Belly,

”I fight any type of unfounded bigotry always.”

I think I’ve seen that.

”…evidence needs to be placed before me that the host of humans who may think Christ is that one have considered the views of the majority of the human race who follow other Gods.”

Mainly, I’d like to point out that people seeking a God are often looking for truth. There is only so much time in a day and you can only do your best. In my religion there is enough bickering between denominations not to mention savage attacks from atheist fundamentalists (sometimes even the rare pleasant discussion with Belly) to keep them busy in their search and comparisons of ideas. As the world gets smaller we’ll probably get more exposure but right now you seem to be making a big ask.

”Why would an almighty God show himself to one generation but not ours?”

Funny I see that completely the opposite way. I think of God as being an infinite omnipotent being by definition not rolling over like a dog just to please skeptics. In my religion God came to earth in human form, died and rose from the dead only 2000 years ago. What more can be expected? An annual crucifixion and rising from the dead as an encore after the Pope celebrates the Easter Mass? Besides what would be the point? I assume you know the story about the man who went to hell and asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent. Abraham sagely points out that if they don’t listen to Moses and the Prophets someone could rise from the dead and they still wouldn’t believe. That is human nature.

mjpb

What is "atheist fundamentalism?"

Atheists have no rigid adherence to any doctrine or scriptural texts, therefore, the term "atheist fundamentalism" must surely be a term invented by the true fundamentalists and they certainly aren't atheists.

My mistake mjbp, I thought you meant God allowed choices within the framework of his religion. But I guess that would be unrealistic.

Your mention of Dworkin reminded me of a recent piece in Private Eye - since they invented the University of New Dworkins - thought it might amuse.

ENEMIES OF REASON

(Silly music. Elderly donnish figure wearing casual clothes and expression of deep concern gazes earnestly into camera)

Professor Richard Dawkins (for it is he) : It is frightening to think that in the 21st century there are millions of people all over the world who believe that they can change the future by a simple act involving a birthday cake.

(Cut to shot of family group clustered around Marks & Spencer chocolate cake covered in lit candles. Woman blows out candles while the rest of her family shout 'Go on, Mum - make a wish!" Close-up of woman with eyes closed, accompanied by sinister music. Cut to Dawkins, looking shocked and incredulous.)

Dawkins (interviewing woman) : Mrs Simpkins, can I ask you what you think you were doing just now?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, I just made a wish while I was blowing out the candles, like I always do.

Dawkins: And you really thought that what you were wishing for would in some mysterious way come true?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, you never know, do you?

Dawkins: But how could blowing out candles on a cake have any influence over a future event? Isn't that just the most crude, primitive, infantile, unscientific superstition?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, if you're going to be like that, you're not going to have any of my cake.

Dawkins: As a control test, tell me what it is you wished for?

Family: Don't tell him, Mum, or it won't come true.

Dawkins (to camera) : So obviously the followers of this cult are under a vow of silence not to divulge the object of the "wish", to prevent any analysis of the outcome of their pathetic ritual, thus exposing it as an empty and futile act of self-deception for insecure neurotics. (Part 2 follows)

(Part 2)

(Cut to men in white coats looking through microscopes at pieces of birthday cake)

Dawkins: For the last five years, a team of researchers from the University of New Dworkins has been analysing over 2,000 case histories of the Birthday Wish cult. The leader of the team, Professor Hiram Moonbat, gave me his findings.

Bearded Scientist: In examining 2,522 samples, we could find little or no correlation between the expression of the "wish" by the anniversarial celebrant and any ultimate wished-for event.

Dawkins: Well, that proves it, doesn't it? The whole thing is rubbish, isn't it? And it is deeply alarming that, in the 21st century, the dark forces of unreason should still have so many millions of people in their grip, still indulging in...

Professor Moonbat (in background): ... however, our researchers were somewhat hampered by the fact that no one would tell us what they had wished for, which rather invalidated...

Dawkins (intervening): So there we have it, Everyone in the world is mad except me, and very, very dangerous.

(Cut to shot of birthday cake exploding, destroying family home. Caption reads "Reconstruction ")

NEXT WEEK: Professor Dawkins looks at the bizarre practice of shooting fish in a barrel, concluding that it is deeply unscientific and boring to watch.

Dickie,

Don’t be … um … never mind.

Your pedantic approach may be correct if modern usage has not moved much since it applied to a North American protestantism which claimed that the Bible is literally inerrant. However I believe that usage has expanded. These days I believe it is applied to anything from the original usage to Islamic fundamentalism (within the ambit of your definition) to political fundamentalism and increasingly to atheist fundamentalism.

I figure the only issue is the breadth of the usage and you are intellectually capable of figuring out the meaning if it is broadly defined so I’ll leave the answer at that.

However, perhaps you should be cautious about confining the term to what you call “true fundamentalists” in case normal modern usage is broader and (ironically) inferences are made about your dogmatic approach to the term.

Pericles,

LOL Good one!

Mind you I am kinda biased to enjoy someone taking the p&^% out of Dworkins.

Well, I must say, at least the Christian Brothers I worked with for ten years had a better sense of humour than many of the grumpy old posters here.

I can already visualise their chuckles over the following joke:

A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand.

He notices, however, that they are copying copies, not the original books. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

The head monk says "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.

Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong.

The old monk sobs, "The word is celebrate!"