paarsurrey wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
How do you define a truthful religion?

John

I think I explained it in one of my posts here.

Will you please look up into my posts?

Still waiting for your evidence
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

THey say patience is a vitue.

I am being very virtuous

paarsurrey wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
How do you define a truthful religion?

John

I think I explained it in one of my posts here.

Will you please look up into my posts?

And it was rejected as being patently false.

Horwood Beer-Master wrote: We merely acknowledge we don't need to know anything he ever said in order to come up with our own points against the "truthful religion" (whatever that may be!).

You mean he just did an exercise in futility; neither benefitting atheist nor the theists.?!
Am I wrong here?

paarsurrey wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
How do you define a truthful religion?

John

I think I explained it in one of my posts here.

Will you please look up into my posts?

BTW I wasn't looking for a list of which ones were truthful but how you know that they are the ones.

John

Spearthrower wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
How do you define a truthful religion?

John

I think I explained it in one of my posts here.

Will you please look up into my posts?

And it was rejected as being patently false.

Do you have a link? paarsurrey seems to be reluctant to give it.

John

paarsurrey wrote:

Horwood Beer-Master wrote: We merely acknowledge we don't need to know anything he ever said in order to come up with our own points against the "truthful religion" (whatever that may be!).

You mean he just did an exercise in futility; neither benefitting atheist nor the theists.?!
Am I wrong here?

You are baiting for a reaction. Nobody said any such thing.

Hitchens wrote a book. What is your problem with this?

paarsurrey wrote:

Horwood Beer-Master wrote: We merely acknowledge we don't need to know anything he ever said in order to come up with our own points against the "truthful religion" (whatever that may be!).

You mean he just did an exercise in futility; neither benefitting atheist nor the theists.?!
Am I wrong here?

The book is a critique of religion, you don't need to be an atheist to critique religion. Is it that hard to understand?

zulumoose wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:
Can't you be a little soft worded? We are just having a friendly discussion, please.
We have to co-exist in this beautiful world peacefully with an effort to understand one another positively.

But you are not being honest here, you have shown no inclination whatsoever to understand anything from an atheist perspective and have continued to use terms which are provocative, such as "the truthful religion".

Am I not allowed to express here what I believe sincerely?

I have explained what I mean by using the syllable "the truthful religion"; it is generic for all religions based on Word of the ONE- Creator God.

paarsurrey wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:
Can't you be a little soft worded? We are just having a friendly discussion, please.
We have to co-exist in this beautiful world peacefully with an effort to understand one another positively.

But you are not being honest here, you have shown no inclination whatsoever to understand anything from an atheist perspective and have continued to use terms which are provocative, such as "the truthful religion".

Am I not allowed to express here what I believe sincerely?

I have explained what I mean by using the syllable "the truthful religion"; it is generic for all religions based on Word of the ONE- Creator God.

Yet you make these false statements without any form of evidence.

paarsurrey wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:
Can't you be a little soft worded? We are just having a friendly discussion, please.
We have to co-exist in this beautiful world peacefully with an effort to understand one another positively.

But you are not being honest here, you have shown no inclination whatsoever to understand anything from an atheist perspective and have continued to use terms which are provocative, such as "the truthful religion".

Am I not allowed to express here what I believe sincerely?

I have explained what I mean by using the syllable "the truthful religion"; it is generic for all religions based on Word of the ONE- Creator God.

It doesn't matter what you believe. It matters what you can show to be true. Just to claim there to be some sort of truthful religions based on a true god isn't going anywhere. Provide evidence for your claims. People keep asking you for it, you keep ignoring it. Stop it with the dishonesty.

paarsurrey wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:
Can't you be a little soft worded? We are just having a friendly discussion, please.
We have to co-exist in this beautiful world peacefully with an effort to understand one another positively.

But you are not being honest here, you have shown no inclination whatsoever to understand anything from an atheist perspective and have continued to use terms which are provocative, such as "the truthful religion".

Am I not allowed to express here what I believe sincerely?

I have explained what I mean by using the syllable "the truthful religion"; it is generic for all religions based on Word of the ONE- Creator God.

And you included Buddhism and Krishna, which indicates that your knowledge about these 'truthful' religions isn't very comprehensive.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:
Can't you be a little soft worded? We are just having a friendly discussion, please.
We have to co-exist in this beautiful world peacefully with an effort to understand one another positively.

But you are not being honest here, you have shown no inclination whatsoever to understand anything from an atheist perspective and have continued to use terms which are provocative, such as "the truthful religion".

Am I not allowed to express here what I believe sincerely?

I have explained what I mean by using the syllable "the truthful religion"; it is generic for all religions based on Word of the ONE- Creator God.

Yet you make these false statements without any form of evidence.

Worse. The statements are made in the spirit of wanting something to be true, so therefore it is.

His understanding of evidence seems wanting.

z8000783 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
How do you define a truthful religion?

John

I think I explained it in one of my posts here.

Will you please look up into my posts?

And it was rejected as being patently false.

Do you have a link? paarsurrey seems to be reluctant to give it.

John

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... a#p1183356

paarsurrey wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Which truthful religion would that be? I have to assume you mean Islam, right?

Religion of Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad followed the same truthful religion; belief in the ONE truthful Creator God.

Aside from their mutual exclusivity, he also included ones that don't fit the group.

paarsurrey wrote:

zulumoose wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:
Can't you be a little soft worded? We are just having a friendly discussion, please.
We have to co-exist in this beautiful world peacefully with an effort to understand one another positively.

But you are not being honest here, you have shown no inclination whatsoever to understand anything from an atheist perspective and have continued to use terms which are provocative, such as "the truthful religion".

Am I not allowed to express here what I believe sincerely?

I have explained what I mean by using the syllable "the truthful religion"; it is generic for all religions based on Word of the ONE- Creator God.

Of which there is no evidence, so completely useless on this forum unless you provide some. It is provocative because you have been told this again and again and either you're ignoring us when we tell you or you're trolling to make other members run around in circles for your own amusement.

Well none them fit the group which also true of the 34,000 belief systems.

z8000783 wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Since when was any religion "truthful"?

In our era; with the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Yes, I read his book on the life of Mohammad, can you tell me if it was accurate please?

John

We believe in ONE- the Creator God; whatever was most essential for our guidance and moral training is inocrporated in Quran- the Word of the Creator God. Quran is the first and foremost root source of Islam/Quran/Muhammad. The next important source is Sunnah; the acts done by Muhammad to filfill the deeds mentioned in Quran which needed demonstration from Muhammad; in this sense it is a part of Quran; and Muhammad ensured that such deeds are done exactly as commanded by the Creator God.

For instance Quran is Word of the Creator God; not authored by Muhammad; and Muhammad ensured that it reaches down to the generations to come intact in the same form it was revealed verbally on him; so he himself committed it to his memory and repeated/recited some part or most of it daily; so did most of his companinions and their off-springs; in this sense it reached us by Sunnah of Muhammad also.

The third source is Hadith; it was collected 200/250 years after the demise of Muhammad.

The accuracy of events of Muhammad will be ascertained according to the event is mentioned in Quran or is a part of Sunnah or Hadith.

paarsurrey wrote:

Horwood Beer-Master wrote: We merely acknowledge we don't need to know anything he ever said in order to come up with our own points against the "truthful religion" (whatever that may be!).

You mean he just did an exercise in futility; neither benefitting atheist nor the theists.?!
Am I wrong here?

You seem to be wrong everywhere. Even your questions are wrong. Please provide the evidence to your claim that there is such a thing as a "truthful religion", as others have asked repeatedly.

z8000783 wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:So I don't need to read a book to be an atheist;

It is generally best not to think or believe something because a book tells you to, whatever the subject. It is better to use you own powers of reason wouldn't you agree?

John

I use my own power of reason; I think you understand it by now.

Scar wrote:.

It is good to see you off and on.

It keeps interest in the discussion.