God and God.

[3.14159265...]

No worries, digression is life.

[unknownprince]

The more you try to pose that you know about it, the more it becomes obvious that you know a little. Your discussion with Catya in the separate thread of AD under Health section pretty much shows how much you know about it. In scientific parlance, we call them plaques formed by misfolded peptides.We hardly say a "subunit of protein" leads to the AD. The reason is that this is very misleading.Why? A single misfolded protein does not cause AD.It is the clustering of misfolded peptides that would damage the neurons.Hence your notion that the ENTIRE RESEARCH is focused on one subunit is not only misleading but also very uninformative and incorrect.Also, if a reductionist approach is to be followed, I will go further beyond the plaques/proteins to the <amino acids<mRNA <chromosome< linkage unit< gene<exons<introns< ORF <codons<and finally to A, T, G, C. That is why I like science.


Not just AD, but in science nothing is absolute and that is the magic of science.We improve our knowledge as we develop new techniques and get more information.We know more about the human genes today than what we knew last century when Gregor Mendel defined them as "units of inheritance" and Morgan assigned them to "chromosomes".AD is not a different than any flu virus that keeps on surprising us every time we think we have controlled it...at last!However, saying that we don't know anything about AD or flu is absolutely wrong. Confusion in science is extremely good since only then can we challenge and improve.Hence we don't mind if tomorrow rather than plaques, p53 tumor suppressor is the causative agent. Similarly, saying that it is an attention-seeking stuff (as you and Catya viewed it before) and that it could be due to demons is absolutely wrong.

subunit of proteins, LOL. Im talking about how research is focusing on specific subunits (you know that there are several). They have gotten over the emotional high of plaques and tangles which you are still excited about (yes it is there, but they are trying to find out WHY?) There are so many, not just one or two. Yes Lol, I think your just upset that I revealed what little research you did in your response to Catya. Not saying that you didn't know this. I think you were just in a rush to quickly dispel the demonology theory which you still can't prove or disprove for that matter. Sorry, your screaming and redundancy actually speaks volumes about your own train of thought!!!

[unknownprince]

Catya Sher, I am what I do. Why would I want to be anything but peace?

unknownprince,

You have ignored my questions which were not controversial or aggressive twice now.

This leads me to think that you must love taking part in the Atheist-Theist debate.

This is percisely why I made this thread. That you are selectively taking part in only those conversations that allow you to be loud, shows this is about your ego not God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to ask everyone, including myself, to re-read their posts in this thread. Then to wonder if they made the posts the become closer to God or to reinforce their ego, and push for the dominion of their opinion.

I don't think atheists really bring any intellectual abilities to the table as they would like others to believe with their passive remarks and typical sarcasm. They make arguments to disprove the existence of Allah(swt), but these same arguments can be made to prove His existence. Great argument lol.

So when push comes to shove, a slippery-slope argument does not serve you guys well, and nor does science for that matter!!! Maybe you should look at other ways of expressing your atheistic beliefs. Even logic won't work come to think of it.

[3.14159265...]

I don't think atheists really bring any intellectual abilities to the table as they would like others to believe with their passive remarks and typical sarcasm. They make arguments to disprove the existence of Allah(swt), but these same arguments can be made to prove His existence. Great argument lol.

So when push comes to shove, a slippery-slope argument does not serve you guys well, and nor does science for that matter!!! Maybe you should look at other ways of expressing your atheistic beliefs. Even logic won't work come to think of it.

What is this in response to?

[unknownprince]

What is this in response to?

To this

Do you feel Islam is under attack by Muslim apostates?

My previous answer detailing my thoughts on apostates and top it off with a big nice NO . I mean NO in the theological sense. At the same time, many atheists seem to be okay with war on Muslims!!! In that regard, they are not really another threat, but part of the same culture which hates Islam!!!! Hope that helps you understand my answer.

kthnxbye

[3.14159265...]

You have now answered one of three questions I asked. Please answer the others.

[Toramana]

...but to draw attention that most of our actions are guided by ego, even when we think we are acting on behalf of God. It is specially relevant that we pay attention to the ego when we think we are acting on behalf of God.

Afghanlady, thank you for the appreciation.

The problem is, both God and ego are elusive concepts and until you peer into some one's thought process, you cannot be certain whether a person is acting out of egoistic impuslion/compulsion or due to divine conviction. Ultimately, it is his outworldly position/stance that indicates the motive force or impulse (as whether God or ego) behind his actions/decisions.

As a rational person considers (and accepts) cause and effect as the reason for his actions or basis of his decisions, you can more or less tell whether there is some ego (or some other emotion whatever it is) involved in his actions/decisions or some rational process.

In such case, the rational person will be able to tell you the worldly causes for his actions. The religious person on the other hand will cite you the "divine will or choice" as the reason.

[Toramana]

Even if there is a technology that enables you to pierce into the thought process of someone, you cannot tell whether it is God or ego for we don't know which "thought pattern" (inside the mind) constitutes God's choice and which a person's own ego. I mean it is futile to say it is due to God and it is due to ego.

[Catya Sher]

Back to The Demonological Origin of Much Mental and Physical Illness, to which I ascribe.
Do not blame unknown for this, gulalai and others.

It's entirely MY "fault".

He's right that all the condescension in the world from any of u does not disprove the reality of demons and their malevolent effects.

It's a topic for another thread if anyone is interested some day.

The warfare of the devil against Allah is surely a topic of vast concern to believers.
One characteristic of the devil and legions of demons is that THEY HATE TO BE EXPOSED or UNMASKED.

Hence gulalai took lots of time to in effect DEFEND THEM ! They squirm like crazy when someone shines a spotlight on them and their activities. Perhaps THEY made her rush to denounce my theory...

[Toramana]

Or you may reduce it to an ethical or moral argument i.e., if an action causes goodness (khair) in the external world that is due to God or if it causes "badness" (shar), then it is due to a person's own ego or shiatan or whatever you call it.

But then it becomes all circular and you don't have objective ground (outside the belief system) to convince a rational person what is due to ego and what is due to God.

And khair and shar may also result from actions/decisions based in pure reason (e.g., an aeroplane being flown with supersonic speed for timely commution crashes into the air---and now good/rational decision ends into shar).

[3.14159265...]

The problem is, both God and ego are elusive concepts and until you peer into some one's thought process, you cannot be certain whether a person is acting out of egoistic impuslion/compulsion or due to divine conviction. Ultimately, it is his outworldly position/stance that indicates the motive force or impulse (as whether God or ego) behind his actions/decisions.

As a rational person considers (and accepts) cause and effect as the reason for his actions or basis of his decisions, you can more or less tell whether there is some ego (or some other emotion whatever it is) involved in his actions/decisions or some rational process.

In such case, the rational person will be able to tell you the worldly causes for his actions. The religious person on the other hand will cite you the "divine will or choice" as the reason.

Well, we must first let go of the notion that God is a concept.

YHWH = I am who I am. Consider how the word God is treated in Hinduism, that which is. Another way is "that which can not be described".

When we consider someone's actions we find which recurrent patterns they reinforce. From that, we can't draw motive (because that involves the notion of free will which is not an objective concept), but rather we can claim that someone acts as an equilibrating force for that pattern.

The degree to which someone is associated with one or other pattern is their degree of attachment to it.

We can't really talk about being associated with God, because it is "that which can not be described".

We can however talk about the degree of attachment someone has to worldly patterns, and that is intertwined with being associated with God in a non-measurable way.

[Toramana]

Well, we must first let go of the notion that God is a concept.

YHWH = I am who I am. Consider how the word God is treated in Hinduism, that which is. Another way is "that which can not be described".

Anything beyond comprehension or concretization (and rationally-logically coherent explanation) would have to be considered abstract (rather more appropriately, vague-unkown here).

When we consider someone's actions we find which recurrent patterns they reinforce. From that, we can't draw motive (because that involves the notion of free will which is not an objective concept), but rather we can claim that someone acts as an equilibrating force for that pattern.

I find something problematic here and can't make the sense out of what you want to say. For example, which recurrent pattern does me going for a walk every morning re-inforce and how do you ascribe it to God's will or my ego or both.

The degree to which someone is associated with one or other pattern is their degree of attachment to it.

Kind of re-cursive definition one can't understand---Elaborate!

We can however talk about the degree of attachment someone has to worldly patterns, and that is intertwined with being associated with God in a non-measurable way.

You mean (degree ...), someone repeating a (behavioural) pattern can give a measure of predictability he or she doing it again---or making judgement on that basis whether it is ego or God causing it...?

It is getting hazy. Ego, etc. are vague loose terms ok to be used on-fly in an informal talk but in a formal talk you should be able to objectively define them until your reasoning-model is based on religion.

Anyhow, interesting, and please elaborate things....(e.g., how can you clearly tell whether a human behaviour is due to God or his own ego?).

[unknownprince]

You have now answered one of three questions I asked. Please answer the others.

Faith has nothing to do with proofs. The existence of Allah(swt) can not be disproved.

The miracle of the Quran is that it was revealed to the Prophet(pbuh) who was illiterate.

You can not disprove Allah(swt) with logic. And that is the dilemma an atheist has. Atheists are used to using science or logic to explain things, but none of that works for them in regards to disproving Allah(swt).

What were your questions again?

[3.14159265...]

unknownprince,

What are the first three paragraphs of your post in reference to? I am not going to give you airtime by debating you so that you can make the same irrelevant point repeatedly.

My questions are in my post in the bottom of the seventh page.

Tormana, are you familiar with information theory, namely Shannon's original paper?

[unknownprince]

3.14... asked

Do you feel Islam is under attack by Muslim apostates?
Do you think they feel threatened by your ideologies?

In the case that you think the feelings are mutual, how can we resolve this issue?



1) Theologically NO, since apostate arguments against Islamis beliefs are weak (they really need to find an effective way at approaching it because their usual resorts to sarcasm actually show how ridiculous their arguments are), but culturally YES, since their arguments usually involve demeaning Islam and any the other Abrahamic faiths (Judaism and Christianity0

2)I think that atheists feel that people care about them being atheist. What do you think? I can't speak for them, and I don't know if they have a global representative, do they? From my interactions with some of them at school, they push their atheism in peoples face, but no one cares!!! Really, no one cares LOL. I think most atheists suffer from delusions of persecution (which can be proven by your own posts here accusing me of trying to get air time and your jargon on ego in posts that I somehow just want to dominate people in talking points- all baseless assumptions)

3) What is there to resolve? All Im saying is that when I see someone trying to use science as some atheistic way of proving something, Im going to call them out. Science and all the other philosophies that atheists use to disprove the existence of God are weak. The dilemma the atheist faces is that they can't disprove the existence of God with all the intellectual thought processes at their disposal. This is why it is such an issue for them.

Here you have it.

Now answer me this one question: Can you disprove God? If you can't disprove God, then what?