Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science. Does it ?

[Tiberius]

It's not me who has redefined Islam in this way, these are pretty standard Muslim beliefs.

Really?

So you allege that in order for a person to be a Muslim, they need to, what did you say? "...bringing the same Message about the Oneness of God, worship of that God Alone and none else, the Day of Judgment/Resurrection, and how to relate to one's fellow humans (do good deeds)." That's what you said in post 314, isn't it?

Now, my understanding is that to be a Muslim, you must recite the Shahadah, the first of the pillars of Islam. Am I right or wrong?

Because by your definition, anyone who believes in just one God, worships that one God, believes that one day they will be judged and preaches that people be nice is a Muslim. And that is a very loose definition for Islam, isn't it?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

So you allege that in order for a person to be a Muslim, they need to, what did you say? "...bringing the same Message about the Oneness of God, worship of that God Alone and none else, the Day of Judgment/Resurrection, and how to relate to one's fellow humans (do good deeds)." That's what you said in post 314, isn't it?

Please re-read my below post:

God sent a long line of Messengers and Prophets with the same essential teachings re the Oneness of God and the correct way to relate to Them and one's fellow humans. These Messengers and Prophets (including Jesus, pbuh) were Muslims and that Message was/is the essence of Islam. Some of the original followers of those Messengers and Prophets remained true to their teachings, but most went astray, necessitating the sending of more Messengers and Prophets, culminating in Muhammad (pbuh) and the most up-to-date and protected-from-corruption version of the Message (contained in the Qur'an and authentic Hadiths). So a true follower of Jesus (pbuh) living at the same time or soon after him would have been a Muslim. But if we are referring to people living today, the Criterion for judging whether they are a Muslim or not is the Qur'an. In that sense, certainly a Catholic living today cannot be called a Muslim.

Now, my understanding is that to be a Muslim, you must recite the Shahadah, the first of the pillars of Islam. Am I right or wrong?

As I have indicated in my above post, the Criterion for judging whether someone is a Muslim today (or since the advent of Muhammad (pbuh)) is the Qur'an. And according to that Criterion, to be a Muslim today one must indeed recite the Shahadah (and believe in a lot more besides, including the Angels, all the previous Messengers and Prophets of Islam, the original uncorrupted Books with which previous Messengers were sent, the Day of Judgment/resurrection, and in God's Decree/Fate).

 

[Tiberius]

Please re-read my below post:





As I have indicated in my above post, the Criterion for judging whether someone is a Muslim today (or since the advent of Muhammad (pbuh)) is the Qur'an. And according to that Criterion, to be a Muslim today one must indeed recite the Shahadah (and believe in a lot more besides, including the Angels, all the previous Messengers and Prophets of Islam, the original uncorrupted Books with which previous Messengers were sent, the Day of Judgment/resurrection, and in God's Decree/Fate).

Yeah, not convinced.

I might as well say you're a follower of Tiberianism, even though that religion won't exist for two hundred years. But you certainly have all the characteristics of a Tiberianist, so that means you are one.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yeah, not convinced.

I might as well say you're a follower of Tiberianism, even though that religion won't exist for two hundred years. But you certainly have all the characteristics of a Tiberianist, so that means you are one.

Well, if I have all the characteristics of a Tiberianist, then it's certainly a possibility that I am one!

 

[Tiberius]

Well, if I have all the characteristics of a Tiberianist, then it's certainly a possibility that I am one!

Would you be willing to change your religious affiliation thing on this site to reflect that?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Would you be willing to change your religious affiliation thing on this site to reflect that?

Well that depends on which is the better reflection of my beliefs and practice - Islam or Tiberianism. Islam so far does a pretty good job of reflecting what I believe and how I practice, but if Tiberianism is a better fit, I'm willing.

Perhaps you could tell me more about Tiberianism - what are the requirements in terms of belief and practice?

 

[Tiberius]

Well that depends on which is the better reflection of my beliefs and practice - Islam or Tiberianism. Islam so far does a pretty good job of reflecting what I believe and how I practice, but if Tiberianism is a better fit, I'm willing.

Perhaps you could tell me more about Tiberianism - what are the requirements in terms of belief and practice?

The requirements and practices are exactly what you are doing at the moment. Tiberianism matches exactly with your current religious beliefs. So if there is even the smallest thing about Islam that you disagree with, you are more closely aligned with Tiberianism than with Islam.

 

[leroy]

Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science.
Does it ?

Regards

Well that is just semantics, what do you mean by “progress in science”?

The relevant question is whether if “God did it” is the correct (or the best) explanation for a given question, whether if you personally want to call it science or not is irrelevant.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The requirements and practices are exactly what you are doing at the moment. Tiberianism matches exactly with your current religious beliefs.

How do you know that without even asking me what my beliefs and practices are? And what if someone else wanted to sign up as a Tiberian? They'd need to know from you - perhaps the foremost authority on Tiberianism? - what would be required of them.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well that is just semantics, what do you mean by “progress in science”?

The relevant question is whether if “God did it” is the correct (or the best) explanation for a given question, whether if you personally want to call it science or not is irrelevant.

"Progress" is a natural word of a language created by G-d under a process.It is unfortunate that the sciences being dumb themselves loan natural words from the ordinary languages and use them as term for their own use and then blame the ordinary people for semantics. Why don't the sciences invent their own language/s and leave loaning words from the natural languages? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Tiberius]

How do you know that without even asking me what my beliefs and practices are?

Because I have faith. ^_^

And what if someone else wanted to sign up as a Tiberian? They'd need to know from you - perhaps the foremost authority on Tiberianism? - what would be required of them.

I have faith that I'd be able to know if they were truly Tiberianists.

 

[paarsurrey]

When I say that Science is independent of theism or atheism I am saying that neither viewpoint should influence scientific research. It has the most reliable method for determining truth and its gradual discoveries will reveal which side is true or not.

It is out of the domain of science to say anything reasonable about all of the above. Right, please?

If those things are out of the domain of science to discover then on what basis should anybody believe that they are true? There is no reason to believe in them in the first place if there is no way to determine whether they exist and anybody doing is so isn't thinking critically.

So... they could be true. But there is no valid reason to believe that they are true yet. Since we don't have any evidence for them there is no reason to believe they are true.

In fact there is no reason to conclude that Islam is the true religion in the first place.

"When I say that Science is independent of theism or atheism I am saying that neither viewpoint should influence scientific research."

I agree with it.
In the same way religion should not be subject to the paradigms of the science as these both solve problems of different nature of humans in their own domains. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Tiberius]

"When I say that Science is independent of theism or atheism I am saying that neither viewpoint should influence scientific research."

I agree with it.
In the same way religion should not be subject to the paradigms of the science as these both solve problems of different nature of humans in their own domains. Right, please?

Regards

Are you suggesting that religion never tries to explain the same things that science tries to explain?

 

[Samael_Khan]

"When I say that Science is independent of theism or atheism I am saying that neither viewpoint should influence scientific research."

I agree with it.
In the same way religion should not be subject to the paradigms of the science as these both solve problems of different nature of humans in their own domains. Right, please?

Regards

That is only if they have a reliable method of doing so which science does not. Otherwise it is just people making guesses.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is only if they have a reliable method of doing so which science does not. Otherwise it is just people making guesses.

One must remember here that the "scientific method" is the invention of philosophy not of science to start with and many aspects of philosophy cannot be proved/evidenced reliable by the scientific method. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Samael_Khan]

One must remember here that the "scientific method" is the invention of philosophy not of science to start with and many aspects of philosophy cannot be proved/evidenced reliable by the scientific method. Right, please?

Regards

The point of that philosophy is to determine how best to figure out that which is true.

It may very well be that religions can only be examine through a non scientific means but what is that method?
Is it reliable?
Can it make accurate predictions most of the time?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Because I have faith. ^_^



I have faith that I'd be able to know if they were truly Tiberianists.

You have your faith - and that is fine - and I have mine. Without anything more specific from you on what Tiberianism actually is, I'll stick with Islam, thanks!

 

[paarsurrey]

The point of that philosophy is to determine how best to figure out that which is true.

It may very well be that religions can only be examine through a non scientific means but what is that method?
Is it reliable?
Can it make accurate predictions most of the time?

One may like to revisit post #1 , the thread was started for one and is dedicated to one.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The point of that philosophy is to determine how best to figure out that which is true.

It may very well be that religions can only be examine through a non scientific means but what is that method?
Is it reliable?
Can it make accurate predictions most of the time?

The most accurate source of knowledge is the Revelation of truthful G-d and or Word of G-d on a truthful Messenger of G-d like Moses and Muhammad. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Samael_Khan]

One may like to revisit post #1 , the thread was started for one and is dedicated to one.
Right, please?

Regards

Thanks. Much appreciated.

I have been looking through it and it is very enlightening.