Canada is a multi-cultural society; it will be appropriate to have inter-faith dialogues to help everybody find Truth wherever one finds it. Only Truth could galvanize the society to unite for peace.
Inter-faith dialogue should be held in every locality; it is my desire; it is my passion.
Except for the evil atheists who cannot reason and have no morals or purpose in life?
They would be welcome to speak so that they are well-exposed.
Every religion or non-religion to participate in it; local city counsellers to be the moderators; not a debate but a symposium to help find the Truth.
But the Truth is that there is no god. Science has proven we do not need one and gravity built the structures we see without a Creator.
Please attempt to use a little bit of reason before repeating nonsense. Thank you.
Do you want to see one by Lawrence Krauss? There are dozens of them.
Want to see the debates with Stephen Fry? Go to the BBC.
You don't really want to know anything other than what you believe, do you?
Including athiests is possible, perhaps. I believe that's called a "no faith in interfaith" dialog.
Atheists should join in the efforts for holding inter-faith dialogue in every locality; to help everyone get to the Truth.
And, how do you suppose the openness of those who choose ignorance over learning truth?
Life doesn't require any knowledge of any god to be understood.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of any god to be lived.
Therefore, no god required.
If the atheists organize the sposium; they could choose the topics suggeted by you "Life doesn't require any knowledge of any god to be understood" or "Life doesn't require any knowledge of any god to be lived".
Other speakers could disagree with it.
Yes, they could disagree with it. But, it would make it any less of truth.
What do I need to elaborate on. There wasn't anything in my statement and/or previous posts that wasn't easy to understand.
Just read the words and accept it. Not difficult.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be understood.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of a god to be lived.
Therefore, no god required.
Paar! You're Canadian too!?!?
Do you go to the Ahmadiyya mosque in Etobicoke? I might have run into you at the nearby Home Depot
Yes, and I can tell you first hand some major Canadian cities are a religious and ethnic melting pot, with all kinds of fundamental zealots pushing and fighting their religions and cultures onto society and each other. Racism runs rampant here. Very sad.
So everyone could pick and choose the "TRUTH" that they want? This would be fruitless.
Not if everyone can just pick his own "TRUTH" -- That would start at zero and end at zero.
We are all divine beings because we (as well as every other object and process in our observable Universe) were created by, and are part of God. The surest way for all of us to know God is to pull together everything that all of us know and understand of Him. I am looking forward to a world where the knowledge we all have is compared and cross referenced so that we all move closer to the truth. It is one of God's (or the Universe's) rules that we evolve. History shows us that we have evolved spiritually as well as physically. My knowledge of God has grown by studying several past and present religions, holistic healing, meditation, prayer, yoga, physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, quantum physics, ceremonial magick, folklore, superstition, music and art. I would not say that I have all of the answers, but I know for certain that I understand God way better than I did when I was confirmed into the Church of England as a teenager with only The Bible and prayer/faith as a reference. I am still not able to understand how anyone is able to say that their religion/belief/faith/non-belief is better or closer to the truth than someone elses, when they are looking at God from only one viewpoint.
When you have faith, you don't seek truth.
Faith is the substitute. Why seek when every belief is asserted ?
Sounds like a plan paar. As long as you keep it north of the border, it's OK by me.
I think it is good for every country in the West; people have a right to know and have Truth.
So, the borders don't matter; I can't say it should remain in the North only; it could go to East and South.
I think it is the moral responsibilty of the atheists to hold such symposiums; where everybody speeks freely for Truth.
I tell you what. You guys in Canada go ahead first. Start in, lets say, British Columbia. Give it a couple of years and, if you're all having fun then do it all over your country. We'll watch, and if it looks like fun, we'll give it a shot: maybe.
You should probably start out by going door to door, because this thing probably won't take off on its own. Knock loud and hard. Do not take no for an answer. Make those atheists talk to you. Just keep talking until they're on board with this. I'm very curious to see it get off the ground.
• Well it should be for Truth, not for fun.
• Just give one bell; no knocking on the door; it is not customary in the West.
• Just to deliver a flyer; consisting on Truth that one believes in, if the occupant comes out and takes it, happily.
• If the occupant indulges in a conversation, happily; then one could discuss.
• Else, say sorry and go to the next door.
• If the occupant does not come for any reason; just leave the flyer with the door.
I think it will serve the cause of Truth; you may try it.
Well, ok. I think you'd get more reaction knocking though. Especially with the atheists. Just a piece of helpful advice.
Actually, it is only a self-serving gesture to support your belief that you must evangelize your religion in order to make sure you have good standing with your god. This will include denouncing and attacking other religions and non-believers while extolling the virtues of Islam, and having to take up arms when you believe others are threatening you or Islam when in fact they are simply upset by your lack of respect, contradictory behavior and false pretenses.
It is for this that I say it is moral duty of atheists to organize inter-faith dialogues in every locality of the West; rules could be worked out and fears eliminated amicably.
Paar. I have to ask, because the curiosity is honestly killing me. How serious are you when you push ideas like this? 100%? Or is this a joke.
According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of Islam, interfaith dialogues are an integral part of developing inter-religious peace and the establishment of peace. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been organising interfaith events locally and nationally in various parts of the world in order to develop a better atmosphere of love and understanding between faiths. Various speakers are invited to deliver a talk on how peace can be established from their own or religious perspectives.
I am , as I think, on the Truth; yet I always have to seek the Truth; that is a part of my faith and belief. Inter-faith dialogue does facilitate one to find where the truth lies.
The Atheists do claim here that they are in majority in the USA, Canada and other parts of the West. They are, therefore, better poised to organize inter-faith dialogues where religions and non-religions could speak.
It will serve the cause of humanity.
Well, it sounds like a noble cause, to some extent. But it sounds like an initiative by your religion. And should only be for those interested. Why are you trying to argue that atheists should spearhead the effort in your country. You have to realize the suggestion will rile them up.
you are a voice of reason and kindness in sea of arguments and berating.
I reside in Canada; and I can see that interfaith dialgoue is very useful in bringing different culturers and religions to co-exist and become closer to one another.
Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims Atheists participate in it and benefit from it.
There is no compulsion; but the atheists claim that they are in majority in the West; then I think, it does no harm if they participate and organize such symposiums.
Unless they fear that their real face will be exposed in the public.
In USA they have good discussion-makers like Richard Carrier and people who discuss with research like him.
where in Canada Paar!?!?!?!
I'm still waiting for the coffee discussion re: God!
I think the atheists are probably right. I think there are a whole lot of people who are philosophically aligned with atheism that haven't really thought about it long enough to realize it.
But, I'm still beginning to think you're a bit of a joker, and we're just not quite getting your sense of humor. This idea is crazy.
Inter-faith dialgoue is not a crazy idea; it started with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 participating in one such inter-faith conference in 1896 at Lahore, during the British rule in India.
The lecture which was written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 and was read in it is available on the internet "Philosophy of Teachings of Islam":
The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam is an essay on Islam by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya religious movement. The original was written in Urdu with the title Islami Usool ki Falāsifi, in order to be read at the Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore on December 26–29, 1896. It explicitly deals with the following five broad themes with detail set by the moderators of the Conference:
the physical, moral, and spiritual states of man;
what is the state of man after death?
the object of man's life and the means of its attainment;
the operation of the practical ordinances of the Law in this life and the next;
sources of Divine knowledge
The subjects of the soul, the threefold reformation of man, what is moral quality? Why the flesh of swine is prohibited, the attributes of God and heaven upon earth are also discussed.
In 1896, during the Christmas Holidays a Hindu by the name of Swami Sadhu Shugan Chandra convened a conference of Great Religions at Lahore. A committee was appointed to oversee the arrangements. Six people were chosen as its moderators including the judge of the Chief Court of Punjab and the former governor of Jammu.
The committee invited the learned representatives of the Hindu, Christian and Muslim faiths to set forth the excellences of their respective faiths. The main objective of such a conference was so that the learned divines of each of these faiths were given the opportunity to convince others of the truth of their religion in the context of a few published themes and so that the listeners may assess each speech and accept the truth from wherever it was to be found. Each speaker was required to address the five themes set by the moderators and to confine his discourse to the holy scriptures of their religions. Among those who attended the conference were representatives of Hinduism, Freethought, the Theosophical Society, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism as well as various scholars, barristers, lawyers, professor, doctors and extra assistants, who numbered between 7 and 8 thousand.
The speech representing Islam was the essay written by Gulam Ahmad and though he could not attend himself due to poor health, it was read out by his disciple Mawlwi Abdul Karim. It could not be read out within the set time allotted for it; therefore the conference was extended to an extra day. The Report of the Conference of Great Religions stated:
The essay was delivered in four hours and from start to finish it was most interesting and well appreciated.
There's the problem. Four hours? For one guy to talk? Hm, see then the baptists, catholics, and episcopalians would each want four hours. Then the pentecostals would want sixteen.
What's in it for the atheist? How long can you drag out 'there is no god'. Thirty seconds maybe. Tops.
Sounds like a wasted couple of days. No. I'm pretty sure people of faith would be all that were interested in participating.
The topic of the interfaith dialogue, duration of one speech and other things could be worked out amicably.
It will be time well used .
Ok..I can see this is something you're interested in. I'll be honest, it isn't such a bad idea; considering the crazy world we live in. Free countries probably need the opportunity for everyone to get to know each other better.
You should start out small. Do pizza with a couple pf people. Work your way up to a crowd. You probably need to find a couple of people from different faiths to help get this off the ground. It'll show unity in the process, from the start. If you do it all by yourself it will look suspicious.
I still think it's a bad idea to expect the atheists to participate. I'd do it, out of curiosity. But I'm odd. People fascinate me. I think you've already noticed that the hard liners are offended by the suggestion.
I guarantee paarsurreys motive in this "interfaith" nonsense is to attempt to force people to accept his word as fact.
Every single post I have read of his is just an assertion as to what god is and what god does.
He backs up nothing with evidence. He simply asserts. There is no discussion with paarsurrey, just dismissal of any view different to his, and assertion of his beliefs.
And his religion differs from other hardcore religionists...how? I would think face to face interaction might do him some good. Or humble him a little.
Anyway. I'd like to think he's an ok guy. Face to face. We all get a little crazy here sometimes.
That makes sense. I guess its very different talking to random people on the internet.
You would need to have been in these threads a lot longer to really know the person you are dealing with here.
A long and tardy history follows some around if you keep track of their original identities.
Sometimes, in understanding certain scenarios such as the online propagandist, I reflect on these words from the first 'Terminator' movie.
"Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
So, how long do you think your interfaith dialogue sessions will last in duration once you get up and begin denouncing Christianity to support and glorify Islam?
Two, maybe three minutes?
The representitive of every religion speaks on the topic; and then there are questions and answers; everything continues peacefully; it is not a debate it is a discussion or symposium.
Never anything untoward happens. Everybody respects one another; and there are no ridicules and derision.
Propagandist: A person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause.
Your demand that atheists should organize inter-faith dialogues is yet another self-serving gesture to support your belief... etc.
I think it should embolden the atheists; they will be organizing the interfaith dialogue so they should fear in the least.
May be they fear that they will be exposed.
That's kind of mean paar. You realize every belief, no matter how inane, would be more welcome at such a gathering than an atheist.
What happens when an atheist says 'hey, I've got a great idea. Lets all get together and talk about god.'
They'd be eaten alive. And you know it. What kind of peaceful philosophy is that? You're just picking, for the fun of it now.
Again, your demands for others to do what you want them to do is a self-serving gesture to make you look good in the eyes of your god. It is what YOU want, and not what others want.
You mean, like how we are exposing the Islamic propagandist here?
I'm still waiting for Paar to tel me what part of Canada he is in so we can discuss inter-faith issues over whiskey and some halal steaks
Since the Atheists who claim to be in majority in the West would be organizing the interfaith-dialogue; the rules would be made equitable to everybody.
If the rules satisfy the Ahmadiyya representitives; they would participate as a speaker , else we will listen to others.
The extinction of religion?
Study finds religion on path to extinction in the West
By Tim O'Brien
Do you think the atheists are in minority?
A minority or even a tiny minority has a role to play in a democratic environment.
The Atheists are a respectful people; they may prepare a locality for an inter-faith dialogue; especially the affluent ones; if their is a will there is a way. And of course out of their own free will and no compulsion.
by Eric Dierker 4 years ago
In the story of the upper room Thomas even doubts his eyes. And he asks the master to let him touch the wounds to be sure that it is real. He did not operate on blind faith. He did not let his sense of awe cloud his quest for truth. He was an empiricist skeptic. Hoorah for Thomas. And the master...
by Rishad I Habib 8 years ago
Is there any logical distinction between Faith & Blind Faith?? Is faith & blind faith the same thing by nature?? Is there any logic that can counter your faith?? An atheist, as we know is open to new dogmas, their science can be changed over time with the advent of new physical laws, but...
by Elizabeth 6 years ago
I wrote a hub on how faith is not required in order to be an atheist. Someone requested that I turn it into a forum thread as well. My position is that atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a god. Therefore, faith is not required. The common dismissive quote is...
by Claire Evans 6 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which is faith-based. How does it happen?
by M. Victor Kilgore 2 years ago
Calling all Atheists, Christians, and everyone in between. Will everybody go to Heaven?In a world of extreme religious inclusiveness, do you believe in an exclusive God and His Heaven? Why?
by Eric Dierker 4 years ago
Sometimes we should get tired of avoiding debate.It is my well learned understanding that Atheists just cannot operate on faith. Now sometimes Atheists get upset at that suggestion. They should not in my opine. They should just agree and take it from there.I cannot evaluate and analyze anything...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|