I can spell, after having a cup of coffee and waking up... I'll 'prove' it, there should be an 'n' in Meregue!

Yes, grateful

>>In the case of Mein Kampf, we are justified to infer its contents from the actions of its author. In the case of the Qur’an, we are NOT making inferences about the writings of Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zakawi.<<

But that is not at all what I was talking about. Once again, you have ducked the issue.

I was simply pointing out your illogical thought processes, nothing more.

>>Hi atheists, In my previous post I described Richards as a fundamentalist on the grounds that has been so vociferous in his condemnation of Islam and even described the Qur'an as akin to the Mein Kauf while admitting he has never read the book.<<

To reiterate my point, which clearly escapes you...

>>...to criticize person A for - purportedly - drawing conclusions from a book he had not read, while excusing person B for doing the same, is inconsistent.<<

The intentions of the authors don't come into the equation, merely the impact the work has - or had - on a section of the population.

It is easy to see the impact of Mein Kampf on fanatical Nazis without having read the book. It is easy to see the impact of the Qur'an on fanatical Islamists without having read the book.

Which demonstrates how you have chosen the wrong target completely.

>>It is no surprise to me that no secularist on this forum has been able to acknowledge Dawkin’s error or criticise him for expressing views about Islam’s teachings without first looking at the evidence<<

Dawkins observes the impact of the teachings on people, for which knowledge of the content of the book is entirely unnecessary.

But of course, if you are saying that the actions of fanatical Islamists have nothing to do with their reading of the Qur'an, then we have another ballgame entirely

So, can you now see how this expostulation of yours is completely irrelevant...

>>OSAMA BIN LADEN DID NOT AUTHOR THE QUR’AN!<<

But did he not use it as an excuse for his actions?

WmTrevor,
Thanks for the correct spelling of my name, Merengue. I and everyone connected with the name and the pastime is now relieved. Your Methodist predecessors should have given it a go.

When I say that Christianity has its basis in history, that is to say that its truth claims are centred in historical events, in particular, the event of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

That Christians make historical claims is perhaps not unique. Others also do so. That we hold to a body of Scripture is also not unique. Others have theirs. What we claim is unique is the life, and particular, the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. If he in fact did rise from the dead, then it ought make a big difference to how we interpret life and how we live today. 

Now, no one can prove an historical event in an absolute sense (which is why court cases adopt 'beyond reasonable doubt' as their standard of proof.) So the evidence for Christianity can only be corroborative. Are the truth claims of Christians consistent with someone having victoriously risen from the dead?

This thread is supposed to be discussing 'fundamentalism'. To my knowledge, there was only ever one group in history that were happy to call themselves fundamentalists (before it became just a pejorative term.) The original 'fundamentalists' were a movement of Christian believers around the start of the 20th Century, who essentially were advocating consistency in interpreting Scripture. They recognised that Christianity finds its basis in the miracle of the resurrection. Therefore the other miracles needed to be interpreted in this light. (It came in reaction to certain liberal interpretations, which were becoming popular during the 19th Century.) But they said there's no point believing in the resurrection unless you also believe in the virgin birth, and a list of other signs and events consistent with the Christian Scriptures. This list they called their 'fundamentals'.

Sorry to hear that, Dan S de Merengue...

"Now, no one can prove an historical event in an absolute sense (which is why court cases adopt 'beyond reasonable doubt' as their standard of proof.)"

and here was I accepting your existence as absolute proof of the historical event of your birth. Am I now to merely regard it as likely - given the balance of probabilities?

But the common ground seems to be that 'fundamentalist' has become a term where the distinction between denotation and connotation is lost on most people. A bit like personality trait descriptors, 'I am conscientiously assiduous, s/he is obsessively compulsive about minor details'.

In any event we seem to have established that it now takes others to describe someone as a fundamentalist when they would not identify themselves so.

Which brings us to the more interesting issue of what their psychological problems are!

WmTrevor,
I consider my birth fairly axiomatic to my existence. But what useful knowledge do you (or even I) know of my birth? The place, or the date? Neither of these things I can know with any confidence other than the written or oral testimony of others. These can only be corroboratory evidences. I accept them beyond reasonable doubt, but hardly as absolute.

And which of us here has psychological problems? Now you're opening up a cat amongst Pandora's can of worms.

WN/quote....<<..In any event we seem to have established that it now takes others to describe someone as a fundamentalist when they would not identify themselves so.>>

INTERESTING..POINT..you have resolved the point
you now shall be content..having removed the other options

fundamentalism..is simply a point decided rESolved
you by having irrevocably solved the co-nundrun..are content

well done number one sun
[its explained better here]

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/tedradiohour/past-programs/

Our Buggy Brain

Our amazing brain, with all of its harmonious functions, also performs any number of peculiar actions, which we might find unexpected and counterintuitive.

<<..Which brings us to the more interesting issue of what their psychological problems are!>>..

by having re-solved..the fundi-mentals..
fun-di-mentaly..the issue is resolved..[Providing the mind says case closed...]

i will confirm it for you absolutely
[we know infinite is lots and lots and lots..[right]
well some gain the great mental boost..of lots is only 1/12 th

so read the [presently]..lAST POST
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6217&page=11

what we see here
decide for yourself..but its fundamental..to resolving this topic
unless we add a random variable..[stir..the surety]..and give alternates..to create new doubt..

some have doubt..others see the issue is a non issue..but at its fundamentals..we are all fund-i-mental...in resolving the quandaries so fundamental witH FREEWILL*.