Posts Tagged ‘experiences’

If Atheists are men of reason; they need be more patient, more tolerant and more courteous: they are not so

July 20, 2013

I commented on the blog <> and then a discussion ensued between Keith Pinster, an Atheist, and me by clicking the dates [July 20th, 2013 at 10:43 pm,July 21st, 2013 at 12:57 am]; the discussion is given here-under for the viewers of this blog.

@Keith Pinster

Keith Pinster said:  The problem is that “reason” does not lead to the assumption that there should be any sort of Supreme Being.

[Paarsurrey says: The reason also rejects that the things we see and observe could have not been created and that these are self-created.]

Keith Pinster said:  The only way it can lead to that is if you start out with that assumption in the first place.

[Paarsurrey says: It is equally or even more imprudent, in my opinion, to assume that the things we see and observe are self-created.]

Keith Pinster said:  “Revelation” is nothing but tricks of the mind.

[Paarsurrey says: I don’t agree with you]

Keith Pinster said:   If revelation was actually valid, first, everyone would have them,

[Paarsurrey says: There is no bar on anybody, however.]

Keith Pinster said:   second, they would all be from the same religion (yes, believe it or not, people of OTHER religions have “revelations,” too),

[Paarsurrey says: All the religions in their origin are from the one true God; so prima facie revelation is not restricted to a particular race or people]

Keith Pinster said:  and third, if it were true for xianity,

[Paarsurrey says: Jesus did have Word of Revelation from the one true God whom he used to address as God-the-Father; but Jesus did not found Christianity, it is founded by Paul. Jesus was a Jew, he founded no new religion.]

Keith Pinster said:  there wouldn’t be hundreds of different xian sub-cults.

[Paarsurrey says: There is no compulsion so there always would be diversity. Every individual Atheist has different thoughts; it is human and natural]

Keith Pinster said:  So, based on “reason,” revelation is nonsense.

[Paarsurrey says: I don’t agree with you; but you could have a different opinion which is not truthful.]

Keith Pinster said:  Once again, I can not, nor do I need to provide evidence that there is no one true god. Can you provide evidence that there are no unicorns or leprechauns? Can you provide evidence that Ra is not the “one true god,” or Oden or Zeus?

[Paarsurrey says: But Atheists are not so pathetically against these false gods; is it not true?]

Keith Pinster said:  It’s amazing that you are so stubborn that you just simply refuse to understand the concept that THE PERSON THAT DOES NOT ACCEPT AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM DOES NOT HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF. It doesn’t matter how many times you ask for that evidence, the fact that ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF does not change.

[Paarsurrey says: Now that the Atheists have become preachers that “there is no true God”; they cannot get refug3 behind the notion of “burden of proof”; they should be bold enough to provide the evidence they ask others.]

Keith Pinster said:  Atheists are NOT MAKING CLAIMS.

[Paarsurrey says: The name Atheists; there are so many blogs defending Atheism; so their claims is/are obviously there; now they should not hesitate.]

Keith Pinster said:  Since theists are making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof lays directly on their shoulders. Go and take a debate 101 class at your community college. Or even a basic logic class. Please, stop embarrassing yourself by asking stupid questions.

[Paarsurrey says: The majority of people in the world consist of Theists; if we carry/stretch your arguments further; then it is the Atheists who have the extraordinary rather than an ordinary claim; hence there is no harm if they provide their evidence; rather they should happily opt to offer it.

Since the Atheists are committed to reasoning as they claim; so they must be most patience, tolerant and courteous; never resorting to indignation or expressing anger; I think you will agree with me on this.]

Keith Pinster said:  You are definitely correct: reason needs a “conjugal partner to lead it.” And that partner is evidence.

[Paarsurrey says: In things material and physical evidence by way of experiments and repeated experiments is essential; in things spiritual instead of experiments there are experiences; and so many of them are out there.]

Keith Pinster said:  Evidence and reason leads to understandable truth. Accepting a concept without evidence and then refusing to accept that your conclusion is invalid when evidence to the contrary is presented is self-imposed stupidity

[Paarsurrey says: Evidence by way of experience of so many messengers prophets of the one true God; in almost all regions of the world is already there.

Since the Atheists are committed to reasoning as they claim; so they must be most patience, tolerant and courteous; never resorting to indignation or expressing anger; I think you will agree with me on this]

Influence of the one true God on the physical world

May 22, 2012

Question: Even if the one true God is not physical then he must have some influence on the physical world, or else he would not be much of a god.

If This Creator God interacts with the universe on a regular basis it is possible that you could detect that and work out that God’s existence is plausible.

But if the Creator God’s only action was to create the universe, and then leave it alone then it would leave no evidence for God’s existence.

Paarsurrey comments: One true God- an attributive being, has influence on the physical realm on regular basis with his attributes. But He has maintained a balance; a believer sees Him in everything and the non-believer does not see any influence of Him in anything. One can find Him only in the ways He has told; not otherwise; hence there will always be a divide in the issue; neither side winning while claiming superiority that they have won.

Reason of itself is blind; it always needs a conjugal partner to ascertain things. For things happened in the past reason needs history or archaeology etc., for the present one needs radio, television, newspaper and for future just a conjecture.

Human eyes cannot see things without light; human ear needs a medium to hear.

Religion is not against science or knowledge; Quote just one founder of the revealed religions like Buddha, Krishna, Moses, and Zoroaster, Jesus who spoke against science or knowledge.

In the moral and the spiritual realm; instead of experiments there are experiences, vision, and revelation.

I don’t think that the values of a piece of art could be assessed accurately by any physical experiments in the lab; one assesses it with one’s aesthetic sense developed over a period of time.

Humans need both science and religion; like one naturally and comfortably moves with both the legs; the same way humans travel the journey of life with sciences and religion; while there could be people having blind faith in science or religion; common on both sides.