Posts Tagged ‘Theists’

Theists and Atheist are both faith based

December 21, 2013

I started a thread in one of my favorite discussion forum the Hubpages titled “Atheism is a psychological construct of doubt ; not a reality” :

Following posts may be read in this connection:

Paarsurrey wrote:

Belief in One-True-God Allah Yahweh is very natural and is a reality; yet those who very unnaturally doubt it they are in no compulsion to believe it.

HowardBThiname wrote:

Ok, “atheism is a psychological construct of doubt ; not a reality”. I’ll agree with that.

But, by the same token, “Theism is a psychological ideation ; not a reality”.

What is real cannot be threatened. What is false, therefore, does not exist, except in the minds of the deluded.

wilderness posted:

As only a quite small percentage of people throughout the history of mankind have expressed a belief in Allah (and even fewer actually had such a belief), it doesn’t seem very “natural”, does it?

paarsurrey posted:

Natural is that what exists irrespective of humans believing or not believing and their numbers.

Wilderness posted:

Ah. Then both Allah and God are very unnatural as neither actually exists.

Why did you say the one was natural?

And why would you say that “Belief in One-True-God Allah Yahweh is very natural” if “natural” is irrespective of belief?

HowardBThiname wrote:

Ok, “atheism is a psychological construct of doubt ; not a reality”. I’ll agree with that.

But, by the same token, “Theism is a psychological ideation ; not a reality”.

What is real cannot be threatened. What is false, therefore, does not exist, except in the minds of the deluded.

Paarsurrey wrote:

You mean the minds of Atheists are free from being deluded?

JMcFarland posted:

no. Not all atheists are skeptics. Some atheists believe ridiculous things with no good reason. In other words, they have faith.

paarsurrey posted:

So the Theists and the Atheists both are faith based.

JMcFarland posted:

No. .. just atheists that believe something without a good reason and without evidence. That’s what faith is. Not all atheists are identical, just like not all theists are identical. Skepticism and atheism are not the same. I wish they were.


Paarsurrey says: one may like to comment in the hubpages or here in this blog.
Everybody is welcome to comment; even those who differ with me.

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

criteria for differentiating one’s religion as “true” and another’s as “false”

July 13, 2013

There has been a useful discussion on the question raised by John Zande @ < >under the title post<

A question for theists>.

The discussion is given here for the viewers to participate in the discussion on both the blogs of Paarsurrey and or John Zande.



July 13, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
Paarsurrey says:
Referring to your question in the post; “are there any credible (confirmed) criteria for differentiating one’s religion as “true” and another’s as “false”?”

Yes; there are five basic criteria:
1. Belief in the one true God.
2. Belief in the angels.
3. Belief in the revealed books.
4. Belief in the messengers prophets.
5. Belief in the Day of Judgement.


July 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm

You kidding? “Belief” (suspicion) is your verifiable/confirmed criteria?

Perhaps you could outline upon what exactly you base this belief?


July 10, 2013 at 2:40 pm

No…. however…. you know I’m going to find a hole in your assumptive logic here. You might argue that there are no two humans who are alike, yet conjecture that the similarities are enough to lump us all under the title ‘human’. Therefore there are of course common denominators between most religions, even if the labels shift about a little. In fact they all fall under the heading ‘religion’ so, you might pre-suppose a distinct correlation between them, a multi-purpose defining attribute. N’est pas?
You cannot in my mind say that no two are the same, perhaps no two exact same versions of the same dead horse exist, but the similarities are more often than not clear to see right throughout history, and possibly because as humans with such a fanciful bent we only have so much within our repertoire?


July 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm


I agree with your argument. You have put a hole in the argument given by JOHN ZANDE, in my opinion..



July 13, 2013 at 2:17 pm

I beg to differ, but i’m certainly open to hearing why you might think that…

July 13, 2013 at 2:26 pm

All revealed religions in their origin are/were from one source of the one true God; that is the reason for so many similar teachings in them. The differences in religions reflect that when the message from the one true God got diluted due to corruption; the message was again revealed by Him on another truthful messenger prophet of the one true God.

July 13, 2013 at 2:39 pm

Again, if there were one god (as you’re alluding to) then a valid explanation will have to be given why it doesn’t have a single name recognised by all people’s.

July 13, 2013 at 2:47 pm

The name has to be in the language of the people who have been addressed by the one true God.
It is a valid explanation; otherwise the people to whom the message has been sent won’t understand it.

July 13, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Sorry, that explanation doesn’t fly. You are alluding to a universal god, and a universal god should have one name recognized by all sentient creatures. By extension such a god should be able to state exactly what it wants to say and do so free of any and all ambiguity. Its word should be unencumbered by cultural idiosyncrasies and remain unmolested by divergences in language, calligraphy, obscure and dead lexicons, future dialects, exotic morphemes, or even illiteracy and deafness. Its word should contain no contradiction, no absurdity, no oversight or declarations that are in conflict with observed facts. Its word should penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Such an entity should be instantly recognizable to all sentient creatures and its actions should exhibit no fault or favor, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omniscient, no mind-set at all.

July 13, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Which bit do you agree with in particular my friend?

July 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm

“there are of course common denominators between most religions”
The similarities in revealed religions speak that in the origin the message from the one true God was the same; when the message was lost or got obscured it was revealed again.
So in fact the truthful religion has always been the same.

July 13, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Could you outline this ubiquitous message you say exists?

July 13, 2013 at 2:45 pm

Yeah ok, you’ve ever so slightly twisted the point I was actually trying to make. I believe that all religions are man-made, and in partial agreement with John it is true to say that no two religions would actually appear in the same guise anywhere because of the diversity of human beings full-stop. However, the point I was trying to make was that the variations in many cases are negligible because of the social inferences present in many cross trading and co-existing cultures throughout history. Cultural habits have a way of permeating the fabric of people’s lives in ways that can travel and spread far and wide indeed. However, that does not necessarily imply any level of truth in such popular myths.
I have an issue with believing in anything stemming from a one true God because I simply do not believe in god/s whatsoever. As humans we only have so much within our repertoire because of our physiological make-up, so in many ways we are bound to happen upon and create similar ideas.

Paarsurrey says now:

The same should apply to atheism. it is a psychological construct; not a reality.

July 13, 2013 at 3:07 pm

To my mind the onus of any true god-like entity has to rest with the human condition, which means that we are all god-stuff if we are to subscribe to any notion of mono-theism. How does that rest with you Paarsurrey, if we are all god, and we can all do what we like with that statement because we are all omnipotent and omnipresent? Is your god not you?

I am not God. I am just a human being with all the merits and demerits a human has.
I cannot do whatever I like.
I donèt believe that a human could be a god; one could be one with the one true God in the sense to inculcate the attributes of the God. that does not make one God.

Jesus, Buddha and Krishna were just human beings who became one with the one true God in the above sense.

Americans in search of Truth

March 27, 2013

Americans in search of the Truth or in search of the one true creator God

I think Americans will reject Atheists or Atheism.

Atheists have failed to prove with any tangible evidences that “one true creator God does not exist”. It is their lame excuse that negatives cannot be proved; that is only admittance that their stance is incorrect; and they don’t have any solid stand to stand on; theirs is an extremist position.

Agnostics admit the wrong position of the Atheists and take the position that they don’t know if God exists or not; they tend to be neutral. If they hold this position truthfully then they would have never cared if somebody believed in God or not; morally they should have kept silent.

Skeptics are in doubt; they take a negative position. Doubt generates only doubts until one is overcome by cynicism; far from the truth. Truth is a positive position and it does exist.

The only rational position is to become theists- believers in one true creator God.

Quran is neither ambiguous nor contradictory

March 18, 2010

Hi my global friends

I quote here verses from Quran, which my friends at think are ambiguous.

I quote here the verses and invite my friends on that forum and others to discuss these verses here freely yet within the norms of decency, ethics and morals:

[21:29] He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they intercede not except for him whom He approves, and they act cautiously for fear of Him.
[21:30] And whosoever of them should say, ‘I am a God beside Him,’ him shall We requite with Hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers.
[21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [21:32] And We have made in the earth firm mountains lest it should quake with them; and We have made therein wide pathways, that they may be rightly guided.
[21:33] And We have made the heaven a roof, well protected; yet they turn away from its Signs. [21:34] And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each gliding along in its orbit.
[21:35] We granted not everlasting life to any human being before thee. If then thou shouldst die, shall they live here for ever?
[21:36] Every soul shall taste of death; and We prove you with evil and good by way of trial. And to Us shall you be returned.
[21:37] And when the disbelievers see thee, they only make a jest of thee. They say: ‘Is this the one who makes an evil mention of your gods?’ While it is they themselves who reject with disdain the mention of the Gracious God.
[21:38] Man is made of haste. I will certainly show you My Signs but ask Me not to hasten. [21:39] And they say, ‘When will this promise be fulfilled, if you are truthful?’

Open for discussion for everybody.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Human brain is naturally more comfortable believing than doubting

March 13, 2010

Hi friends

I present here an article from National Post: Holy Post of Canada. Its title is “God’s Brain: The neuroscience of devotion”
Posted: March 13, 2010, 5:38 AM by Daniel Kaszor

It is interesting’

“Prof. Tiger said he and Dr. McGuire were also compelled to look more deeply at religion because of the spate of books by such high-profile atheists as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, which were gaining huge readership for their anti-religious notions.

The main arguments of these writers is that no religion is backed up by scientific fact and therefore religious believers are deluded, if not outright morons.
“That was disrespectful and also not scientific,” Prof. Tiger said. “You can’t have a viable society in which 80% of adults are morons.” … otion.aspx
Food for thought and discussion


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

“The (religious) textbook wars”

February 27, 2010

Paarsurrey wrote:
February 26, 2010 7:27 AM

Hi friends

The Religion should be a part of the education of children in Schools; so that they have an idea of Ethics, Morals and the Spiritual progress. There is no harm if the point of view of the Seculars or Humanists or the Atheists is also accommodated in the text books.


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

YEAL9 wrote:
February 26, 2010 10:30 AM

More movements (and another Messiah) in a stream of Islamic sects;

“Ahmadiyya (äh mə dē’ yə), a contemporary messianic movement founded (1899) by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1839-1908), b. Qadiyan, the Punjab. His Barahin-i Ahmadiyya, which he began to publish in 1880, was well received by his Islamic community. In 1889, he announced that he had received a divine revelation authorizing him to accept the baya, the allegiance of the faithful; he later also declared himself the Mahdi and the promised Messiah (masih) of Islam (1891).

His doctrine, incorporating Indian, Sufi, Islamic, and Western elements, attempted to revitalize Islam in the face of the British raj, Protestant Christianity, and resurgent Hinduism.

After his death, his followers elected Mawlana Nur ad-Din as his successor. Nur ad-Din died in 1914, and the community split into two branches. The majority remained in Qadiyan and recognized Ghulam Ahmad as prophet (nabi). The basic belief held by the Qadiyani community was and is that it is the sole embodiment of “True Islam.”

The founder’s son, Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ad-Din Mahmud Ahmad (1889-1965), was chosen as Khalifatul-Masih [caliph of the Messiah] by the Qadiyani branch, known today as the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (jamaat-i ahmadiyya). His half-century of leadership shaped the movement, operating after 1947 out of the city of Rabwah (which they founded and gave a Qur’anically inspired name) in Pakistan and administering a network of schools and hospitals.

His successors have been chosen from among Ghulam Ahmad’s descendants; the leader of the movement (since 2003) is Mirza Masroor Ahmad (b. 1950).

The other branch, less willing to distinguish itself from mainstream Islam, recognized Ghulam Ahmad as a reformer (mujaddid) and established what came to be known as the ahmadiyya anjuman ishaat-i Islam movement in Lahore, Pakistan, also known as the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement. Both branches engage in energetic missionary activity in Nigeria, Kenya, Indonesia, and the Indian subcontinent.”


Paarsurrey wrote:
February 27, 2010 8:21 AM

Hi friends

Our friend YEAL9 has provided good information about Ahmadiyya. Ahmadiyya is an enlightened movement not only to revitalize Islam but all the Revealed Religions of the world. Since it accepts reason, rationality and revelation as consistent tools of man for life; hence it bridges the gaps between Atheists and Theists also and in this way works for bringing about understanding and peace in the world. Ahmadiyya don’t see any real wedge between Science and Religion; the former being the Work and the later being the Word of the same Creator- God Allah YHWH.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran


I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim