Posts Tagged ‘Discussion’

If Atheism is a perfect Ideology; the Atheists give claims and reason in its support from peer reviewed science journals of repute

April 16, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/an-address-to-friends/comment-page-1/#comment-13684

paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 01:59

@makagutu :April 16, 2014 at 21:27
“Are you saying that to ask you to consider the possibility you are wrong and no preaching are many conditions?”

Well, the Atheists also preach; but I was not hinting at that.

I already agreed that when one enters into a discussion one accepts the possibility that one could be wrong.
There are other conditions:

• “That morality has nothing to do with the gods so I propose that in our discussion you will not bring up the question of where I get my morals if I have no belief in god.”
• “Let us also agree here that whether life has meaning or not has nothing to do with gods.”

Not only the host should be respected but the guests should also be respected; neither bullied nor ridiculed.
Why should the religious be put to answer the questions or to give the proofs and evidences? If Atheism is a perfect Ideology; then the Atheists should provide the proofs and evidences they so often demand from the religious.
The Atheists extol science as if it has been invented by them; nevertheless they should quote for their claims and reasons from a peer reviewed scientific standard journal of science.

If the religious quote their scripture; their quotes should have the claims and reason-content in them.

It should be a friendly discussion.

Please have a thought on this.

Regards

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/an-address-to-friends/comment-page-1/#comment-13686

paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 02:40
@Ben Nasmith :April 16, 2014 at 17:5
“I think that such a being exists, and as a Christian I am devoted to the God revealed by Jesus.”

I endorse the One-True-God that revealed Himself on Jesus; but that God was not Jesus and cannot be Jesus.

Do you agree with this? Please

Regards

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/an-address-to-friends/comment-page-1/#comment-13705

paarsurrey says:
April 17, 2014 at 18:50
@clubschadenfreude : April 17, 2014 at 18:18

If you are an Atheist and as you say that you are not on blind-faith rather everything you believe is based on sound experiments and is nothing but science.

As I requested from the Atheists; now please start providing proofs and evidences favoring Atheism- the perfect ideology for the human being; for the claims and reasons supporting it from peer reviewed journals of Science.

This is an open question to all the Atheists. Please

Regards

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/an-address-to-friends/comment-page-1/#comment-13799

paarsurrey says:
April 21, 2014 at 17:54
@clubschadenfreude :April 17, 2014 at 20:27

Sorry to point out.

The arguments you have given are based on your understanding of religion and are against religion.

You have extremely failed to prove and give positive evidences favoring Atheism; not a single quotation from a text book of science or a peer reviewed article from a journal of science which even mentions of Atheism and arguments of its truthfulness.

Did you?

If Tom is proved to be wrong, supposedly; it does not prove automatically that Harry must be right.

Regards

To ridicule and or to deride is inhuman in a discussion

February 15, 2014

Of “The Burden of Proof”
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/of-the-burden-of-proof/#comment-4121

paarsurrey Says:
February 15, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
@ trueandreasonable

I really appreciate it.

In a debate where both sides are pitched against one another to win from the other if one or both sides sometimes resort to little name calling, it is understandable but in a discussion to ridicule or deride, I think it is most inhumane to do it.

If one side does it; that indicates, in my opinion, that it is short of reasons and good arguments; and virtually it has lost its case.

The other side is morally fine if it wants to continue with its reasoning but deletes the foul words yet keeps the reason content intact.

If the first party still persists with the same attitude; then the second party should withdraw from the discussion for sometime or some days; till the sentiments are cooled down and return to normal.
Then the discussion could be resumed.
Regards

Atheists! Please select ONE, the most violent verse in Quran for discussion

February 4, 2014

Paarsurrey wrote:

@ Sabio Lantz

I have written following comment on the link provided by you above. Please help dwindlinginunbelief, if you may like to, to select the most violent verse for discussion. Thanks and regards

paarsurrey said…
@
dwindlinginunbelief

Thanks for providing a list of some 30 places from Quran where you think Quran teaches violence instead of peace.
I think you are an intelligent person; please select just ONE verse from it which you think is the most violent one among them.

We will discuss the verse here to find whether it is peaceful or violent one.?

Will you do it please?

Tue Feb 04, 01:52:00 PM 2014

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2013/11/pope-francis-islam-and-quran-are.html?showComment=1391550775760#c7910498698825374690

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/12/islam-demystified/#comment-1231113326

“Islam demystified”

January 7, 2014

“Islam demystified”
December 12, 2013 By John Shore

John Shore has written an informative write-up in his blog “patheos”; the link of which is given below.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/12/islam-demystified/#disqus_thread
Courtesy John Shore of “Patheos” blog

Please join the discussion there or here on my blog Paarsurrey.

I give here the comments made by Rebecca Trotter, paarsurrey and by Sabio Lantz at “patheos” blog for the discussion.

I understand from Sabio Lantz vide his post “Another Progressive” bans Sabio” at his blog “Triangulations”that he has been banned from the “patheos” blog.
He may express his thought here and other viewers who agree with him or disagree with him are also welcome.
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/another-progressive-bans-sabio/

Rebecca Trotter Sabio Lantz • 21 days ago −
The way I look at it, Islam is 500 years younger than Christianity. 500 years ago, I am certain a majority of Christians approved of burning witches and GLBT people, waging holy war, converting “savages” on the threat of death, killing those who wouldn’t convert, etc.

The fact that there are a lot of Muslims who don’t embrace the hardline let’s me know that it’s more than possible for Islam to move beyond barbarity just as Christianity (hopefully) did. That it’s happening in the context of modernity and global interconnection makes it almost certain that it won’t take nearly as long as it did for Christians.

The fact is that the old ways have continually and consistently fallen in the face of modern cultural forces. It’s happening now in the Muslim world and yes, there is resistance and blowback that goes with that – just as there has been in the western world. But people are people. Yes, religion is important. But Islam has changed and shifted before.

Besides what is to be gained by agreeing with violent, fundamentalist voices who claim that they are the true face and voice of Islam? Buying into that nonsense has wrecked havoc in the church. Do we really need to join in a repeat of that error when it comes to Islam?

paarsurrey Rebecca Trotter
@ Rebecca

The enlightened people in the West; should support the moderate people in Islam; that is the need of the hour.

I agree with you.

Regards

Sabio Lantz Rebecca Trotter • 21 days ago

I truly hope Muslims stop believing their scriptures just like many Christians (esp. in Europe and America) have stopped believing theirs. For I think that would improve Islam. But Rebecca do realize that it is the VAST majority of muslims that support sharia law with its calls for stonings, killings, mysogony and more. It is not only the Qur’an but also the Hadith which supports these.

Islam is certainly not monolithic, and like you, I hope the liberal, peaceful factions grow and quiet the horrible majority. And where that majority tries to bring Sharia law (or any semblance of it) into a country, it must be strongly resisted. We must not hesitate to call the majority view what it is: dangerous, deadly, twisted and perverse. I feel we can still acknowledge the minority of peace loving Muslims while we do that.

Rebecca, do you disagree with the Pew Poll statistics?

paarsurrey wrote: @ Sabio Lantz
01/07/2014 at 6:47 pm
Sorry for your being banned on the “patheos” blog; but you are welcome to express your views with reasons on my blog: “https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/islam-demystified/”

“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 <http://www.religiousforums.com/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:

 #13

Quote:

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.

#19   

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

#27

 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

#30jmn

#31

Paarsurrey said:

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

#32

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

#36

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.

Mormons and JWs consider “Catholics and Protestant” as heretics. Are they?

April 8, 2010

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/jesus-was-not-dead-on-the-cross-in-the-first-place/#comment-983#comment-983

wudjab Says:

April 7, 2010 at 9:07 pm

You need to try harder Paar,

According to your own Quran :

[4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.*
and the reason they did not break his legs ?

John 19:36

These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
Now if you spent as much time learning about the real Islam (ahmediya’s are not considered Muslims after all) as you do trying to discredit Christianity, you might be better served.

paarsurrey Says:

April 8, 2010 at 10:29 am

Hi friend wudjab

Well my friend; “Mormons” and “JWs”- the only true Christians, do consider the Catholics and Protestants as heretics. Are you a Mormon or a JW? Please mention so that we may proceed further in the discussion.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

There is no possibility of any change of text in Quran

June 29, 2009

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/18/the-earliest-copy-of-the-quran-yemeni-koran-‎video/#comments

There is a discussion going on on the faithfreedom.org (one may like to access the above link), that Quran has been changed ‎many a times. I don’t agree with this notion. The viewers of this blog may like to see ‎following posts exchanged there:‎

‎• 13. paarsurrey Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 7:53 pm

Hi

I think there is some confusion here. Quran was not written or authored by Muhammad. ‎It was revealed word for word on the heart of Muhammad and from him his companions ‎learnt it by heart. It is only a secondary security method that it was also committed to ‎writing immediately. The method of learning from person to person still continues; ‎statrted from Muhammad to date. As Muhammad received Quran from God Allah ‎YHWH; he let his companions know of it and it was immediately committed to memory ‎by his companions.

There is no possibility of any change in Quran; I think.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

‎• 14. R_not Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 6:52 am

Since parts of the Quran was eaten by goats – and Allah didn’t care if they ate it, it ‎sounds like a pretty flakey book to me. So basically parts of the Quran was… goat ‎‎‘pellets’. Good place for it.‎
Anyway, Allah couldn’t even bother to dictate it to Muhammed all by himself – he sent ‎some ‘questionable’ angel to Muhammed.

‎• 15. paarsurrey Say:
June 25th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Hi

No parts of Quran were ever eaten by any goat; this is only a wrong notion.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

‎• 16. kenmirzz Says:
June 27th, 2009 at 1:46 am ‎

To Paarsurrey #15

First and foremost, you are an Ahmadi-Qadiyani Muslim and my apology for all the ‎persecution that suffered by your people in Pakistan. ‎
You said: No parts of Quran were ever eaten by any goat; this is only a wrong notion.

Please read the e-book entitled: “Corruption and Distortion In The Quran” by Mr Amar ‎Khan to obtain a clearer picture on this issue. ‎
Humanity is but one family.


17. paarsurrey Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Hi friend kenmirz
z
I appreciate your words of sympathy for the persecution of peaceful Ahmadis at hands of ‎‎the ignorant Traditional Muslims. I also like the motto “Humanity is but one family” ‎‎mentioned by you at the end of your post.

You must have read the e-book entitled: “Corruption and Distortion in the Quran” by Mr ‎‎Amar Khan as suggested and recommended by you. Please mention the strongest ‎‎argument given by him to establish corruption and distortion in Quran for understanding ‎‎or otherwise of our friends in this forum.

Love for all; hatred for none.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim‎