Posts Tagged ‘reasonable’

“Faith Is Not Stupidity”

March 4, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey’s comments on the following blog for your valuable opinion:

“Faith Is Not Stupidity”

paarsurrey: March 4, 2014 at 3:39 PM
@ Doug B: March 4, 2014 at 6:15 AM

“Stupidity is not faith. Superstition is not religion. Asserting that we believe what we have never taken the trouble to inquire whether we believe or no, is not piety, but cant. Persuading ourselves we believe what we dare not investigate, for fear of discovering that we disbelieve, is not orthodoxy, but hypocrisy. Professing that we believe what we see to be contrary to reason, and therefore essentially unbelievable, proves not our regard for religion, but only our indifference to truth. – Alfred Williams Momerie (1848-1900), Congregational minister, professor of logic, metaphysician. ” Unquote

I liked the above quote very much.

A congregational minister with such clear and matter of fact thinking; I applaud him and also you. You have written a wonderful post based on your knowledge and experience.

Thanks and regards.

Paarsurrey says:

@ Doug B
Referring to your words “Some things just “didn’t add up”, “Others I placed on a shelf in the back of my mind and determined to keep an open mind”

Could you please tell me of these things?
May be I can help you; I am not a scholar though.

“The ‘Big Bang’ is not mentioned in scripture (Bible)”

February 26, 2014

Blog: Enquiries on Atheism: topic: Rules of Fair Religious Debate Play
My comments:

February 26, 2014 • 5:25 pm

“The “Big Bang” is not mentioned in scripture (Bible)”

It is not reasonable for intelligent people to look for scientific theories in the religious scriptures. The Word of Revelation from the One-True-God on the messengers/prophets is/was for polishing ethical, moral and spiritual faculties of the human beings; hence they should be referred to only in such matters.

Now the word “Big Bang” has been cooked in the recent times; it was not in vogue in the times of Adam (or Moses); in fact this phenomenon happened at a time, millions of years before, when Adam had not yet been evolved. So to look for it in the Bible is a futile exercise; Bible could only, at the most, hint at it in some obscure form for the intelligent people.

Atheists! My belief in One-True-God is very natural

January 20, 2014

I wrote following comment on

@ archaeopteryx1 January 20, 2014 at 21:33

paarsurrey says: January 21, 2014 at 02:07

Further to my comments where I requested you “Now come to the arguments; please”; I have to add that I believe in the One-True-God very naturally; like I believe in me and my mother and father. I am an ordinary man in the street; with no claim to piety or scholarship. I do have a right to live my life as others have theirs. It is quite natural and reasonable for me to continue believing as such till somebody convinces me otherwise with observations and evidences.

If you have any evidences that the One-True-God does not exists; and that I and my mother and father never existed; you may like to present such evidences.

I therefore request you again to present just one argument; not a list of arguments, in this connection.

Others could also give the argument, please.

Thanks and regards

Atheists! Do you have any evidences that the One-True-God does not exists?

January 12, 2014

Dan Wilkinson has written a post on the “Patheos” blog on January 9, 2014 titled “Creationist Ken Ham versus the Truth”; the post could be viewed by the viewers of Paarsurrey blog at the following link:

I have contributed many comments on the post; some of them have already been published in my blog “paarsurrey” together with the comments of those who have commented on my comments; yet more are given below for the benefit of the viewers of this blog and the public:

paarsurrey @ Mike De Fleuriot

I believe in the One-True-God very naturally; like I believe in me and my mother and father. I am an ordinary man in the street; with no claim to piety or scholarship. I do have a right to live my life as others have theirs. It is quite natural and reasonable for me to continue believing as such till somebody convinces me otherwise with observations and evidences.
If you have any evidences that the One-True-God does not exists; and that I and my mother and father never existed; you may like to present such evidences; yet under no compulsion from me.

Rick_K @ paarsurrey

You have evidence for a mother and father that cannot be justified through any other explanation. The same cannot be said of your evidence for God.
If you were born not in a western country in the 20th Century but instead you were born in the highlands of New Guinea in the 14th Century, you would feel just as confident of the pantheon of animal spirits and tribe-specific deities as you are currently confident of the One True God. And again, that belief of those deities would be based on evidence very different from the evidence of your parents.
I’m just sayin’….

paarsurrey @ Rick_K

Please give your evidence that the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshwara Ishawara) does not exist; I won’t leave my present default natural position; unless there are strong evidence/s against it and I get convinced to it.

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 <>)

“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.

Jesus dying as substitution of others’ sins is just mythical and superfluous

May 3, 2013

Hank Kimball says:

(In reply to my post:”Did Jesus himself claim that he was sent for the atonement of sins of others?”)

There is NO sin that cannot be forgiven. I did not know that at one time, but I believe the bible is the word of God. Isaiah 1;18:”Come, now, ​YOU​ people, and let us set matters straight between us,” says Jehovah. “Though the sins of ​YOU​ people should prove to be as scarlet, they will be made white just like snow; though they should be red like crimson cloth, they will become even like wool”.

Paarsurrey says:

I think Jesus words should be understood in the light of the Isaiah 1; 18:

Jesus words narrated in NT seem to be doctored by Paul and or the Church.

If sins can be washed off with repentance, asking forgiveness from one true God and resolve not to commit the sin anymore in the time of Isaiah and before him and after him to Jesus’ time; and that is a very reasonable and natural approach; there is no need of any human ransom.

Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place; so the theory of Jesus dying for the sins of others or anybody else as substitution is just mythical and superfluous.

You may like to read answer to Question-1 from the following book by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah:

I give a facsimile of the page-one from the same; please view it at the end of the post.

One may read the whole answer to the question.

Of course you may have your own opinion.

Seeing apparitions of Mary and Jesus

April 18, 2013

I have noticed some Christians claim seeing apparition of Mary or Jesus. I have always wondered if they saw somebody, and I don’t doubt that they have not seen something, as to how they identify somebody as Mary or Jesus that appeared to them. How could they be able to recognize one whom they did not see while one was alive in one’s real life? Nevertheless; I never had such experience myself so it is quite natural that I cannot benefit from their private experience. We humans could share only reasonable and rational things a common tool of understanding between us; I think everybody will agree with me. More so because there are no standard features of Mary or Jesus described in the Bible; and those who claim to have seen them as apparitions also differ a lot.

I quote here from a Christian site in connection with Mary’s apparitions:

“The apparition appeared on the domes of the church for up to two hours or more at a time, always at night, but not every night and not at regular times. The Lady appeared in glittering light—so bright that her features could not be clearly seen—which streamed across the church. She was invariably preceded or accompanied by luminous “doves,” “strange bird-like creatures made of light,” which did not flap their wings but glided.”

Reason could benefit from Revelation; if it is in the original words and language (with its text and the context fully preserved); and if it was revealed on a human messenger prophet of one true God.

As to the Word revealed on Jesus and Mary; the above condition of reason and rationality is non-existent in their case.
In addition to the above the gospel writers or scribes wrote things with a purpose; Christians sometimes do mention it; that makes their writings biased; not fit to be trusted, in my opinion.

One has a right to differ with me; as do anybody else; I agree.

Religion brought civilization

November 25, 2011

There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by me, on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages.

I have omitted some of the posts which were not directly related to the issue of the topic and which don’t add any meaning to the discussion at hand; the conversation is given hereunder for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages.

I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.

One may access the following link to see the whole of it.

OP from Paarsurrey

Religion brought civilization

Gobekli Tepe proves it.

1. A Troubled Man

And once again, we see that you have failed at one or both of these:

1. Read the article
2. Comprehended the article

“What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself.”

2. autumn18

The article doesn’t prove anything. It shows that some of the worlds archaeologists are still researching the beginning of civilization.

3. Paarsurrey

“The Birth of Religion
We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.”

The article does hint clearly that farming and civilization started 12000 years ago with religion; it did not start with atheism.

4. A Troubled Man posted

Funny guy, you’ll say anything to prop up your beliefs. You post links that actually DO NOT support what you claim and what you believe.

5. Psycheskinner

The same argument could probably be made for the fermenting of alcohol.

6. A Troubled Man


7. SimeyC

No argument there: alcohol = civilization.

Even God knew this – there was a Eleventh Commandment that was accidently broken:
Though shalt all consume alcohol

Why do you think Jesus turned water into wine?

OK so there goes my chance of getting into heaven!!!!

8. Disappearinghead

God gave us beer because He wanted us to be happy.

9. Emile R

Fascinating article paar. Thanks for sharing the link.

10. Paarsurrey

Yet the atheists won’t accept it; once they have decided psychologically to doubt everything, they cannot come out of this wrong state. Their thinking is neither natural nor reasonable.

Thanks for your appreciation.

11. Wilderness

“Wrong state”. Yet it behooves us to doubt everything we hear – the vast majority of “information” we receive is not factual.

Far better to doubt and look for truth than to simply believe everything we hear because it fits with what we want to be true. It is a concept you would be well advised to understand better.

12. Paarsurrey

One should doubt only where it is reasonable to doubt; not otherwise; then it will become a psychological disease.

Science does not support your viewpoint; it supports only where it is reasonable to doubt.

13. Wilderness

Wrong again, Paar. You have immersed yourself so thoroughly in the world of theology that you haven’t the faintest idea of how science works or what it does.

Science always doubts; only after thousands or tens of thousands of tests is something beyond doubt, and even then only in those particular circumstances of the tests.

Theology on the other hand will declare there is no reasonable doubt after deciding something is true; tests aren’t necessary, only rationalization that leads to the predetermined conclusion. There is thus always serious doubt by scientific methodology but theology doesn’t recognize that methodology so the truth stands.

You truly need to try, and try hard, to understand this concept. Science doesn’t accept theological methodology as useful any more than theology accepts science methodology as required. You continue to use religious methods of finding truth and expect science to agree, but it doesn’t work that way.

14. Paarsurrey

Science only will deal where there is a reasonable ground to doubt; if they observe some anomaly then they would doubt; otherwise they need not.

15. Emile R

Let me clarify. The article doesn’t support your OP. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t fascinating though. Did you notice they haven’t excavated anymore than a portion of one tenth of the site? And that there could be monuments even deeper, going further back in history?

Amazing discoveries could still be ahead.

16. Paarsurrey

I agree with you.

17. A Troubled Man

Really? Or, is it such that you never read the article or you didn’t comprehend it and now you’re trying to back peddle because the article does not support your silly claims?

Funny how the more you post, the more we can see what your religion has actually taught you.

18. Psycheskinner

This morning the sun rose to the sound of geese honking. So clearly geese cause the sun to rise.

19. Wilderness posted

Just so. Religion may well have risen alongside civilization; as more and more people live in close contact it is inevitable that someone will invent and use religion to control the others. Also, any new thought about understanding the world around us (there is a god throwing lightning bolts and causing thunder) spreads quickly with lots of people around.

There is, however, no indication that religion caused the rise of civilization. It is convenient to think so as it gives a usefulness to religion that isn’t there, and you will find lots of people that will believe it because, just like your geese, the time element works.

On the whole, though, religion retards the progression of civilization. Religion almost always denies new knowledge and will always try to maintain the status quo as that’s what keeps it in power – this is not bringing civilization.

20. Couturepopcafe

I believe you are right, wilderness. Ancient Greece was civilized beyond belief well before the advent of organized religion. They dressed elegantly in draped garments designating their status in the community, women wore ‘gym’ clothes to participate in spartan athletic games of skill, and men debated world views and allowed the opinions of women equal weight.

21. Paarsurrey

I don’t agree with you.

Socrates, a cream of them, himself was a messenger prophet of the Creator God.

22. A Troubled Man

“Taqiyya, meaning religious dissimulation, is a practice emphasized in Shi’a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion. This means a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are under those risks.”

Someone is certainly taking advantage of this immoral and unethical Islamic teaching.

23. Paarsurrey

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; and the posters here know very well that I don’t conceal that.

24. A Troubled Man

And, like all other Muslims, you will use Taqiyaa when it suits your purposes, as you have done here countless times.

25. Couturepopcafe

paars – do you really think so? Socrates was an existentialist, believing we should think for ourselves, examine every bit of authority and worldview. He believed in perfecting ones soul but is never said to have been a devotee of one god. That doesn’t mean he discounted the existence of god as a collective consciousness.

You may be correct in that sense. As a messenger, or person who lived at a higher level of awareness, he was trying to tell us that we should examine our own thinking, purpose, and awareness and not be cattled by conventional thinking.

26. Paarsurrey

Please quote Socrates’ words to support your view point.

27. Paarsurrey

To return to the topic of the thread “Religion brought civilization” I quote from the article about “Göbekli Tepe”:

“ Most of the world’s great religious centers, past and present, have been destinations for pilgrimages—think of the Vatican, Mecca, Jerusalem, Bodh Gaya (where Buddha was enlightened), or Cahokia (the enormous Native American complex near St. Louis). They are monuments for spiritual travelers, who often came great distances, to gawk at and be stirred by. Göbekli Tepe may be the first of all of them, the beginning of a pattern. What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself.”

28. A Troubled Man

That’s exactly the same quote I provided to you showing that your claim in the OP is nonsense. Now, you use the very same quote to support your claim? Just how dishonest are you going to get?

Hubpages is a good discussion site; one could comment there or here in this blog; comments are most welcome.

“Ending the pretense of faith”

March 20, 2010

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.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

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

February 26, 2010

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.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

%d bloggers like this: