Moslems as gullible as Christians?

http://www.allahfish.com/

I'd give 20:1 odds that if 49 other samples of that species were put in a tank together with the AllahFish, nobody could pick out the real AllahFish at a rate greater than 1/10.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

They've got a long way to go. The link about meeting Muslim women is completely lacking of any western values or ingenuiity. I saw that fish and my interpretation of it is that the orange is a reference from Allah that there is a Hooters in their future.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Still doesn't work. Believing in God does not mean you can believe in unicorns, or vice-versa.

Sure you can. One can believe in God and unicorns. No problem.

They may not believe in what you call "God," but given that there is really no exogenous discipline on these things, there's no reason why some can't simultaneously believe in a god very like your own and unicorns too.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, you were (almost) right the first time.

If even one contradiction can be derived from the assumption that God exists, then any proposition at all, such as 2+2=5 can be derived and thus believed if the assumption is believed.

You were only wrong in finding that "God does not exist" could not believed.

Hmm . . . good point.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

Sad.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]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 belie ...[text shortened]... words "Allah" and "Muhammad", said their owner on Monday. [/i][/b]

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.

LOL. I doubt all my beliefs about God would fit on a single sheet of paper, but I'm pretty sure they all 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.

As a Catholic, I believe He does provide everyone with "credible" means of believing in Him. Sometimes people won't believe because of their upbringing. Sometimes it will be a particularly bad psychological event (or series of events) that puts them off.

For an omnipotent being, such an effort would be trivial. Certainly, He could do better than lines on a fish.

Maybe He can do better than lines on a fish for you - it might be just what's needed for someone else. Why do you insist on a "one size fits all" policy?

A belief in Allah does not require a belief that these fish are a
message from Him.

I never said it does. But nor is it inconsistent with such a belief.

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.

As I said earlier, why insist on the "one size fits all policy"? One can reach out to humanity as a whole without necessarily reaching each individual in exactly the same way.

This echoes what DoctorScribbles said: if Allah wanted to reach gullible fanatics, then He did His job. What does that say about Allah?

It just says he wanted to reach out to some people in a particular way. Nothing more. It doesn't say he doesn't want to reach out to the rest, or that he's reaching out to every individual with this.

Why are you getting so worked up over this? If you've ever taught a class, you'll know that different students need to be taught the same subject matter at different speeds and even completely different ways.

Allah can use philosophy for some, personal experiences for some, and fish for some others. Just because the fish doesn't work for you, why judge those for whom it does work?

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

I must've been thinking of another fish then.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

The ambiguity would be in whether you ever believed the Bible did not contain an account of a disembodied hand in the first place; and therefore whether your so-called admission was genuine in any sense.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe He can do better than lines on a fish for you - it might be just what's needed for someone else. Why do you insist on a "one size fits all" policy?

There isn't an atheist, agnostic, or believer here who wouldn't be
compelled by an infinitude of Divine actions if they were definitive.
That is, God has the capacity at any time to convert all of humanity to
believing in Him by, say, floating down during the Tonight Show and
doing an interview. If I, in my demonstrably limited viewpoint of the
world could derive scenario after scenario which would necessarily lead
to world conversion, then what makes you think that lines on a fish
are a reasonable means of affirming God's existence? Indeed, from a
scientific standpoint, the splotches on the fish are not even unusual in
terms of the number, position, density and everything else. There is
no more reason to think that this fish is sending a message than any
other fish, except that it happens to (sort of, so I am told) say the
word 'Allah' in Arabic.

Your question (why do I insist...) is indicative of the 'God's Plan' card I
mentioned in my post. I don't insist on anything, of course. I
don't need fish with stripes or eclipses or rocks with faces on them to
affirm a belief in a Supreme Being. I also feel that, if in fact the
Supreme Being is communicating in these ways, He's being woefully
inefficient, petty, and (at times) malicious. As these are traits which I
feel are irreconcilable with said Supreme Being (as you would say, I am
sure), I have to conclude that expressions of His existence which are
stupid (like fish with words on them) must be mere coincidences.

Nemesio

P.S., Two questions: Do you personally believe that these fish are
expressions of God? Do you have a Catechetical reference to your
comment that Roman Catholics believe that the existence of God is
self-evident?

Originally posted by Nemesio
There isn't an atheist, agnostic, or believer here who wouldn't be
compelled by an infinitude of Divine actions if they were definitive.

That is, God has the capacity at any time to convert all of humanity to believing in Him by, say, floating down during the Tonight Show and
doing an interview.
Quite the contrary, what is lacking is not further revelation but rather honest consideration of everything that has been revealed.

Were Jesus Christ to submit to your rules of engagement, there would be the usual rounds of denial, including, but not limited to the following:

I wasn't there
How do we know it wasn't technological trickery
That's not Jesus
Did you see how His shadow didn't match the position of His body
How come He didn't know what camera to look into
Why would the Creator of the universe feel compelled to do an interview with Jay Leno
ad nauseum

Originally posted by Nemesio
There isn't an atheist, agnostic, or believer here who wouldn't be
compelled by an infinitude of Divine actions if they were definitive.
That is, God has the capacity at any time to convert all of humanity to
believing in Him by, say, floating down during the Tonight Show and
doing an interview. If I, in my demonstrably limited viewpoint of the ...[text shortened]... ur
comment that Roman Catholics believe that the existence of God is
self-evident?

God has the capacity at any time to convert all of humanity to believing in Him by, say, floating down during the Tonight Show and doing an interview.

What makes you so sure of this?

Originally posted by Nemesio
There isn't an atheist, agnostic, or believer here who wouldn't be
compelled by an infinitude of Divine actions if they were definitive.
That is, God has the capacity at any time to convert all of humanity to
believing in Him by, say, floating down during the Tonight Show and
doing an interview. If I, in my demonstrably limited viewpoint of the ...[text shortened]... ur
comment that Roman Catholics believe that the existence of God is
self-evident?

1. I think, to some extent, Hal and Freaky have addressed the 'Tonight Show' hypothetical. I don't want to play the 'God's Plan' card too much - but you have to admit it's a valid defence. When we have trouble figuring out how a person whose IQ is above ours by a mere 20-25 points works, how on earth are we supposed to reason out the thinking of a Being who created and knows the Universe?

2. As I said earlier, if you don't need a fish, good for you. Maybe there are people who do - why do you keep insisting Allah is petty for catering to their unique needs? Would you rather have him decide that only people with a theology or philosophy degree matter?

Do you personally believe that these fish are expressions of God?

I'll assume you're asking me whether, given my belief in the Christian God, I believe these fish are expressions of God.

The answer would be - no and yes.

No - in that I do not believe these fish (or moulds) are public communications from God to all mankind.

Yes - in that I believe all things (including the fish and the mould) reflect the glory of God and have the capacity to lead us to a greater understanding of His will for us. However, that communication is personal in nature.

How many times have you seen two people with completely different problems find the solution to their needs in the same Bible verse?

Do you have a Catechetical reference to your
comment that Roman Catholics believe that the existence of God is
self-evident?

I don't recall saying "self-evident". Nevertheless, as a Catholic I believe the existence of God can be discovered through the use of reason. The most important reference would be Chapter 2, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius), Vatican I:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

Of course, the teaching is older than that and goes back to Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure (when they debated the Latin Averroists).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. I think, to some extent, Hal and Freaky have addressed the 'Tonight Show' hypothetical. I don't want to play the 'God's Plan' card too much - but you have to admit it's a valid defence.

Please. It's no stronger a defense that saying "The Spagehetti Monster wills it to be so."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Please. It's no stronger a defense that saying "The Spagehetti Monster wills it to be so."

In this context, it is.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

الله

The arabic word for Allah (if you can read it above*) looks pretty similar to what's on the side of the fish, to me... Of course, I can't read arabic, so I'm sure someone who can would be able to tell the difference between that and the pattern of dots on the side of the fish.

Assume for a second that it's possible to read the words Allah and Muhammed on the sides of those fishes. Assume that independent trained experts in arabic text can read those words just as well as independent trained experts can see skeletons of long dead dinosaurs in fossil rocks (and I'm not saying they can't, just that it's really, really hard). Does this prove the existence of Allah? Does it even say that Allah is revealing himself to us through the fish?

I say, let's then have a look at more species of these fishes and see what other words we can read on them. Perhaps there will be other words there, less suitable to islam. Or perhaps not. I for one would be willing to admit that it's compelling how words specifically connected to islam is found on fish after fish (if that's the case) but no other words. However, if anyone with credibility can point to such a fish and say: "It can also be the word...", than I'll be back in my regular doubts.

(I strongly suspect that with enough will and energy you can find such a fish with a spelling - in arabic or farsi or a similar written language, since obviously latin characters are out of the question here - of Stocken. That would prove to you that I am actually the creator and I signed my work for all of you to read.)

* It seems that the forum board code converts HTML escape sequences into - HTML escape sequences. If you want to read the word, you should hit "Reply & quote" and it should spell out the word in arabic in the textbox (if your os has support for such languages). 🙂

Originally posted by stocken
الله

The arabic word for Allah (if you can read it above*) looks pretty similar to what's on the side of the fish, to me... Of course, I can't read arabic, so I'm sure someone who can would be able to tell the difference between that and the pattern of dots on the side of the fish.

Assume for a second that it's possible to read ...[text shortened]... the word in arabic in the textbox (if your os has support for such languages). 🙂

Thanks for the considered post.

What is your response to Scribbles' and Nemesio's assertion that it would be unreasonable for a Muslim to treat it as some form of communication from Allah?