Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256289 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183131 Jul 19, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
Russel's Teapot is a tool of pushing the burden on the believer of providing hard proof (gross physical) of one's beliefs. If one believes a teapot is orbiting the sun as the challenge goes, then the onus of proving this claim rests on the person making the claim. Certainly, this form of logic would apply to gross physical objects. This test devised by Bertrand Russel, however, fails when it is sought to be applied to sentience and subjective experiences. If X believes an ant is crawling inside his wind pipe, it is feasible to prove or disprove the same since both the ant and windpipe are gross physical objects, but, if one says he hears subtle sounds and sees visions in the waking state then no amount of physical reasoning of the Russel's Teapot kind will suffice to prove or disprove the claim since hearing sounds within or seeing visions are aspects of consciousness that exceed quantification and defy gross material methods of investigation. As such if Russel's Teapot is employed to ascertain if consciousness, mind, life-force, will, emotions, ego and other such fine entities exist then obviously it would fail as these are sentient-based.
You just touched the surface of it. Dig deeper to find out what really means.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#183132 Jul 19, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk like a loser with a giant complex of inferiority towards Christianity. Everytime someone says something negative against Islam, instead of proving s/he is wrong, you change the subject with Christianity
Very astute observation, and they ALL do it, not just BMZ. Their logic is twisted. If they have a hole in their boat, they try to fix it by trying to poke a hole in another boat, and they have no idea of the logical fallacy of this. They really think this is solid logic. And this behavior is pretty much consistent across the board with Muslims which leads me to believe that it's not the individual and instead might have something to do with the religion itself causing them to be so illogical and uneducated.

It's funny that in a forum about Islam, and a topic about Allah, all that Muslims want to do is discuss Christianity. And they don't even know what to do with you since you are not a Christian and therefore their deflection game has no bearing on you. But either way, these people are constantly playing games, and it's pretty shameful, but it seems indicative of Muslims in general. Nobody seems to play more games than Muslims do, so what does that say?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#183133 Jul 19, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
Russel's Teapot is a tool of pushing the burden on the believer of providing hard proof (gross physical) of one's beliefs. If one believes a teapot is orbiting the sun as the challenge goes, then the onus of proving this claim rests on the person making the claim. Certainly, this form of logic would apply to gross physical objects. This test devised by Bertrand Russel, however, fails when it is sought to be applied to sentience and subjective experiences. If X believes an ant is crawling inside his wind pipe, it is feasible to prove or disprove the same since both the ant and windpipe are gross physical objects, but, if one says he hears subtle sounds and sees visions in the waking state then no amount of physical reasoning of the Russel's Teapot kind will suffice to prove or disprove the claim since hearing sounds within or seeing visions are aspects of consciousness that exceed quantification and defy gross material methods of investigation. As such if Russel's Teapot is employed to ascertain if consciousness, mind, life-force, will, emotions, ego and other such fine entities exist then obviously it would fail as these are sentient-based.
Perhaps you can start by defining what "consciousness" really means in any practical or tangible terms without using meaningless jargon that merely does logical circles. Everybody uses this "buzzword", but nobody can explain what they really mean by it. We've been through this before and all that you did was to throw a bunch of presumptuous jargon as your answer that in the final summation means very little, if anything at all.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#183134 Jul 19, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk like a loser with a giant complex of inferiority towards Christianity.
Here is the twisted logic in a nutshell. If Christianity is wrong, then Islam MUST be right. These people simply have no education in the most basic elements of logic, let alone philosophy and it's pathetic to watch. Seems like the only thing these people are taught is the Quran, and this is probably why they are so backwards.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183135 Jul 19, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>

You just touched the surface of it. Dig deeper to find out what really means.
Really? LOL.

What is the deeper meaning of Russel's Teapot?

Let's have it.

Is it that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others? LOL.

As I said science is limited to investigating gross matter, not sentience.

Russel's Teapot deals only with the gross physical and so is limited.

Matter is objective, while on the other hand sentience is an indisputable fact as anyone alive will tell you he has awareness, thoughts, feelings, cravings and the like but to provide physical proof of sentience is impossible and beyond the scope of science.

So, the test fails when it comes to proving or disproving sentience in a gross physical way.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183136 Jul 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Very astute observation, and they ALL do it, not just BMZ. Their logic is twisted. If they have a hole in their boat, they try to fix it by trying to poke a hole in another boat, and they have no idea of the logical fallacy of this. They really think this is solid logic. And this behavior is pretty much consistent across the board with Muslims which leads me to believe that it's not the individual and instead might have something to do with the religion itself causing them to be so illogical and uneducated.
It's funny that in a forum about Islam, and a topic about Allah, all that Muslims want to do is discuss Christianity. And they don't even know what to do with you since you are not a Christian and therefore their deflection game has no bearing on you. But either way, these people are constantly playing games, and it's pretty shameful, but it seems indicative of Muslims in general. Nobody seems to play more games than Muslims do, so what does that say?
What they do is when the get "attacked" they attack back. If you know what I mean.

On a more fair game I have to say that people, not only Muslims, when they get questioned on something wrong or negative about their opinion or belief and they don't know what to answer they answer you back by doing the same with the person who dared to rise a matter. This is a sign of low culture and bad education. First a person should be able to see any critics with objectivity and find the answer for them and then eventually question others' belief or opinion.

It is said that all the wars made by Muhammad were for self-defense, while in reality they were attacks pretending to be defense. Muslims do the same. What they call defense is just an attack.

Your god doesn't exist. And your god does? LOL

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183137 Jul 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>

Perhaps you can start by defining what "consciousness" really means
Awareness with its aspects like thoughts, intelligence, feeling, deduction and the like.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183138 Jul 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>

Everybody uses this "buzzword" (consciousness), but nobody can explain what they really mean by it.
Why, does consciousness mean a mole of molecules or a volume of ideal gas to you?

Since consciousness defies molecular mechanisms and cannot be explained in terms of push and pull forces, then, naturally, there is no way it (consciousness) can be explained using gross physical jargon, right?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183139 Jul 19, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the twisted logic in a nutshell. If Christianity is wrong, then Islam MUST be right. These people simply have no education in the most basic elements of logic, let alone philosophy and it's pathetic to watch. Seems like the only thing these people are taught is the Quran, and this is probably why they are so backwards.
They don't reason at all. I stopped talk with 'em about Islam.

Here a reason out of many:

How can one person believes that a pedophile, killer, rubber, liar, evil, enslaver who allowed raping, can be the prophet of god?

Islamic schools brainwash people very well I have to say.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183140 Jul 19, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Awareness with its aspects like thoughts, intelligence, feeling, deduction and the like.
Is this your definition of consciousness?

That's a wrong definition, since awareness is just another word for consciousness.

Said defined nothing.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183141 Jul 19, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? LOL.
What is the deeper meaning of Russel's Teapot?
Let's have it.
Is it that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others? LOL.
As I said science is limited to investigating gross matter, not sentience.
Russel's Teapot deals only with the gross physical and so is limited.
Matter is objective, while on the other hand sentience is an indisputable fact as anyone alive will tell you he has awareness, thoughts, feelings, cravings and the like but to provide physical proof of sentience is impossible and beyond the scope of science.
So, the test fails when it comes to proving or disproving sentience in a gross physical way.
But the Russell's teapot is not that hard to grasp. Are you playing dumb or what?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183142 Jul 19, 2013
CORRECTION POST #183140

Joel Pastakia writes: Awareness with its aspects like thoughts, intelligence, feeling, deduction and the like.

Stefano Colonna reply: Is this your definition of consciousness?

That's a wrong definition, since awareness is just another word for consciousness.

You defined nothing.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183143 Jul 19, 2013
Consciousness is power of awareness that unfolds in degrees with its innate aspects such as intelligence, thoughts, deduction, introspection, feelings and the like.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183144 Jul 19, 2013
Consciousness being an immaterial entity that forms a unified field with energy cannot be defined in gross physical terms except in terms of the subjective.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#183145 Jul 19, 2013
STEFANO COLONNA wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, according to your previous posts you admitted that Allah exists, he's Satan, and according to you Satan exists. So, you shouldn't deny Allah's existence.
But Satan is not God.
So there is no existence of Allah being Thee God creator of the world.
In doing research on the "Royal We"
I find it interesting how it is used in the Quran.
There is no doubt that Muhammad appointed himself as king and prophet, and claiming as king and prophet as being the representative of God on earth.
So the word "WE" in the Quran includes Muhammad as a god in being a king and prophet.

The royal we

The We is the King or Queen and God. It was originally in recognition that royalty derives its power from appointment by God.

"We are not amused." The King (or Queen) is acting as Gods representative on Earth and is letting the recipient know that neither of them are amused.

So the Muslims claim that Allah has no partners is bull-shit!

It is Muhammad that is revered by Muslims as being God on earth.

There is a thread on Topix called "No Muslims can profane the prophet Muhammad"
And is blasphemy for non-Muslims to profane Muhammad with a consequence of punishment.
To go along with their apostasy laws.

So when you read "WE" in the Quran, it is Muhammad acting as Allah their god under the guise of being the last prophet.

So it was Muhammad along with Allah that gave Moses the Torah.
"WE sent down the Book to Moses"
So Muhammad in other words according to the Quran existed with Allah before the world was created.

This eliminates Jesus as Gods Son, and makes Muhammad equal to their Muslim Allah god.
"WOW" Fantastic imagination.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183146 Jul 19, 2013
Ya Ma.

(smiles)

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183147 Jul 19, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>But Satan is not God.
So there is no existence of Allah being Thee God creator of the world.
In doing research on the "Royal We"
I find it interesting how it is used in the Quran.
There is no doubt that Muhammad appointed himself as king and prophet, and claiming as king and prophet as being the representative of God on earth.
So the word "WE" in the Quran includes Muhammad as a god in being a king and prophet.
The royal we
The We is the King or Queen and God. It was originally in recognition that royalty derives its power from appointment by God.
"We are not amused." The King (or Queen) is acting as Gods representative on Earth and is letting the recipient know that neither of them are amused.
So the Muslims claim that Allah has no partners is bull-shit!
It is Muhammad that is revered by Muslims as being God on earth.
There is a thread on Topix called "No Muslims can profane the prophet Muhammad"
And is blasphemy for non-Muslims to profane Muhammad with a consequence of punishment.
To go along with their apostasy laws.
So when you read "WE" in the Quran, it is Muhammad acting as Allah their god under the guise of being the last prophet.
So it was Muhammad along with Allah that gave Moses the Torah.
"WE sent down the Book to Moses"
So Muhammad in other words according to the Quran existed with Allah before the world was created.
This eliminates Jesus as Gods Son, and makes Muhammad equal to their Muslim Allah god.
"WOW" Fantastic imagination.
Your post for the most part is sign of ignorance about Semitic culture.

The point was the existence of Allah and not that Allah was god. Don't change the subject to make appear yourself correct.

The plural majestic is not the evidence that Muhammad considered himself god. Semitic speaking people use plural majestic on a daily basis. It doesn't turn them into kings, queens or god.

Muhammad acted as god and I'd even add superior to it. Everytime he faced a problem a revelation came down to give him advantages or to accomplish his desires, turning his god Allah into his personal servant. Of course to the eyes of arabs he lowered himself into servant of god who does whatever his god tells to, no matter what.

However I found weird that a god speaks using the plural majestic, especially if we take into account that he didn't speak directly to Muhammad, but used an angel, and as such there shouldn't be any P.M. In somes cases one can think by reading the Quran that the angel repeated word by word what Allah said, and this explains the using of P.M. but in other parts it seems that the angel is speaking by his own.

In any case the Quran is bad written.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183148 Jul 19, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
Consciousness is power of awareness that unfolds in degrees with its innate aspects such as intelligence, thoughts, deduction, introspection, feelings and the like.
Consciousness and awareness are the same thing.

Basically you said Consciousness is power of consciousness [...] or Awareness is power of awareness [...]

Only dumbs use the word to define in the definition.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183149 Jul 19, 2013
Consciousness is power of awareness means the awareness/consciousness is projected/manifested...

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183150 Jul 19, 2013
Order and purpose indicate an innate consciousness, whereas activity reveals energy at work in the system.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Harrogate mother says foster families are relig... (Nov '15) Sep 15 CDDD 55
News Speaking of religion: Pagans stir a fuss in Beebe (Jun '14) Sep 12 dirt reynolds 121
the 7 great clans (Jun '07) Sep 5 blessed 479
Rev. Mirado Crow (Sep '13) Aug '17 Nobody you know 14
News Woman Explains Why She Kept 100 Dead Cats in He... (Jun '10) Aug '17 Trump Rules Zippy 6
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul '17 John 4,952
Do you know where you will spend eternity? Jul '17 JacquelineDeane55 1
More from around the web