4get_me:

nferyn, again I want to acknowledge your well-thoughtout philosophy. However, your position and convictions fall far short of an inclusive understanding of what religion is - let alone the Christian faith. In the first place, when a man says that the premise of scientific investigation is to attack ideas, it matters nothing to me if one accuses me of making selective and abstract quotes (need I say that is precisely what you do when dealing with matters of faith in the Bible?). By stating that premise, what it means to me is that he rests everything on one goal - that is, to attack what he does not understand or believe in; and that is something radically opposed to what is called "investigation."

You are misunderstanding the article. He is talking about the scientific method, not about the purpose of science itself. You can just as well say that the purpose of the method of cooking (as opposed to the goal of cooking) is to destroy and decompose the basic ingredients of your meal, the destructive acts in the method don't say anything about the constructive goal.

4get_me:

Even among scientists, it is commonly believed that it is not by attacking ideas that one establishes an 'understanding of the cosmos'. The American physicist Stephen Weinberg says that "Religion is an insult to human dignity," and he speaks for himself, because not many physicists would agree with him. I wonder if he counted as retarded, all physicists who were erudite in their field and still held to a religious belief. This is what Albert Einstein, the German-born physicist once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ("Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941).

Most scientists are just not interested in questions of religion as they felt it's just a waste of their time and energy. Weinberg is an exception because he feels that the religious idea is doing a lot of harm in the world. You can say anything you want about Weinberg, but not that he is a retard. Retards don't usually receive Nobel Prizes.
Einstein did not hold a religious belief at all. That quote has constantly been rehashed to rpove that he was overall in favor of religion. His owm position was very different.
Some of his quotes:
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
“As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.”
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

4get_me:

I've heard many times that the skeptic mind requires evidence and proof (usually those appealing to the physical senses) for questions of religion and other phenomena; and if the answers are not tailored to their ideologies or expectations, then the religious mind is committed to the realms of 'ignorance.' I should remind you that not everything someone questions or seeks answers to can be proven this way. Bertrand Russell, the British mathematician and philosopher often quoted by skeptics, might have attested to this when he quipped, "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this."

I have no doubt about the fact that there are currently questions that science cannot annswer and that there are questions that science probably will never be able to answer, but to take the great leap of faith between that position and a positive assertion of a supreme being is a few bridges to far. It is a projection of human's deepest fears.

4get_me:

Religion - of whatever branch - has received a bad name from people who have given a false and ugly face to it. Yet, to generalise it in the way that Stephen Weinberg has done is to throw away the baby with the bath water. I should not belabour the point any further than to simply say that there are matters of life far beyond the methodology of science, even if denied by skeptics and atheists.

And by putting religion in that gap, you are closing it off for further investigation, as religion rests on faith, the assertion of truth on authority without evidence

4get_me:

You may not agree, but I share the thoughts of
another scientist in this regard: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." (Richard Feynman, US educator & physicist c.1918 - 1988). Please note that I don't mean to be sarcastic towards your position; however, there certainly is a basis for faith that is both intelligent and genial.

4get_me.

I'd be glad to hear of that basis for faith. I have not found it.

Wow, it looks like we are ignoring the original question of this thread as the discussion now tends to be about skeptism and atheism. I hope that after this, we'd respect and keep to that and perhaps take our discourses on this subject to its proper forum or thread.

nferyn:

You are misunderstanding the article. He is talking about the scientific method, not about the purpose of science itself.

C'mon nferyn, I was quoting Dawkins who clearly stated that, "the invention of the scientific method ,  rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked," and I strongly disagreed; that is not the premise of the scientific method. I did not misunderstand the article as you suppose, and I believe that if a man speaks he ought to do so in order to be understood. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth by thinking that I said "the purpose of science itself" was to attack ideas. That wasn't my quote - it was Dawkins'.

nferyn:

Most scientists are just not interested in questions of religion as they felt it's just a waste of their time and energy.

You make statements like that to show how little aware you are that there are scientists who are deeply interested in religion and spirituality. I think you ought to slow down a bit and realise that science is not limited to just the disciplines of natural or physical sciences - the social sciences are as authoritative in their rights as other sciences are. It is true that not many natural scientists are concerned with questions of religion, but that does not mean every other scientist takes that position. A recent study by a postdoctoral student in the Rice University in Houston has something to say on that (see here: http://www.stnews.org/Research-1951.htm).

nferyn:

I have no doubt about the fact that there are currently questions that science cannot annswer and that there are questions that science probably will never be able to answer

How well said - and that's where we find a common ground, I suppose. The fact is, scientific methods are not the same thing as faith - and to try and force faith to be clobbered into the methods of science is to keep up the ear-kissing arguments that skeptics incessantly and unjustifiably raise. Supernatural phenomena are not the same as science. When skeptics and atheists argue that faith in God is unfounded, or that God does not exist, my question has always been that they provide proof or evidence for that claim. More often than not, all I get are arguments that fail to provide the same type of proof skeptics are asking the spiritual community to provide. Skeptism is not science; it is only a position one takes in matters relating to spirituality. Just as you could not be convinced as to the answers I may give for believing in Jesus Christ, it so happens that skeptism's answers have not satisfied questions of theism.

@ nferyn:", but to take the great leap of faith between that position and a positive assertion of a supreme being is a few bridges to far. It is a projection of human's deepest fears."

If the question is asked whether or not God exists, my most definite answer is yes, God does exist. Proof? I have prayed to Him for something that defied skeptism and science - and He answered in a supernatural way by healing me. Then again, my nephew who was ill and near the point of death in 2004 was instantly healed after I prayed. This may not make sense to you at all, especially if you want scientific answers. But then, I did not pray to God because I was afraid of Him, otherwise I should not have gone to Him in the first place; rather, His love invited me and gave me faith to verify in my own experience that, not only does God exist, but also that He is a good God. The proof of this for me is that I'm alive, healed, and have been enjoying divine healing since that encounter with Him.

May I invite you personally to seek God by faith in Jesus Christ - you may not have a "need", but just prove to yourself if God truly exists or not. God cannot be found in skeptism nor by scientific deductions. I guarantee you that if you seek Him in just the way He says we should, you will definitely find answers that far outweigh any arguments presented to you - including your own.

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jer 29:13)

With love,
4get_me.

who is this Allah?

certainly not the God of christians, what is in a name? that which is called a rose by any other name will smell as one

my point is this, if you want to say Allah means God, i will take that from you but if you mean the god called Allah by the muslims then it is not the same as God, served by the christians.

where is the source of my assertions? tomorrow maybe i'll continue on that, if objections are raised to my view.

its been a long day for me.

hope to see you tomorrow nferyn.

God and allah are not the same, in terms of language allah and God are the same but spiritually they are completely different. Speaking as a christian the way the bible describes God and the wonders he has performed for lives are different from the quran describes allah NO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!

God is Love BIG HIM UP!!!

Wonderful, Micraculous, Amazing, Above all, And his son jesus christ is identical to him in behaviour, hes the closest thing ti christ

The closest thing to God****

I MEANT

Allah is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth and all in them. The Creator of Jesus and His Mother, and the Originator of Holy Spirit. To Allah belongs the most beautiful names. If in English it is God, or in Yoruba it is Olodumare, or in Igbo it is Chukwu, or in Hebrew it is Elli, all the names are that of Allah. Whoever you feel is the Most Excellent, is Allah, is Olodumare, is Chineke etc. Stop deceiving and confusing yourself. The question has a straightforward answer, i.e. if the Best Name in English language is God, and the Best Name in Arabic language is Allah, then Allah and God are the same. Just like Wa, So, Bia all mean the same thing.

nuru:

Allah is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth and all in them. The Creator of Jesus and His Mother, and the Originator of Holy Spirit. To Allah belongs the most beautiful names. If in English it is God, or in Yoruba it is Olodumare, or in Igbo it is Chukwu, or in Hebrew it is Elli, all the names are that of Allah. Whoever you feel is the Most Excellent, is Allah, is Olodumare, is Chineke etc. Stop deceiving and confusing yourself. The question has a straightforward answer, i.e. if the Best Name in English language is God, and the Best Name in Arabic language is Allah, then Allah and God are the same. Just like Wa, So, Bia all mean the same thing.

In that sence yes, in Hausa language yes too (sometimes) but the Christian "GOD" and the muslim "GOD",Allah, are not the same!

THATS ONLY LANGUAGE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE ISLAM SEE THEIR 'god' DIFFERENTLY TO THE WAY CHRISTIANS SEE THEIR God.

nuru:

Stop deceiving and confusing yourself. The question has a straightforward answer, i.e. if the Best Name in English language is God, and the Best Name in Arabic language is Allah, then Allah and God are the same.

Cheap talk! Nuru, prove your own words to yourself. As a moslem, you're invited to come to our church this Sunday and worship with us, since Allah and God are the same to you. We welcome you in Jesus' Name even if you come with a Qur'an But please note: the God we worship is the God whom Jesus Christ calls "Abba Father." (Mark 14:36) Hope you will not be offended when we say "Our Father in heaven"? 

After that experience, we'll wait to see you tell the forum that the Allah of Islam is the same as the God of the Bible. What a miracle that will be. 

4gt_m.

No it is ALLAH THE ALMIGHTY AND OMNIPOTENT not allah the father

chrisd, did you understand the thread? My point is that in reality Allah in Islam and God in Christianity are not the same. Nuru seems to think that we're deceiving ourselves, so I threw him the challenge to enjoy worship in a church this Sunday (even if he went with his Qur'an). No sound Christian ever said that Allah was the Father - they are not the same. Please don't be so perturbed; I'm waiting for Nuru's miracle after this Sunday

4gt_m.

For me they are the same

chrisd:

For me they are the same

as long as you know who youre serving, youre in good hands. you cannot vouch for another's belief

4get-me,

I have been to hurchs before. I was member of the Boy' Brigade till I entered the University and I grew up under a chritian mother and a muslim father. I know what I am talking of when I say it's just language slants. When a real chriatian pays, in his mind he is addressing a God that can do it, that has power of all things and who would do it because of Jesus. He is not praying to Jesus. Also when a muslim prays, he is addressing God the Almighty and he believes God wil answer him because God said in the Quran ''Call me, I will answer you''. So true muslims and christians believe in the same God but approach Him differently. That is why I like the chritian songs '' How excellent is your name O Lord '' and '' Almighty God, that is your name, You would never share your Glory with anybody, Almighty God that is your name''. Those songs are from the purest spiritual source.

@ Nuru, when a real Christian prays, he or she trusts God as "Father" - for that is how Jesus Christ Himself taught real Christians to pray: "Our Father who is in heaven." (Matt.6:9). Second, real Christians pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Himself taught us to ask in His name (John 16:23). Thirdly, the divine relationship established in Christianity confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God, not just as a prophet (John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.". Confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God is what Allah in the Qur'an rejects and that is why every muslim will not accept that the God of the Christian faith is the same as Allah (see Sura 4.171 - Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son.).

Now tell me, are Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God if -

1. Allah denies that Jesus is his Son and the Christian God calls Jesus His Son?

2. Allah is not known as "Father" but Jesus taught Christians that God is the "Father"?

3. Allah denies that Jesus Christ died by crucifixion and God in Christianity acknowledges Jesus' death
and resurrection?

How can they be 'the same God' if they don't say the same things? Look at it this way: in language, people confess the Supreme Being by the same name - Allah, God, etc. But in reality, Islam and Christianity are confessing two different deities, even if we give them the same attributes. Why is this so important? Jesus is spoken of in Islam and Christianity, but if you remove the confession that Jesus is the Son of God (which is something He said He was), then it is as good as telling a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet sent by Allah.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18).

4gt_m.

I'm waiting for Nuru to reply 4get_me, on what he wrote above.

I agree 700% with NURU. And about God being father is not a concept I like considering all the permissiveness in western families. I say God the Almighty, rather than my papa. God is not about loving and letting you do what you want.

@ chrisd, do you really have a leg to stand on? Don't be tedious to yourself. One minute you tell us that you're a Christian, the next minute you deny the very foundation of your faith as a Christian. If you agree with nuru, good for you - and there's no sitting on the fence: you're either a moslem or a Christian. It is really absurd to associate Christianity with the West just as it is to associate Islam with Pakistan. Just you picture yourself as a Christian for one moment standing before God and saying, ",,,about God being father is not a concept I like." Whether you like it or not, that is what Jesus Christ called God - He called Him "Father" and He didn't invent that name from the "permissiveness in western families." If as a Christian I refute the confession that God is the 'Father', all I have left is the answer: "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." (John 15:23). You just can't have the Son without confessing God as "the Father" - Christianity does not work by human concepts - not yours, not mine: it is founded on the revelation of who God is in the Bible.

4gt_m.

I form part of eastern christianity and God is Allah Almighty.

Is that so? Okay, please do me the favour of quoting one Bible verse where God is called "Allah Almighty". If 'Allah' is the arabic name that arabic Christians use for 'God', it is clear that they would not be referring to the Allah of Islam. If what you're saying is that the God of eastern Christianity and the Allah of the Qur'an are the same, you have it mixed up as I pointed out in the 3 questions above.

4gt_m.

stop shunning all others with your simplistic view of christianity. You always like that, born again christians, you.

God of christianity and God of Muslims is the same. We just approache him differently. Muslims like a strict disciplined God and most western christians like a loving God. I think both are extremes.

Christianity started from eastern Europe and Allah is used. God was put by protestants in English speaking countries during the reformation.

Are you serious ? Allah, in the Bible? Oh pls,do tell me more!

chrisd:

stop shunning all others with your simplistic view of christianity. You always like that, born again christians, you.

I'm not shunning anyone - if I have something to say, is that a problem to you if it turns out that you didn't get your facts right?

chrisd:

You always like that, born again christians, you.

So, why are you a Christian if you're not born again, even if your version is eastern christianity? I'm not sure the Bible calls anyone a Christian if he or she is not born again. Do you remember the clear teaching in John 3:3,5? _{Or is that also part of the books that have been removed in your campaign to slur the Bible as a corrupt Book}?

chrisd:

God of christianity and God of Muslims is the same. We just approache him differently. Muslims like a strict disciplined God and most western christians like a loving God. I think both are extremes.

And what's so wrong in worshipping God who shows us His love in Jesus Christ? How would you be blessed if your father (biological) only related to you in strictness (legalism, perhaps) and never has the chance to show you what fulfillment could be enjoyed from a parental love? That sounds like a really stale life without a hint of joy. Besides, if loving God is extreme, and you neither accept the 'strict disciplined God,' where do you really belong?

Well, God is love - even the newly born again Christian knows that.

4gt_m.  

That's the basic protestant fallacy.

James 2:14-26. It only really began to be disputed in the church in the 16th century. The reason that it became disputed is because the material principle of the Reformation, `Sola Fide', or Salvation by faith alone, was proclaimed by Martin Luther. Until that point all Christians everywhere believed that scripture taught that works were necessary for salvation. When this new doctrine was taught James 2 was one section of scripture that clearly seemed to contradict Luther on justification so he chucked out from the Bible.

Martin Luther noticed the problems that James posed for his doctrine on justification. There are 50 volumes of books in a series called Luther's Works. Despite the huge amount of exegesis that he did on the bible I could not find a study specifically on James. It is this section on faith and works, the heart of James' epistle that caused Luther problems. He wrote of James: "In a word St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it." (Preface to the New Testament in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 362).

Luther condemned the epistle of James as deficient in the power and function of faith.

JAMES 2:14-17

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, it has no works is dead.

chrisd:

That's the basic protestant fallacy.

chrisd, you've failed to show me the verse in the Bible where you read that God is called "Allah Almighty." For your information, Christianity did not begin in the Eastern Europe of your concept (no rudeness meant) - but if you look both in the Bible and history, you'll find that it spread to those regions, but started in the upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 2 - you can read Acts 1:12 and 2:5 to make your reading easier). Whether anyone came up with "God" in English or not (and there again you don't have any facts to that), Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God.

Meanwhile, Martin Luther is not God neither is he the Lord Jesus Christ. He condemned James because he did not understand its essential message at the time until Christians after him understood and accepted its rightful place in scripture. Anyhow, if you don't believe in James, what part of the Bible do you believe enough to save you if you have something against people becoming 'born again'?

4gt_m.

The first preachings of Paul started on the eastern meditterranean and than to modern Greece. That is eastern world.

Christianity started well before Paul. There were Christians existing before Paul - he said so himself (Galatians 1:17). In your misconception you drive yourself to believe that Chrsitianity began with Paul. That is why I often said that you cool down and get your facts right - all the misconceptions you are posting will lead you into more confusion. Somebody has been lying to you, but it is not God nor the Bible. Read the Bible for what it says then you'll know the truth.

4gt_m.

chrisd:

The first preachings of Paul started on the eastern meditterranean and than to modern Greece. That is eastern world.

Christianity began in Jerusalem - Acts 2.

Don't tell me it started in Germany or England

Or maybe it started in America