Posts Tagged ‘Theology’

Atheism is like thinking one is in a dark room while the room is well-lit

April 11, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

April 8th, 2014 at 6:19 am
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:

I totally agree with you.

The same way one could ask the materialists; do you exist? If yes, give its proofs and evidences. They never give answer to this question.

Thanks and regards

April 10th, 2014 at 6:03 am

@Debilis : April 9th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
“That one has never occurred to me, I must admit.
I’ll have to remember that.”

Thanks for your appreciation. You make good points defending religion.

The arguments, though sophisticated and philosophical for the learned at times; should have a simple form also so that ordinary people could benefit from them and they could also defend religion on their own.

Most people are not much educated; religion is also for them; they should be equipped to defend religion in simple terms.

Communication between us is proof of our existence; otherwise we are just illusions or shadows of existence.

God has communicated with perfect men among human beings in all ages and all regions of the world; that is a strong proof of His existence.


April 10th, 2014 at 6:46 am

@john zande:April 10th, 2014 at 4:23 am

“1. Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
2. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
3. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there, and shouting “I found it!”
4. Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a switch. The light will reveal a cat… if there is one.”Unquote

I would like to add two more categories to the above.

5. Revealed Religion is like being in a dark room and looking for a cat from its meowing; if the room is dark one cannot know the color of a cat.
6. Atheism is like thinking one is in a dark room while the room is well-lit; and one sees a black cat but insists that there is no cat out there.


Frank Morris
April 10th, 2014 at 10:27 pm

John, I’d say you are as much in the dark as any of us, so you don’t know what is there or what isn’t.

Atheism is like being in a brightly lit room filled with cats and denying cats exist.

Perhaps the majority in the room have found something you haven’t found yet.

April 11th, 2014 at 5:58 am

@Frank Morris : April 10th, 2014 at 11:15 pm
“paarsurrey, you and I had the same thought on number 6, but I hadn’t read your post yet.
As an open-minded skeptic who rejected everything told to me at school, home or church to try to see what the facts are really telling me, I may be in a 7th group.
I am in a brightly lit room desperately fumbling for a light switch but finding cats.” Unqote

Frank Morris

Thanks for your appreciation. I regularly view Fide Dubitandum and sometimes I write comments also. I like Debilis defending religion with good arguments.

You are welcome to visit my blog @

I would be pleased to visit your blog and enjoy your wisdom; please give me the link of your blog.


“William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence”

January 17, 2014

“William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence”

The above is the topic of the post at an atheist blog which can be viewed at:

Following eight points of Lane Craig has been enumerated and commented upon by coels:

(I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists
(II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe
(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness
(VI) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties
(VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists
(VIII) God can be personally known and experienced
(IX) God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

I generally speaking agree with the points or arguments given by Lane Craig if by God he doesn’t mean Jesus but he means the One-True-God in terms of Jesus’ Core Teachings as mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Jesus was a Jew and followed Moses; in fact Jesus only repeated the core teachings of Moses as contained in:

Deuteronomy 6:4-9

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

I further have to add that I totally disagree with
the last or ninth (IX) point mentioned by Lane Craig by which he means that Bible has given truthful historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

This is simply not correct.

Questioning or doubting other beliefs is no evidence of truthfulness of Atheism

August 14, 2013


  1. “People in all societies throughout time have had superstitious belief systems”
    I think the Atheists have also been superstitious; when the believers in the truthful religion believed the Earth was flat ; the same way the Atheists believed; they were no different.



    • David on August 13, 2013 at 9:44 pm said:

      I’m not sure what you’re saying here either, Paarsurrey. Could you elaborate some more on this, and what you mean by “the truthful religion”? Which religion is this, and how is more truthful than the hundreds of other religions that also claim to be “truthful”?

      Let’s first define ‘superstition’ so that we’re all on the same mental page. Merriam-Webster defines it thus: (1a) a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation; (1b) an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition; (2) a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

      I’m not sure how much you know about the history of doubt and atheism, Paarsurrey, but skepticism in the supernatural and superstition has always defined both of these movements. There’s a difference between not knowing what you don’t know, and living in willful ignorance. There may have been atheists once-upon-a-time who believed that the Earth was flat. Until Pythagoras demonstrated that our world is spherical, there was no reason to think otherwise. This is fundamentally different from what those who hold a religious worldview do.

      Those who have doubted or disbelieved the existence of supernatural deities have also tended to doubt or disbelieve other baseless claims or traditions. In a hundred years, there may be atheists who look back on the age we live in now as full of superstitions based on the knowledge that they will have discovered. However, atheists and skeptics today act on the knowledge that we have available to us, just as they did in previous centuries, and are continually questioning beliefs and views we hold.



      1. @ David: reference comments of August 13, 2013 at 9:44 pm

        “Could you elaborate some more on this, and what you mean by “the truthful religion”? Which religion is this, and how is more truthful than the hundreds of other religions that also claim to be “truthful”?”

        The truthful religion could be any religion based on the Word Revealed from the one true God. It could have any familiar names like the religion of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Muhammad etc; or it could have a generic name like Islam; provided its basic tenets are ascertained from the original text and the context verses in the original language revealed on its frontal personage like Muhammad.

        Since the source of all above named great human beings is the one true God; hence there is no difference of teachings of all the aforementioned truthful people.



        @ David: reference comments of August 13, 2013 at 9:44 pm

        Superstition- “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance”

        This perfectly fits on the Atheists; there is no requirement of any knowledge to be an Atheist; Atheism is open to any ignorant man whatsoever.
        Simply one has to jump into its fold without any solid, valid and positive evidence/s at hand; just exclaiming denial without a reasonable doubt makes one an Atheist.

circulus in probando fallacy and the Atheists

July 29, 2013

I give below some posts by our friend Debilis which I have liked very much. I want to share them with the viewers:
July 29th, 2013 at 7:53 am

Are you aware of the circulus in probando fallacy?

More to the point, are you aware that you are committing it?

This reasoning process you are defending is as follows:

1. Religious claims are false.

How do you know this?
2. Religious people are wrong, and cannot think clearly.

How do you know this?
3. They believe claims that are false.

How do you know this?
4. Because religious claims are false.

Do you see how we’re going around in a circle? You’re assuming the thing you need to be proving. Also important is the fact that there is no point at which any questioning of materialism is happening at all in here.

This is why circular reasoning is also dogmatic.

    • Debilis
      July 29th, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      “I can’t understand your words” is now a logical response to the pointing out of a logical fallacy?

      I apologize if my vocabulary is to large for you to follow, but the point remains valid. “Religious people are wrong because God doesn’t exist and God doesn’t exist because religious people are wrong” is bad logic–and should be completely dismissed.

      It is also dogmatic thinking.

      Mocking the fact that I use words that you don’t know doesn’t change this reality.

“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.

Did Jesus Exist?

June 19, 2013


I think there are two aspects to the question: “Did Jesus Exist?”

  • Did Jesus Christ son of Mary, just a human being, exist?
  • Even an Atheist, I think, cannot reply to it “Probably not”. Most probably such a person existed; history has no evidence that he did not exist.
  •  The other aspect; did Jesus Christ a God Man son of Yahweh, exist?
  • Its correct answer is; no, he did not.

Religion does not need immoral stories of Bible

April 30, 2013

As for as I know religion is for development of human faculties in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; and religion guides one to tread on the footprints of the founders of the religion.

Genesis narrations are so immoral at some places that not even an ordinary human being would like to do as stated therein. One has to search for jewels from the rubble called Bible; I mean moral events distinctively from the immoral as mentioned below.

Chapter 12

(Account of Abram or Abraham)

[11] And when he was near to enter into Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife: I know that thou art a beautiful woman: [12] And that when the Egyptians shall see thee, they will say: She is his wife: and they will kill me, and keep thee. [13] Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister: that I may be well used for thee, and that my soul may live for thy sake. [14] And when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians saw the woman that she was very beautiful. [15] And the princes told Pharao, and praised her before him: and the woman was taken into the house of Pharao.

[16] And they used Abram well for her sake. And he had sheep and oxen, and he asses, and men servants and maid servants, and she asses, and camels. [17] But the Lord scourged Pharao and his house with most grievous stripes for Sarai, Abram’ s wife. [18] And Pharao called Abram, and said to him: What is this that thou hast done to me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?[19] For what cause didst thou say, she was thy sister, that I might take her to my wife? Now, therefore, there is thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

Chapter 19


[4] But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. [5] And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:

[6] Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: [7] Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. [8] I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.

Chapter 20

[1] Abraham removed from thence to the south country, and dwelt between Cades and Sur, and sojourned in Gerara. [2] And he said of Sara his wife: She is my sister. So Abimelech the king of Gerara sent, and took her. [3] And God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and he said to him: Lo thou shalt die for the woman thou hast taken: for she hath a husband. [4]

Chapter 26

[6] So Isaac abode in Gerara. [7] And when he was asked by the men of that place, concerning his wife, he answered: She is my sister; for he was afraid to confess that she was his wife, thinking lest perhaps they would kill him because of her beauty. [8] And when very many days were passed, and he abode there, Abimelech king of the Palestines looking out through a window, saw him playing with Rebecca his wife. [9] And calling for him, he said: It is evident she is thy wife: why didst thou feign her to be thy sister? He answered: I feared lest I should die for her sake. [10] And Abimelech said: Why hast thou deceived us? Some man of the people might have lain with thy wife, and thou hadst brought upon us a great sin

Chapter 29

[18] And Jacob being in love with her, said: I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.[19] Laban answered: It is better that I give her to thee than to another man; stay with me. [20] So Jacob served seven years for Rachel: and they seemed but a few days, because of the greatness of his love.

[21] And he said to Laban: Give me my wife; for now the time is fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.[22] And he, having invited a great number of his friends to the feast, made the marriage. [23] And at night he brought in Lia his daughter to him, [24] Giving his daughter a handmaid, named Zelpha. Now when Jacob had gone in to her according to custom when morning was come he saw it was Lia:

These are the deeds of people who were supposed to be under covenant from God; and  they were to distribute blessings to their off-spring and were to spread in the world.

If their character is moral; then please define as to what is immoral.

I know this has nothing to do with Abraham, Isaac, Lot and Jacob; it is the fabrication of the storytellers who narrated the oral tradition and to attract the audience they made them up . When oral tradition was committed to writing these were got added up by the scribes.

Discrepancy in number of books in the Bible: Jews, Catholics and Protestants

April 24, 2013

Hank Kimball Says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:41 pm

Either all scripture is inspired of God, or it is not. The bible I read has 66 books penned by 38 men directed by God in every word. Either what is said in it can be interpreted by what is said in it, or it cannot. If one scripture seems, on the surface to contradict another, further study and understanding is indicated. If we do not use scripture to interpret scripture, we have relied on our own understanding. That is precisely why so many religions exist today.

Paarsurrey says:

Since we are not in a debate; we are only trying to understand one another’s point of view. You have your own free will to have a blind-faith. I will opt to have my own free will of not having a blind faith.

I don’t agree with your above mentioned generalizations. Bible does not consist of the original Word of the one true God revealed on a truthful messenger prophet. It could have certain portions or sentences of revelations from the one true God but only translated from some other language; not in the original language they were revealed on a messenger prophet of God.

The difference in number of books of Catholics, Protestants, other Christian denomination and Jews is an evidence that Bible has been changed by the denominations they pertain to.

Jews– they have total 49 books in the OT Bible. They don’t believe in NT.

Catholics– they have 46 books in their OT+27 books in the NT; that makes their total book as 73.

Protestants- they have 39 books in their OT+27 books in the NT; that make their total of 66 books.

So by this I can tell you that you are a protestant.

If we go by the arguments given by you; the Christian-Catholics and Christian-Protestants both of them, under the warning mentioned in the end of book of revelation which you quoted in one of your earlier posts, are responsible for reducing the whole books from the Bible; the Catholics for 3 books and Protestant for 10 books.

We have not yet taken account of numerous passages and/or sentences which have been added to or reduced from the Bible by the Catholics and Protestants.

This proves that the warning of revelation or the preservation of the text of scriptures is only valid for the book of revelation and it cannot be extended or generalized to other books or the Bible as a whole.

Buddha on “I am” or ego

April 23, 2013



Gospel of Buddha says:

“Is not man an organism of many aggregates? Are we not composed of various attributes? Man consists of the material form, of sensation, of thought, of dispositions, and, lastly, of understanding. That which men call the ego when they say ‘I am’ is not an entity behind the attributes; it originates by their co-operation. There is mind; there is sensation and thought, and there is truth; and truth is mind when it walks in the path of righteousness. But there is no separate ego-soul outside or behind the thought of man. He who believes that the ego is a distinct being has no correct conception of things. The very search for the atman is wrong; it is a wrong start and it will lead you in a false direction. 6

“How much confusion of thought comes from our interest inself, and from our vanity when thinking ‘I am so great,’ or ‘I have done this wonderful deed?’ The thought of thine ego stands between thy rational nature and truth; banish it, and then wilt thou see things as they are. He who thinks correctly will rid himself of ignorance and acquire wisdom. The ideas ‘I am’ and ‘I shall be’ or ‘I shall not be’ do not occur to a clear thinker. 7


Click to access The%20Gospel%20of%20Buddha%20-%20Paul%20Carus.pdf

Quran says:
Giving the example of “self” who has acquired goodness.

[89:28] And thou, O soul* at peace!
[89:29] Return to thy Lord well pleased with Him and He well pleased with thee.
[89:30] So enter thou among My chosen servants,
[89:31] And enter thou My Garden**.
* Could be translated as “self”.
**Could be translated as “heaven”.

And example of evil self going to hell.

[12:54] ‘And I do not hold my own self to be free from weakness; for, the soul is surely prone to enjoin evil, save that whereon my Lord has mercy. Surely, my Lord is Most Forgiving, Merciful.’

Paarsurrey says:

So according to Buddha, as I understand, the core of our ego ultimately depends on attributes that we acquire; if our self acquires good attributes and become one with the one true God that is one’s heaven and if our self acquires evil attributes, one becomes evil which has its abode in hell; in this sense heaven and hell are our own creation; one true creator God has only set rules for conduct with justice.

Jesus remained on Earth till his natural death

April 22, 2013

Bryan Says:

Mormon’s believe that Jesus went to America. Call me skeptical but I think these are instances where other religions want “Jesus” to “rubber stamp” their own beliefs. Why should I believe Jesus went to India rather than to America after his life in Israel?

Paarsurrey says:

I don’t understand your stance.

Simply if Mormons claim that Jesus went to America does not make their claim right. You have to look into the arguments one gives. If there are people who say that Jesus went to other places after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and was delivered in a near dead-position; that proves that Jesus did not ascend to the heavens; he remained on Earth till his natural death.

%d bloggers like this: