Moslems as gullible as Christians?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Reread the thread. Here, as in numerous others, I have readily admitted that I was mistaken. I immediately acknowledged my error in thinking that the Bible did not include an account of a disembodied hand writing on a wall.

No1 has also admitted mistakes. For example, in one thread he claimed that personhood, once attained, cannot be lost. I pointed out that it is lost at death, and he acknowledged his mistaken claim.

I'd say four edits for a six-sentence post is an admission of error, all in itself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'd say four edits for a six-sentence post is an admission of error, all in itself.

I would agree. I'm not ashamed of my edits. I'm proud of them.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I would agree. I'm not ashamed of my edits. I'm proud of them.

I could almost see your avatars lips moving while I read that. Creepy, dude.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm happy to reformulate the admission in a different manner. How do you propose I word it so that it is unambiguously an acknowledgement of error?

Just say something like "My mistake" and cut out the sarcasm.

Originally posted by Nemesio
That it is sad that they are so desparate to see God in the world that they turn to random colors on a fish that happen to spell a word, or mold on a piece of toast or whatever other foolishness.

Nemesio

The only way you will ever see God is in Christ.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just say something like "My mistake" and cut out the sarcasm.

That's my style. It complements the substance. It doesn't alter it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's my style. It complements the substance. It doesn't alter it.

You asked me how I thought your admission could be less ambiguous. Ambiguity is the very basis of sarcasm - hence my response. Are you saying that ambiguity does not alter the substance? Or that it does not matter in how substance is communicated?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You asked me how I thought your admission could be less ambiguous. Ambiguity is the very basis of sarcasm - hence my response. Are you saying that ambiguity does not alter the substance? Or that it does not matter in how substance is communicated?

There was nothing ambiguous about the post. No reasonable person, even one who does not understand sarcasm, could read that exchange and think that I still believed I was right that the Bible does not include an account of a disembodied hand.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You asked me how I thought your admission could be less ambiguous. Ambiguity is the very basis of sarcasm - hence my response. Are you saying that ambiguity does not alter the substance? Or that it does not matter in how substance is communicated?

I always thought absurdity was the basis for sarcasm. Correct me if I'm "wrrrrrrroooooong."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I always thought absurdity was the basis for sarcasm. Correct me if I'm "wrrrrrrroooooong."

I think you and LH should debate that point for the Spirituality Championship. What a show that would be.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I think you and LH should debate that point for the Spirituality Championship. What a show that would be.

That was both absurd andambiguous. Capitol!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe some morons need moulds or fish to strengthen their belief. For those who don't, this is hardly going to cause them to jump ship.

You need to write down all your beliefs about God on a single sheet of
paper so you can see how many of them make sense together. If
God is interested in having believers, then it is reasonable to assume
that He would provide non-believers with a credible means of believing
(first) that He exists and (second) that He is communicating to them.
For an omnipotent being, such an effort would be trivial. Certainly, He
could do better than lines on a fish.

think that any 'God' who would choose to be that absurdly obscure is either incompetent, foolish, or spiteful

It's not absurdly obscure. As Freaky pointed out, it's about as clear as a hand writing on the wall.

And, if true, how does it imply that God is incompetent, foolish or spiteful?

As for the above nonsense, I don't see how you can claim rationality and assert that Allah is speaking to His faithful in any sort of meaningful way by putting stripes on a fish in a pet store in Liverpool. Could you flesh this out for me?

If Allah exists, then this may just be His way of reaching out to humanity and saying "I AM". Sometimes you don't need any more than that. You might think it absurd, but if you already believe in Allah, this isn't going to disturb your belief in Him.

A belief in Allah does not require a belief that these fish are a
message from Him. Indeed, I am sure that there are many right-
minded Moslems who rightly think that this is just a coincidence, just
like RBHILL might.

If this is Allah's way of reaching out to humanity rather than the
multitude of much more effective and definitive ways, then Allah is a
fool, uninterested in reaching all but the most gullible of people.

If you don't think it absurd and believe in Allah, then it's going to strengthen your faith. If you don't believe in Allah at all, it's not going to make a difference. So if Allah wanted to zero in on a particular subset of Muslims, then there is nothing incompetent, foolish, spiteful or irrational about choosing such a route to do so.

This echoes what DoctorScribbles said: if Allah wanted to reach gullible
fanatics, then He did His job. What does that say about Allah? It says
that He is a fool, since He had at His disposal an infinite array of
powers and abilities to do the same thing with all of His faithful, and
even all of the unfaithful! If He didn't want to reach them, what does
that say about Allah?

Like I said: This is exactly the same as seing Mary in the cracks of a
mold on a piece of old toast (or whatever that old saw is): If you grow
enough molds and have enough desparate pathetic people who can't
see God except in the absurd, you're going to have an outcry of
people claiming divine intervention.

Of course, fanatics can always play the 'God's Plan' Card; because we
can't see what God is thinking, we don't know that Allah-Fish aren't all
part of His grand master plan that will unfold over the course of
eternity. Because the argument entails the unknowbable -- the
Mind of God (not to mention His very existence) -- it can't be countered.
That doesn't make it an attractive one, because it yields that you have
to accept the face on a mold is, in fact, Divine Providence.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe -- that statues weep blood or
that a 3-day old St Rumwold preached a sermon on the Holy Trinity.
Just don't expect normal, rational people to accept them as
representations of God. Frankly, the beauty which is contained in a
rainbow elicits in me a far greater reverence for the Almighty than a
hoaxy statue any day of the week.

Nemesio

EDIT: IIRC, it was Lancashire.

I don't know (or much care) but the first sentence of the article I cited
at the top of this thread reads:

Muslim worshippers are flocking to see a pair of fish in the British city of Liverpool which appear to bear the words "Allah" and "Muhammad", said their owner on Monday.

Originally posted by RBHILL
The only way you will ever see God is in Christ.

So you deny that these Allah-Fish are messages from God?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
So you deny that these Allah-Fish are messages from God?

Nemesio

Where are the pictures anyways?


Edit:

Nevermind, I did a bit of googling, and I think it's absurd. It's quite a stretch for me to believe something like that, and I'm muslim.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I wonder when they will evolve to sell it on EBay.

I bet it won't be long. It now has its own website.

http://www.allahfish.com/

This is the first I've seen it. Looks like just another tropical fish to me.