Forum:Is Allah an English word?

Proposition
I actually believe Allah is an English word - from the Wikipedia page (and this makes sense): "Allah is a word for God used in the context of Islam". BUT it continues: "In Arabic, it is the standard word for "God". But still I would maintain that it's an Arabic word that has been adopted into the English language, so it is English. In the same sense that I would say some latin phrases are part of the English language (de facto, de jure).--Danielfolsom (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that proves my point, no? Arabic origin - English word. (Used in Islam).--Danielfolsom (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact - with the exception of "Word Origin & History" - they all give the English meaning! (note that the only one that says it's an Arabic word actually gives two definitions and the "in the Arabic language" part only applies to the first.--Danielfolsom (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. The fact that English has adopted a word doesn't change the fact that it's an Arabic word. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The French don't have a word for entrepreneur! --Scream!! (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The German word for entrepeneur is undertaker. nobsdon't bother me 21:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SuspectedReplicant: English adopted the word and altered the definition; my point is it does have a modern English definition - as Wikipedia AND as your dictionary.com cite say - it means God in the Islamic context. The point is irrelevant - because we're not talking about the English definition - we're talking about Allah used in the Arab language which would mean use the Arab definition which means "God"--Danielfolsom (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if people can claim that "zaqquum" is an English word purely because of the number of English language texts that discuss "zaqquum" being the only word with both a Q with a "U" following it and a Q without a "U" following it, I might have to admit your point. But Andy is still a dickhead for saying what he said. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Western term for the western-most border of Europe is "Pillars of Hercules", yet virtually all European languages use the Arab "Gibralter" - Jabal tarik. nobsdon't bother me 21:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a good, strong English word there: "Hercules". Yes. C ® ackeЯ
 * Rubbish. The Pillars (an ancient term barely used today, FFS) are the two rocks that flank the Straits of Gibraltar, with the Rock of Gibraltar being one of them. Arabs call it something completely different - the Gate of Peace or Tranquility or something.
 * Look, I know you really really want to believe this nonsense but, please, a little critical thinking, you know? It's good for you. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell Google they got thier img's mislabled, then (Wikipedia, too). nobsdon't bother me 01:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Allah is an English word - an English loanword from Arabic - because the noun declines (oh pedant Eira, have I chosen the right term here?) acccording to English grammar, not Arabic grammar. For example, if you want to put English Allah into the possessive form, you'd say "Allah's", whereas you don't do that in Arabic grammar, you do something else (don't ask me exactly what... status constructus?) -- 21:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * head:desk Ajkgordon (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. Just goes to show that Andy doesn't have a monopoly on idiocy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree with what I say, why not give reasons why you think I am wrong, rather than ad hominems. Reasons are rational, namecalling is not. -- 23:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you never listen to the reasons anyway. It's much quicker and easier to call you an idiot NOW rather than waiting ten posts to do it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do listen to reasons. -- 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's a proper noun, you simpleton. We don't go around renaming people and places (imperialism excepted) to suit our language. We use the name things already have. -- 00:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually... proper nouns are English words. To quote Ben Kenobi here: "From a certain point of view". From a linguistic point of view, Maratrean is actually correct here. The same as we use "YHWH" to distinguish the Jewish aspect of the Abrahamic god, "Allah" is used to distinguish the Islamic aspect of the Abrahamic god. If these aspects all represent the same god is a theological discussion, not a linguistic one, meanwhile both of those terms remain simultaneously English words, and proper nouns. As to the assertion "We don't go around renaming people and places to suit our language" consider the name of German in French: "alleman", Russian: "nemensk", etc. We call Köln "Cologne", München "Munich", "Nürnberg" Nuremberg. We rename people and places all the time. -- 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah good point. Howcumizit in English, German cities have French names ands Russian cities have German names? nobsdon't bother me 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Allah is not an English word any more than Mecca is an English word. It's a proper noun, the name of a god in Arabic - just like "Zeus" is the name of a Greek god in Greek or "Yahweh" is the name of a Hebrew god in Hebrew.  Unless you mean it is a word than can be used in the English language, in which case you must consider all proper nouns such, and that's a wholly different and entirely uninteresting argument about proscription in studying grammar.
 * Both perspective are reasonable, and so Andy is wrong to consider it absurd that a new organization would have translated "Allah" - even if you don't agree with them translating it, although I can't imagine he objects to "יהוה" being translated to "God."-- 00:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that in a sense Allah in an English word, though it being a proper noun does complicate the matter. The fact that Merriam Webster has an entry for it but not "dieu", "deus", khuda" or other foreign words for god seems to support this. If an English speaker refers to "Allah" in a general context you know they are referring to the Islam interpretation of God. This is basically immaterial, as Andy's stupidity in this case arises from the fact that since translators translated the original text of "Allah" to "God", rather than leaving it as "Allah" as some would do, he thinks it means the original statement from al Qaeda is a hoax. The man is an idiot, but that doesn't mean "Allah" has not been adopted into the English language. In any case, it does have an English translation: god. DickTurpis (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is NO sense in which Allah is an English word. Seriously. None. Stop it. I honestly thought this was all a wind-up, but some of you seriously seem to think that Andy has a point. The reason MW has an entry for Allah is that it's a proper noun in common usage. It doesn't have entries for "dieu" or whatever because almost nobody uses those words in common English.
 * RobS' bullshit is the next level of batshit. If anybody doubts that the Jewish and Christian "God" aren't the same thing, read the Bible. If anybody doubts that the Judeo-Christian "God" isn't the same as the Islamic "Allah", read about The Mosque of the two Aspects.
 * FFS. Seeing Andy spout the crazy is disheartening enough, but seeing people believe him makes me feel sick. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between "a proper noun in common usage" in English and an English word? "Germany" is an English word, and a proper noun referring to a foreign place. This really has nothing to do with Andy's point, because it is indisputable that "Allah" is the Arabic word for God, which is the simple fact Andy can't grasp. That's why Andy is inconceivably stupid. I believe we had a debate about whether Jews/Christians/Muslims worship the same god in the past, and I don't think this is the place to rehash it, but it's almost a stupid argument, like debating whether two people have the same imaginary friend. There are fundamental differences between the gods of those three religions, Jesus being the big one, so, in one sense at least, they are not the same god. DickTurpis (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So I point out Andy's conversion to liberalism and he's still an idiot, you may be right. nobsdon't bother me 01:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you're still an idiot, so that's something. --Kels (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The perfectly good English word "Allah" arrives in English in the 16th century as a loan word from Arabic. It takes another five centuries before idiots with a wiki feel that just because Andy Schlafly is an idiot they are therefore experts on linguistics. Meanwhile English continues to enjoy borrowing words, including igloo and hentai despite not really being short of them in the first place. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So is bukkakae an English words or a loan word? nobsdon't bother me 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a loan word, and in Japanese it means "gravy"... so when you have mashed potatoes and gravy, you're eating bukkake. -- 07:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A trend of idiocy was observed when it became clear that people couldn't distinguish between "loan words" for things that previously had no counterpart in English, such as "igloo", "gymkhana" and "chutney", where new words clearly had to be introduced, and words such as "Allah", which is simply the Islamic word for the proper noun for the head of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic pantheon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What language is "Islamic" SuspectedReplicant? Allah is an English word, derived from Arabic in the 16th century. The way languages work, after a loan word is imported it acquires a separate context which tends to drift, so that for example coup is a word in English, and is borrowed from the French, but the English word doesn't mean what the French word means. As a result the English word "Allah" is used almost solely concerning the Islamic god, while the Arabic word from which it's derived is also happily used in comparative religion in Arabic to mean any supreme being, just as "god" serves this purpose in English. It's OK not to know this stuff, RW is an opportunity to learn. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

People seem to be assuming that the question of "Is X an English word" has a precisely defined answer. Languages, including English, don't have strictly defined boundaries. It's like the question of "How many words are in the English language?" People can give guestimates, but no one can give a precise answer, in part because there is no universally agreed criteria of what is an English word and what is not. -- 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "How many words are in the English language?" Three. Because some people may not have seen this cartoon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That XKCD captures perfectly the behaviour of many on this site. -- 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. So hold out your hand. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference between loan words and proper nouns in common usage is really a minor semantic point that misses the point entirely. When Andy says you can't translate "Allah" he is being an idiot. You can translate it, and it is translated as "God". I don't think anywhere here disagrees with that. That being said, when used in English, it has a different connotation. If someone says "people prayed to Allah" it has a slightly different meaning than "people prayed to God"; the former would indicate the people were Muslim, the latter would not. Since the text Andy is referring to was not originally in English, none of this is relevant to the bullshit he's spewing. The man in a complete idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:DickTurpis: ... golf clap. --Danielfolsom (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We are writing in English. Nobody in this discussion has any problem using the word "Allah" and we all know what it means. Therefore it is an English word.
 * It is a loanword but so what? A vast number of English words are loanwords but that doesn't stop them being English.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite all the above
Andy is wrong not because "it's not an English word" but because when something is in one language you still need to translate it before it's in another language, even if you think you recognise part of the untranslated text already. For example "Un chat noir!" is a French sentence. We should translate this into English, and get "A black cat", we should not attempt to stitch together words we think we recognise and get "Don't talk dark". [ Warning, my French is pretty miserable, please excuse any minor errors ] 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no good definition for "word" in linguistics
As pointed out, "Germany" is the English word for the country referred to locally as "Deutschland". Proper nouns are words... they're just also proper nouns. Arabic makes a distinction between "ﷲ"/"الله‎" and "إله", the same as we make a distinction between "God" and "god" respectively in English. There is a disagreement here between what is linguistically valid, and what is theologically valid. Most Merkins expect the Muslim god to be referred to as "Allah". As so, while the translation was entirely linguistically valid, it was a poor word choice due to culture/theology. -- 03:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or blatant propaganda bullshit (more precisely, godless commie agitprop). nobsdon't bother me 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only an idiot would think that. --Kels (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, do you ever say anything that isn't painfully stupid? DickTurpis (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. That was a rhetorical question. DickTurpis (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for God's Allah's sake
The etymology of the words God and Allah means nothing in relation to the stupidity of claiming that Allah is not God. You might as well say that Spanish Christians don't worship the same god.

It's all utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant is tackling the original assertion that the god that Muslims worship is not the same as the god that Christians worship and that having a different name for it is good evidence. I mean, ffs.

Let's take it right back to basics. Schlafly and Rob obviously believe, as almost all Christians do, that Islam is a false religion and that the god that Christians worship is real and the only one. Nothing controversial there and Muslims obviously think the same about Christians. Likewise Jews.

And they must believe to varying degrees that the various Christian denominations and sects are also false religions. Rob, I presume, is some sort of evangelical protestant. Lots of American evangelicals will say with a perfectly straight face that Roman Catholics are not Christians. I don't know if Rob would agree with that but how far would the RC Church have to be from his own theology for him to hold that view? Would that make the Catholic God different to his? And Schlafly is, by convention, a Catholic (although with plenty of near or actual heretical beliefs). He must have some fundamental problems with, say, Mormons and what they believe. Is the Mormon god not the same as his?

And in both their cases, what about the Jews? Surely they are so far removed from Christian theology that the question of their god not being the same must arise.

But no, of course it doesn't.

Islam gets it because Islam is "bad". It's easy to throw out stupidities like "Allah is a different word therefore must be a different god" and fart this nonsense out in the direction of the terminally ignorant.

And then people like Maratrean, with his, frankly, bizarre adherence to some fantasy reality where anything that's believed in exists (or similar unsupported drivel), helps Schlafly's and Rob's cause by pedantically arguing obscure points of sophistry.

Schlafly's and Rob's cause is to hate Islam and Muslims. That's as sophisticated as it gets. Anyone who falls for the unsubtleties of their fatuous and vacuous arguments and treats them with any merit are fuckheads of the highest order. I do not need to back up that assertion. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is way too much hairsplitting going on here for your average Aschlafly bullshit-ism. My only point of contention here is that I think it's just a desperate attempt to keep his Osama deather conspiracy going rather than a shot at Muslims. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know entirely what Rob's and Andy's views on Islam are, but from what I can gather they seem rather different from mine. But nor do I believe in trying to use bad arguments, even if deployed for a good cause. There are lots of good grounds to criticize Andy's views on this issue. But I don't agree that "the Christian God is the same as the Islamic God" or "Allah is not an English word" are good arguments, because they are both statements fairly open to question. As I've said, Allah is both an Arabic word and an English word (and a word in quite a few other languages too); whether the Christian and Islamic Gods are the same or different is a complex question which has no easy answer, or indeed may not even have an answer. -- 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. But that's unnecessary complexity. You're being sucked in to cloud the issue. Schlafly is using the fact that Muslims use the word Allah while Christians use the word God as supporting evidence that their respective gods are not the same. You seem to have a habit of complicating what are fairly straightforward issues. Look at the assertion, review the supporting evidence, and treat the assertion based on that. Might work for your religion too. :) Ajkgordon (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gordo, you don't know jack shit. My forebears were RC daily communicantas, if you know that is. I can no longer deny my catholicism than a Jew can deny being a Jew. Yet I am not a Roman Catholic. While I embrace the doctrines of most mainline proesatant denominations, I have never felt comfortable or accepted by protestants, nor understand the intricacies of protestant denominatonalism and view them all with the suspicious eye catholics have of dissident cults; I'm the first to get offended by a catholic joke told by a protestant, yet love a good catholic joke and have a huge collection for my catholic friends. I am an orthodox Christian, or dispensationalist. nobsdon't bother me 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I presumed. I didn't know. Get over it. My points are still valid. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wherein several users argue adamantly about the same thing
The actual words used aside, the question of whether the 3 religions in question worship the same god is not straightforward. I think the best answer one can give is "yes and no". Many, if not most, Christians don't realize that so-called "Allah" is at least in theory the same as their god, which is not true for other deities such as Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, FDM, etc. That is just plain ignorance. However, from a theological standpoint, there are clear fundamental differences, especially where Christianity is concerned. A fundamental tenet of mainstream Christianity is that Jesus is part of the Trinity, and is God. This is rejected by Jews and Muslims, so there is a significant difference which can't be so easily dismissed. As an atheist, I do find the whole subject somewhat silly, like arguing whether two people have the same imaginary friend. I suppose it's also a bit like arguing whether the character Sherlock Holmes created by Doyle is the same Sherlock Holmes in the Michael Caine film Without a Clue. It's meant to be the same character, but in Doyle's stories Holmes is a genius - that is his defining trait - in the film he's a bumbling fool. That's a really big difference. One can argue that it's simply a different take on the same guy, but how different do they have to be before they are in some ways different characters? DickTurpis (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to back up Gordo on this matter against Maratrean. Maratrean is actually arguing valid points, but simply for sophistry pretty much. My point that "Allah" is an English word doesn't mean that the Arabic word "Allah" cannot be translated as "God". In German, the phrase "Er gibt mir den Ball," means "He gave me the ball," but "Es gibt ein Ball," means "there is a ball". Same word in German, different translations into English. In English as well, "surrender" and "give up" are two different words but are essentially the same word, and in German, mostly rendered as "aufgeben" (lit. give up). So, the matter of "Allah" being an English word doesn't mean that I cannot translate the Arabic word transliterated as "Allah" as "Allah" or "God". Linguistically, they are both valid translation choices. Andy is being a douche disregarding the facts of translation just go have a theological argument, and the theological argument is entirely moot. His original contention was "the acknowledgement of Osama's death by al-Qaeda is potentially bogus, because they use the word 'God' instead of 'Allah'". This point was refuted by the original article in fact using the full and formal form of "Allah" consistent with Muslim statements. Awkward or bad translations do not invalidate or place incredulity upon the originals.
 * Rob is just being a sniveling idiot in this whole argument. The assertion that the government might be stuffing this translation down our throats is kind of entirely bogus, and completely out of left field. Why the fuck would a private journalistic source ask the government to translate a document? Do you not realize that they have translators of their own on staff?
 * So, to recap, Andy is being an absolute idiot for questioning the credibility of a document based on a translation that he happens do disagree with, but which is entirely linguistically valid. Rob just seems to be hating on Muslims and government for no rational reason. (To point, of course Muslims deny the resurrection of Jesus... they don't believe he ever died.) And Maratrean is arguing just to be a douche, and complicate the whole issue. (Again, the whole issue is entirely wrong: the al-Qaeda communication is not invalid because a translator chose "God" instead of "Allah" when translating it.) -- 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, Eira, I never said that "Allah" could not be translated as "God". It certainly can be. A translator faced with "Allah" in an Arabic text has to decide, whether to stick with "Allah" in English, or turn it into "God". And there is no single right answer to that, it is up to the translator's judgement in the circumstances. I never said I agree with any of Andy or Rob's positions on this issue. (I really know nothing about the al-Qaeda document in question, and don't particularly care; but if it was a bet, I'd put my money on it being authentic). But the claim "Allah is not an English word" is wrong, and I will reject that claim, even if the position the claim is being used to defend is actually 100% correct, which for all I know it may well be. -- 08:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Appeal to authority. The OED has Allah as a word in English as the name of God among Muslims (and Arab Christians). Sorry, but I take the OED's opinion over yours. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I think my opinion is the same as the OED's. The fact that the OED lists "Allah" is evidence that Allah is indeed an English word (which is not to say it is not also an Arabic one, and one in several other languages too.) -- 09:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you completely dedicated to missing the point? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your point? -- 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or are we all basically arguing the same thing here? DickTurpis (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wherein a theological argument about the nature of god arises
"the question of whether the 3 religions in question worship the same god is not straightforward." = FALSE. It's actually one of the few things that's straightforward about them. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A fundamental tenet of mainstream Christianity is that Jesus is God. Jesus is not God to Jews or Muslims. Therefore there is one pretty significant difference. I don't think that can be dismissed so easily. DickTurpis (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The Bible clearly teaches that the Jews and Christians worship the same god. The Quran clearly teaches that the Christians/Jews and Mulsims worship the same God. It's spelled out very clearly, again and again, so...
 * I think opposition to the plain fact that the gods are the same is the very childish argument of trying to tell someone else who they're praying to. If that's your argument, I'm not listening. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the New Testament says it's the same god as the Old Testament, and the Koran says it's the same god as the other two, but that doesn't mean there aren't fundamental differences, and when things are different they're not the same. Jesus is God to Christians; he isn't to Jews. There is a difference. It's also been widely noted that the personalities of God in the old and new testaments differ significantly. It's all made up BS anyway, so it's sort of moot. I mean, if I were to start a new religion, claiming I worship the same god as everyone else, only he's a purple gorilla who shits cupcakes and wants to to murder your children, I don't think it would be unreasonable for anyone to say "um, no, that isn't the same as our god" no matter how many religious texts of mine showed that he was. So I stand by my point that it isn't straightforward, and in a sense they are the same and in a sense they're not. DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which religion do you believe does not trace their roots to the god of Abraham? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All the one's were debating do, but that's not the issue. Hell, even my new cupcake-shitting deity traces his routes back there as well, is he the same god? If not how different do the gods in question have to be before one can say there are differences? I don't know all that much about Islamic views of god, but the Jesus question is a substantial difference separating Christians from the rest. Certain Jewish theology considers Christianity to be idolatry (but not Islam). Logic dictates that the gods are either exactly the same, entirely different, or somewhere in between. I take the somewhere in between view, because there are enough differences to make them not exactly the same. DickTurpis (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You bring out the "Nuh uh! You're not praying to my God!" argument, so I'm not listening anymore. Either way, you can't deny that each one of these successive Abrahamic religions clearly states in their holy books they share the same God, so what would be the point? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the successive books clearly indicate it's the same god, but the successive books are not considered authority by the earlier religions, so any differences brought out by these newer books can be rejected. When Christians came along and said "Guess what, you know that god we worship? Well it turns out he's three guys in one! One of them just got nailed to a bunch of sticks and then came back!" the Jews retort with "Actually, that hippie-looking fella with the long hair and beard isn't our God. Looks like someone made a mistake somewhere?" So when Christians pray to Jesus, how are Jews not taking the attitude of "Nuh uh! You're not praying to my God!"? Are you arguing that there are no differences at all between god as worshiped by members of these three religions? If so, is Fazzlaxx, my cupcake-shitting gorilla, the same God, because my religion says he is? He's the Abrahamic God, really, he's just changed a bit over the years (find me a passage in the Old Testament that says YHWH isn't a purple gorilla. I bet you can't). DickTurpis (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm losing the will to live. I hope you're happy now, you bastards! Ajkgordon (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite happy. I seem to be doing my job well. I have to admit, I don't really get the other side of this argument. So far it seems just to consist of: 1) saying the gods are in any way not the same is not PC, and 2) they're the same god because the Bible says so - which is the first time I've ever heard that argument made on this wiki. I'll tell you, it's no more convincing here than it is on CP. DickTurpis (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept both of your objections. The argument, as it was originally in my rant at the top of this section, is simply that the reasons given for God =/= Allah and Allah = Satan as claimed by those on CP are idiotic. And by delving into perhaps valid points of theology, history and language here gives those reasons more attention than they merit.
 * An analogy could be reading something on CP like "The Big Bang theory is just a theory made up by God-hating atheists" and then delving into the various scientific disputes and arguments about Dark Matter, etc. here in response. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Those on CP are idiotic" is a statement we can all get behind. We've progressed far beyond the initial argument about specifics of Andy's idiocy. We seem to all agree that: 1)"Allah" is the Arabic word for "god". 2) "Allah", when used in an English language context, refers to the Islamic interpretation of God. 3) When translating from Arabic, "Allah" can be translated as "God", but it can also be left as "Allah", depending on the whims of the interpreter. 4) None of this is really relevant to Andy's deather argument, because the authenticity of the original Arabic statement is being called into question, not the translation. 5) Andy is an absolute moron. 6) So is Rob, but he's also a troll. Moving on from that we've wandered into the theological realm of whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same god. I say "yes and no", while Occasionaluse says simply indisputably "yes". We could certainly break this off into another forum, but I don't think that's necessary. The initial argument has evolved (or perhaps intelligently designed) into a new one. DickTurpis (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Invisible Friends
Is this person's invisible friend the same, or different from that person's invisible friend. What a stupid argument. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To carry the non-sequiter farther, what is the difference between the Big Bang theory and Creationism? (a) both are theories, that is they lack visible, discernable proof, and (b) both maintain that once upon a time nothing existed, then voila all forms of matters suddenly came into being. I just don't see were both sides get thier knickers in a tither when basically they are in agreement. nobsdon't bother me 16:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Big Bang Theory is based on other observable, testable theories. Creationism is based on the fantasies of Bronze Age nomads. Big difference. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * >:What, pray tell,is a testable theory? nobsdon't bother me 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One was hatched by brains and the other was hatched by branes. That is all. 17:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * So fucking what. I'll show you a shitload of brainy theories that ended in the dumpster. nobsdon't bother me 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, simple example. The Big Bang theory predicts that we will see certain things in the sky. So we test for these certain things by looking at the sky. In that way the theory is tested. Do you see? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tsk. The "brain" theory is Creationism, so, I guess, you've proven me right...thanks. (Oh and I'll block you later.) 18:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ


 * Rob, the Big Bang theory does not posit that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang... rather it believes that all timespace and matter/energy was compressed into a singularity. So, to be clear, all the matter/energy in the world existed at the moment of the Big Bang. The Big Bang did not "create" anything out of nothing, it just was when space started expanding outwards, and was the first point at which two things being on opposite sides of the universe were not actually in the same location. -- 00:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Let's review. The Big Bang theory explains how matter as we've come to know it came about; alternatively, Creationism explains how matter as we've come to know it came about. Now, if there's a difference in these competing views or conclusions, I guess I just don't see it. nobsdon't bother me 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Big Bang theory doesn't explain anything about how "matter as we've come to know it" came about. It describes the process by which matter arranged itself, but not where the matter came from at all. In Creationist terms: The Big Bang is day 7 of Creation. Everything is already made and exists, and all the rules are in place... they're just playing out now. And really, no one believed in a Big Bang or had cause to believe in a Big Bang until we noted that the universe was expanding... putting in that information and running the math backwards, we arrived that the universe at some point was a single point. And really, that's all the Big Bang theory postulates at all... it doesn't explain anything about how matter/energy exists, or how spacetime exists... it only explains: at a point in the past, the universe was a singularity. -- 00:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As for two invisible beings being the same, Aphrodite and Venus were the same God... who cares... someday, we'll talk about "Allah" vs. "Deus" the same way. -- 00:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So ... we are debating whether two fictional beings are the "same"? I suppose they are the "same" in that the share the quality of non-existence.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)