Posts Tagged ‘irrational’

Is it rational to think evolution is eternal?

October 27, 2017

Thread: “Why some people reject evolution ” Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 80: 
———- wrote:
——— wrote:
[Replying to post 75 by ————]

You are missing the point. Just because one can understand a process without including intelligence being involved, does not mean intelligence is not involved.

Wrong again. I understand completely. You are simply adding in an unnecessary element for no reason other than to fit some non rational, faith based belief.

The process itself works without inserting ghosts, or goblins, or gods. No magic required, so why inject it?

some non rational

Paarsurrey wrote:

Isn’t it more or most irrational to believe that evolution is eternal, please? There must be a time/stage when it got going. Right, please?
If it could start off at a time/stage, then it could cease at a time/stage, rationally,please. Right, please?
Evolution is OK, but it is not eternal. Right,please?

Atheists blindly trust science and pitch science against religion

April 2, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

I agree with you.

Atheists blindly trust science and pitch science against religion. Science is not a function of atheism; it is a joint product of theists and atheists. It was the theists who laid foundation stone of science initially and they contributed much towards its advancement.

Indeed, the atheists/naturalists have made it a kind of a fairy tale. It is myth or superstition in which their minds are locked and they cannot see the irrationality in their approach.


Fide Dubitandum

don-quixoteBertrand Russell, like the New Atheists, supports much of his attack on Christianity with an almost total ignorance of the history of science:

In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts.

It seems that it can’t be pointed out often enough that science and theology are different subjects. At least, the New Atheists seem to have so much confidence in the idea that science is theology (and metaphysics) that they feel no need to give any reason for the strange conclusion that science answers questions about God’s existence.

But it’s not only theology of which such people are ignorant. Any real respect for history would at least acknowledge the facts of past…

View original post 231 more words

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.


Jesus- making use of all precautions; left the land

May 31, 2009

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, the Second Coming says:

In short, these gospels contain many things which show that they have not preserved their original form, or that their writers were some other persons — not the disciples.

For example, can the statement of the gospel according to Matthew: ‘And this is well known among the Jews till to-day’, be properly ascribed to Matthew? Does it not show that the writer of the gospel of Matthew was some other person who lived at a time when Matthew had already died?

Then, the same gospel of Matthew21 says: And they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept’. It would be noticed how unconvincing and irrational such statements are.

If the meaning of this statement is that the Jews wanted to conceal the rising of Jesus from the dead, and that they had bribed the soldiers in order that this great miracle should not become generally known, why was it that Jesus, whose duty it was to proclaim this miracle among the Jews, kept it a secret; nay, he forbade even others to disclose it?

If it is urged that he was afraid of being caught, I would say, that when the decree of God had descended upon him, and he had, after suffering death, come to life again, assuming a spiritual and a glorious body, what fear did he now have of the Jews — surely the Jews now had no power over him; he was now beyond and above mortal existence?

One observes with regret that while, on the one hand, it is said that he was made to live again and assume a spiritual body, that he met the disciples and went to Galilee and thence went to heaven, he is nevertheless afraid of the Jews for quite trivial things and, in spite of his glorious body, he fled secretly from the country, lest the Jews discover him; he made a journey of seventy miles to Galilee in order to save his life and time and again asked the people not to mention this to others.

Are these the signs and ways of a glorious body? No, the truth is that it was not a new and a glorious body — it was the same body, with wounds on it, which had been saved from death; and, as there was still the fear of the Jews, Jesus, making use of all precautions, left the land.

%d bloggers like this: