God's Name

[robvalue]

I'm afraid I couldn't understand that explanation at all MK.

If you think suffering is necessary or important, you have a different idea of what "good" is than I do. Not much more I can say than that.

It sounds very much like my state of mind when I was being psychologically abused as a child, making excuses for how my parents must be in the right in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Obvious to anyone but me, that is.

This is all just speculation anyhow since no such thing has been demonstrated to exist. And like I said, Sauron is the name of the dark lord.

[Whateverist]

Do you guys remember this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-15323-page-7.html

I put it where I started to question the very foundation of what it perceive ourselves to be. Praise and value mainly. Purpose.  

I suggest you read that thread and then begin to question, if you truly do believe in praise - why do you? You will inshallah see the face of God living in you and that you are connected to the Sacred. In fact praise only exists through his name.

My last post in that thread:

I hope everyone finds their path and meaning. It's been a humbling experience. Questioning our very foundation of our humanity and self.

I confess I did not go back and reread that thread.  However I have been amazed every time you bring up "praise" as something about which to base an argument.  What is praise?  Isn't it just expressed approval, often something used to manipulate the behavior of others? Being praiseworthy isn't an objective state of affairs, or if it is, it is contingent.  Will a god's nature change as that of which we approve changes?  How come our approval is seen as so powerful?

[Mystic]

What you stated is part of praise, but praise is more comprehensive then that. Anyways, I suggest reading that thread. The issue of subjective praise and objective praise, and the relationship between the two was discussed. Even if our praise is subjective, we have to believe there is an objective praise for us to even make a subjective praise.

It is quite important, because when you find meaning by assigning meaning, it's due to a certain value in that meaning, a praise to that meaning. But if there is no objective value or praise, we are in deep trouble, because we are simply deluding ourselves. I won't go into detail here, I don't think the conversation will reach anything new that wasn't reached in that thread.

[Mystic]

You are essentially right.  This is an essential problem in religion. Which is why the true religion ought to emphasize to not follow it unless you are on clear proofs, insight and have knowledge of it being true. 

The problem is every people don't emphasize on that, I'm not sure how many religious texts emphasize on it, but I know Islam true faith is through knowledge. And if you are going to claim others should follow a path or enjoin upon society certain ritual acts or that a leader should be followed, the Quran says "bring your proof if you are truthful"

Then, What do you have to say to all the Atheist Scientists? 

Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Peter Higgs, Fred Hallows, Erwin Schrodinger, Alan Turring and Neil DeGrasse Tyson for example.

I think they limit the way we can attain knowledge, and are very circular in the way they deny the way to know God or religion.

[jenny1972]

Why even bother with a name when it cannot be understood in words? Why presume there is even a name? The creator doesn't need a connection like that, our existence in itself is that connection.

I also said that his name is the true nature of existence, so they are not mutually exclusive, our true existence is his name, while the opposite to it (darkness) is not his name.

what human came up with this idea ?

[Shining_Finger]

Then, What do you have to say to all the Atheist Scientists? 

Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Peter Higgs, Fred Hallows, Erwin Schrodinger, Alan Turring and Neil DeGrasse Tyson for example.

I think they limit the way we can attain knowledge, and are very circular in the way they deny the way to know God or religion.

If you don't apply the same standards to your belief in a Deity as you apply the standards of Non-belief, then you aren't using Logic right. 
If you say you can't prove 9/11 WASN'T a conspiracy, that the Holocaust WASN'T faked or that it is circular logic to believe in a God despite all other Gods having similar proof: You might be a dumbass.