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-Afghānī 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.