position reasonably. Only those of them could claim Atheism as their default position whose parents were Atheists and hence they need to be helped by the Theists to provide reasonable arguments.

The majority of the Atheists, I think cannot claim Atheism as their default or original position. They belonged to a position of one of the religions in the world; and then they thought it to be convenient to get converted to Atheism (Skepticism, Agnosticism etc) without being convinced with evidences or proofs which they demand from the believers so often.

Atheism is a position of doubt and ignorance, not of certainty. Had they got converted to Atheism with evidences and proofs; they would have them ready to present them to believers?

They just demand evidences and proofs from the believers and are hesitant even to define as to what they mean from “evidence” or “proof”; a dictionary cannot be much useful in this connection; as everyone of them differs with others.

Did Jesus himself claim that he was sent for the atonement of sins of others?

May 1, 2013

I think Jesus did not claim himself that he was sent for the atonement of the sins of others.

This was a concept Paul and the Church tried to put in the mouth of Jesus.

Jesus never died on the Cross, so he could not claim for that.

Please quote Jesus’ own words in his own original language which was Aramaic, as you know.

Christians or non-Christians all are welcome here to express themselves fully. It is a fact that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim in his own words- the “Promised Messiah” / “Jesus’ Second Coming”

May 1, 2013

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Image of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

The Promised Messiah- Jesus’ Second Coming

Hank Kimball  Says: 

(While commenting on one of my post<>)

“I am going to find out all I can from his (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s) words, and not those that think he’s a heretic.

I am open to all information that anyone claims is from God or Jesus.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah claims:

“I have publicly announced, having been informed of it by God through revelation, that the real and true Promised Messiah who is also the real Mahdi, tidings of whose appearance are to be found in the Bible and the Quran and whose coming is promised also in the Hadith, is myself; who is, however, not provided with any sword or gun.

I have been commanded by God to invite people with humility and gentleness to God, Who is the true God, Eternal and Unchangeable, Who has perfect Holiness, perfect Knowledge, perfect Mercy, and perfect Justice.

I am the light of this dark age; he who follows me will be saved from falling into the pit prepared by the Devil for those who walk in darkness. I have been sent by God to lead the people of the world to the true God through peace and humility, and to reassert the reign of morals in Islam.

God has provided me with heavenly signs, for the satisfaction of seekers after truth. He has done wonderful things in my support; He has disclosed to me secrets of the unseen and of the future which, according to the holy books, is the sign of a true claimant to divine office, and He has vouchsafed to me holy and pure Knowledge. Therefore, the souls which hate truth and are pleased with darkness, have turned against me. But I have decided to be sympathetic towards mankind – as far as I can.

So, in this age the greatest sympathy for the Christians is that their attention should be called to the true God, Who is free from such defects as being born and having to suffer death and undergo suffering, the God who made the earliest heavenly bodies spherical in shape and, in His law of nature, set down this point of spiritual guidance that, like a sphere, there is in Him Unity and absence of direction.

That is why the things which occupy space have not been made triangular, i.e., the things which God created first such as the earth, the heaven, the sun and the moon, and all the stars, and elements – all are spherical, the spherical nature of which points towards Unity. Therefore there can be no greater sympathy with the Christians than that they should be guided towards the God Whose creations declare Him to be free from the idea of trinity.”

Paarsurrey says:

I like your open approach; please read the book written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad titled “Jesus in India” by clicking the above link. The book has been written in Urdu language, and the original Urdu book is also available on line; this is its English translation.

Please be in his company for a little while or more, as you may like please.


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

Jesus’ death….

November 26, 2011

There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by Captain Redbeard a nice poster on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages.

The thread was already going on when I joined the discussion; I have given only those posts which related to the topic and which were addressed to me. The conversation is given for public good and for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages.

One must note that the purpose of a discussion is not necessarily to convince others or to convert others; that is done by one after lots of research. The discussion brings forth to light all angles on a topic; and helps one to form one’s own opinion independently.

I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.
One may access the following link to see the whole of it.

OP by Captain Redbeard

Ok so I have been studying the bible for close to ten years now and the more I study the more questions I have. I have been given the cold shoulder in churches and church groups for some of the questions I have but I feel they are valid. Maybe this wonderful group of people that hang out here can help me:

1. If sin is carried by the man through the seed of man and passed on to all his children Christ would have been born blameless. Which is why he was the perfect sacrifice. However, death was the punishment for sin before sin the bible tells us that Adam and Eve were eturnal with a body that wouldn’t die. So Christ being without sin means he was as Adam was before the fall. Man in his perfected state, eturnal. How then was he able to die on the cross or feel hunger or things like that?

2. The bible says that it is appointed for all men to die once and that is the bodies death, however the rapture experience says that the bride, Christ followers, will be caught up, raptured, into heaven and avoid the seven years of tribulation… there a sudden death then rapture as the dead in Christ go first then the living? How does this work it contradicts itself doesn’t it?

Those two are enough for now to probably get a big response so I’ll save the rest for another time.

1. Paarsurrey

Jesus did not die on the cross; he survived and migrated to India and lived a long life and died there naturally and peacefully.

2. Captain Redbeard

What evidence is there to this claim?

3. Captain Redbeard

What evidence is there to this claim?

4. Paarsurrey
Jesus did not die on the Cross; he survived a cursed death on the Cross as he had foretold; he died naturally and peacefully in Kashmir, India; one may read the following in this connection: a BBC documentary. … -india.htm

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes … rine-jesus … view.shtml … shmir.html

5. Earnestshub

Well that makes at least as much sense as the Christian story.

6. Paarsurrey

It is in the history.

7. Paarsurrey

It is in the history that Jesus died in Kashmir, India.

8. Earnestshub

Yes I am aware of that.

9. Jomine

You were the one who wrote the history or was it Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

10. Paarsurrey

History existed already; Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – the Promised Messiah 1835-1908, just highlighted it .

11. Jomine

Interesting. Now a days history too started existing? I thought only god does that!

Promised by himself?

Muhammed was supposed to be the last?

12. Paarsurrey

Muhammad himself told of coming of an end time reformer with symbolic name of Jesus or Issa or Ibne Maryam; Son of Mary.

He named this end time reformer as Imam Mahdi also.

13. Paarsurrey

Jesus felt thirsty on the Cross; he was a human being; he was neither a god nor a son of god.

14. Paarsurrey
None of the gospel writers was an eye-witness of the crucifixion of Jesus.

One can read an eye-witness of the event by reading the following:


Crucifixion By An



15. Paarsurrey

But Jesus did not die on the Cross; he later died in Kashmir, India.

Had the Gospel writers been believers of Jesus; they would have not denied the greatest miracle of Jesus that Jesus would be saved like Jonah was saved.

16. Kiss andTales

Jesus was saved remember after sacrifice was made in our behalf Jesus was not in his tomb! All things went as planned, so now Jesus returned to a spiritual body, that he had before he came to earth. Remember Jonah stayed in the belly of the fish, the same amount of days Jesus was in Tomb. A clue that Jesus would, be the messiah.

17. Kiss andTales
And true Jesus did not die on across, a cross was a pagan symbol of a god call Tamaz , people would carry his symbol of name in the streets when walking. Jesus died on a stake. Like the stake you would tie a tent down with.
One piece of wood; was what he died on. but many religions use this symbol for Christ, the cross has been used for years by religion yet the truth he did not die on this form known as a cross.1Peter2:24 Acts5:30 Deut 21:22 .

18. aka-dj

Christianity has its foundation in the death AND resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The shape of the “cross” is irrelevant to a great degree.

He WAS crucified in the Roman method. He DID in fact DIE. (The Roman Centurion made sure we didn’t miss that point.)
He ROSE again on the third day, (according to prophecy), and IS alive today.

That’s the cornerstone of (our) faith.

19. Arcjahad

Just look at an original copy of early English language bibles and the name Jesus isn’t in them that’s the easy part when the name Jesus started to be used from my research is around the mid 1700s so early Americans weren’t using that name but it’s a deep study but the answers can be found

20. Paarsurrey

What did they write instead of Jesus?

Jesus is definitley not a Hebrew or Aramaic name.

21. Disappearinghead

Jesus is an invented name. His name is Yahshua.

This is why there is no power in the name of Jesus and why adding ‘in Jesus’ name’ to the end of a prayer in an effort to get God to rubber stamp it is pointless. He knows His name.

22. Paarsurrey

Jesus is not the pronunciation of Hebrew or Aramaic which Mary or Maryam or Meryam spoke; though it depicts the same person.

In Kashmir, India, the same person is named Yuz Asaf:

“It may be speculated that one of those who accompanied Yuz Asaf alias Jesus on his travels was a disciple-writer who continued to document Jesus’ experiences and ministry until his own death, after which the writings ceased or were taken over by another until Jesus’ death.”

23. Earnestshub

It’s all myths paars, the whole thing is so obviously mythological to anyone who reads widely and makes an honest attempt to understand life.

It’s only indoctrination.
If it were otherwise, the place you were born and your parents beliefs would not be fixed as they are.

Born in America? What chance Christian?

Born in Afghanistan? What chance Muslim?

Guess which belief you are likely to have been taught from birth. Not gonna be the same “truth” for both places is it?

The explanation for this is that it is all simply psychotic nonsense.

24. Paarsurrey

Born nowhere; what chance Atheist?

25. Earnestshub

Not a very good answer to the question is it?

Atheists and non-believers are all over the planet in small pockets of every society I can think of.

Religionists on the other hand simply buy the bilge they get from parents and peers.

26. Paarsurrey

Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims are also found in every part of the world; right.

27. Earnestshub

Yes they are, but check the stats on where people come from and their beliefs.

It blows the whole religion idea away like sand in the desert and there would be very few people foolish enough to argue that America is predominantly Islamic and Iraq or Afghanistan predominantly Christian.

I like reality in my arguments, not bulldust.

28. Genaea

Hi Captain. My take on it is Jesus was born of God; yes, perfect man. As we know, man’s body was perfect before the fall. But obviously, they got hungry:) When he died, he took on the sin of man, for man. To save man from the sin that was killing him and separating him further from God. He came to die.

2. The bible states that two will be working and one will be caught up. No death, in my opinion. I honestly believe that the “appointment” is a spiritual or metaphoric term. Christians are to die or “kill” the flesh in order to be “born again”. (Maybe while the two are working, the graves are being emptied).

But don’t forget, the bible does tell us that some things will never be fully understood by us. It is so with scientific studies as well. Faith to believe what you don’t understand is what it takes.

Contradiction? When reading the bible, there must be an open heart. We should not read the bible with suspicion if it is our desire to know what we believe. It all comes from faith in God. Sometimes, one scripture that seems contradictory to another is actually speaking on different terms/ situations, usually talking about another topic altogther. (you are to stop, drop and roll when you are on fire/ not because you visit the fire station).
Questions are good Captain. It requires us to study more, then pray.

29. Kiss andTales

Yes I like that you said study very important to get true facts research is important .to get understanding.and there is no contradiction to the truth it all makes sense when you seek the truth and accept thats what it says.

30. lavender3957

Great question, I enjoyed reading all of the answers. The Bible is confusing to me. I usually look towards my pastor for answers. He always tells me if he does not have an answer, he will find it for me. With so many different religions, what is the truth is my question.

31. A Troubled Man

Certainly we can see that religions have not provided any truths. Your pastor will not tell you this truth.

32. Paarsurrey

All the messengers prophets of all the revealed religions of the world are Truthful in origin; all believing in ONE true Creator God; that is the Truth you are looking for.


Hubpages is a good discussion site; one could comment there or here in this blog; comments are most welcome.

Quran resolves all contradictions and ambiguities of Torah and Gospels

April 8, 2010

wudjab Says:
April 7, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Is this the same quran that real muslims (Shia, Sunni, etc) believe in or is this the magical Ahmediya version ?

Paarsurrey says:

April 8, 2010 at 11:08 am

Hi friend wudjab

Quran, the first and the foremost source of guidance of Islam is the same whatever the denomination; and it has not changed from the time it was revealed. It is the pristine Word of the Creator- God Allah YHWH. It has got all the lasting and truthful teachings of all the religions of the world; including OTBible or Torah and the NTBible.

There are many contradictions and ambiguities in the Bible and their followers are perplexed to note them, as you must have observed. If they have claims for the issues, they don’t have reasons for them in their books and if they have reason, which is very seldom; they don’t have the claims for that in their books.

To resolve such contradictions their followers have to add something from their own selves which mean they add wisdom to their Books which was not there to start with.

All such contradictions and ambiguities are resolved by Quran.

The text of the Quran is the same for Shias, Sunnis and Ahmadis. Ahmadis neither believe in any magic nor do we have any magical version of the Quran.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslims

The concept of Trinity is alien to Jesus and Mary

January 23, 2010

Wootah wrote:

I believe (Trinity) God is Good and Just

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend wootah

First of all the Catholics Protestants should present the claim of the Trinity as also the essence of its reason from the Gospels; why should you try to put words into the mouth of Trinity, your assumed god, which it individually and collectively failed to mention in your book or to provide reason for it, to start with?

I don’t think your Trinity-god has anything to do with justice when it attempted to kill its own son for the sins of others; it is a cruel Trinity-god. Would you following your Trinity-god kill you own son or daughter for the sins of a passerby in the street? It is a cruel act, so you should rather leave the Trinity-god; than doing this inhuman act.

Trinity is neither Good nor Just; it is cruel and irrational.

The concept of Trinity is alien to Jesus and Mary; they never believed in it.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.


%d bloggers like this: