Posts Tagged ‘rational’

“Simple Reasons for Any Rational Person to Reject Materialism”

May 15, 2018

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/9-simple-reasons-for-any-rational-person-to-reject-materialism.207905/page-7#post-5616868

 

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

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/9-simple-reasons-for-any-rational-person-to-reject-materialism.207905/page-7#post-5616868

Advertisements

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?


Quote:
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?
Regards

Did Islam spread by sword?

May 31, 2014

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

Arguing with Preschoolers

July 17, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

I agree with you. You have refuted Smalley’s thoughts very clearly.
Thanks

 

 

  • agnophilo
    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.

    • paarsurrey
      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.

Fide Dubitandum

92572265From 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

“Did Jesus say anything not useful?”; a Humanist questions

July 15, 2013

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: 

July 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Reply

@ 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.

  paarsurrey Says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:16 pm  

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: 

July 15, 2013 at 1:41 pm |

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.

I have studied Bible, both OT and NT, from cover to cover | paarsurrey

May 4, 2013

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.

I only believe in what I see and I can touch

March 14, 2013

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.

the closed room

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

“Ending the pretense of faith”

March 20, 2010

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

Respect should be a default faculty of man – one earns it simply by birth

February 26, 2010

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

Bible and Quran – which one has presented the most real, truthful and rational picture of Jesus and Mary

January 28, 2010

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/01/26/lawmakers-in-france-propose-burka-ban.aspx#ixzz0duBbOnfs