Simple Reasons for Any Rational Person to Reject Materialism
Materialism is not a Revealed Religion , it is a man-made religion. To err is human, and if one person can make an error, many persons that make a world view can make errors as many times, please. Right, please?
Regards
Thread: “Why some people reject evolution ” Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion
| Post 80: | |||||||
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? |
|||||||
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3788374-post42.html
paarsurrey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooGirl02
Hi everyone. Some people say that Islam was spread by the sword. Others say that it was not. The Koran says that there is to be no compulsion in religion so it would seem that Islam’s sacred text would condone religious freedom. But was this really the case historically? Here is the reference from the Koran which I am referring to.
Quote:
[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
paarsurrey’s response:
Islam did not spread with sword or because of sword.
Islam spread for its natural, rational and peaceful teachings.
Regards
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3790428-post76.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooGirl02
“You know, I am thinking that perhaps it was just that Islamic empires were spread by the sword but not the religion itself was spread by the sword historically. Now, granted, there have been cases in recent times in which people were forced to convert to Islam or die such as in Syria but I am speaking historically. Also, the actions of a few should not be blamed on the entire group that the few are a member of. That’s my opinion anyway. I mean, you wouldn’t say that Atheists endorse murder just because some Communist Atheists murdered people in Soviet Russia, right?”
Unquote
Paarsurrey says:
I agree with you.
Regards
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/163547-islam-spread-sword-13.html#post3792169
Paarsurrey wrote:
I have checked many countries;it just happened like that.
If one likes; I could give examples.
For example:
Peaceful spread of Islam in Maldives:
The islands converted from Buddhism in the 12th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/islam_in_the_maldives
There was no subjugation by sword.
Regards
Paarsurrey says:
I agree with you. You have refuted Smalley’s thoughts very clearly.
Thanks
From Smalley’s “Top Ten Reasons Why I’m an Atheist”:
3. I asked my four-year-old daughter where the stars came from. She confidently said “The moon made them.” I followed by asking “Then where did the moon come from?” She strongly asserted “Daddy, the moon is the boss. Nobody made the moon.” This is an unmistakably familiar mindset; and rightfully embarrassing for an adult to hold such similar thought.
The problem with most arguments from analogy is that their proponents have done nothing to show that the analogy is a good one.
We see this very clearly in the passage above. Smalley seems to be claiming ignorance of the differences between a contingent, finite, material object like the moon and a necessary, infinite, immaterial God. Whether one believes in the later or not, this is the idea being discussed, and merely asserting “the moon had to be made by something, so…
View original post 401 more words
There is a discussion between me and john zande; one could view it by clicking the dates of any comments below; that will open up the full discussion; the viewers are open to form their own opinion.
Since you brought it up, can you name anything (anything at all) that Jesus said which was actually new or useful?
paarsurrey Says:
@ johns zande
How would you define “useful”? Please
Jesus did not bring any new religion; he followed the Word revealed on Moses.
Neither Moses nor Jesus opposed science.
Sir, I asked you to tell as to what you mean to be useful.
To me, Jesus, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Socrates, Zoroaster never said anything that was not useful.
I did not claim that Jesus said or invented anything new.
Did I say it?
OK, so you admit Jesus said absolutely NOTHING that was new or useful. Nothing at all. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Why, then, do you believe he was special in any way?
I am waiting for your defining “useful”.
I think atheists are reasonable people.
Please let me know as to what you understand from being useful.
You seriously want a definition for a word like useful? It’s the opposite of useless.
OK, but let’s say practical, functional, rational, sensible. Something that can be applied to the everyday betterment of one’s life, and the functioning of human societies.
Now i also asked for something “new” as well. Something new or useful.
You did ask new and useful; I admit.
Now please tell me anything which he said or did that was not practical, functional, rational, sensible?
Anybody among the viewers or readers are welcome to join this discussion. It is a friendly discussion not to bully anybody.
Everybody has a choice to be a humanist; I respect their choice.
Excuse me, but i asked you to tell me. Please don’t try and wriggle your way out of the question. It’s quite simple: name something (anything) new or useful said by Jesus.
paarsurrey Says:
I think it is an answer of your question in a way; if one cannot point out anything which he did or said as being not practical, functional, rational, sensible that fairly answers your question; though differently.
I know that many deeds and words are ascribed to Jesus wrongly that make his image mythical.
Jesus did not die on the cross; but Paul invented a religion out of it mythically which is know as Christianity; it has got nothing to do with Jesus.
Hank Kimball Says:
(While commenting on one of posts <https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/difference-between-ahmadi-muslims-and-other-muslims/#comment-2790>)
“The claims you listen to other people make about the bible, without having studied it yourself, doesn’t really make you appear as a seeker of truth. It makes you lazy and apathetic at best.”
Paarsurrey says:
This is just to dispel one’s apprehensions about my study of the Bible, OT and/or NT.
I have studied Bible, both OT and NT, from cover to cover several times; both Catholic and Protestant versions. While I studied Bible, both OT and NT, I also prepared notes; so one should be satisfied on that count. I give arguments as I perceive them myself or I concur with somebody whose arguments I honestly and sincerely believe in to be truthful.
I am an ordinary person, a man in the street. I have no claims to piety or scholarship. I believe religion is for everybody; it is not worth the name if it is not for the guidance of the ordinary people in the world in their day to day lives.
I am an open mind that is why I welcome others who comment on my posts though they may differ with me to whatever level. This provides the viewers a choice to discern truth themselves from both views with their own search and research and to the satisfaction of their hearts and souls.
I don’t debate; I believe in peaceful dialogue and peaceful discussion.
I think it to be a reasonable and rational approach.
Paarsurrey says:
I think it is a weak argument.
Suppose you are blind; will it be rational for you to deny existence of sun, moon, sky etc; which you can neither see nor touch.
So you shall have to improve on your argument.
In this first post I will explain my initial position before starting the journey of self-discovery. In fact, this position never has changed, it’s the same at this time: not to believe anything I do not know from own experience. The crucial difference is in the experiences I’ve had over the last 30 years.
When I was a little child I was very religious, every night prayed my catholic prayers; at age of eight I admired the priests because I believed they had high principles: honesty, goodness, etc. Then, unfortunate events, like my parents’ fights or illness and death of close relatives, changed my mind, so I became a materialist: God not exists, and religions are untruths. So, in my teens, I was an skeptical.
About this point, to believe or not, or, in other words, to have faith, it will be convenient to say a few words here and now…
View original post 92 more words
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2010/03/ending_the_pretence.html
Hi friends
I quote from the article:
“These pastors, at least, have begun the important process of being honest with themselves”
I agree that these pastors have admitted an obvious fact; that what they preach is not based on truth. This open admission of the pastors if carried to its logical conclusions must entail the reform of the Christians faith in face of the Skepticism- taking place vacated by the Christian faith. And fortunately it is not difficult to do so. It should not be difficult to find out as to what Jesus and Mary believed in and what they never believed in but the Church ascribed it to them. What Jesus, Mary and the OTBible Prophets believed in was reasonable, rational and logical; with a little thought that could be ascertained and refreshed.
Jesus and Mary were devoted Jews; followers of Moses and OTBible or Torah and the Prophets. They could never deviate from their faith. So much so that Jesus was ready and in fact he was put on the Cross; but he did not waiver. He stood by the reasonable faith he had.
One has just to see as to what was Jesus’ and Mary’s belief in terms of the OTBible. The extra teachings later added or invented are just to be expunged being worthless additions and untrue witnessing.
The reformation is ready and it will be fine. Christians already believe in the OTBible; so the reformation would be within their belief system and not outside of it.
I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/02/26/396460.aspx#comments
Hi friends
Nobody here should be hated and everyone needs to be respected.
Respect should be a default faculty of man – one earns it simply by birth from the fellow human beings.
Not only that every human being should be respected but the creeds he has should also be respected, which means that every human being has the right to express his beliefs fully and freely without fear of derision, persecution or ridiculing by others with foul and filthy words and or actions.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that one should accept wrong beliefs of others deaf and dumb. Allowing others a right to co-exist peacefully; the respect of a human being lies in that one should give rational, reasonable and logical arguments to prove other wrong and or to convince others of the wrong in their beliefs.
I don’t think friend Cloudlift has infringed on other’s respect; though I am new on this topic. He did not disrespect others, in my opinion.
Did he?
I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
paarsurrey 
July 18th, 2013 at 8:14 am
Not really, it’s a reductio ad absurdum.
July 18th, 2013 at 8:13 am
Me thinks you miss the point. You are arguing with the six year old girl rather than connecting to the fallacy she is meant to illustrate.
July 18th, 2013 at 8:38 am
I think David Smalley was not clear on his argument. He or if you want to defend his point; they you should clear the point. I think he just wanted to say that believers of religions are silly; and that Debilis has been successful to point out. Nevertheless it is no reasonable argument, in my opinion.