Posts Tagged ‘ethical’

Is Islam a universal religion?:Nothing is left on blind-faith

June 14, 2014

paarsurrey wrote:

The Truthful Revelation is always reasonable; the One-True-God is All-Wise; so the revelation has to be reasonable, if correctly understood.

Peaceful dialogue with reasonable arguments is the language of correct understanding between human beings. Revelation helped by reason or reason helped by Revelation is the source of knowledge that could be acquired in the ethical, moral and spiritual realms. Islam provides it in the practical life.

It is for this that Islam is called a global or universal religion. Nothing is left on blind-faith.


Kama Sutra – Tripitaka

May 31, 2014

paarsurrey wrote:

Originally Posted by Leftimies

Kama Sutra – Tripitaka.

“If one, longing for sensual pleasure, achieves it, yes, he’s enraptured at heart.
The mortal gets what he wants.

But if for that person — longing, desiring — the pleasures diminish,
he’s shattered, as if shot with an arrow. Whoever avoids sensual desires
— as he would, with his foot, the head of a snake — goes beyond, mindful,
this attachment in the world.

A man who is greedy for fields, land, gold, cattle, horses,
servants, employees, women, relatives, and many sensual pleasures,
is overpowered with weakness and trampled by trouble, for pain invades him as water,
a cracked boat. So one, always mindful, should avoid sensual desires.
Letting them go, he’d cross over the flood like one who,
having bailed out the boat, has reached the far shore.”

– Direct extract.

Quite different from the kama sutra introduced to the West, isn’t it? Give me your thoughts on this subject – whether it be comparison to the other kama sutra, your opinion on this one, or whatever. Do you agree with the claim, or do you vehemently disagree?

Please provide the wording of kama sutra that has been introduced to the West; for comparison.

Why the wording has been changed and who did it?



The truthful religion informs us that all natural human instincts have to be harnessed for ethical, moral and spiritual progress and are to be tuned to the purpose of life fixed by the One-True-God.

Buddha narrated the Kama Sutra in the same connection.


Religion identifies the beliefs that help to know God

March 24, 2014

03/24/2014 at 11:54 am

@ Sabio Lantz

I don’t agree with you.

You have mentioned a medical syndrome; by which you mean, if I have correctly understood, the symptoms and signs to diagnose a sudden illness. Now the symptoms don’t define the medicine.

Likewise the ethical, moral and spiritual symptoms of a person are cured by a religion; the symptoms don’t define the religion.

Religion is the path that leads to God or the beliefs that help one to know God; this is the history of the word from time immemorial.

Isn’t it?


Science and Religion both essential for living normal life on the planet Earth

March 21, 2014

March 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm

@MYATHEISTLIFE says: March 21, 2014 at 6:29 am

“It occurs to me that this subject is about how the believer chooses their own morality over the dictated word of their deity. When there is a right and wrong way to interpret the text it is by definition not a perfect text and cannot be seen to contain perfect or objective morality.”

Interpretation is done by both Religion and the Science.
The experiments are made on the basis of the availability of certain data at a certain point of time and the results are interpreted and are accepted within a certain range of accuracy; and there is an implied condition always with the results “if other things remain unchanged” (since everything is moving, so other things don’t remain unchanged); the ultimate check of the results is with the Nature- the Work of God. If there is an anomaly detected subsequently in nature with the result of the experiments; then new hypothesis/theory is made and new experiments are made to remove the anomaly.
The same way in Religion; as we advance/change in time and place; the previous interpretation/understanding does not remain valid simply because our understanding, though previously it was thought to be correct; but due to the change of time and place an anomaly is detected; when more thought was applied on the original text of the Word revealed one gets to know the mistake of previous interpretation/understanding; it was not the fault of the Word of God, so to make a new and correct interpretation/understanding becomes necessary.

Science/Nature is the Work of God and religion is from the Word of God; both belong to the same source of One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara); both work in different domains for benefit of the humanity; both are complementary to one another and never contradict one another if correctly interpreted.

Science works in the physical and material domains; religion is for guidance of the humanity in the even more sophisticated and intricate issued of ethical, moral and spiritual realms; nevertheless both are essential for living normal life in this planet Earth, peacefully.

Let us see below what Wikipedia says on the usage of interpretation:


• Interpretation (philosophy), the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration
• Interpretation (logic), an assignment of meaning to the symbols of a formal language
• De Interpretatione, a work by Aristotle
• Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation theory
• Exegesis, a critical explanation or interpretation of a text
Math, science and computing[edit]
• Interpretation (model theory), a technical notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure
• Interpreter (computing), a program (a virtual processor) that is able to execute instructions written in a high-level programming language
• Interpretation function, in mathematical logic a function that assigns functions and relations to the symbols of a signature
• Interpretation of quantum mechanics, a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature
• Interpreter pattern, a software engineering design pattern
• Left brain interpreter, the post-hoc construction of explanations by the brain’s left hemisphere
• Interpreted language, a programming language that avoidsit program compilation

Atheists always pushing others to the answering end

March 15, 2014

I wrote a post on the following blog; the viewers are welcome to give their valuable opinions even if they differ.


paarsurrey says:
March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote: Quote “Even then they insist me to give evidences and proofs. I ask them to define as to what they understand from evidence in their own words rather than quoting from some dictionary; they even avoid it.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says: As I said, burden of proof is not an issue with me; I feel no burden of it; and I deny anybody putting burden of it on me. I immediately know that the person is weak in arguments as also his standpoint is weak, hence he avoids to share the ethical and moral burden of a joint discussion.

I want the Atheists to realize that it is not rational or reasonable for them to always be on the questioning end. But they are always like that; never being on the answering end and always pushing others to the answering end; maybe just for convenience. On this important issue of the “Existence of God or otherwise”; they just sit pretty; never giving any positive evidences that “God does not exist”.

If we give proofs or evidences; they just reject them arrogantly saying these are no proofs and evidences. It is for this that I ask them to define as to what they personally understand from the words “proofs and evidences”; only then we could be on the same page for discussion or understanding.

Thanks and regards

Is it ethical or moral to explore God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him?

March 14, 2014

I have written a post on the following blog of uncleE; the viewers could add their valuable comments here even if they differ.

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

MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:58:01

@ unkleE :MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:15:54

“we shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.” Unquote

I think I agree with you here.

I further have to submit.

We are discussing here the existence of One-True-God, an Immortal Being . Science and the scientific method as a tool of exploration has come into the field only yesterday; and it only deals in the things physical and material.

The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

[39:65] Say, ‘Is it other gods than Allah that you bid me worship, O ye ignorant ones?’
[39:66] And verily it has been revealed to thee as unto those before thee: ‘If thou attribute partners to God, thy work shall surely go vain and thou shalt certainly be of the losers.’
[39:67] Aye, worship Allah and be among the thankful.
[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True- God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

God the creator was not in a hurry to create the Universe and life in a jiffy

March 12, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey comments on the blog “UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES” for your valuable opinion, even if you differ.


paarsurrey says:
March 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm


Hi friend

You wrote:

“With regards to being “open”, that’s also where we differ. I am open to anything should the evidence present itself. Needing evidence before believing something is not being close-minded.
If you showed me objective evidence of a god, I assure you, I will believe you. Just like if someone captured the bigfoot and presented in front of everyone in the zoo, and after testing that the specimen is real, I will believe that the bigfoot does exist.
However, I would actually throw the argument of being “close-minded” back on you. You have closed your doors for any other gods, or any other possibilities (such as the non-existence of god, maybe god is not all-loving etc.) other than the one you have now. I watched a show where a creationist said, that if the Quran/Bible says that 2+2=5, he will not question it.
But he will work out how it is true. I think that’s the position you have adopted, by accepting your view as the absolute truth.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says:

I think I did not say that you are a close-minded person. I only told about myself that I am an open minded person; never hinting at you that you are a closed minded person. If I said, I apologize for that.

I don’t agree with those who say if Quran/Bible says (2+2= 5); I will believe that. I will definitely question it; yet it is a fact that Quran never says such untoward things; that is my experience with Quran.

I never adopted such a position. You definitely got me wrong. I accept Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; and that is the purpose of the Revelation of Quran, it is clearly stated in its very beginning:

[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous*,
* or truth seekers

In other than ethical, moral and spiritual fields which pertain to religion and not to science i.e. in secular, material and physical matters I will go with the facts and laws of the respective sciences and relative branches of the knowledge to which they specifically pertain.

I am not a creationist; in the sense that I believe that the human beings got evolved in millions of years.

he One-True-God spoke the Word “Be” and lo!, everything in the Universe started taking a shape, a formation, they could not refuse the command of the Creator; maybe it was a big-bang out of a black-hole perhaps but in billions of years, it came to the present form. The process is known as Evolution. The process continues, till the One-True-God speaks the Words “Not to be” and then it would stop; it would come to an end.

Thanks and regards

Does it help?

I follow Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual matters; in scientific matters I follow text book of science

February 28, 2014

I follow Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual matters; in scientific matters I follow text book of science

“the superstitious naked ape”: “The Moral Autonomy Argument”

February 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm

@ DAZ says: February 28, 2014 at 4:26 pm
“Since “it is written in a book” seems to be your criterion for deciding whether something is true or not”
You get me wrong.

In the matters or religion which deals in ethical, moral and spiritual matters, one has to follow the revealed book of one’s religion; so being an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim I follow Quran and hence for all claims (in ethical, moral and spiritual fields), I must quote the claims and gist of reasons mentioned in Quran not authored by Muhammad by the One-True-God.

In secular matters; one has to follow the law of the land one lives in.
In scientific matters I would follow the authentic text books of science, if there is a need to follow. I am an ordinary man in the street, with no claims of any piety or scholarship.
This is my position. Please

Quran does not restrict sciences till they don’t interfere with ethical, moral and spiritual realms

February 15, 2014

My comments at blog: “Triangulation”: topic “Ghosts: An Atheist Touchstone”

02/15/2014 at 10:41 am

@Takis Konstantopoulos :02/14/2014 at 6:15 pm

“There is no mention of Archimedes in the Revealed Book of the truthful religion from the One-True-God. Those who believe in Archimedes believe out of superstition; and have weak psyche. There is no mention of Japan either in that book.” Unquote

Though your post is addressed to Sabio; but the contents suggest that it pertains to me, if I have correctly understood.
The Revealed Book as clearly mentioned in its beginning is for ethical, moral and spiritual guidance for the human beings from the One-True-God; it is not a history book. It has left the science, arts and other fields, pertaining to material and physical realms, open to be dealt with without restraint till they don’t interfere with the above realms.

I think you understand now.

02/15/2014 at 11:24 am

@Takis Konstantopoulos :02/14/2014 at 6:15 pm

Further to my above comments I have to add that the Revealed Book (Quran) is not a book of names of persons or places; neither it claims to be a text book of science or history. It is appropriate if one sees the world atlas to locate Japan or a list of scientists for Archimedes and of course one could Google for both. The Revealed Book (Quran) does not prohibit one to do a little research.

It is a mistake if one consults the Revealed Book (Quran) in this connection

It is not at all a superstition to believe in the existence of Japan or Archimedes.
How such a thought occurred to you? Please

02/15/2014 at 12:32 pm
@Takis Konstantopoulos:02/15/2014 at 10:59 am

Did you open topics on “Revealed Books” and “Why Quran in Arabic” at your own blog as requested in the topic”” Reason and Passion: in religion and government and “Language & Religion as Decorations” at this blog ?

Please do it now.

Has the science detracted from or increased man’s belief in religion?

November 24, 2011

There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by me, on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages. I have omitted some of the posts which were not directly related to the issue of the topic and which don’t add any meaning to the discussion at hand; the conversation is given hereunder for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages. I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.

One may access the following link to see the whole of it.

OP from paarsurrey

Science by definition does not cover the whole of human life; it only deals in the things physical. Religion covers the whole life and provides guidance and goes beyond the physical to ethical, moral and spiritual. So there is no, necessarily, any contradiction in the truthful religion and the truthful science.
No messenger prophet of the Creator God ever opposed science; they always supported science and the scientists if they were correct on an issue. Science searches reality with experiments while religion with experiences.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of the era, supported science and exhorted to gains its knowledge.

1. CyclingFitness

For many years the Catholic Church refused to accept many scientific truths in the UK for fear it would detract from religion

2. Paarsurrey

The Church does not represent Jesus; Church follows Paul- the seed of anti-Christ.

Jesus did not oppose any scientific truth; he supported knowledge, revelation and reason; revelation enhances reason; they both are good friends.

3. A Troubled Man
That is not true. Science does not support your twisted definition.

Yet, we can see by your posts that your religion has not taught you to be moral or ethical, so your point is moot.

Yet, in the reality of which you have not joined, religion and science are contradictory.

4. Emrldphx

Science is not mutually exclusive with religion. If science proved the existence of God, would that somehow detract from religion?

5. Jesus was a hippy

Science only deals with the physical and since you cannot demonstrate that life is anything more than physical then it remains just that; Physical.

Science covers everything about life because life is physical.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise?

6. Mikel G Roberts

Science is not just the physical.

Logic is the science of inference and rational thought.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mental processes.

Those are just two examples of non physical sciences.

7. Emrldphx

The topic of what is truly a science and what isn’t is debated greatly among those who are on these forums… some think that logic trumps science, some think vice versa. Some think only physical sciences where the scientific method can be applied are true sciences.

8. SpanStar

Science doesn’t detract from spiritual believe however how science is interpreted by some people does.

Take the event of Jesus walking on water there is no way some people will ever accept that idea because they can only accept what seems logical to them.

I was thinking about these super heroes we see at the movies like Superman for example and I decided we cannot have a superhero because we would very quickly make him/her our God because what they do we can see them doing and so that’s logical thus making it acceptable.

We as mankind have proven we can accept and worship stone statutes but never an invisible God.

9. Paarsurrey

Science doesn’t detract from spiritual belief however how science is interpreted by some people does; and that is their error; after all they are human beings and it is in their nature to doubt and err.

A Troubled Man

That’s magic, are you saying we should accept magic?

We have accepted hundreds of invisible gods throughout history, yours included.

10. CyclingFitness

Surely the fact that there has never been a scientific explanation of having a God that many people remain skeptical of religion?

11. Emrldphx

No more so than the reality of anything else science hasn’t discovered yet.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of people. Those who think that things that science hasn’t discovered yet (invisible things) are ridiculous and those who think things that science hasn’t discovered yet are possible.

I guess there are also people who just don’t care…

12. A Troubled Man

By not considering the crank and the crackpot from the scientist, the rational from the irrational and the insane from the sane, your generalization lacks relevancy and foresight.

13. Emrldphx

It is certainly relevant. Some people think that, for instance, proving abiogenesis would prove that God doesn’t exist. Others think that it would only prove that abiogenesis exists.

[Definition of ABIOGENESIS
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
— abi•og•e•nist \ˌā-(ˌ)bī-ˈä-jə-nist\ noun ]

Some people believe that things we can’t see are ridiculous. Others believe that there are things which we can’t yet see.

Science bolsters the beliefs of those who believe, and bolsters those who don’t believe in a similar manner.

14. A Troubled Man

Really? Some people think that?

Funny how you think repeating yourself without making the very same considerations between the rational and irrational somehow makes it valid.

And yet, what we’ve found throughout history is those who believe have been forced to change their beliefs in light of science. Bolster?

15. Emrldphx
Yes. As irrational as it seems, some people think that.

What’s irrational and what’s rational, to you?

Like people who thought the earth was flat, or the center of the universe. Belief isn’t necessarily religious.

None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.

16. Emrldphx
And your point is… ?

17. A Troubled Man
I want to able to quote this from time to time as it sums up your position in a nutshell while stretching across the vast expanse of fallacy.

“None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.”


18. Emrldphx

Care to try and show me anything fallacious about it? Or do you still deny what the logical burden of proof is?

Show me one scientific discovery that challenges my beliefs.

19. A Troubled Man

20. Emrldphx

That’s what I thought.

21. Paddington Green

It depends which field of science you are talking about. Old Newtonian physics was used by science to explain the universe without a need for a god. The belief in a steady universe, which had always existed seemed to show that a moment of creation had not happened, and so therefore there was no creator.

However, the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe did have a beginning and therefore has allowed the religious believer the possibility of pointing to science as supporting their belief. And some of the ideas of quantum physics seem almost like magic and supernatural, even though quantum physics has been proven to actually work.

22. Prettydarkhorse

some people have closed minds (not open) and they find ways in which Science can justify what they believed in

23. CyclingFitness

I sadly have no belief because i’ve not been shown proof in a god.

24. Mikel G Roberts

I’ve got proof, haven’t you heard?

25. mom101

For me, it has increased my faith.


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

%d bloggers like this: