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*