Sometime violence is the most effective solution when it comes to situations of social upheaval, fundamentalists and extremists are usually quickly exterminated during or shortly after a revolution.
You can't reason with fundamentalist so non violence won't work, the only way to deal with them is to lock them up forever up or put a bullet in their head, that's been proven over and over again throughout history.
It's a question of symmetry, as the author has stated fundamentalism can be an influence of the structures of power by exerting pressure from below but it never has the ultimate authority and the monopoly on the use of force of the state in which it resides.
To be sure direct, violent confrontation against a state by it's proletariat, or in some cases it's middle classes will almost always fail but violence against it's fundamentalist hangers on will succeed because they are expendable, it's a well used tactic to isolate and ultimately impeach unpopular regimes.

A secularist in a person who seeks evidence to support his or her philosophy and only forms a firm view when the evidence provides strong, almost overwhelming, support.

In describing a secularist, the use of the adjective fundamentalist is really an attempt to denigrate anyone who aims to be a clear thinker guided only by evidence.

I am a member of a secular, sceptical, group and I would be jumped on if I expressed, in that group, a view for which I couldn't provide strong supporting evidence.

A fundamentalist clings to rigid opinions like a drowning sailor does to a life raft.

OLO has many of them and they fight anyone who dares to suggest that their fundamentalism could be fundamentally wrong. Whether it's the con of religious belief or the ridiculous view that the U.S. is a force for good or that the capitalist system is the only way to run the world, the fundamentalist will be there applauding and denigrating any contrary views. The depth of the denigration symbolizes the extent of the fundamentalism.

I feel sorry for such people because having only one view of everything robs you of freedom and choice. You become a victim of your own narrow beliefs (which were doubtless imposed upon you by significant others) but don't know it!

And fundamentalists happily join with other fundies in mob-rule behaviour because they feel safer if others echo their own narrow views. Spreading ignorance is the result.

A fundamentalist holds to the view that what I know and think is the immutable truth. They block out other views!

Whereas a thinking, educated person believes that the more I learn the less I know!

Fundamentalism is a recipe for disaster!

For example, Christian fundamentalism plays a crucial role in shaping US domestic policies in relation to abortion, gay marriage and theories of evolution as well as US imperial and military policy, '

yes Robert and secular fundamentalist play a crucial role in murdering the unborn, promoting perversion to kids and denying the obvious (our Creator). You appear to be displaying the traits of a fundamentalist by your views.

I am not a fundamentalist but I profess non-violence and tolerance while continually expressing Hate for the US and Israel at all opportunities.

The 345 million people of those lands are my Great Satan.

I, in dark glasses, eat at McDonalds and KFC daily.

Foyle, where is your evidence that killing, say, children,is wrong?

Of course you will (I presume) have an opinion that killing children is wrong, but I will be interested to know what actual evidence you have to back up that opinion.

David G, you say that you feel sorry for people who only have one view of everything. Does that mean that you have multiple views about child killing?

JP wrote
"Foyle, where is your evidence that killing, say, children,is wrong?"

My thinking tells me that a fellow conscious and aware human being has the same rights I do and they include the right to life.

runner was on his usual theme.

Why didn't the Inquisition recognise the right of Bruno to have and express his own beliefs. He was taken to his stake and faggots with a spike though his cheeks and tongue.

The christian churches murdered millions and yet runner now expect thinking people to respect the hierarchy's view on many so called moral issues.

Ethics is far more important.

Pete, my latest reply to the Singer should assist you to understand where I'm coming from.

I hate war and the vermin who promote it. I also hate injustice such as is occurring to the Palestinians and has occurred recently to the Iraqis and the Afghans.

I hate the fact that a few people hold most of the world's wealth and I hate the way politicians betray the trust of the people who elected them.

I hate the way that the 'MIGHT IS RIGHT' philosophy has currency as does the insatiably-greedy capitalist ethos.

I would give everything I own to live a few days of my life in a peaceful world where real love and caring existed.

David G

Hatred of so many things is so easily placed on those who allegedly do those things.

Blanket terms are used such as the "US", "Israel" and "Jews".

If qualifiers were used, such as neocons, rightwingers, Likud or Netanyahu, it would look less like bald racism.

New Anti-Semitism is developing simultaneously from the left, right and "libertarians" (aka Tea Party).

New Anti-Semites frequently oppose Zionism and Israel but then most significantly move their statement on to demonise Jews. For many opposition to Israel or capitalism transforms itself into an excuse or opportunity to demonise Jews.

Regards

Pete

Foyle, I presume that you must be hoping that no one from your secular, sceptical group is reading what you have written here or else you can expect them to be jumping on you. You said that would be the consequence if you express a view for which you couldn't provide strong supporting evidence.

Now you have expressed a view about child-killing that is based entirely upon your own subjective thoughts – there is no strong supportive evidence presented by you at all.

Don’t you see that you appear to be inconsistent here?

'Ethics is far more important. '

Yes Foyle. But not if you follow atheist 'ethics'. We have seen what secularist like Stalin and Mao and Hitler have done. They make your very disputable 'millions' look minute. Not to mention the millions of unborn murdered in recent times by what I take is your 'ethics'. The violence of atheist/secularist make even the corrupt Catholic church look featherweight.

"Fundamentalism is a widespread problem. It often manifests in a religious context - making it highly visible."

In the context of the highly visible anthropogenic global warming religion, the fundamentalist believers, if they had their way, would have all sceptics/deniers hung, drawn and quartered.

runner, on what evidence to you regard the 'Creator' as obvious ?

Candide

'unner, on what evidence to you regard the 'Creator' as obvious ? '

anyone who thinks rationally knows that creation does not just happen. It requires a Creator. Laws of the universe require a Law Maker. Anyone denying these basic facts needs much faith.

@runner

So who or what created the Creator?

Pete

plantagenet

'So who or what created the Creator? '

that is where reasoned faith comes plantagenet. Our Creator has always been. This is the opposite to the chance faith presented by alternative views.

Thanks runner

Your response of "Our Creator has always been." introduces the concept of infinite duration, that is no beginning or end.

Hence there was no creation or need for any creator.

The universe and what came before the Big Bang has simply existed forever.

Thanks again

Pete

Hi Pete,

Just to modify your statement:

' ... The universe and what came before the last Big Bang, perhaps an infinite number of times, has simply existed forever.'

Incredibly difficult to get one's head around, but a bit more sensible, if only because it dispenses with any irrelevant recourse to the supernatural.

Joe

PETE..<<..Your response of "Our Creator has always been." introduces the concept of infinite duration, that is no beginning or end.>>

pete/LETS PRESUME..yoU RECALL..your science[energy..cant be created..Nor..DESTROYED*]..DO YOU RECALL..THAT SCIENCE FACT?

energy..always..is
AND..energy..always must be..[WILL BE..[BUT IN DIFFERENT SHAPES/MASS]

energy=mass//TIMES..the speed of lighT/TIMES..THE speed OF LIGHT..
etc..[I KNOW THAT DONt..SOUND RIGHT..but..thatS WHAT E=MC2 MEAns

<<..Hence there was no creation or need for any creator.>>

GOD IS THE GRAND/SUM TOTAL...of all E
no..creator=no E

<<..The universe and what came before the Big Bang
has simply existed forever...>>..BUT AS Different..form..of E]=mass]..but,,yes..IT MUST..have..been..BEFORE[and AS e CANT..BE..created..nor destroyed..it will aLWAYS SO BE..

just E..and we

CHEERS..now you knOW

TOO EASy?

OG,

The nub of your spurious argument is:

'GOD IS THE GRAND/SUM TOTAL...of all E'.

Prove it.

Good luck.

To get back to topic: fundamentalism is not all that uncommon. Some of us Marxists have been guilty of it, which is why the indignation of participants in SBS's program, 'Persons of Interest', makes me laugh. OF COURSE some of us were intent on, somehow, overthrowing the 'system'. OF COURSE, we hoped to raise up a Perfect New Society out of the ruins of the Reactionary Old Society, a bit like expecting that all the bits of a Boeing-737 thrown up in the air would come down assembled into a perfect Boeing-737, but a New, Revolutionary one.

But a hundred years of experience of Marxist or Bolshevik-type Socialism has shown how idiotic those dreams were, at least to some of us. With it, comes the realisation that ALL Utopias, Socialist, Salafist, ultra-Christian, BJP-Hinduist, are all inevitably fascist, each requiring the extermination - regrettably perhaps - of entire populations, of non-believers, out-groups, reactionaries, whatever.

As David notes, most self-erceptively,

'A fundamentalist clings to rigid opinions like a drowning sailor does to a life raft.'

And that ' .... they fight anyone who dares to suggest that their fundamentalism could be fundamentally wrong.'

Yes indeed, they do.

He is right that

'A fundamentalist holds to the view that what I know and think is the immutable truth. They block out other views!

'Whereas a thinking, educated person believes that the more I learn the less I know!'

I hope that for the rest of my life, I will follow David's Rule, and question dogmatic views, give room for them, but hold them up to the light of reason, evidence, reality and truth.

Thank you, David,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe

Curiously, no-one has mentioned one of the more prevalent and powerful manifestations of fundamentalism in Western society today, which is Green fundamentalism, a form which refuses to recognise any alternative to its world-view and brooks no opposition to its attempts, regardless of majority public opinion or scientific evidence, to enforce its policies.

Tonyo

Fundamentalism is a psychological problem that is indicative of people who psychologists call "absolutist personalities."

People with absolutist personalities see moral questions entirely in black and white, 50 shades of grey can not exist. Moral quandaries and moral precedence are concepts which they are unable to focus on or think about. They choose an ideology which to them answers all of life's questions, and they refuse to recognise any contradictions or faults in their belief system. They are characterised by extreme intolerance and a total disregard for any idea of at least trying to understand a non believers point of view.

They inhabit both the right and left side of politics, religions, environmentalism, and have extreme positions on racial theories, both for and against.

Interestingly, the concept of the "Absolutist personality" was discovered by a German Jew psychologist between WW1 & WW2, and he found by experiment that "absolutist personalities" are very prevalent in the German population. This discovery prompted him to pack his family up and move to the USA before Hitler even got into power.

LEGO, yes those Jewish "Scientists" invented a lot of bulldust between, during and after the war didn't they?
Hitler wasn't a fundamentalist, he saw the world very much in shades of grey, he was capable of changing his mind, understanding other points of view and learning from his mistakes. Hitler wasn't a demagogue or a psychopath and the Nazis weren't reactionaries they were nihilistic revolutionaries who used terror and state power in exactly the same way as their contemporaries in the U.S.S.R.
Goebbels described Hitler's "act" in detail in his diaries describing it as a perfect composition of oratory and physical movement, giving a fiery five minute speech then turning on your heel and leaving the auditorium was a studied and rehearsed piece of theatre, not a display of fundamentalist mania like the Tatbir.
C'mon people, give "Fascism" a rest, none of you know anything much about it and it's a very poor analogue for genuine fundamentalism of the type discussed in the article. Parroting the self serving analysis of Anti Fascists and Jews is lazy and does nothing to inform or advance anyone's understanding of fundamentalism, there's no such thing as an absolutist personality, there are only varying degrees of belief and conviction.

dear JOE..i tried googling..for some pictures..[BECAUSE TYPING /GETS MESSY][DUE TO A virus..]

ANYHOW....I TRIED GOOGLING..to try to show you
the amassing visions..in the heavens..[IT WAS INSPIRED TO me only a few days ago]..basically..it was a math rationalisation..of a number to the power OF TEN..

anyhow..by the power number..they wENT FROM a man..FROM ONE METER..away
out to the universe..[revealing..on THE WAY..amazing visions[they then inverted..the power of..factor..INTo minutia..from the guys face..to his eye..haiR..to a skin cell..INTO CELL ATOm..etc down to string[theory]..

please..THINK*..ONLY..but A FEW YEARS..ago..we 'SAW'..a live atom[we cant even now as yet..'see'..the photons electrons..PROTONS ETC ETC[BUT IN TIME WE WILL..see ever smaller and further MINUTIA AND GIGANTICA..

only a fundamental [CLOSE MINDED]..atheist
COULD Deny..a higher unseen cause..

clearly..all=energy..thats beyond dispute
energy..cant be created..Nor..DESTROYED..E=eternal/E=omnipresent/E=ENegy/

damm..the visions/PICTURES..refuse to be found on google
SO..lets try..words
http://www.williamjames.com/History/ENLIGHT.htm

"I hope that for the rest of my life, I will follow David's Rule, and question dogmatic views, give room for them, but hold them up to the light of reason, evidence, reality and truth," says Joe.

If only this view could be embraced by much of the world, Joe, it would pave the way for a better, more reflective, rational world.

Of course the fundamentalists who are running our world: the clerics, the capitalists, the ultra-nationalists, the wealthy and the politicians don't want this to happen given that fundamentalists are so easy to herd!

To question is the answer for our world's ills as the Greek Philosophers showed us thousands of years ago!

We are slow learners!

Hearing DavidG pontificating long about the evils of fundamentalism evokes a strange feeling --and I can't quite find the words to describe it --but it's rather like the feeling you'd get hearing Jack the Ripper bemoan street violence.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Hi David,

SPQR does have a point - perhaps all of us tend towards that dogmatic, 'I'm-right-you're-wrong' approach on our pet subjects, an approach which is not all that far from fundamentalism :)

Been there, done that !

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Loudmouth, I think you're right. It is much easier to identify fundamentalist tendencies in religious/political worldviews you disagree with, than those you agree with. The real paradox is that the term “fundamentalist” easily becomes a term of abuse that fundamentalists can hurl at their opponents as another excuse for failing to engage with the substance of what those opponents actually believe.

One hallmark of fundamentalists is that they find it impossible to believe that anyone can hold opinions different from their own. Differences are attributed to failure to say what one truly thinks (the silent majority agree with me but political correctness forbids them from saying so); sinister or venal motives (“Climate scientist X supports/challenges the theory of AGW because s/he is chasing research dollars/in the pay of big business”); or external manipulation (people only voted for Rudd/Abbott because the ABC/Murdoch media told them to).

'The universe and what came before the Big Bang has simply existed forever. '

plantagenet

your faith that such order come from such chaos is amazing.

I prefer to side with Einstein who wrote "Éveryone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

G'day runner

Are Einstein was a simpleton. What did he know?

BTW. I bless thee, my son.

Poyda

Before the "Big Bang" there was no time.
Hawkins

'Before the "Big Bang" there was no time.
Hawkins

yep Bazz shows that even when scientist (if you class Hawkins as such) make idiotic statements they are idiotic.

Hawkins is much more on the ball than Einstein.

'Hawkins is much more on the ball than Einstein. '

plantagenet,

actually I suspect that have both faced their Maker by now.

All puffed out runner? :)

Naturally I speak of living wheelchair extrordinaire Stephen Hawking, who is considerably more on the ball than Prof Einstein, who is dead.

Scientifically proved by the Holy Wiki of my Internet calling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Fundamentally Yours

Pete

Runner,

'Before the "Big Bang" there was no time.'

And if you stub your toe on a rock in a forest, you can't hear yourself scream. If someone else did it, it didn't actually hurt either.

Why only one Big Bang ? Why not an infinity of them, as the Universe explodes, expands and then contracts back to a single gravitational point, then another Big Bang, and so on ?

So the bits that make us have been all over the Universe already, many times. Scary.

Joe

YES JOE..befoRE..THE..expansion..[big bang]..was a process/time..of contraction..THEN TIME 'STOPS'..AS THE GREAT MOMENTUM..INWARDS..[BACK INTO togetherness..[the at-ONE-MEANT]..halts..

A FINAL 'CHANGE..OF STATE'
[THink..like as water..tURNS INTO ICE..and the 'ice' expands..INVERTING THE GREAT INVERSION.]

ITS ALSO..CALLED THE ..pregnant pause..[and the notHINGNESS..
OR RATHER THE ALLNESS,,waits..in nuthingness]..THEN..the words
UTTERED BY THE collective/one*ness..'let there be light'..[BANG]..

AND THE EXPANSION..begins with A BANG
the light the universe..EmergES..from..the deep.
[ITS A PROCESS..much like BREATHING..but its an osmosis..AS THE MATTER

life logic/falls from the heavens
just like all the other times

'Why only one Big Bang ? Why not an infinity of them, as the Universe explodes, expands and then contracts back to a single gravitational point, then another Big Bang, and so on ? '

Loudmouth

nice theory but takes a lot more faith to believe such complexity comes from so many chaotic events. About as much chance of a snowman evolving I would suggest.

Runner,

I'm certainly no Physicist but I do believe in gravity. I can't understand the notion of multiple centres of gravity - to my naïve mind, surely, eventually, there must be only one centre, where everything - eventually - gets sucked into ?

And then it go BANG !

FUNDIE POLICing..now theres a revealation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOsN-P5abVg
a message to our police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1t9xBe0wPw
THE TRUE DUTY OF A JURY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7nqdV7wV2k

Hi Jay of Melbourne, the internationally honoured German physicist Max Plank had an meeting with Adolph Hitler where he pleaded with Hitler to stop persecuting German Jewish scientists like the amazing Fritz Haber, who's patriotism could not be disputed, and who's contributions to Science and to the German economy through his discoveries and inventions was also beyond question. Plank remarked angrily that Hitler replied to his arguments with a fuzzy logic entailing numerous moral absolutes. A belief in moral absolutes is the characteristic of an absolutist personality.

I am not a psychiatrist, but I would suggest that Hitler's determination to advance Germany at the cost of millions of lives, and the production line extermination of men, women and children who he considered his enemies, is also the mark of a true psychopath. A psychopath has no feelings of empathy for anyone but himself. Interestingly, psychopaths have a poor sense of smell.

The purpose of your strange post escapes me. And your point was ......?

Loudmouth,
The bang, expansion, slowdown, contraction, bang again theory has
been I believe abandoned.
The universe is expanding at an increasing speed and will never contract.
Eventually only the stars in our galaxy will be visible.
At least as far as I can understand that is the current theory.

we live..in the bacK-PRESURE..OF THE LAST BIG BANg
the so called expansion..is RELITIVE TO THE BACK COMPRESSIon

AS THE big bang expANDS..so too everything expands
[think..of liKE..A BALLOON WITH HAPPY BIRTHDAY..pRINTED/ON it expands as a balloon is inflated..THE WORDS PRINTED ON IT EXPAND ACCORDING AS THE PRESURE of the balloon expands it

at the present time..Water is WATER
but IN THE NEXT PHASe..OF THE EXPANTIOn..matter accORDingly shall change STATE/too..ROCK SHALL BECOME LIKE WATER..water shall become like air is today..[IN AFFECT THEN..THE CHANGES OF STATE]wILL SIMPLY limit the limits of enERGIES capacity..to change STATE

IN THE BEGInning..the universe was like ''THE DEEP'
THAT DEEP NOW IS CALLED 'outerspace'..ITS NOW A VACUUM

as matter further disipitates..into iTS NEXT STATE
it BECOMES AETHER...till the inversion..[big collAPSE]
WHEN WE DRAW TOGETHER..ONCE AGAin..energy/CHANging state/as wE GO...
TILL WE Once again pass by this material state[but briefly]..BEFORE the 'deep'/void YET AGAIn..recieve its instrUCTION/TO CHANGE STATE.

'Runner,

'I'm certainly no Physicist but I do believe in gravity. '

Loudmouth

No one doubts gravity but how it came into existance in the first place is the question. A lot more logical that a Lawmaker put the law into place than it just appeared.

Bazz,

But surely all the bits have to slow down eventually, bumping into all that dark matter ? I don't know, is dark matter subject to gravity or does it just sit there ?

So much to learn, so little interest.

Joe

Ah well Loudmouth that is the question !
I saw a program fairly recently with Steven Hawkins and a number of
other cosmologists in which that is the latest theory.
There is one unresolved matter.
In the first few microseconds of the big bang the laws of physics appear to be different.
That needs to be resolved.

Regarding the accelerating dispersal it was thought to be effect of antimatter. I think that was it.

This article tries valiantly to define the word "fundamentalism". But, in the end, he only shows how it has become like any other nebulous, ideological catch phrase, like 'peace' or 'freedom'. It means whatever you want it to mean in a context. It becomes just any other emotionally laden adjective.

I think Foyle summed it up best in saying it is a word used when attempting to denigrate. If someone's belief or ideology is different to yours, and you don't like them, you call them a fundamentalist. In the McArthur era, that's how they used the word 'communist'. You want to smear someone or some group, then call them communist. But the word has no tight definition, at least not in the way it is usually used, even in this article.

The article tries to define fundamentalists as those adhering to certain principles or doctrines. But all people do that to a degree. 

It tries to relate the definition to violence. But over the millennia, people have always found all manner of reasons to be violent, or not to be, as they so choose. It's hardly a tight definition.

It talks about fundamentalists not being 'open' to consider alternative views. This also is vague and nebulous. He gives the examples of Christian 'fundamentalists' who argue against abortion, gay marriage, and evolution, and thus make an influence on society. Yet by and large, this is what these people do. They use arguments. They use their intellect. They're not using violence. They use their brains to counter the arguments and views of their intellectual opponents. 

Creationists in America were famous in the 1980s for filling university auditoriums with lively and vigorous creation/evolution debates. Their debating skills were so sharp that evolutionists today like the atheist fundamentalist Dawkins (in using the adjective, I reveal that I don't care much for him or his views) are afraid to debate with creationists.

Burrowes, presumably doesn't like Christians, so he smears them with the word 'fundamentalist'. I thank him for attempting to define the word. But all it serves is to reveal his own prejudices.

Playing semantic games won't get fundamentalists off the hook, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Burrowes, presumably doesn't like Christians, so he smears them with the word 'fundamentalist'. I thank him for attempting to define the word. But all it serves is to reveal his own prejudices<<

It takes some dedication to ignore the gist of the article - which is that some aspects of fundamentalist behaviour are decidedly anti-social - and to mount instead what is essentially a flawed attack on the word itself.

You are of course absolutely right when you say that a word "means whatever you want it to mean in a context". Some obvious examples are "conservative", "liberal" etc., the meaning of each of which depends entirely on its context. But surely that means that taking the word out of context and pounding it into the pavement with faux-logic...

>>The article tries to define fundamentalists as those adhering to certain principles or doctrines. But all people do that to a degree.<<

...simply proves the point.

In my view, the piece is remarkably even-handed in its labelling of particular behaviours and actions as evidence of the destructive potential of fundamentalism, going to the effort of highlighting its manifestations in a number of different religious contexts. To pick on the fact that he includes Christianity is unnecessarily defensive, bordering on paranoid.

The two key messages in the article, surely, are i) that the dangerous type of fundamentalism is where "contrary views will usually either be dismissed out-of-hand or resisted with considerable vigour and, often, violence", and ii) that it is the "...intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious."

Paranoia aside for a moment, do you have an issue with either or both of these assertions?

I have an issue with denigration and name calling. Apart from this utility, the word holds little meaning or value. This probably explains why it appeals to you.

That's just being grumpy, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I have an issue with denigration and name calling. Apart from this utility, the word holds little meaning or value. This probably explains why it appeals to you.<<

We all have problems with denigration and name-calling.

But the words "fundamentalist" and "fundamentalism" can only be seen as negative (denigrating etc.) in the context in which they are used, as you yourself kindly point out.

In my view, the author has been extremely careful to avoid using them in a denigrating, name-calling mode. If you choose to offer an alternative reading, please feel free to do so.

Just lashing out - "[t]his probably explains why it appeals to you" - is entirely petty, and not worthy of you, Dan S de Merengue. Surely you can do better than that?

I'll tell you why I'm grumpy.

I come to OLO hoping to read something stimulating, meaningful, or original. Burrowes' article wasn't really any of that. His dislike for violence is well intentioned, but since this is something we'd virtually all prefer, it goes without saying.

I don't come to OLO to see people engage in name calling or denigration. I thought these pages were ideally supposed to promote mutual understanding.

Burrowes struggles to arrive at a meaningful, working definition for "fundamentalism". Yet he lumps together violent extremists with reasonably minded Christians putting arguments against evolution, abortion, and gay marriage. For some reason, to him they're all "fundamentalists". Such false association is little more than a policy or tactic of smearing the name of people with whom you disagree.

I've recently been travelling in Africa, and visited a refugee camp shared by peaceful people of both Muslim and Christian backgrounds, fleeing from violent separatists wanting to impose their version of a strict Islamic state on a corner of Nigeria. These I’d call extremists.

Yet arguments against evolution, abortion, and gay marriage are part of our current social debate. There are highly intelligent, educated and experienced advocates on both sides of each debate. And Christians here often find themselves aligned with secular advocates posing similar arguments, as the issues are quite bare: evolution does have serious problems; abortion as currently practiced is a form of legally sanctioned homicide; and many gays themselves offer reasons for not wanting the definition of marriage changed. To lump together thinking people putting forward intelligent debate under the same banner with violent extremists is a nonsense.

As for your name calling, grumpy I might agree with. But in your last few posts, you've also called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’. If you really believed all that, I don’t why you’re always so keen to engage with me. I’m not so keen (despite the sustenance of Matthew 5:11,12.)

Unless I get some clear and concrete retractions of these statements, you’re welcome to engage in any discussions without me.

Good day to you, Sir.

An elegant retreat, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Good day to you, Sir.<<

As ever, I shall miss you, principally for your apparently sincere efforts to defend the young-earth creationist stance, and turn a blind eye to evolution. That takes a special and rare dedication to an idea.

But I am a little surprised, given the preternaturally thick skin on display in defence of creationism, that you leave the field so quickly. Hurt feelings are not normally sufficient justification for withdrawal - the board would be empty in minutes if that were so.

>>... in your last few posts, you've also called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’.<<

Against such dire accusations, a little defence of my own is in order.

Nowhere have I ever called you a liar. Nor have I ever called you a child abuser - where on earth did that come from?

I did highlight the article's assessment that it is an "intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist", which is a view with which I concur. But I did not attribute this to you personally.

The fact that you made this latter assumption does indicate at least a modicum of paranoia, wouldn't you agree?

>>If you really believed all that, I don’t why you’re always so keen to engage with me.<<

Leaving aside the fact that I don't believe "all that", I am keen to engage with you, as you put it, because you are clearly an intelligent and well-read individual. Two facts that I find at odds with your creationist stance, and therefore quite intriguing.

Have a great day.

fun-di/mentalist..deFINE

The term "fundamentalism" is sometimes applied to signify a counter-cultural fidelity to a principle or set of principles, as in the pejorative term "market fundamentalism" applied to an exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems.

According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of "economic fundamentalist rhetoric" are "dogmatic" assertions and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist.

Retired professor in religious studies Roderick Hindery first lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism.[28] They include "vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise."

Then, negative aspects are analyzed, such as psychological attitudes, occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and in some cases literalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors.

Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind.[7]

Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists—at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques.

Psychology has been described as a "hub science",[8] with psychological findings linking to research and perspectives from the social sciences, natural sciences, medicine, and the humanities, such as philosophy.

While psychological knowledge is often applied to the assessment and treatment of mental health problems,

it is also directed towards understanding
and solving problems..in many different spheres of human activity.

but not bloggers apparently.

I'm not concerned about hurt feelings. I like that OLO is robust. Yet I come here seeking discussion or interaction that might be meaningful. Name calling and slander doesn't fit the bill.

In just your last few posts aimed at me, you've called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15642#272168

After the November article by Bill Muehlenberg on Australian Broadcasting Corporation bias, I gave further example of the type of abuse and bigotry perpetrated by this tax payer funded monolith. 

I probably should take some of the blame, as I should have known better than to give you such an open door. For in your usual contrariness, you were quick to jump on board. 

anyhow..re earlier mention..of 'dark matter'
the search tERM=wimps..seems the latest..THINKING
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=WIMPS+NEUTRINOS

lest we forget..they [wimps]..[antimatter][repel]
are fundamental..To the MATTER..and matter clumps/ATTRACTS.

that said..THE previous posts have made me saD
such giants of mind..yet wimps..AT Heart..I SO WOULD LIKE TO DEFEND SOME OF THE CREATIONIST CONCEPTS..but one thing is sure//scientists never done the big bang..[thats my fundamentalist base...its NOT MEN..NOW WHAT?]

the fundamentals are just to 'neat'..for fluke or chance
energy..becomes mass..mass changes state..its energy..DOING WHAT ENERGY DOES..change state....MEN LIVE..men die..we build..WE DESTROY..seems energy can do anYTHING..but change minds.

from
http://www.blacklistednews.com/We_Need_to_Talk_About_the_Sheeple/32170/0/0/0/Y/M.html

Can any argument be sincere if we approach it from the assumption that the discussion is already over and that at this point our role is to educate others? Who are we to judge who is “awake” and “asleep”, anyway? When we call someone a “Sheeple” we deny their inner life and their humanity; that they have deliberated important matters yet have arrived at conclusions different from our own. It’s an inability to accept that someone might have their own reasons for feeling or thinking something, and a refusal to accept that nobody came and put us in charge.

Particularly vexing are those moments in which we fling labels like “asleep” or “sheeple” at those who disagree with us while we are supposedly warning them about “the elites.” There’s an irony there that seems to escape unnoticed, one evocative of Nietzsche’s warning to those who fight monsters.

What is “awake” anyway, and how does one become qualified to divide humanity into the wheat and the chaff? There is an allure to simplistic assumptions like these. Is “asleep” a term that we should dare apply to others based on one or two issues upon which we find disagreement? By doing so, we close ourselves to both finding common ground as well as learning ways in which we might be “asleep” as well, for surely we’re all “asleep” in our own ways. All of us can sometimes be found happily munching grass in the sheeple pasture. I do it and you do it, whether we know it or not.

Oh, please, Dan S de Merengue.

>>In just your last few posts aimed at me, you've called me: ‘liar’, ‘child abuser’, ‘motivated by fear’, and ‘paranoid’.<<

I was pointing out that a third party was - in context - reasonably justified in using that language towards a different third party. To imagine that as a personal attack on yourself is simply perverse.

But by accusing me of dastardly dealing at least you have managed to divert our conversation away from the facts at issue here, which I suppose is a victory of sorts for you.

>>The two key messages in the article, surely, are i) that the dangerous type of fundamentalism is where "contrary views will usually either be dismissed out-of-hand or resisted with considerable vigour and, often, violence", and ii) that it is the "...intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious."<<

Do you disagree with either of these statements?

Pericles,
Let's be clear about what you said:
"And it is not a particularly controversial to describe the teaching of lies to impressionable minds as a form of abuse." (Pericles, 19/11/2013)

Do you stand by your words? Am I, in teaching Biblical truths, a liar and a child abuser?

Of course I do, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Do you stand by your words?<<

But, as you pointed out earlier, context is critical.

>>It means whatever you want it to mean in a context.<<

So let's have another look at your concerns.

>>Pericles, Let's be clear about what you said: "And it is not a particularly controversial to describe the teaching of lies to impressionable minds as a form of abuse."

First of all, let's agree on the substance of my observation. I assume that you would heartily agree that teaching lies to children is a form of abuse? You might like to answer yes or no to that before moving on...

Yes?

Ok.

So by a process of elimination, this is where you feel aggrieved:

>>Am I, in teaching Biblical truths, a liar and a child abuser?<<

If you are teaching "truths", then of course you are not a liar. But by qualifying it with the word biblical, you are muddying the waters. So let's revisit that all-important context...

>>In order to believe it as you do, it is necessary to apply a literal interpretation to the Bible. In order to take the words of the bible literally, it is necessary to accept its religious foundations. In order to accept its religious foundations, you need faith. Ergo, young earth creationism cannot be described as factual.<<

Unless you can find a discontinuity in the logic of the above, then we can move on to the conclusions that you find so distasteful:

>>Therefore it was entirely accurate to describe teaching young-earth creationism as promulgating lies - that is, passing off a faith-based belief as factual.<<

Since the article did not refer to you, there is no way you can accuse me of describing you as a liar, or a child abuser.

If you now tell me that you do indulge in the practice of teaching young-earth creationism as fact (as opposed to proffering a theory for discussion), then you should examine whether you are, in essence, attempting to influence young minds towards your own, factually baseless, beliefs.

It's that straightforward, really.

Genesis is describing historical fact. This I accept thoroughly and wholeheartedly (as you knew.) I am a parent and school teacher. I believe in transmitting truth to the next generation.

Are you calling me a liar and child abuser? (Apparently you are, but I just want to give one more chance to clarify.) 

In think it might be time for me to be charitable, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Genesis is describing historical fact. This I accept thoroughly and wholeheartedly (as you knew.) I am a parent and school teacher. I believe in transmitting truth to the next generation. Are you calling me a liar and child abuser?<<

As a gesture from the deeply forgiving side of my nature, I would only accuse you of being deeply mistaken in your beliefs.

Primarily because thus far you have not confessed to teaching young-earth creationism as fact. Instead, you dissemble with generalizations, hoping that I might react by calling you a liar and a child abuser, simply so that you can react with righteous indignation.

And in doing so, once again, avoid the real questions..

You accept Genesis as "describing historical fact".

I understand that.

But do you, specifically, teach Genesis as fact to your pupils? Yes or no?

You believe in "transmitting truth to the next generation". But is that truth the fact that "this is what I believe", or do you teach it as "this is actually what trooly-rooly happened"?

If you do, in actual fact, stand up in front of a bunch of naive souls and instruct them to believe in young-earth creationism, then I fear that you are indeed leading them astray.

But frankly, I don't believe for one moment that you do. Kids these days are far less gullible than they were when you were their age.

Pericles,
So to be clear, when you say creationists are promulgating lies, you didn't really mean that, or what?

To say that I'm mistaken is one thing. To say that I'm lying (intentionally saying something false) is something of a completely different nature.

I'm often mistaken. Sometimes the person I'm speaking to is mistaken. It doesn't mean one of us is lying. I find it hard to understand why someone of your intelligence can't see what a difference that is, and why such slander or mistrust is so contrary to any type of useful discussion. I cannot speak meaningfully with someone who thinks I'm lying. I don't know why he'd want to talk with me if he did.

I don't expect people to always agree with me. Difference is part of the beauty of life. That's why we come here to OLO, to interact with people of other viewpoints. But It's rude to accuse the other person of lying simply because you see things differently.

I wasn't trying to generalise. I don't know how more clearly I can say it. Genesis describes factual history. It's part of the Biblical narrative. As a parent and teacher I constructively aim to impart such truth to the younger (or any) generation.

Your questions in your last post seem to have come from a spirit of genuine enquiry. However, to answer them requires discussion, which requires levels of common decency and respect. 

So far recently, you've called me 'liar', 'child abuser', motivated by fear 'like the Taliban', 'paranoid', 'perverse' and 'grumpy'. I think I have reason to be grumpy, and little reason to want to talk to you at all. You say you have a problem with name calling (?!?). Yes, I think you do. I know I'm very busy at work next week. But I'll hang around on this thread a little longer and see if you can clean your tongue. 

Meaningful conversation requires mutual respect and a belief that the other is speaking in good faith.

The terminology is clearly important here, Dan S de Merengue. As is context.

>>Pericles, So to be clear, when you say creationists are promulgating lies, you didn't really mean that, or what?<<

I am saying that creationists may well believe that what they are saying is the "truth". In much the same way that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are convinced that what they believe happened that day is the "truth". No amount of evidence to the contrary, or indeed contrary to their baseline (God's word for the creationist, CIA malfeasance in the case of the conspiracy theorist) will persuade them to examine their position objectively. Or, to be even more exact, what the vast majority of their peers believe to be "objectively".

So yes, we do have a problem if you instruct young minds to accept your version of the truth as, let's call it, a universal truth. If you are simply offering an alternative approach, justified by your personal belief that the Bible is some kind of accurate historical narrative, then "liar" is indeed inappropriate. You are simply stating what you understand to be true, which falls outside the ambit of "intentionally saying something that is false". Because in your own lights, it is not a falsehood.

But of course there's much more to it than that, is there not.

The original discussion (oh, so long ago) was to do with the force-feeding of Biblical-truth-based views to impressionable minds. While you may see this as perfectly normal behaviour, based on your personal conviction that it is true (i.e., not lying), it is equally reasonable that the majority of people, who do not in fact share that conviction, find it of concern.

As to the strong language involved, I believe that I covered that in some detail in the same post that you found offensive.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15642#272168

Instead of personalizing the objective observations, as you have, it might take us further if you address the issues, accepting that I am engaging in the discussion in good faith.

So to speak.

Pericles,
I appreciate you offering to discuss matters in good faith. I hope we can establish some base rules for discussion, in particular, that it's rude to accuse the other of lying simply when one sees a difference of opinion. And that name calling is not conducive to productive conversation. 

That, hopefully out of the way, we might have a chance to address issues more interesting. For me, the main issue was Burrowes poor attempt at defining what he calls "fundamentalism". I think the term, or at least the way he uses it, is too loose and woolly to be useful or meaningful. I think generally the term is too vague. Like 'peace' or 'freedom', what is he even talking about? For example, if I said 'Australia is at peace right now', that phrase could be interpreted a dozen different ways. Perhaps you have a more clear or tight definition of 'fundamentalism'. If so, fine. But the way the word is often used, I would not apply to myself or any Christians in circles in which I mix.

If the issue is to do with 'force feeding truth onto impressionable minds', then we're all guilty of that. We all want our kids educated. We send our kids to school and teach them at home, imparting truths we believe are enlightening and empowering.

And I take issue with some things in your last post. Twice you spoke of being guided by 'the majority'. Majority opinion isn't the basis for how I conduct my life. My primary school teacher used to say, 'If the majority of people said to put your hand in the fire would you do it?' Of course not, was the correct response.

And you used the words 'objectively' and 'objective' to apply to yourself, as if you're somehow seeing matters on some higher 'objective' plain than myself. Yet I don't see you or anyone else as being truly objective. We all have our leanings and biases.

If you see any real merit in Burrowes article, then good luck to you. I couldn't. 

The author, Robert Burrows, is clearly onto something.. Yes fundamentalists stick rigidly to a doctrine and are closed to any other view. The question that Robert attempts to give an answer to is “Why?”: Why do some people behave in this way? The reason he offers is simple: “Psychologically, a fundamentalist is a person with an intense fear of being 'wrong'; that is, an intense fear of being judged to hold the 'wrong' view or to engage in the 'wrong' behaviour.”

Foyle objects to the very notion of “secular fundamentalist”. “A secularist in a person who seeks evidence to support his or her philosophy and only forms a firm view when the evidence provides strong, almost overwhelming, support.”

Of course it doesn’t follow that a person claiming to be a secularist actually practices what they preach, just as is the case with those who claim to adhere to other ideologies and religions.

For example, last year we learned that the man who penned "The God Delusion” and has been so vociferous in his condemnation of Islam, HASN’T ACTUALLY READ THE QUR’AN! (see article here*)

Furthermore, according to fellow-atheist, Nathan Lean, post 9-11 “Conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling,” wrote Lean. “The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”*

In other words, a very influential group of secularists spurned their own principles in the name of secular fundamentalism

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html

s ...s an attempt to keep government religion neutral.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
In The Dawkins Delusion?, Christian theologian Alister McGrath and his wife, psychologist Joanna Collicutt McGrath, compare Richard Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."[19]

Richard Dawkins has rejected the charge of "fundamentalism," arguing that critics mistake his "passion"—which he says may match that of evangelical Christians—for an inability to change his mind. Dawkins asserts that the atheists' position is not a fundamentalism that is unable to change its mind, but is held based on the verifiable evidence; as he puts it: "The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."[30] Dawkins has stated that, unlike religious fundamentalists, he would willingly change his mind if new evidence challenged his current position.[30] Put another way, Dawkins states:

... Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by "truth". But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that ...[31]

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.

It occurred to me this is an opportunity for those atheists/ secularists to prove their credentials and demonstrate that they practice what you preach.

According to Foyle:

"I am a member of a secular, sceptical, group and I would be jumped on if I expressed, in that group, a view for which I couldn't provide strong supporting evidence."

Well being a member of such a group then you would have been well aware of Dawkin's admission. Have you or your grouped ever condemned Dawkins?

What about other active secularists? At least would you be prepared to "jump on" Dawkins. Surely, you would have presumed he had read the Qur'an given his remarks about the religion. Of course Dawkins would have been well aware that people would be assuming he was expressing an informed opinion particularly since it would be the grossest form of hypocrisy not to be doing so.

years AGO..i recall a muslim guy who dorkins refused to debate

ANYHOW..it was encyclopedic..MONUMENTAL
[DORKINS THEN WEnt to ground]..Fundamentally HE WAS/..Is A COWARD.

the fundamentals..evolve..AS OUR KNOWING GROWS

if the evolution..of mind stops..WE RISK..fundamentalism..[CLOSED Mind's]..closed minds means CLOSED HEARTS..[AND Visa versa][SO WHAT Does closed mouths mean?

anyhow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

In the 19th century the prominent scholar of Islamic revival, Jamal-al-Din al-Afgh&#257;n&#299; agreed with Darwin that life will compete with other life in order to succeed. He also believed that there was competition in the realm of ideas similar to that of nature. However, he was unwavering in his belief that God had to be the one controlling this process as a Creator.[11]

The Islamic scholar, Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, holds and defends the view that there is no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and Quran's numerous references to the emergence of life in the universe.[12] This view is also held by the scholar, Edip Yuksel.[13][14]

And Dr T.O. Shanavas in his book, Islamic Theory of Evolution: the Missing Link between Darwin and the Origin of Species, argues that there is no conflict between the Quran and the theory of evolution. [15] The Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement's view of evolution is that of universal acceptance, albeit divinely designed. The movement actively promotes god-directed "evolution".[16]

Over the course of several decades the movement has issued various publications in support of the scientific concepts behind evolution and frequently engage in promoting how it contends with religious scripture

UOG,

Since you have taken an interest in the compatibility between the Qur'an and the theory of evolution, can i recommend the following article: by Sh Nuh Ha Min Keller 'Evolution and Islam': http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

DEAR gratFUl..regarding evolution/..i am FUNDIMENTALIST*
its not what i am..but my view REGARDING THE TOPIC Of evolution.

clearLY..IN THIS AREA..both of us are fundies..[i suspect too
Regarding the existence OF CREATOR GOD..THOUGH NOT..in religion

I distrust all man MADE INSTITUTIONS[and ewspecially man made versions that imply SOME POWER OVER ME..THROUGH GOD..my fundimental position..regardING GODS Rights as creator..subvert all otHER/CLAIMS.

LIKE EVOLUTION..happens within out body..every minute of every day
[ONE IN TWO HUNDRED..cell divisions HAS AN ERROR..thus..we KNOW..micro evolution is fact..

but wHERE..[AS THE ARTICLE says]..that everyday..fact..of evolution..is presented as proof of macro evolution..thats where the extremist..[fundamentalists]mindset..has become perverted..BY THOSE WITH CLOSED MINDS TO GOD CREATING..and god HIMSELF

the godless need PROOF OF NO GOD..SO THEY SAY..we evolved from mud bubbles,..[JUST AS SOME HOLY TEXTS as well..SAy]..BUT THIS Debate has been spoken of many time..and only those driven to know the truth dare look..at other fundamentalist Position.

I WASNT RAISED A Believer..in f Act I THOUGHT MENS Science was god
but i soon realized the extremist/Atheist..fundamentalism..of macrO-evolution..by chance..THE LIE..BUT OTHER EXTREMISTS..MAY CHOSE TO BELIEVE THE DECEIVERS

this realm,..belongs TO SATAN
i leave the..FUNDAMENTAL-extremists..HAVE THE Little faith they have
[GOD ALLOWS SATAN..HIS FREE-will as mucH AS HE ALLOWS OURS]..ITS SAID IN THE TEXt..that god makes insane..THOSE He wishes to destroy[THIS IS AN Error..in mans books..not the messengers message.]

no man made tHING IS ALLOWED PERFECTION*..[ever]
WE ARE All..Evolving..away..from childish error..[FUNDAMENTALISM].

BUT FIRST WE MUST SEE
WE EACH HAVE OUR fundamentalist BIAS..SOME LINE we refuse to cross.

I suspect you may be getting a little over-excited, grateful.

>>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.<<

Ignoring for a moment the references to "Richards" (Keef, perhaps?) and "Mein Kauf" (which I suppose could be a tome on the delights of German department stores), your conclusions on the impact of literature are badly undercooked.

"Mein Kampf" was a book written by Adolf Hitler outlining his worldview, and not, as you might suppose, his shopping list. I confess that I have not read it, either in its original German, nor (except for a few juicy excerpts), in English. Despite this handicap, I have never doubted the power that it exerted on countless millions of Germans during the 1930s and into the 40s. The evidence of this book's influence can be seen in the untimely deaths of sixty-plus million people.

To claim, as you might if you use the same logic you apply to Mr "Richards", that this handicap renders my view of the evil visited upon the world by Mr Hitler's book invalid, seems flimsy, to say the least.

Incidentally, on the possibly related subject of Richard Dawkins, in my view he is an individual, and entitled to hold the views that he holds. Occasionally - such as on the topic of atheism, where we share a belief in the absence of a deity - our views overlap. However, in much the same way that all christians believe in God, but only some believe this gives them the right to molest choirboys, I do not approve of everything he says.

Generalizing from the particular is always a dangerous sport.

Pericles,

Foyle defines a secularist as "a person who seeks evidence to support his or her philosophy and only forms a firm view when the evidence provides strong, almost overwhelming, support.”

Dawkins has formed a firm view on Islam without looking at the evidence. You are saying there is no problem in this. I'm saying this is gross hypocrisy and you have a fundamentalist mentality. Why? You are supporting Dawkin's analogy with Hitler. You support his approach which is to infer the teachings of the Islam from the actions of a few terrorists, rather than examine the actual teachings of Islam. Clearly, this is indicative of (as Burrowes put it) someone who fears being proven wrong in their world-view.

"For the fundamentalist, there is no room to consider views that are at variance with their accepted doctrine and contrary views will usually either be dismissed out-of-hand or resisted with considerable vigour and, often, violence." (Burrowes)

OUG, am i a fundamentalists? Well unlike Dawkins (and presumably Pericles and Foyle) I was an atheist who actually looked at the evidence. If they want to challenge my faith then they should provide evidence that the Prophet was a liar and/or the Qur'aan has been corrupted since its revelation. After-all, I'm relying on the integrity of the Prophet, and the thousands around him, as well as the integrity of the Qur'an itself.

If a secularist cannot refute these assertions, then to be true to their principles and before passing judgement about about whether the actions of terrorists reflects the teachings of Islam, they are obliged to read the Qur'aan and the teachings of the Prophet. Let them provide an explanation of why the Qur'aan is not itself a miracle (i.e. provide a coherent explanation of the origins the Qur'an that supports their worldview).

This is far from being a fundamentalist position. It is open and transparent for anyone who is willing to take up the challenge.

So Pericles, instead of making not-so-subtle insinuations in support of Dawkins worldview, practice what you preach and actually look at the evidence.

its funny..'to write just ONE LINE LIKE IT
[when the messenger..may*/peace be upon them all/..in the main..simply SPAKE IT]

ANYwho..as my life ebbs away..IN DIBS..and drabs..im reduced in bodily functions..to the basics..the fundamentals..if you will..[whatever THAT ENTRAILS.]

its said..that we may Assume..[KNOW]..the basics[BAA-SIC*s]....OF A PERSON..BY THEIR WORKS..here we are reduced to words..but thats ok by me..[words have long held associations with me..i never bothered reading the whiningS..of mine camph..for reason..i seen the fruits]

I SIMPLY HAVE NO DESIRE..TO commune with those 'in-spirit' [IRRITANTS][irate-anTS]....THAT INSPIRED..THE BOOK..having seen the fruit

its much the same re dorkins..[or RICH-hARD..as some presume to call 'him']..its well that..he thinks he is the anitichrist..TOO..for even our beloved brother/christ..would be anti..much OF what those called in his same..presume as his will.

my MINE CAMPH..lies mainly..in the words wrote over time..in this forum..my..guides recorded words=meiN CAMPH..has its fun-di-menials..as much as fund-a-mental OCCUPATIONS..obsessions/revelations truths and DELUSIONS..[just as any]..of the flesh..[and IN spirit]..find to their eventual CREDIT..AND SHAME...When in gods good time the truth or falsity..of our works..[OR RATHER WHO..INSPIRED THEM..are adjudged.

we all..have within us..greater greatness..than we reveal..by our works..

every work/deed act..began with good intentions..[but].. because..these are the reflection/Realms..[OF DIVISION AND decision/Derision..death..and delusion..[ie satans realms]..EVERY GOOD MUST be balanced with an equal/but opposing karmic balance.

YET..no deed is un-noted..[unnoticed/unrecorded]..no wish wished for that god cannot meet..equaly..and/fairly upon us/all..we could live..the lifes fundamentals..simply..[LIKE..the beasts..or even more so..like the FLORA..or retard even more servile]

we could keep to simple/fundamentals..or..reach for that beyond that need of the beast..or the base wants OF THE PLANt..or even the symbiosis..oF quality..OF THE EARTHY DUSTS..bUT THE WHIM..OF passing/TIME..has done as all of mans invention..has seen be done..and has expired..[for this man'S WILL]....

the feigned..professed/ignorance..of those..others[of those called iNTO..the person-hood..of manhood]..who would deign..TO..rule..for god/good..[BY TRUTH/GRACE AND MERCY]..HAS COME AND GONE.

ANYHOW..the..QUARAN..KORAN..were easy reads..[one such as a pericules could read IT ALOUD..in under 3 hours..[it took me three days..but reading for me involves much..fact checking/double checking..comparing this with that..ETC]

but which version?..[suni?]

ARE..the messengers own*..less materialistic..[more spiritual]..more fundamentally[ist]../TRUE..To what he SPAKE*..or the others called to..HEAR..BY..the same GUIDES/voices?

Thanks for entirely avoiding the point I was making, grateful.

>>You support his approach which is to infer the teachings of the Islam from the actions of a few terrorists, rather than examine the actual teachings of Islam.<<

I wasn't actually talking about Dawkins at all. I was suggesting that 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.

Person A does not read the Qur'an. Person B does not read Mein Kampf. Yet you consider that they are both, as a result, disqualified from making observations on the impact of those books on others.

It is entirely logical to infer that Mein Kampf had an impact on those people who killed "in its name", and to apply the same deductive reasoning to the Qur'an.

If, however, he had said "the Qur'an makes every Muslim a terrorist", then he would be as entirely wrong as if he had said "Mein Kampf made every German a Jew-killer".

Is this making any sense to you at all?

>>If they want to challenge my faith then they should provide evidence that the Prophet was a liar...<<

I have absolutely no inclination to "challenge your faith". It is clearly a decision that you have reached on your own, for reasons of your own. As far as I am concerned, you are simply one of a considerable number of people who have concluded that there is a God somewhere, and that it is important that you "worship" that God. And if that is the way you choose to run your life, that's perfectly fine with me.

What I find puzzling is that you should consider my atheism to be anti-Islamic. I am equally tolerant of all religious faiths, having long ago accepted that religious people don't think the same way that I do.

It would make me extremely happy if all religious people were, also, equally tolerant of other faiths.

Do you see that happening any time soon?

Hi grateful...

Just a question of clarification. "...even described the Qur'an as akin to the Mein Kauf while admitting he has never read the book."

Which book is Dawkins admitting to never reading? Also. does that mean, some, lots or all?

And whilst I'm here, allow me point out (as I have on other threads to Dan S de Merengue re Genesis) with respect to "...practice what you preach and actually look at the evidence" that in the context of your faith the "Qur'an itself" is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence.

Of course I accept that evidence isn't everything when it comes to matters of faith.

For example, I don't require evidence to believe that Vissarion (ex-traffic policeman Sergei Torop) in the Siberian Taiga is not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Nor apparently do the thousands of followers around him who believe he is.

WmTrevor,
You're welcome to remind me what you said about the relationship between hypotheses and evidence. But I believe I'm well aware of the difference between the two, and have a pretty fair understanding of the basic elements of the scientific method and rules of logic. Like Dawkins claims, I stand ready to give evidence for my beliefs.

Grateful et al,
The last few posts seem to be about each accusing the other of being a 'fundamentalist', with most just talking past one another as no one has much of a definition of what the word might even mean. The only common element I can gather is that no one wants to be called one, like being called a numbskull or a 'thick head'. The problem is the definition of what's become a meaningless word (unless looking for an insult.) Burrowes has little clue.

Dawkins denies the term as applied to himself. So do I. So does seemingly everyone else. But the accusation keeps flying around. There are secular fundies, evolutionist fundies, Bible and Koran believing strains of kind. Perhaps they should all get together for a world congress.

The definition for 'fundamentalist' we seem to be running with is someone who doesn't need, want, or look for evidence for their philosophy. Now, Dawkins says his beliefs are based on evidence. So does Grateful, and Foyle, and me, and probably most everyone else for all our varying beliefs.

Speaking on behalf of creationists, at least the ones I've met, some of whom very highly educated, my experience is that they looked into the evidence very deeply, probably deeper than the evolutionists. As evolution is the predominant view, they are compelled to look at the evidence for both cases. Most people just go along with evolution as the popular view. They assume the evidence must be there for why else would so many believe it? Does this assumption make them 'fundamentalist'?

Pericles..<<....you are simply one of a considerable number of people who have concluded that there is a God somewhere,..>

MANS LAW..IS BASED on..a duty..to/OTHER/as well as a serving of..*other..by threat..or force..or law..or oath...THEN/god is..thrown in as A JUDGE/to Judge..[WE/YOU]..THE..LIVING.. AS SERFS BEASTS OF Burden..under DURESS AND THREAT

implicit..with god..is joy love grace mercy..[as the hOLY SPIRIT DWELLS IN THE LEAST..as much as the great]..it honors the living..over that of dead statehood fictions.

love..of other..living being..that has been subverted..into..a duty/permission/license/duty..to serve the state..via the fiction..of rights..'statute's'..in their un-holy texts of..the crown/state..but this is a satanic perversion..[one cannot serve two masters]..

<<..and that it is important that you "worship" that God...

DO YOU..equally reject the whoreship of state..or the latest media made heroes?..or just god 'believers'?..believing in good of god by serving the living sustained their life of god alone?

<<..I am equally tolerant of all religious faiths, having long ago accepted that religious people don't think the same way that I do.>>

yes..WE THINK DIFFERENT..WE both 'serve'..you serve the state/hood fictions[artificial/FISCAL..dead person-hood..COMMERCE..sucking the life blood FROM THE LIVING..

we serve..the goods[life/logic/love/light]..of god as the only true merciful..state..towards spiritual GRACE...[the unseen]

<<..It would make me extremely happy if all religious people were, also, equally tolerant of other faiths.>>

yes we can agree..on this point for sure
..<<Do you see that happening any time soon?>>

not by govt bailing out the..Incorporated/dead..with the life blood of the living..not by forgiving the debts of the dead..but giving grace to the living..alone*

dan/quote,<<..Most people just go along with evolution as the popular view...>>

this is as i BELIEVE AS WELL
its easier to say..science=god,..than refute it
i like hreatful..began with the science..studied my god..of science then found it had feet..of clay..went looking for the rral cause

i found the false god of lunus[TAXOMONY]..WHERE ..a feature is assumed..to have 'evolved'..once..then creating tenious linkages to the creature feature..by linial decent..but science now has found..the tree theory fraud

if it looks like..[phenotype]..isnt science..[ISNT FALSIFYABLE..THUS ISNT SCIENCE..science needs confirm..by genotype..BUT ..IF YOU DRAW CLEVER DRAWINGS..ITS ENOUGH TO FOOL THE FAITHFUL..IN SCIENCE infallibility..[as long as you ignore true science..like mendelism ..applicable to micro evolution..but refuting macro evolution.]

<<..They assume the evidence must be there for why else would so many believe it? Does this assumption make them 'fundamentalist'?..>.

I BELIEVE ANY deliberately chosen..IGNORANCE/hurt/ego..on any topic/Subject..is fundamental to self perpetuating human ignorance..[wether it be false belief in man..or god.]..

ie GODS SURE SIGN=LIFE/LOVE/LOGIC Sustained..by the light

science has never 'evolved'..any new genus
[this is a clear sign of fraid]..survival..of fittest..NEVER..changed any GENUS*..its not a genetic change..sheep breed sheep/fish breed fish..ignorance breeds ignorance.

its not of gods will
but for too many..its their will[the easy way=let others think..for you.[let them get the credit/blame..oh look a STAR..is on tv/crack open a tube..lets watch max smart..now thats real science,,[sci trance]

I wasn't trying to remind you of anything, Dan S de Merengue. Merely indicating to grateful (in case he wished to search earlier discussions) that I was not singling out the Qu'ran for the fact that it is not 'evidence' in the sense of his challenge to athiests.

If you think about it, by the way, that challenge probably applies moreso to someone like yourself who holds to a literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to their faith.

For the record I accept that you have a "...fair understanding of the basic elements of the scientific method and rules of logic" and you know my contention is that you choose to ignore them.

But I would say that being, fundamentally, a critical rationalist who "hold[s] that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

Whereas my Weslyan Bible Christian Church missionary forebears would pity your wrong-headedness whilst applauding your devotion. Methodists were like that in Devon.

A contemplative though dour lot. I blame the lack of dancing.

WmTrevor,
Thanks for clarifying. But I don't really know what you mean when you say that I hold a 'literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to my faith'. I read Genesis in a straight forward manner as that is the way all the New Testament writers took it. And they understood the essentials of the faith better than me. 

And as for saying that you can only claim knowledge that can be rationally criticised, tested and falsified, there must be a lot you can't know. How do you know if your wife loves you? How do you know if Hannibal ever really crossed the Alps riding elephants? 

I don't know if you consider these rationally verifiable. Perhaps? For the latter, its verification relies on studies of history. Essentially the Christian faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the NT documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)

An interesting distinction, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I don't really know what you mean when you say that I hold a 'literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to my faith'. I read Genesis in a straight forward manner as that is the way all the New Testament writers took it.<<

There seems to be a suggestion that you see a difference between "in a straightforward manner" and "literally".

It is a little too subtle a differentiation for me to accept without some further explanation - can you help out?

In many of our previous discussions, I have taken it for granted that the only basis for your belief in young-earth creationism is a literal (as opposed to allegorical or metaphorical) reading of Genesis. Yet here you seem to be hinting that this is not necessarily the case.

Can you expand?

Dan S de Meregue, a straightforward reading of what I quoted does not equal, "And as for saying that you can only claim knowledge that can be rationally criticised..." rather the opposite in that claims to knowledge can and should be criticised.

But you are correct that there is a lot I can't know... the mind of god being one of them.

As for "I don't really know what you mean when you say that I hold a 'literal reading of the Bible as fundamental to my faith'..." allow me to borrow Dr Terry Mortenson's words:

"We should take Genesis 1–11 as straightforward, accurate, literal history because Jesus, the Apostles, and all the other biblical writers did so. There is absolutely no biblical basis for taking these chapters as any kind of non-literal, figurative genre of literature. That should be reason enough for us to interpret Genesis 1–11 in the same literal way... Only a literal, historical approach to Genesis 1–11 gives a proper foundation for the gospel."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/literal-genesis

But if you now only claim to taking it as straightforward and not as accurate, literal history or possibly as non-literal and figurative you will, as Pericles invited, need to expand.

I'm conscious that grateful's "If they want to challenge my faith then they should provide evidence that the Prophet was a liar and/or the Qur'aan has been corrupted since its revelation" requirement of disproof stands... I edited this together to see if it clarified his assertion:

Essentially the muslim faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the Qu'ran documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)

Tricky things these claims to knowledge.

Thanks for the quote from Dr Terry Mortenson. It does help to clarify things, as I am in total agreement with this view. When I used the word 'straightforward', he and I are using it in the same sense. 

So there should be no confusion. Genesis means what it says. And it gives background and foundation for the understanding of the gospel.

I sometimes hesitate to use the word 'literal' as this word is sometimes twisted and used out of context. There is even some trend in some recent literature that conflates the words 'literal' with the word 'literary'. So I'm just trying to be clear. But I'm happy with the way Terry Mortenson used it in the context of Genesis above.

As for the basis of the creationist view, it is, as you say, founded in the Scriptures, which follow from Jesus' teachings. There is the biblical creationist argument, which argues from a theological perspective. And there is also the scientific creationist argument, which argues from logic and observation of the body of empirical evidence. In our numerous conversations, I think I have at least touched on both of these to some degree.

As for the Koran, I can't say I know a lot about its historical background. I do suspect that it is quite a bit different to that of the New Testament. The NT is a collection of writings which circulated in the early centuries, derived from several authors, times, and gathered from a variety of places. So there's a lot of history involved. The Koran is one revelation from one prophet. This singular aspect gives researching its history quite a different angle.

DAN..the koran..Was AT FIRST SPOKEN..then later recorded..onto tablets papyrus/paper..transcribed etc..but its essentially..in the way..of revelation/AS comforter/AFFIRMATION AND EXPANSION.

[FOR EXAMPLE..It reveals AMONG MANY OTHER AFFIRMATIONS..THAT JESUS SPAKE AS A CHILD..defending his MOTHER]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=JESUS+SPAKE+AS++A+child&

it further expands..on other more obscure..but AMAZING AFFIRMATION[of the higher levels..OF SPIRIT..[AS WELL AS THE INPUTS FROM JINN]..[DOnt tar the whole text..because..all texts/wORDS..WORKS MUSt needs have equal motivations to their expression

it in no way can Replaces the books of the ot..nor the gospil..or even the pauline letters..etc..but for me was a final affirmation[the cherry on top if you will..

except swedenberg luther wesly mary baker eddie and other texts have yet further expanded on the rich list of messengers god in hiS MERCY HAS sent TO MANKIND TO COMFORT AND AFFIRM.

I WAS Fortunate..that i knew god..before i searched the texts of His MESSENGERS..I read them to know more of the amassing sustainER..or all light life logic MERCY GRACE..LOVE..and living.

i thank the many messengers..be THEIR mess-age AS..SURE/clear..as mankind can bare..[or could at that time bare]..ITS SAID by those loving the simplicity..of his message..that he would be..the final/last messenger..because his suRVING texts..have inspired much further reveal

[just as other SACRED/texts held holy to mem..[like Swedenborg encyclopedic..arcana..text..has revealed many insights to our one MOST holy life giver.

it reveals..too that each nation..received..its own messenger
but clearly..this was before we discovered the americas/AUSTRALIANS/internet etc..who each reveal a new facit..of the most holy onE....many would call good...

[but jesus himself revealed..that WE in time would do greater than the few that..in real time..saw him..'do'..that we are thus assured..we shall dO GREATER.

we each..reveal much of our creator..EVERY LEAF..EVERY LIFE
ITS really our own greatness we fear..INDEED AS YU HAS Said..MANY TIMES..you are GOD..so get over it..and get on with 'knowing thyself*

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." -- Harry A. Blackmun

"When the government..premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that the dead corpete fiction[person]..is equal to a living being..

yes all 'persons are created..equally
via govt act...thing is you asre not a person..you hold trust over persons[persons are govt id/govt issued licence/busness licence etc etc[not you]

govt created 'persons'..under the act..it only controles those dead persons it created[not ther living but the dead paper fictions..we think is us..

but its these ignorances of law
plus things like getting rid of the queen 'reigning over all persons[again..not ruling over us but the persons created under her warrent[warrent is permission..to do that otherwise unlawfull for the dead [person]..to do.

ignorance of the law is no excuse
thus dead corperate persons suck the lifeblood away..from the living

its satanic..secular stuff
thats what happens when the clever get far too clever

remove god..at.. thy own peril
your already lorded over by ignorant atheists and ignorant demons
the lawfull term=imbisiles ..wards of the state...the every day term=treasoners.

sure the lie of her..'reigning''us in by reigning over us as if we are the created fiction..[reigns are re control]..govt queen licence etc has no power over us..govt has no power over us[unless we hurt someone..living[the dead feel no pain..the dead cant suffer a loss cause their dead.

these treasons are enforced over us..or rather our person[ie the state fiction..of person/licence etc..anything you had to sign..on their form creates a person.

just regestering anything..creates a person
sign here..creates a contract..violate the contract..govt can lord it over you[your person is their way to en slave you

but you ignorant of the law..let the lie send us broke

the living earn wage
the dead only 'earn'..incom,e

income isnt wage
blackmail/tax..intrst/rent money etc
thats income

wage has a value adding component[life energy]
the living earn wages..only..the dead [person]..mustpay income tax

the dead suck the life blood from, the living
every govt agency=a person
every thing created under govt act=person

via the lie of person alone do they lord it over you
reign the living fia dead fictions..of person

anyhow the rich..use their person..to avoid paying tax on their 'income/..by paying the income to themselves as..wage/or expenses

bah why bother

tax only the dead
you never gave informed concent..
so the person govt owns isnt a valid contract...[cant be enforced by by the dead..so we force it on..the living

your not 'a person'
you act as trustee for person..[they dont care johan]

Pericles,
“Is this making any sense to you at all?”

No you are making no sense. OSAMA BIN LADEN DID NOT AUTHOR THE QUR’AN!

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.

These guys are claiming legitimacy for their actions in the Qur'an and so the question is: Can they justify their claims? Therefore, we need to examine the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet

Is this making any sense to you at all?

Let me repeat what Foyle said in full so that I can make two points:

“A secularist in a person who seeks evidence to support his or her philosophy and only forms a firm view when the evidence provides strong, almost overwhelming, support.

In describing a secularist, the use of the adjective fundamentalist is really an attempt to denigrate anyone who aims to be a clear thinker guided only by evidence.

I am a member of a secular, sceptical, group and I would be jumped on if I expressed, in that group, a view for which I couldn't provide strong supporting evidence.”

My first point: If not for your fundamentalist mentality, you would not have failed to see the fallacy of the Hitler analogy...or are you prepared to admit error afterall?

My second point: Foyle himself fails to countenance the possibility that at times secularists may not be as clear thinking as they imagine.

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. How many times have they parroted Dawkin's "fairies at the back of the garden" remarks no doubt assured that this guy has done his homework! Afterall, is he not like them and therefore by definition "a clear thinker guided only by evidence."

WmTrevor

<<Which book is Dawkins admitting to never reading? Also. does that mean, some, lots or all?>>

Dawkins himself admits that he hasn’t read the Qur’an and that in fact he didn’t need to. The reference is below*

<<Essentially the muslim faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the Qur’an documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)>>

You have no idea what you are talking about. Another Dawkins? Prove my conjecture wrong and tell me what you have read of the Qur’an.

<<"Qur'an itself" is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence.>>

And how do you know? Are you like Pericles who can logically derive these things without reading the subject matter? Given me an explanation for the Qur'an that is evidence-based and consistent with your view of things. Or are you another secularist who doesn’t have to know what they are talking about to know what they are talking about.

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html

Thanks for the clarification, grateful... as I started reading this thread from 1 February and saw your "...even described the Qur'an as akin to the Mein Kauf while admitting he has never read the book." it was not clear which of the two books was being referred to.

"<<Essentially the muslim faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the Qur’an documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)>>

You have no idea what you are talking about. Another Dawkins? Prove my conjecture wrong and tell me what you have read of the Qur’an."

Here is what Dan S de Meregue wrote which prompted my edited version:

"Essentially the Christian faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the NT documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)"

Now I don't know what you are claiming... the muslim faith is not historical? The Qu'ran documents are unreliable? Or should Dan respond to you with:

"You have no idea what you are talking about. Another Dawkins? Prove my conjecture wrong and tell me what you have read of the Bible."

"<<"Qur'an itself" is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence.>> And how do you know? "

Umm... because it is according to any concept of logical analysis.

For comparison members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God so the quote would become,

'The Book of Mormon is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence'.

You might respond that Mormons are wrong about the word of god. Can you proove it? They might respond that you are wrong about the word of god. Can they proove it? So, apart from waving books at each other as verification of the opposing claims, what would be the substantiating supporting evidence?

Just to repeat my point: 'Tricky things these claims to knowledge.'

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*.

"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."

Is this similar to your reading of Genesis? You accept it as beyond reasonable doubt but 'hardly as absolute'?

"Now you're opening up a cat amongst Pandora's can of worms."

Golly, Dan. I was thinking more along the lines of worming open the Pandorica amongst Schrödinger's Sous-vide of cats.

"And which of us here has psychological problems?" How much time have you got? But, seriously folks... I did phrase it as "... the more interesting issue of what *their* psychological problems are!", since none of us here are fundamentalists, remember?

For one, I don't have any psychological problems. My certificate of release from the facility says so.

Dan,

Hospital records. Eye-witness accounts of nurses, mid-wives, your mother, various bureaucrats. If anybody tried to refute the possibility that you have been born, they would be pushing it. I don't know if Jesus could say the same.

And I don't know of any cats existing on a diet of worms.

Cheap shots, but great fun !

Joe

Joe,
Diet of Worms!  :) 

I don't doubt the details of my birth.That's the point. We rely on and have confidence in the written records and the testimony given, even though we can't 'prove' any of it in some kind of logical or scientific sense. As it happened, my family emigrated to Australia soon after I was born. My parents lost my birth certificate, and I never saw my birth city again until I was 31 y.o.

We actually know quite a fair bit of detail about the birth of Jesus from the written records. We know the place, the time (roughly), his parental lineage in great detail, and even what presents he got from visiting dignitaries.

WmTrevor, you may be catching the drift of what I was trying to say. To answer your question, to what degree do I accept Genesis? I accept Genesis as an accurate historical account. To do so requires faith and confidence in the written records. But this is corroborated by the weight of available evidence. 

This is not to say that the creation case is without its difficulties. And the same would be said for the evolution case. Neither can be 'proven' in an absolute sense, as both are a kind of malleable metaphysical model. They're theories of history, and as such will not be proven or disproven. But we offer evidence in support of our case. And I'm satisfied by this explanation given the weight of all available evidence, historical, logical, and empirical.

(And I got through this whole post without once mentioning the word 'fundamentalist', a word which risks becoming obsolete unless someone can give it a useful and workable definition.)