The name of God thread.

[Astreja]

I really think you're deluding yourself, MK.  I think you're talking to an imaginary being who lives only in your mind and in the minds of other believers, and you just pick and choose whatever guidance you want to believe is true.

In effect, you're being guided by your own opinion as to what "good guidance" should be.

It's the opposite, I was creating reality by desires, but when I came back to Islam, it was accepting God's proof and name as is.

No, there is no external evidence that Islam has anything to do with gods.  It  is not proof.  It is not evidence.  It is only belief and nothing more, and no matter how many thousands of times you say the word "proof" you will be no closer to satisfying our evidentiary requirements.

If you want to convince us, you have to do it on our terms -- not on yours.

[Mystic]

It's the opposite, I was creating reality by desires, but when I came back to Islam, it was accepting God's proof and name as is.

No, there is no external evidence that Islam has anything to do with gods.  It  is not proof.  It is not evidence.  It is only belief and nothing more, and no matter how many thousands of times you say the word "proof" you will be no closer to satisfying our evidentiary requirements.

If you want to convince us, you have to do it on our terms -- not on yours.

How would you know that? You guys obviously all you do is just playfully jest when you research proofs of God and religion.

[brewer]

I really want to know what happened too. I'm confident someone got to him, probably by exploiting his vulnerability. It seems to me that this is all a way of not properly dealing with important issues that plague him. I wish he would discuss those real issues with someone who won't insert religious propaganda into their replies. Maybe no such person exists that he can talk to in person, even what passes for "mental health professionals". So it might have to be with an online acquaintance.

I think it's his only way out of this spiral. I hope he eventually confides in someone.

MK's affliction seems to have obsessive and persecutorial aspects that may never improve. I always wonder if the people treating him know about the extent of his activities here.

[Mystic]

I really want to know what happened too. I'm confident someone got to him, probably by exploiting his vulnerability. It seems to me that this is all a way of not properly dealing with important issues that plague him. I wish he would discuss those real issues with someone who won't insert religious propaganda into their replies. Maybe no such person exists that he can talk to in person, even what passes for "mental health professionals". So it might have to be with an online acquaintance.

I think it's his only way out of this spiral. I hope he eventually confides in someone.

MK's affliction seems to have obsessive and persecutorial aspects that may never improve. I always wonder if the people treating him know about the extent of his activities here.

One many things you Atheist talk about with no knowledge.

[drfuzzy]

No, there is no external evidence that Islam has anything to do with gods.  It  is not proof.  It is not evidence.  It is only belief and nothing more, and no matter how many thousands of times you say the word "proof" you will be no closer to satisfying our evidentiary requirements.

If you want to convince us, you have to do it on our terms -- not on yours.

How would you know that? You guys obviously all you do is just playfully jest when you research proofs of God and religion.

Jest?
There is no verifiable, replicatable, testable hard data for any deity ever named by a human and when we point out this clear fact as one reason for not being swayed by your daydreams, you call it jesting?   
That's so sad.

[Mystic]

How would you know that? You guys obviously all you do is just playfully jest when you research proofs of God and religion.

Jest?
There is no verifiable, replicatable, testable hard data for any deity ever named by a human and when we point out this clear fact for not being swayed by your daydreams, you call it jesting?   
That's so sad.

You're playful with the proofs and don't listen properly. So you remain blind and stupid.

[drfuzzy]

Jest?
There is no verifiable, replicatable, testable hard data for any deity ever named by a human and when we point out this clear fact for not being swayed by your daydreams, you call it jesting?   
That's so sad.

You're playful with the proofs and don't listen properly. So you remain blind and stupid.

(sigh)
one more time 
arguments aren't "proofs"
quotes from books aren't "proofs"
personal stories aren't "proofs"
personal experience isn't "proof"

Hard data is proof.  Recorded audio, video, clear solid data that shows that something supernatural clearly exists (and I'm not sure about Muslim supernatural testing procedures but the Catholic Church has spectacularly failed at this task) -- data that can be tested by a different team of researchers that will lead to the same conclusions.

[Mystic]

You don't listen and don't try to understand. The proof is the name of God, all arguments that point to God use an aspect of it to prove God, the arguments are not the proof, they remind of what we know that prove God. Otherwise those premises can be denied, but the proof/reason/light makes us know them to be true.

[LadyForCamus]

No, there is no external evidence that Islam has anything to do with gods.  It  is not proof.  It is not evidence.  

How would you know that? You guys obviously all you do is just playfully jest when you research proofs of God and religion.

How would we know that?  Well, we keep asking you for external evidence for your book...ya know...something we might actually find persuasive in support of that book’s claims...but you can’t seem to present any.  That’s how we know.

[Mystic]

How would you know that? You guys obviously all you do is just playfully jest when you research proofs of God and religion.

How would we know that?  Well, we keep asking you for external evidence for your book...ya know...something we might actually find persuasive in support of that book’s claims...but you can’t seem to present any.  That’s how we know.

So you basically lay the conditions of proof and won't listen to what the proof is.