Posts Tagged ‘Muslims’

Taoism : Lao-Tzu

May 10, 2014

Lao - Tzu

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_4.html

ALL CHINESE RELIGIONS are derived from the same ancient source of spiritual and religious experiences of the great Chinese sage prophet Fu Hsi. In the subsequent ages, many a great sage and thinker pondered over the works of Fu Hsi and studied them in-depth. Based on their study they presented to the Chinese people new philosophies, sciences, religions and moral teachings. Among them are King Wan, his son Cheu Kung and Lao-tzu, all held in great esteem by the Chinese people of all ages. The way of life presented by Lao-tzu (6th century BC), a contemporary of Confucius, is known as Taoism.

In Taoism, eternal truth is embodied in a being known as Tao whose attributes are spiritual and holy rather than material. Tao can be aptly defined as a personification of eternal virtues. They are precisely the same attributes as ascribed to God in Islam and other Divinely revealed religions. Taoism teaches man to completely submit to Truth (Tao), and to strive to modulate Tao. Tao is the model, and Taoism is the way to gain nearness to this model.
The same is the treatment in the Holy Quran regarding the relationship between God and man:

The hues of God! And who is more beautiful in hues than God?—and Him alone do we worship. *
In Islam God is described and introduced through His attributes and the goal set for Muslims is to emulate them to modulate their lives. The description of Tao, presented by Lao-tzu, is quite similar to the attributes of God mentioned in the Quran. He writes:

‘The great Tao is vast. He is on the left and He is on the right. All creatures depend upon Him, and the care of them tires Him not. He brings creation to completion, without seeking reward. He provides for all His creation, but requires nothing for Himself, so He may be considered small. All creatures turn to Him for their needs, yet He keeps nothing for Himself, thus He may be named ‘the Supreme’. He does not consider Himself great and because of this He is truly Great.’**

*Translation of 2:139 by the author.
**DAN, L (1969) The Works of Lao Tzyy. Truth and Nature. The World Book Company, Ltd. Taipei, Taiwan, China. Ch.34, p.17

Pages 165-166 “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” by Mirza Tahir Ahmad

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_4.html

Litmus test for a Christian

May 6, 2014

I wrote following post on the topic “Are Mormons Christian?” quite sometimes back.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=205854&page=2
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=3093401&postcount=16

Post#19
Dec 17, ’07, 7:50 pm
paarsurrey

Re: Are mormons christian?
________________________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmykids
Do they call themselves Christian?

Hi

For sure they call themselves Christians and nobody legally, morally and rationally deny that right of expressing their faith as they believe, if there is any free will there.

They are not Muslims, definitely; first they don’t say that. Secondly the following litmus test to verify a Christian from a Muslim also proves that.

There is not a single Muslim in the world who believes that Jesus died on Cross, it is so clearly mentioned in Quran. So, according to Muslims Jesus never needed to be resurrected from the dead as he never died on Cross in the first place. Hence Jesus was never God as per Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

There is not a single Christian, in my knowledge, who does not believe that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross for the sinful Christians; later as per the Christian faith Jesus got resurrected to life from the dead, and hence he was God and he sat on the right hand of God, assuming all-power. This is, to me, the superstitious building blocks of Christian faith which the Christians have been made to believe by Paul in Rome.

The Mormons believe the later faith, so they are Christian for all practical purposes according to the litmus test to know a Christian from a Muslim or a Muslim from a Christians.

Otherwise, you would remain confused

Thanks

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.

“UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES”
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”

http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-120

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

Continuous insistence of New Atheists to shift burden of proof on to others only shows their standpoint is weak

March 15, 2014

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

“UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES”
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-118

paarsurrey says:
March 15, 2014 at 8:29 pm

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote:
Quote: “I am an ordinary man in the street without any claim to piety or scholarship. I don’t bother for any burden of proof; there is no burden on me in this connection. ”
I admire your humility.
However, we do not need to have qualifications to have to posses any burden of proof, as long as you are asserting your claim to be the truth, then the burden of proof is on you.
However, if you are keeping the belief strictly to yourself, then yes, I agree that you have no need to prove anything.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says: I don’t agree with you. There was a time when Atheists mostly kept silent; then they could say to the evangelizing Christians, Muslims or others to present their proofs/evidences to them if they were attempting to evangelize them; that could have made a sense, as you say, I think.

Now there is no dearth of evangelizing New Atheists; so their excuse for not presenting evidences is stretching the burden of proof point too much; that is why I say their continuous insistence to it shows that their viewpoint is weak.

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote:
Quote,” They (the Atheists) start the discussion of the burden of proof; and that exposes them, in my opinion, that their position is weak and in fact not a valid standpoint.
I do not understand why the burden of proof exposes our position of questioning your claim as weak or invalid. Do explain.”

Paarsurrey says: I think I have sufficiently explained it above.

I want to make one thing clear here. I am not in a debate to win from you or anybody else necessarily. I just want to understand and want to come on the same page with the Atheists for co-existence in this world peacefully without an ill

Thanks and regards

Verse [2:191] of Quran is peaceful

February 14, 2014

My comments: blog “Random thoughts”: topic “Free speech”: link:
http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/
http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-11801

archaeopteryx1 says:
February 13, 2014 at 19:16

Hey, Paarsurrey! You want to explain these, from your “one true god”…….?

1. Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (2:191).
2. Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood (9:123).
3. When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5).
4. Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29).
5. Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85).
6. The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30).
7. Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam (5:33).
8. The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28).
9. Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies (22:19).
10. Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4).
11. The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65).
12. Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28).
13. Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12).
14. Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels (8:60).

paarsurrey says:
February 14, 2014 at 23:53
@archaeopteryx1 says:February 13, 2014 at 19:16

There is no violence verse in Quran. We will discuss the verses one by one from your list.
First we take Quran verse 2:191, at serial no.1 of you post.
I give here the context verses:
[2:191] And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.
[2:192] And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers
[2:193] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[2:194] And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.
[2:195] The violation of a Sacred Month should be retaliated in the Sacred Month; and forall sacred things there is the law of retaliation. So, whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=2&verse=188

As one could see the verses are not general for all non-believers but are specific, as the context shows, for the Meccans who had declared a war with Muslims, they did not allow them the freedom of speech and freedom of worship,persecuted Muslims at Mecca severely to the extent that the Muslims had to migrate from Mecca to take refuge at Medina- then called Yasrub. Even then the won’t let them peacefully at Medina and continually attacked the Muslims at Medina, a hundred miles away, with large numbers.

The verse and the context verses are specific for such Meccans and not general for the non-believers.
I am already discussing this verse at another atheist blog; those who like to join there; they may give their point of view there, please:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html?showComment=1391965526224#c6475111282129573372

Welcome for discussion

Muslims, Jews, Christians and others can benefit from the use of word “Allah”

February 13, 2014

My comments on blog “Leading Malaysian Neocon”: topic “Do Islam and the Quran Have Typological Connections to the Old Testament?”;Link :

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/do-islam-and-the-quran-have-typological-connections-to-the-old-testament/#comment-521080

paarsurrey Says:
February 14, 14 at 6:26 am
@Ron :October 16, 13 at 4:27 am
@Scott Thong :October 16, 13 at 11:12 am

The word Allah was used by the infidels (the Meccans) even before the advent of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

The decision needs to be revisited as Quran clearly permits for the Believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabians to believe in Allah:

[2:63] Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2&verse=62

This restriction is counter-productive; how could one propagate Islam if the Jews, the Christians and others cannot use this word Allah- the sign of ONENESS of all the attributes of One-True-God?

This is the first tenet of Islam and Islam is for everybody under the globe.

“Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?”: No, Quran is not violent; absolutely not

February 9, 2014

I have written comments on the topic “Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?” at the “Dwindling In Unbelief” blog :

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

My comments can be read by clicking the following link:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26149572&postID=114987521408797161&page=2&token=1391965526224

paarsurrey said…

@ Richard said:
Sat Feb 08, 04:36:00 PM 2014

Ignoring the evil words of your post; I was not asking the number of verses that you think are violent in Quran; I asked to choose One- the most violent verse you think in Quran for discussion, not in comparison to Bible; but from your list of violent verses in Quran.

In this connection you have preferred to choose two places from Quran; we now discuss the first place mentioned by you namely Verses (2:191-193).

I give here the context verses:

[2:191] And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.
[2:192] And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers
[2:193] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[2:194] And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.
[2:195] The violation of a Sacred Month should be retaliated in the Sacred Month; and forall sacred things there is the law of retaliation. So, whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=2&verse=188

As one could see the verses are not general for all non-believers but are specific, as the context shows, for the Meccans who had declared a war with Muslims and continually attacked the Muslims at Medina, a hundred miles away.

Now please prove from the verses your viewpoint that the verses are violent and against the normal behavior of human beings.

Sun Feb 09, 09:05:00 AM 2014

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I further wrote following comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26149572&postID=114987521408797161&page=2&token=1391981271159

paarsurrey said:

@Richard : your comments of Sun Feb 09, 11:14:00 AM 2014.

So you have not read Quran from beginning to the end yourself and you have relied on hearsay. Your observation has not come to you naturally while reading Quran yourself.

The verses of Quran are clear seen with the verses in the context; one could understand them unambiguously.

If you want to follow the wrong interpretation of the extremists; then you become one yourself. It is your own choice; it is not the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

The verses are peaceful and rational; and according to the norms of humans in all ages.
Sun Feb 09, 01:27:00 PM 2014

Who is the Leader of the Present Time? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

January 16, 2014
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Please click on the page for a clear/readable view.

TheNeedForTheImam_Page_053

TheNeedForTheImam_Page_054

The Need of the Imam page 53-54
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/TheNeedForTheImam.pdf

Is Islam based on the historical validity of the Pentateuch?

January 2, 2014

John Zande an Atheist has written a post titled “How Those Who’re Paid to Know, Know The Pentateurch is Historical Fiction” that could be viewed at the following link:

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/how-we-know-the-pentateurch-is-historical-fiction-11/

Paarsurrey has reblogged it with comments; the discussion on the point raised will be given here for all to comment here or on that blog.

PAARSURREY says:
January 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
“Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and the Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”
“Let there be no doubt whatsoever, to the Yahwehist – the practicing Jew, the Christian and the Muslim – whose entire religious faith rides E X C L U S I V E L Y on the historical validity of the Pentateuch.”

I refer to the above starting lines from your post.
Since you have included name of “Muslim” along-with Jew and Christian and then mentioned “whose entire religious faith rides E X C L U S I V E L Y on the historical validity of the Pentateuch”.
Please quote from Quran where it has been mentioned that Islam is based exclusively on the historical validity of the Pentateuch.
I don’t agree with you

JOHN ZANDE says:
January 2, 2014 at 6:02 pm
You believe in the god of Abraham, right?

I think that answers your question.

PAARSURREY says:
January 2, 2014 at 7:45 pm
So you could not prove your point; there is nothing as such.

The One True God did not belong to Abraham exclusively; even before Abraham He conversed with others:

[3:34] Allah did choose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imran above all peoples —
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=3&verse=33

So your second foothold is also incorrect as was the first one.

john zande Wrote:

Do you, or do you not believe in the god of Abraham and Moses?

In Islam, Musa (Moses) is considered a prophet and is named 136 times in the Qur’an and Abraham is named 69 times and even described as the Middle Eastern gods best friend: “Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend.” (An-Nisa Verse No:125)

You all believe in the one god: Yahweh… the god of the Pentateuch.

PAARSURREY says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:42 pm

That is a wrong question; we believe prophets from Adam- the first man evolved with whom the One-True-God conversed with. Why choose one man Abraham to bully the Muslims?

Your premise is wrong to start with. Please delete the name Muslim from your post and be a good Atheist with morals.

Thanks

PAARSURREY says:
January 2, 2014 at 9:01 pm
@ John Zande

You wrote “You all believe in the one god: Yahweh… the god of the Pentateuch”

Please quote from Quran where “Yahweh” is mentioned.

JOHN ZANDE says:
January 2, 2014 at 9:11 pm

That name is not used, but it is the god of Abraham and Moses. Do you, or do you not, agree with this?

A simple yes or no will be fine….

PAARSURREY says:
January 2, 2014 at 9:20 pm
I already wrote that One-True-God is not exclusively God of Abraham; he was just one person who believed in Him. One-True-God was very naturally believed by the first man evolved; the man is remembered as Adam.
Your concept is wrong; that is my point.

PAARSURREY says:
January 2, 2014 at 9:24 pm
There is no truth in the article with reference to Quran/Islam; your point is therefore incorrect.

PAARSURREY says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:41 pm
John Zande wrote:
“If the captains of Judaism jettison the story then its pretty much over, and someone ought to tell the Christians and the Muslims.”

Paarsurrey @ John Zande

The quote given by you in the beginning of your post from the archaeologists is with reference to Bible not with reference to any narrative of Quran.

JOHN ZANDE says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Paarsurrey, please show me where the god of the Qur’an is a different god to the god of the Pentateuch: the god of Abraham and Moses. If you can show me that Muslims worship a different god than the god of Abraham and Moses then i will convert to Islam instantly!

PAARSURREY says:
January 3, 2014 at 8:51 pm
The One-True-God is for everybody whether somebody believes in Him or disbelieves in Him. He is as much God of Abraham or Moses as He is of John Zande or ARKENATEN; He is for all the humanity past, present and the future. He is not racial; cannot be confined to one tribe, race or people. This point has been very truly clarified in the very first chapter of Quran named Al-Fatihah or the Opener:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 1: Al-Fatihah
[1:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[1:2] All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
[1:3] The Gracious, the Merciful,
[1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[1:5] Thee alone do we worship and Thee alone do we implore for help.
[1:6] Guide us in the right path —
[1:7] The path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings, those who have not incurred Thy displeasure, and those who have not gone astray.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=1

JOHN ZANDE says:
January 4, 2014 at 10:37 am
You haven’t demonstrated that its a different god…. therefore, your god is the god of the Pentateuch: the first and ONLY source for the existence of this god. So, as we’ve proven the Pentateuch to be a lie, your god is therefore also a lie.

PAARSURREY says:
January 4, 2014 at 4:10 pm
In fact if they did not find anything at sites mentioned in the Bible that proves Quran right as Quran mentions very clearly that the scribes and Jews had manipulated the Revelation of Moses:

[5:14] So, because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them, and have hardened their hearts. They pervert the words from their proper places and have forgotten a good part of that with which they were exhorted. And thou wilt not cease to discover treachery on their part, except in a few of them. So pardon them and turn away from them. Surely, Allah loves those who do good.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=5&verse=13

PAARSURREY says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm
@ John Zande

Quote:
“Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and the Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.” Unquote

Please provide full reference and link of the article to which the above quote belongs.

JOHN ZANDE says:
January 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/the-keys-to-the-kingdom-1.360222

PAARSURREY says:
January 5, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Thanks

JOHN ZANDE says:
January 5, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Pleasure. I actually misquoted it in the original. In my notes on the article (taken months ago) i had it as Mazar saying this, but I was wrong. This post was updated 2 days ago to reflect the change.

PAARSURREY says:
January 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm
@ JOHN ZANDE’s comments dated January 5, 2014 at 4:17 pm

I have read the original article on Haaretz titled “The keys to the kingdom” written By Asaf Shtull-Trauring on May 6, 2011 | 11:22 AM, as per the link provided by John Zande.

I quote following passages from the article:

1. “In striking contrast, the archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor, from the Hebrew University, who is presently directing the Hatzor excavations, passionately defends the dating of the finds at his site. “What can I say but that with our meager powers and our ceramic knowledge we determined that the gates do in fact belong to the 10th century?” Similarly, Amihai Mazar maintains, “There is a certain problem of dating at Megiddo. At Hatzor and at Gezer there is no problem at all. The gates can be dated to the 10th century BCE, not with certainty but with no little measure of probability.”
2. Who is a Judahite?
Criticism of the earlier finds by Finkelstein and others may please Garfinkel. It enables him to claim that Khirbet Qeiyafa is different from all the sites hitherto investigated in that it is the first Judahite settlement that has been radiocarbon-dated to the 10th century BCE and also shows a highly developed level of construction. In other words, for Garfinkel this is the first site that attests saliently to the existence of an established kingdom in the 10th century and definitively rebuts the notion that David was “a sheikh in a Bedouin tent” – the viewpoint he attributes to Finkelstein.
3. However, Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa, who recently published a deciphering of the inscription, maintains that “30 major researchers accept our reading, which shows that the inscription is in Hebrew – the earliest Hebrew inscription discovered to date. Of the 18 words that appear in the inscription, eight appear only in the Bible.”

It is very clear from the article that there are two groups among the Archaeologists; one the conservative one and the other the non-conservative; both have opposing opinions.
It is wrong to conclude from the article that there is any consensus on the issue; there could be loose agreement but nothing is yet conclusive; the research is going on and is still open.
One thing is clear that the search or the research is based on the sites mentioned in the Bible; no site excavated is mentioned in Quran; hence, it has no bearing on Quran and the Truthful Religion.

Science and Naturalism

July 21, 2013

Paarsurrey says:
I like following points mentioned by you.

1. science is not bound to a particular philosophy

2. I will have to define some terms. When I say “science” I mean the scientific method. Science is (as I’ve said in previous blog posts) organized and methodical learning. Science is about asking questions, performing experiments, and then asking more and better questions based on the results. Science is tool, and it is a tool that is open to anyone who can think. Whether you are Hindu, Christian, or an atheist you can perform science. A scientist only needs to believe two things on faith; that nature is reasonable and that nature is understandable.

3. If everything has a reason then science as a concept will work; if everything just happens for no particular reason, if there are no “laws” defining how things work, then science is only an illusion.

4. To be a scientist you do not have follow any particular creed. That is why there are excellent scientists both past and present who are Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Christians, etc. However this fact is not immediately apparent to all people.

5. Now it is understandable why so many people, if only unconsciously, believe that you must be a naturalist to be a scientist. That is because of the limits of science itself. Science can only tell us about things inside of nature; things we can observe and test. If there is a God outside of nature then science cannot prove his existence.

You have used simple words but have explained a lot; this bridges gaps between the Theists and the Atheists.

The Page Nebula

I recently had the pleasure of having an intellectual conversation with a friend who I had a disagreement with. It’s a rare pleasure to be sure, and the fact that it is rare probably says more about me than anything else. Most of my friends agree with me on the matters I care most about, and if there is disagreement we would rather not bring up the subject. This is, I think, typical of most Americans (or perhaps I should say most white Americans; African-American culture is more accepting in general of honest conflict between friends and family which is to their credit). The only reason I came into open argument with this friend was the fact that he repeatedly aired his contrary views on Facebook and it is infinitely easier to get into an argument over the internet than it is in person. On the internet I have all…

View original post 1,409 more words